Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture, Inv. No. 337-TA-1178

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

In the Matter of

CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND PORTABLE
FURNITURE

Investigation No. 337-TA-1178

Publication 5310 March 2022
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
COMMISSIONERS
Jason E. Kearns, Chair
Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair
David S. Johanson, Commissioner
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Commissioner
Amy A. Karpel, Commissioner
Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov
In the Matter of
CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND PORTABLE
FURNITURE
Investigation No. 337-TA-1178
Publication 5310 March2022
_______JI

1
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND
PORTABLE FURNITURE
Investigation No. 337-TA-1178
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW IN PART A FINAL
INITIAL DETERMINATION AND TO AFFIRM WITH MODIFICATIONS THE
FINDING OF NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; TERMINATION OF THE
INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: 	U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: 	Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission
(“Commission”) has determined to review in part the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) final
initial determination (“FID”), issued on February 18, 2021, and to affirm with modifications the
FID’s finding of no violation of section 337 in the above-referenced investigation. The
investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20436, telephone (202) 708-5453. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection
with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
October 3, 2019. 84 FR 52896 (Oct. 3, 2019). The complaint, as amended, filed by GCI
Outdoor, Inc., of Higganum, Connecticut (“GCI”), alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain collapsible and
portable furniture by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,282,824 (“the
’824 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,060,611 (“the ’611 patent”). Id. at 52896–97. The
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. at 52897. The Commission’s notice
of investigation named the following respondents: Denovo Brands, LLC of Bentonville,

2
Akansas; Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd. of Zhangzhou, Fujian, China; Fujian Zenithen
Consumer Products Co., Ltd. of Fuzhou, Fujian, China; Zenithen Hong Kong Ltd. of Hong
Kong; Zenithen USA LLC of Upland, California; Westfield Outdoor, Inc., d/b/a Westfield
Outdoors of Indianapolis, Indiana; MacSports Inc. of La Verne, California; Meike (Qingdao)
Leisure Products Co., Ltd of Qing Dao, China. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is
not participating in the investigation. Id.
During the course of the investigation, respondents Fujian Zenithen Consumer Products
Co., Ltd., Zenithen Hong Kong Ltd., and Zenithen USA LLC were terminated from the
investigation. The remaining respondents are Denovo Brands, LLC and Zhenli (Zhangzhou)
Industrial Co., Ltd. (the “Denovo” respondents); Westfield Outdoor, Inc. (“Westfield”); and
MacSports Inc. and Meike (Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd (the “MacSports” respondents)
(collectively, “Respondents”).
On February 18, 2021, the ALJ issued his FID in this investigation. The FID found no
violation of section 337. For the ’824 patent, the FID found that GCI established infringement
by Denovo’s products but failed to establish that GCI satisfied the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement. The FID also found that Denovo did not establish that any of the
asserted claims of the ’824 patent is invalid. For the ’611 patent, the FID found that GCI failed
to establish infringement by Westfield’s and MacSports’ products but did establish that GCI
satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The FID also found that
Westfield and MacSports did not establish that any of the asserted claims of the ’611 patent is
invalid. The FID additionally found that GCI established that it satisfied the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement for both asserted patents.
On March 2, 2021 the parties submitted petitions seeking review of the FID. On March
10, 2021, the parties submitted responses to the others’ petitions.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the FID, the petitions for
review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the FID with
respect to (1) all of the FID’s findings concerning the ’824 patent; (2) infringement and validity
of the ’611 patent; and (3) the FID’s findings concerning the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the FID.
On review, the Commission has determined to affirm the FID’s finding of no violation of
section 337 with regard to the ’824 patent and the ’611 patent. In connection with that
determination the Commission has also determined to modify and supplement certain of the
FID’s subsidiary findings. The Commission has also determined to take no position on certain
portions of the FID. The Commission opinion is issued concurrently herewith.
The investigation is hereby terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 6, 2021.

3
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: May 6, 2021

CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND PORTABLE FURNITURE 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1178
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served upon the
following parties as indicated, on May 6, 2021.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.:
Gary M. Hnath Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Email: ghnath@mayerbrown.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondent Denovo Brands, LLC and
Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd.:
Jeff E. Schwartz, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 380 East
Washington, DC 20005
Email: jeschwartz@foxrothschild.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondent Westfield Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a
Westfield Outdoors:
David B. Jinkins, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Email: DJinkins@ThompsonCoburn.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondents MacSports Inc. and Meike
(Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd.:
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18th Street NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Email: ariley@meimark.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND
PORTABLE FURNITURE
Investigation No. 337-TA-1178
COMMISSION OPINION
CONTENTS
I. 	Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
II. 	Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
A. 	Procedural History ........................................................................................................... 1
B. 	The Asserted Patents ........................................................................................................ 4
C. 	The Products at Issue ....................................................................................................... 6
III. 	Standard of Review .......................................................................................................... 7
IV. 	Analysis............................................................................................................................ 7
A. 	The ’824 Patent ................................................................................................................ 8
1. 	Claim Construction: “adapted for contacting the
ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition” ......................................8
2. 	Infringement Findings Concerning “Pivotally
Interconnected”Chair Frame Members .......................................................................... 20
3. 	Domestic Industry Findings Concerning
“Pivotally Interconnected” Chair Frame Members and a
Fulcrum Point “Adapted for Contacting the Ground Surface” ...................................... 33
4. 	Findings on which the Commission Takes No Position ................................................ 37
B. 	The ’611 Patent .............................................................................................................. 37
1. 	Infringement Findings Concerning “Fulcrum Point” ..................................................... 37
2. 	Findings on which the Commission Takes No Position ................................................ 40
V. 	Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 41

PUBLIC VERSION
1
I. 	I NTRODUCTION
The Commission has determined to review in part the final initial determination (“ID”) of
the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which issued on February 18, 2021. On review,
the Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, as amended, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale
for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain collapsible and
portable furniture by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,282,824 (“the
’824 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,060,611 (“the ’611 patent”). The Commission has determined
to review the ID in part and, on review, modify the ID in part, reverse the ID in part, and take no
position on certain issues in the ID. This opinion sets forth the Commission’s reasoning in support
of its determinations. The Commission adopts the findings in the ID that are not inconsistent with
this opinion.
II. 	B ACKGROUND
A. 	Procedural History
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 3, 2019, based on a complaint, as
amended, filed by GCI Outdoor, Inc. (“GCI”) of Higganum, Connecticut. 	84 Fed. Reg. 52896
(Oct. 3, 2019). The amended complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation
of certain collapsible and portable furniture by reason of infringement of certain claims of the ’824
patent and the ’611 patent. 	Id. at 52896–97. 	The plain language description of the accused
products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is
“collapsible and portable rocking chairs.” Id. at 52897.

PUBLIC VERSION
2
The Commission’s notice of investigation named eight respondents, which are grouped
and defined as follows: Denovo Brands, LLC of Bentonville, Arkansas, and Zhenli (Zhangzhou)
Industrial Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China (collectively, “Denovo”); Fujian Zenithen Consumer Products
Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China, Zenithen Hong Kong Ltd. of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, and Zenithen
USA 	LLC 	of 	Upland, 	California 	(collectively, 	“Zenithen”);1 Westfield 	Outdoor, 	Inc. 	of
Indianapolis, Indiana (“Westfield”); and MacSports Inc. of La Verne, California, and Meike
(Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd of Qing Dao, China (collectively, “MacSports”).2 Id.
The ALJ presided over an evidentiary hearing for this investigation that began on
December 2, 2020 and ended on December 4, 2020. ID at 4. Following the hearing, the parties
submitted posthearing opening and reply briefs.3 On February 18, 2021, the ALJ issued the ID
and found that GCI did not establish a violation of section 337. ID at 295.
Concerning the ’824 patent, the ID found that the asserted claims are not invalid and are
infringed by Denovo’s Rok-It Chair, which is the only chair accused of infringing that patent. ID
at 294–95. However, the ID found that GCI’s domestic industry chairs do not practice any claim
of the ’824 patent, and thus, GCI did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement for the ’824 patent. ID at 92–94, 104, 294.
1 The Zenithen respondents were terminated from the investigation pursuant to a settlement
agreement and the issuance of a consent order. 	See Order No. 6 (Feb. 20, 2020), reviewed and
affirmed with modification by Comm’n Notice (Mar. 13, 2020). Accordingly, Complainant GCI
and Respondents Denovo, Westfield, and MacSports, are the only active parties to this
investigation.
2 The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to the investigation. Id.
3 Initial Post-Hearing Brief of Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc. (Dec. 16, 2020) (“GCI Br.”) (EDIS
Doc. Id. 728199); Respondents’ Joint Post-Hearing Brief (Dec. 16, 2020) (“Resps. Br.”) (EDIS
Doc. Id. 728200); Reply Post-Hearing Brief of Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc. (Dec. 23, 2020)
(“GCI Reply Br.”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 728887); Respondents’ Joint Reply Post-Hearing Brief (Dec.
23, 2020) (“Resps. Reply Br.”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 728880).

PUBLIC VERSION
3
Concerning the ’611 patent, the ID found that the asserted claims are not invalid but are
not infringed by MacSports’ MacRocker or Westfield’s Mulberry Bounce Chair, which are the
only chairs accused of infringing this patent. ID at 294–95. Unlike the ’824 patent, the ID found
that GCI’s own chairs practice at least one claim of the ’611 patent and thus GCI satisfies the
technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the ’611 patent. ID at 240–41, 295.
Concerning the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, the ID found that
GCI satisfied the economic prong for both the ’824 and ’611 patents under section 337 subsection
(a)(3)(A) (significant investment in plant and equipment) and section 337 subsection (a)(3)(B)
(significant investment in labor and capital). ID at 294. Accordingly, the ID’s ultimate finding of
no violation rests on its finding that GCI’s chairs do not practice any claim of the ’824 patent and
its finding that neither the MacRocker nor the Mulberry Bounce Chair infringe the ’611 patent.
GCI filed a petition for review of the ID on March 2, 2021.4 On the same day, Denovo,
Westfield, and MacSports, each filed contingent petitions for review.5 	GCI filed responses to
4 Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.’s Petition for Commission Review (“GCI Pet.”) (EDIS Doc. Id.
735694).
5 Respondents Denovo Brands LLC and Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd.’s Contingent
Petition for Review of Final Initial Determination (“Denovo Pet.”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 735689);
Westfield Outdoor Inc.’s Contingent Petition for Review of the Initial Determination (“Westfield
Pet.”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 735680); Petition for Review of Initial Determination by Respondents
MacSports Inc. and Meike (Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd. (“MacSports Pet.”) (EDIS Doc.
Id. 735642).

PUBLIC VERSION
4
those petitions on March 10, 2021,6 and, on the same day, Denovo, Westfield, and MacSports,
each filed responses to GCI’s petition.7
GCI’s petition seeks Commission review of the ID’s findings on the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement for the ’824 patent and the ID’s noninfringement findings for the
’611 patent, among other things. Denovo’s contingent petition seeks Commission review of the
ID’s findings on infringement and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the
’824 patent, among other things. 	MacSports’ and Westfield’s contingent petitions seek
Commission review of the ID’s invalidity findings and the ID’s findings on the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement, among other things.
B. 	The Asserted Patents
The ’824 patent and the ’611 patent both claim priority to the same provisional application,
number 61/710,238, which was filed on October 5, 2012, and the ’824 patent issued from a
continuation of the application that issued as the ’611 patent. See JX-1, at Cover; JX-2, at Cover.
The ’824 patent is titled “Collapsible and Portable Rocking Chair,” and issued on March 15, 2016.8
6 Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.’s Response to Contingent Petition for Review of Final Initial
Determination by Respondents Denovo Brands, LLC and Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd.
(“GCI Resp. to Denovo”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 736542); Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.’s Response to
Respondent Westfield Outdoor Inc.’s Contingent Petition for Review of the Initial Determination
(“GCI Resp. to Westfield”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 736545); Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.’s Response
to Petition for Review of Initial Determination by Respondents Macsports Inc. and Meike (Qindao)
Leisure Products Co., Ltd. (“GCI Resp. to MacSports”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 736544).
7 Respondents Denovo Brands, LLC and Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd.’s Response to
Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.’s Petition for Commission Review (“Denovo Resp.”) (EDIS Doc.
Id. 736494); Respondent Westfield Outdoor Inc.’s Response to GCI’s Petition for Review of the
Initial Determination (“Westfield Resp.”) (EDIS Doc. Id. 736534); Opposition of Macsports, Inc.
and Meike (Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd. to GCI’s Petition for Review (“MacSports Resp.)
(EDIS Doc. Id. 736505).
8 While the ’611 patent preceded the ’824 patent, the ID addresses the ’824 patent first. 	This
opinion adopts the same convention.

PUBLIC VERSION
5
The ’611 patent has the same title and issued on June 23, 2015. The two patents share substantially
the same specification and they describe three types of portable folding rocking chairs. The first
type, shown in figure 1, is indicative of prior art chairs:
JX-1, at Fig. 1; see also id. at 5:25–27 (“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a prior art collapsible and
portable rocking chair with the chair in a set-up condition for rocking by a seated user.”).
The second type of chair, shown in figures 2–7, is an embodiment of the claimed invention
in which the chair collapses side-to-side:
JX-1, at Figs. 2, 7; see also id. at 5:28–31, 5:38–39 (“FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a collapsible
and portable rocking chair in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, with the
chair in a set-up condition, and with the chair in a forward, stabilized position. … FIG. 7 is a
perspective view of the rocking chair of FIG. 2 in a folded condition.”).
~
{ ./·"'-
I /
- .--:._ I, // 	,..,❖
~-•·.,.,.-:'''"'''"'-=
36a
FIG. 2
FIG . 1
	Pr ior Art
FIG. 7

PUBLIC VERSION
6
The third type of chair, shown in figure 9, is another embodiment of the claimed invention
in which the chair collapses front-to-back:
JX-1, at Fig. 9; see also id. at 5:43–45 (“FIG. 9 is a planar side view of an alternate embodiment
of a collapsible and portable rocking chair in accordance with the present invention, with the chair
in a set-up condition.”).
Each of the three types of portable rocking chairs described in the asserted patents utilizes
a different mechanism to achieve rocking motion. The prior art chair utilizes curved runners that
roll along the ground much like a traditional rocking chair. See JX-1, at Fig. 1. The chair in figure
2 rocks on a fulcrum (54), which rests on a support runner (34), in connection with a rocker
mechanism (32), such as a spring (46), to provide resistance. See JX-1, at Figs. 3, 6; see also id.
at 8:1–21 (describing how rocking motion is achieved with reference to figure 6). By contrast, the
chair in figure 9 rocks on a fulcrum member (155), the end of which has a fulcrum point (154) that
touches the ground surface on which the chair is setup. JX-1, at 11:50–56. Resistance to facilitate
a rocking motion is provided by built-in rocker mechanisms on the front and/or rear chair legs.
JX-1, at 11:57–12:2, 12:26–29.
C. 	The Products at Issue
The products at issue are portable rocking chairs made by Denovo, MacSports, Westfield,
and GCI. Denovo’s Kijaro Rok-It Chairs are accused of infringing claims 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, and
FI G. 9

PUBLIC VERSION
7
19 of the ’824 patent. MacSports’ MacRocker chairs are accused of infringing claims 1, 2, 8, 14,
15, and 19 of the ’611 patent and Westfield’s Mulberry Bounce Chairs are accused of infringing
claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the ’611 patent.
To satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, GCI asserts that its
RoadTrip Rocker, Pod Rocker/Pod Rocker with Sunshade, and Kickback Rocker each practice
claims 1–3, 9, and 10 of the ’824 patent. 	For the ’611 patent, GCI asserts that its Freestyle
Rocker/Mesh Freestyle Rocker, FirePit Rocker, and Beach Rocker products each practice claims
1, 2, and 8 of the ’611 patent.
III. 	S TANDARD OF REVIEW
“A petition will be granted and review will be ordered if it appears that an error or abuse
of the type described in [Rule 210.43(b)(1)] is present or if the petition raises a policy matter
connected with the initial determination, which the Commission thinks it necessary or appropriate
to address.” 	19 C.F.R. § 210.43(d)(2). With respect to the issues under review, “the Commission
may affirm, reverse, modify, set aside or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, the
initial determination of the administrative law judge.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.45(c). The Commission
also “may take no position on specific issues or portions of the initial determination,” and “may
make any finding or conclusions that in its judgment are proper based on the record in the
proceeding.” Id.; see also Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
IV. 	ANALYSIS
The 	Commission’s 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and 	supporting 	analysis 	follow. 	The
Commission affirms and adopts the ID’s findings, conclusions, and supporting analysis that are
not inconsistent with the Commission’s opinion.

PUBLIC VERSION
8
A. 	The ’824 Patent
With regard to the ’824 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ID’s
construction of the term “adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a
set-up condition,” and the ID’s findings on infringement, the technical prong and economic prong
of the domestic industry requirement, and obviousness. The Commission has determined not to
review any other issues.
1. 	Claim Construction: “adapted for contacting the ground surface upon
which the chair sits in a set-up condition”
Before the ALJ, GCI and Denovo disputed the construction of the phrase, “adapted for
contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition.” That phrase appears
in independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’824 patent and is thus incorporated into the claims that
depend therefrom. Claim 1, which is representative, reads:
1. A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
an articulated chair frame defining a back support and a
seat support, wherein said frame has a set-up condition and
a collapsed condition;
a seat panel mounted on the seat support of the frame;
a backrest panel mounted on the back support of the frame;
wherein said chair frame comprises a pair of side frame
assemblies of opposite hand disposed in generally
parallelly extending and transversely spaced apart opposing
relation to each other, each of said side frame assemblies
having a plurality of generally axially elongated frame
members being interconnected for pivotal movement
relative to one another about generally transversely
extending pivot axes, said frame members including:
a front leg member;
a rear leg member;
a seat support member defining a respective side of
the seat support;

PUBLIC VERSION
9
a back support member defining a respective side of
the back support; and
a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a
terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the
ground surface upon which the chair sits in the
set-up condition and for supporting the chair
frame, and about which said chair frame can move
between forward and rearward positions;
at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame
for supporting the chair during movement of the chair
frame between said forward and rearward positions.
JX-1, at cl. 1 (emphasis added).
GCI and Denovo proposed the following competing constructions for the term:
Claim Term/Phrase 	GCI’s Construction 	Denovo’s Construction
adapted for contacting the
ground surface upon which
the chair sits in a set-up
condition
Capable of touching and
sitting on a surface when
in a set-up condition.
Terminal end touches the
ground surface (not a part of
the chair) in the set-up
condition.
ID at 41. 	The ID adopted Denovo’s proposed construction and rejected GCI’s construction as
unduly broad and contrary to the plain language of the claim. Specifically, the ID explained:
GCI’s proposed construction, “capable of touching and sitting on a
surface when in a set-up condition” is too broad and specifically
allows the fulcrum point to sit on a support structure that is itself
part of the chair, which conflicts with the plain language of the
claim. GCI’s expert opined that other structures can come between
the fulcrum point and the ground surface. See CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 91. This is in conflict with the plain language of the
claim, which recites, “adapted for contacting the ground surface
upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition.”
ID at 42–43.
GCI argues that the ID “reads out ‘adapted for’ from the claim by requiring direct contact
between the fulcrum point (or the component containing it) and the ground surface.” GCI Pet. at

PUBLIC VERSION
10
7. GCI argues that “the plain language of the claims requires the fulcrum point, which is at the
terminal end of the fulcrum member, to be ‘adapted for contacting the ground surface’; it does not
require that the fulcrum point actually contact the ground surface.” 	GCI Pet. at 8 (emphasis in
original). GCI then argues that, not only should the word “adapted” be included in the construction
of this phrase, but that “adapted” should itself be construed to mean that contact with the ground
may occur “indirectly” through other components of the chair. GCI Pet. at 9–11.
As an initial matter, the Commission agrees with GCI that the ID’s claim construction reads
the words “adapted for” out of the disputed phrase. As used in the claim, the phrase “adapted for
contacting the ground surface” places a structural limitation on a required fulcrum point, i.e., the
fulcrum point must be adapted for contacting the ground surface. JX-1, at cl. 1. The ID’s claim
construction, read literally, is not a structural limitation on the fulcrum point, but is rather a
requirement for what the fulcrum point must do, i.e., touch the ground surface.
Notwithstanding that flaw, the ID’s analysis of GCI and Denovo’s dispute over this term
demonstrates that the ALJ correctly understood that the critical issue to be decided was whether
the claim language encompasses a fulcrum point that not only is not designed to touch the ground
surface, but instead is designed in a way that it only touches other parts of the chair. ID at 41–42.
On that critical issue, the Commission sees no error in the ID’s decision to reject GCI’s attempt to
construe this limitation to include fulcrum points designed only to “indirectly” contact the ground
through intermediate structures. While the Commission finds that the ID correctly resolved the
parties’ actual dispute as to the scope of this limitation, see O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond
Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Claim construction is a matter of
resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what
the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement.”), the

PUBLIC VERSION
11
Commission also finds that this claim construction can be better tailored, through a clarifying
modification, to better capture the ID’s meaning. Thus, the Commission has determined to modify
the wording of the ID’s construction of the phrase, “adapted for contacting the ground surface
upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition,” to read: “suited by design for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition.” 	As seen in the portion of Denovo’s
argument reproduced in the ID, Denovo expressly characterized its construction in these terms,
see ID at 42 (quoting Resps. Br. at 16), and GCI had an opportunity to challenge this definition
but chose not to. In the Commission’s view, this formulation of Denovo’s position more naturally
aligns with the plain language of the claims as applied in the ID. 	Specifically, in this modified
construction, the words “adapted for” are given their plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., suited by
design for.9
Turning now to GCI’s second point—that the word “adapted” should be read to expand the
scope of this limitation to encompass fulcrum points that, by design, do not touch the ground—the
Commission finds GCI’s arguments in support of that point unpersuasive. First, GCI argues that
“the plain language of the claims does not limit the way in which the fulcrum point at the terminal
end of the fulcrum member can be ‘adapted for contacting the ground surface.’” GCI Pet. at 8–9.
While GCI’s statement is true, the plain language of the claims is not limitless and does indeed
limit the claimed fulcrum point to those that are “adapted for contacting the ground surface.” Put
simply: fulcrum points that are not adapted for contacting the ground surface are not within the
scope of the claim. Accordingly, any construction that would expand the scope of this limitation
9 The Commission notes that Denovo contended that the plain and ordinary meaning of “adapted”
is “suited by nature, character, or design to a particular use, purpose, or situation” in its post-
hearing brief before the ALJ, and GCI did not contest that assertion in its reply brief. See Resps.
Br. at 16 (quoting Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/adapted); GCI Reply Br. at 4–5.

PUBLIC VERSION
12
to cover any fulcrum point on the terminal end of a fulcrum member, regardless of its adaptation
(or lack thereof) for contacting the ground surface, is in conflict with the plain language of the
claims. 	But that is exactly what GCI’s proposed construction would do, encompassing not just
fulcrum points adapted to contact the ground surface, but also fulcrum points adapted to contact
some other part of the chair that touches or eventually touches the ground. In application, GCI’s
construction would render the entire phrase “adapted for contacting the ground surface”
superfluous. Reading the phrase “adapted for contacting the ground surface” as only requiring the
ability to trace a path to the ground through other chair components, as GCI does, would render
that limitation so broad as to be meaningless, which strongly indicates that GCI’s interpretation of
the limitation’s meaning is incorrect. 	See In re Power Integrations, Inc., 884 F.3d 1370, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (rejecting a construction that “renders claim language meaningless”) (citing
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950–51 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (refusing to construe claim
terms in a way that made other claim limitations meaningless); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA,
Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the
terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”)).
GCI next argues that the specification supports its proposed construction. GCI Pet. at 9.
However, “fulcrum member” is a unique term in the written description appearing in only one
place: the description of the “alternate embodiment of a collapsible and portable rocking chair” at
line 11:35 through line 12:29. 	There, referencing the chair illustrated in figure 9, the written
description explains:
Each 	side 	frame 	assembly 120 further 	includes 	a 	fulcrum
point 154 provided on a frame member 155 extending from an
intermediate point on the rear leg 128 to the ground or support
surface on which the set-up chair 110 rests. As shown, the fulcrum
member 155 has a fulcrum pivot point 154 on its lowermost end
that contacts the ground surface and aids rocking of the chair 110.

PUBLIC VERSION
13
JX-1, at 11:50–56 (emphasis added). 	The structure described in the emphasized portion of this
excerpt naturally aligns with the claimed fulcrum member having a fulcrum point at a terminal end
adapted for contacting the ground in claims 1 and 10. Cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally
aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”).
The Commission finds that this portion of the written description, along with the illustration of
figure 9, to be more probative of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
phrase “adapted for contacting the ground surface” than the excerpts and figures GCI relies on in
its petition. 	Moreover, nothing in the above excerpt or in figure 9 suggests that “adapted for
contacting the ground surface” should encompass fulcrum points that are designed not to contact
the ground but can trace an “indirect” path to the ground through other chair components. Instead,
the above excerpt is entirely consistent with the ID’s conclusion to the contrary.
GCI, however, disregards the embodiment of figure 9 and its associated description in the
specification. 	Instead, GCI argues that the following portions of the specification, along with
figures 2 through 7, “expressly show[] that the fulcrum point need not directly touch the ground,
but can instead be ‘adapted for’ contacting the ground surface, for example, through a support
runner and/or foot:”

PUBLIC VERSION
14
Citation 	Language
3:45–57 	In preferred embodiments of the rocking chair, each frame side assembly is
supported on a fulcrum point for rocking movement of the chair frame. Each
side frame assembly preferably uses a static runner design wherein each side
frame assembly generally maintains two or more contact points with the ground
or support surface during use of the chair, either as a normal, fully stabilized
chair, or during rocking of the chair back-and-forth.
7:3–9 	The rocker mechanism 32 is preferably attached to a static runner design, such
as illustrated, that presents a significant improvement over prior art rocking chair
designs using arched rails, such as illustrated in FIG. 1, especially in regards to
use on soft ground or sand, on which prior art rocking chair designs are ill suited.
8:1–5 	Again referring to FIG. 6, a fulcrum 54 is provided on the forward end of the
support runner 34.
9:52–54 	The chair frame 12 is generally adapted to rest on a generally horizontally
oriented supporting surface, such as a floor or the ground, in a setup condition.
GCI Pet. at 9.
These portions of the specification do not establish, “expressly” or otherwise, that a
fulcrum point at a terminal end of a fulcrum member that is designed to contact another part of the
chair frame, but not the ground surface, is nonetheless “adapted for contacting the ground surface.”
First, none of these citations describe a chair like the one claimed in claims 1 and 10 of the ’824
patent. Those claims require a fulcrum member that defines a fulcrum point on its terminal end.
JX-1, at cls. 1, 10. 	However, figures 2 through 7 and the portions of the written description
reproduced above deal with a fulcrum point resting on a bracket between a support runner and the
chair frame. Moreover, that fulcrum point in figures 2 through 7 and accompanying text is never
described in the specification as being adapted for resting on the ground. 	At best, GCI’s
specification citations shed light on what it means for the chair frame 12 to be adapted to rest on

PUBLIC VERSION
15
a generally horizontally oriented supporting surface. 	Given that chair frame 12 is a wholly
different structure than a fulcrum point, and absent intrinsic evidence to the contrary, GCI has not
established that both would be adapted to contact the ground in the same way.
Setting aside the fact that the portions of the specification on which GCI relies do not
describe a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end, and are thus of limited
probative value, GCI also relies on these citations for the broader proposition that “the
specification uses the term ‘adapted’ to show indirect contact between a component of the chair
(such as the fulcrum point) and the ground surface.” GCI Pet. at 10. This aspect of GCI’s argument
relies particularly on the portion of the specification that states: “The chair frame 12 is generally
adapted to rest on a generally horizontally oriented supporting surface, such as a floor or the
ground, in a setup condition.” 	GCI Pet. at 9 (quoting JX-1, at 9:52–54). 	Pointing to figure 6,
which “is a cross-sectional view of a rocker mechanism for use with the rocking chair of FIG. 2,”
JX-1, at 5:36–37, GCI argues that the chair frame does not directly contact the ground, but instead
contacts it only through intermediate components. 	GCI Pet. at 9. 	GCI then concludes that the
word “adapted” must therefore embrace “indirect” connection through intermediate components
throughout the patent. GCI’s conclusion is flawed, at least because it fails to recognize that figure
6 shows only a portion of the embodiment illustrated in figures 2 through 7. As seen in figure 3,
when in a set up condition, the front portion of chair frame 12 rests directly on the ground via feet
36a:

PUBLIC VERSION
16
JX-1, at Fig. 3. 	Indeed, the sentence immediately following the one GCI quotes explains that
“chair 12 is generally stabilized on the supporting surface by the first, second and third feet 36a,
36b and 36c, respectively.” JX-1, at 9:54–56. 	Thus, it is not the case, as GCI argues, that this
portion of the specification supports the conclusion that the word “adapted” expands the meaning
of contact to include “indirect” contact. At best, figure 3 and the text on which GCI relies indicate
that a chair component that is adapted to rest on the ground may have a protective covering, like
foot 36a. Indeed, that conclusion finds support in figure 9 as well, which shows that fulcrum point
154 includes a hemispherical covering:
10
\
FIG. 3

PUBLIC VERSION
17
JX-1, at Fig. 9. 	GCI’s expansive reading of “adapted” as encompassing contact through any
number of intermediate components other than feet lacks support in the intrinsic record.
GCI further notes that its expert opined that a person of ordinary skill in the art:
would understand that (1) the fulcrum point needs to be near the
ground surface for the chair to exhibit rocking motion, and (2) the
term “adapted for” would permit the fulcrum point to contact the
ground either directly or indirectly through a support structure, such
as a foot or support runner, as shown throughout the ’824 Patent’s
figures
GCI Pet. at 11 (citing CX-464C at Q/A 91). The ID considered this very testimony and found it
to be “in conflict with the plain language of the claim.” 	ID at 42. 	The Commission also finds
GCI’s expert’s testimony unpersuasive. While expert testimony may be useful for some purposes
in the context of claim construction, e.g., “to provide background on the technology at issue, to
explain how an invention works, to ensure that the court’s understanding of the technical aspects
of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular
term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field,” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the expert testimony on which GCI relies serves none
of those purposes. 	Rather, GCI’s expert’s bare assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill in the
art] reading the patent would understand that the terminal end of the fulcrum point does not have
to contact the ground directly, but that it can contact the ground through a foot or a runner,”
154~
FIG. 	9

PUBLIC VERSION
18
CX-464C, at Q/A 91, is of the class of “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the
definition of a claim term [that] are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Here, where
the technology is straightforward, and neither GCI nor Denovo contend that “adapted for
contacting the ground surface” has a particular meaning in the ’824 patent’s field of art, the ID
was correct to give GCI’s expert’s testimony no weight.
Turning now to GCI’s argument that the ID added a negative limitation by adding the
phrase “(not a part of the chair)” to its construction, the Commission finds that the argument is
moot in light of the modified construction adopted above. 	Specifically, the Commission’s
modified construction, “suited by design for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair
sits in a set-up condition,” does not include the parenthetical “(not a part of the chair)” on which
GCI’s negative limitation argument is based. 	Moreover, even if not mooted by the modified
construction, the Commission would find GCI’s argument unpersuasive. The parenthetical “(not
a part of the chair)” is not an additional negative limitation on the plain and ordinary meaning of
“adapted for contacting the ground surface,” but instead merely clarifies that the plain and ordinary
meaning of “ground surface” does not include parts of the chair. 	GCI’s characterization of the
parenthetical as an additional limitation, and its concomitant reliance on precedents concerning
constructions that depart from a claim’s plain and ordinary meaning, would only be credible if
GCI could establish that the plain and ordinary meaning of “ground surface” includes chair parts.
See GCI Pet. at 11–12 (citing Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2012); Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Linear
Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v.
Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). GCI has not established as much and thus

PUBLIC VERSION
19
its negative limitation argument must fail.10 Departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of
“ground surface” to enlarge the scope of that limitation, as GCI’s argument requires, is no more
appropriate than would be departing from its plain and ordinary meaning to narrow the limitation’s
scope. See, e.g., Thorner, 699 F.3d at 1365.
Finally, GCI argues that the Commission should adopt its proposed construction—
“capable of touching and sitting on a surface”—because its construction “accurately reflects the
specification’s teachings, stays most faithful to the claims’ plain language, and omits the ALJ’s
erroneous negative limitation.” 	GCI Pet. at 12. 	GCI’s proposed construction fails, on its face,
because it re-writes the limitation to entirely remove the “ground surface” limitation. 	The very
cases GCI cites throughout its petition explain why that approach to claim construction is
inappropriate. See, e.g., GCI Pet. at 8 (citing ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Technology
LLC, 629 F.3d 1278, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A]ll the limitations of a claim must be considered
meaningful.”); Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(“Courts do not rewrite claims; instead, we give effect to the terms chosen by the patentee.”); GCI
Pet. at 10 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316). Moreover, in the absence of any credible argument
that “surface” and “ground surface” share the same plain and ordinary meaning in the ’824 patent,
it is GCI that must meet the “exacting” standards required to justify its proposed departure from
the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “adapted for contacting the ground surface.” GCI,
however, argues that this phrase should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning,
and the Commission finds that GCI is correct in that assertion. GCI is incorrect, however, in its
assertion that its proposed construction is consistent with the phrase’s plain and ordinary meaning.
10 Unlike the instant case, all of the cases GCI cites involved the improper imposition of additional
limitations that narrowed the scope of a claim beyond the plain and ordinary meaning indicated by
the intrinsic evidence.

PUBLIC VERSION
20
Accordingly, the ID did not err in refusing to construe “adapted for contacting the ground surface”
to mean “capable of touching and sitting on a surface.”11
Although the Commission modifies the words used to define the disputed phrase, the
Commission affirms the final ID’s finding that a fulcrum point “adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition” is not so broad as to encompass a fulcrum
point that is designed not to touch the ground, but can nonetheless trace a path to the ground
through other intermediate support structures in the chair. 	See ID at 42. 	Accordingly, the
Commission also affirms the final ID’s infringement, anticipation, and domestic industry technical
prong determinations that rely upon that finding.
2. 	Infringement Findings Concerning “Pivotally Interconnected” Chair
Frame Members
Claim 10 of the ’824 patent is the sole independent claim asserted against Denovo’s Rok-
It Chair. Among other limitations, claim 10 requires a pair of side frame assemblies comprised of
the following parts: (1) a front leg member; (2) a rear leg member; (3) a back support member;
and (4) a fulcrum member. JX-1, at cl. 10. Claim 10 further specifies that these parts of the side
frame assembly are “pivotally interconnected for folding movement.” Id. 	Figure 9 of the ’824
patent illustrates the sole embodiment disclosed in the patent that meets these limitations:
11 GCI argues that, under its proposed construction, its own portable rocking chairs would practice
at least one claim of the ’824 patent, and thus satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement. 	GCI Pet. at 13–14. 	GCI’s argument flows from alternative findings the ID made
concerning the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, i.e., that if GCI’s proposed
construction were adopted, GCI’s chairs would practice the “adapted for contacting the ground
surface” limitation. See ID at 91, 99. For the reasons detailed above, the Commission does not
adopt GCI’s proposed construction, thus the Commission need not and does not take a position on
GCI’s proposed construction as applied to GCI’s chairs. See ID at 91, 99.

PUBLIC VERSION
21
JX-1, at Fig. 9. Element 124 is the front leg member. JX-1, at 11:46. Element 128 is the rear leg
member. 	Id. 	Element 130 is the back support member. 	Id. at 11:47. 	And, element 155 is the
fulcrum member. Id. at 11:53–54. As shown in figure 9 and described in the specification, these
members are “interconnected by pivotal connections that facilitate folding of the chair 110.” Id.
at Fig. 9, 11:47–48.
Denovo’s Rok-It chair, which is accused of infringing claim 10, employs a substantially
different frame structure than that shown in figure 9. The Rok-It chair is shown below:
130
110
\
155
,.r132
154-"" 	144
FIG. 9

PUBLIC VERSION
22
CX-184, at 1. Notably, on each side of the Rok-It chair an elongated unitary main tube extends
diagonally from the front feet to the top rear of the chair where the backrest is attached. Id.
GCI’s position in this investigation is that these main tubes satisfy both the “back support
member” and the “fulcrum member” limitations of claim 10. Specifically, GCI’s expert provided
the following annotated photographs identifying these main tubes as both the “back support
member” and the “fulcrum member” of claim 10:

PUBLIC VERSION
23
CX-2C, at Q/A 316, 323.
By contrast, Denovo’s position in this investigation is that a single structure like the main
tube in its Rok-It Chair cannot be both the claimed “back support member” and “fulcrum member.”
See Resps. Br. at 20–22.
In its infringement analysis, the ID rejected Denovo’s position that “the back support
member and the fulcrum member must be separate and distinct members of the side frame
assembly that are pivotally connected to each other.” ID at 56–57.12 The ID reasoned that “the
specification of the ’824 patent discloses different elements of the chair frame as separate portions
of a single tube.” ID at 56 (citing JX-1, at 6:27–37, 6:38–45, 10:9–17; Tr. 293–94). The ID also
found that claim 10 “does not include any language requiring a specific structural relationship
between the back support member and the fulcrum member.” Id. (citing Tr. 287). The ID rejected
12 This portion of the ID dealt specifically with the “back support member” limitation. 	The ID
addresses this same dispute in its analysis of the “fulcrum member” limitation and the “pivotally
interconnected” limitation. See ID at 58–59, 75. The ID’s reasoning and analysis is substantially
the same in each instance, and the Commission’s analysis here applies to all instances in the ID
where this dispute is addressed.

PUBLIC VERSION
24
Denovo’s reliance on the sentence in the specification explaining that the front leg, rear leg, and
backrest support members must all be pivotally interconnected because the “sentence does not
refer to the fulcrum member and is included in a paragraph describing only the specific
embodiment shown in Figure 9.” ID at 57. Based on this reasoning, the ID found that Denovo’s
Rok-It Chair literally practices the back support member and fulcrum member limitations of claim
10. Id. Denovo petitioned for review of this aspect of the ID, and GCI opposed Denovo’s petition
in its response.
The Commission finds that the ID erred in finding that the unitary main tube on either side
of the Rok-It Chair satisfies both the back support member and fulcrum member limitations of
claim 10. “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’
is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson
& Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair
Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip.,
LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The strongest evidence for this separation is the
claim language itself, which plainly recites two different structures…. The separate naming of two
structures in the claim strongly implies that the named entities are not one and the same
structure.”). The distinct nature of separately listed elements in a claim is even more clear when
the claim includes language specifying that one element is physically connected to the other. See
Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Medical Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 939 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[W]hen
a physical object is described as having been ‘affixed,’ ‘joined,’ ‘connected,’ or ‘conjoin[ed],’ to
another object, it means that those objects were previously physically separate.”).13 	This is
13 The body of precedent supporting this point is substantial. See, e.g., Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., 838 F. App’x 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“By listing the elements

PUBLIC VERSION
25
because it would be “illogical” to regard a structure as connected or attached to itself. See In re
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[I]t would ‘be illogical to
regard one unit to be ‘attached’ to itself.’”).
Here, the relevant language from claim 10 provides:
a pair of side frame assemblies including a front leg member, a
rear leg member, a back support member, and a fulcrum
member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted
for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-
up condition thereof and about which the chair can move between
forward and rearward rocking positions, said members comprising
each side frame assembly being pivotally interconnected for
folding movement between the set-up condition of the chair and a
collapsed condition of the chair
10 (emphasis added). 	Thus, claim 10 recites a pair of side frames, each of which includes four
elements listed separately: 	(1) a front leg member; (2) a rear leg member; (3) a back support
member; and (4) a fulcrum member. Id. Claim 10 also indicates that these “said members” are
“pivotally interconnected.” Id. Because each member is listed separately, Becton, Gaus, and HTC
all indicate that each frame member should be treated as a separate structure. That conclusion is
reinforced by the claim language indicating that the frame members are “pivotally interconnected.”
separately and by using the word ‘coupled,’ claim 14 strongly indicates the ‘speech recognition
system’ is distinct from the ‘wireline node.’”); Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motivepower, Inc., 643 F. App’x.
1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the limitation “a brush catch coupled to the beam”
requires the brush catch be a separate physical structure from the beam); In re Cuozzo Speed
Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the limitation “a speedometer
integrally attached to said colored display” required the speedometer and colored display to be
“discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate
identity”); ICHL, LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 455 F. App’x. 978, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“When
one structure is bonded to a second structure, those structures are plainly separate.”); Becton, 616
F.3d at 1255 (“If the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm
must be ‘connected to’ itself and must ‘extend between’ itself and a mounting means, a physical
impossibility.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
26
As the Federal Circuit has explained, it would be illogical to interpret any one of these frame
members as attached to itself. Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1280.
The specification also indicates that these frame members that form the side frame
assemblies are separate structures. 	As noted above, there is only a single embodiment in the
specification that describes a chair with side frame assemblies that include all four of the frame
members recited in claim 10. 	That embodiment is illustrated in figure 9 and is described in
columns 11 and 12 of the written description of the invention. JX-1, at Fig. 9; 11:35–12:29. Figure
9 clearly shows, and the specification also describes, that each frame member is a separate structure
from the others, and that each frame member is pivotally connected to another. Nothing in figure
9 or in the description of the figure supports the ID’s conclusion that these frame members need
not be separate structures.
While the ID looked to the specification to support its finding that the frame members need
not be separate structures, it reached the wrong conclusion by conflating distinct elements of
another embodiment with the frame member elements actually claimed in claim 10. Specifically,
the ID relied exclusively on the embodiment disclosed in figures 2 through 7 and the
accompanying portions of the written description for the proposition that “the ’824 patent discloses
different elements of the chair frame as separate portions of a single tube.” 	ID at 56. 	But that
embodiment is of little probative value in interpreting claim 10 because that embodiment lacks the
“pivotally interconnected” “front leg,” “rear leg,” “back support,” and “fulcrum” members
required by claim 10. 	Instead, that embodiment has a side frame assembly that includes “a
generally closed frame loop constructed from axially-elongated tubular material that is bent to
define an armrest portion 22, a front leg portion 24, a lower support portion 26, and a rear leg

PUBLIC VERSION
27
portion 28” as well as “a backrest support member 30 rigidly attached to the closed frame loop.”
JX-1, at 6:28–35.
To 	be 	clear, 	the 	specification 	does 	not 	use 	the 	words 	“portion” 	and 	“member”
interchangeably as the ID’s reasoning suggests. The specification indicates as to the embodiments
of figures 2 through 7 that a “portion,” such as a “front leg portion,” may be a region of singular
tubular member or may itself be a separate member interconnected to other frame members. JX-1,
at 6:27–32, 6:48–51. By contrast, however, the specification uses “member” exclusively to refer
to separate structures that can be attached to one another in some manner. See, e.g., JX-1, at 6:34–
35 (describing a “backrest support member 30 rigidly attached to the closed frame loop”). Indeed,
the specification expressly distinguishes frame portions from frame members:
Further, each portion of the illustrated frame loop can be a separate
member, with the various frame members being interconnected by
rigid 	or 	flexible 	joints 	to 	collectively 	define 	the 	frame 	side
assembly 20.
JX-1, at 48–51 (emphasis added). This paragraph establishes that a frame side assembly made of
a singular structure with various portions can be replaced by one made of separate interconnected
members. The ID’s implicit treatment of the words “portion” and “member” as interchangeable
is incompatible with the usage of those terms in the specification. Accordingly, the ID’s reliance
on the specification’s description of various frame “portions” on the closed loop frame illustrated
in figures 2 through 7 to support its conclusion that the frame “members” recited in claim 10 need
not be separate is misplaced. Moreover, to the extent the ID’s reasoning implicitly suggests that
claim 10 must be interpreted to cover all of the embodiments disclosed in the specification, the
Federal Circuit has held otherwise. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“It is not necessary that each claim read on every embodiment.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
28
The Commission also disagrees with the ID’s finding that “[c]laim 10 of the ’824 patent
does not include any language requiring a specific structural relationship between the back support
member and the fulcrum member.” 	ID at 56. 	The plain language of claim 10 requires that the
“members comprising each side frame assembly,” including the back support member and the
fulcrum member, be “pivotally interconnected.” 	JX-1, at cl. 10. 	Neither the ID itself, nor the
expert testimony it cites, provides any explanation for how the “pivotally interconnected”
limitation is anything but a specific structural relationship between the back support member and
the fulcrum member. ID at 56 (citing Tr. at 287). To the extent GCI’s expert testified that claim
10 does not require a specific structural relationship between the fulcrum and back support
members, that testimony is flatly contradicted by the plain language of the claim and is accorded
no weight. 	Compare Tr. at 287:15–21 with JX-1, at cl. 10; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318
(“[A] court should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction
mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the prosecution history, in other
words, with the written record of the patent.” (internal quotation omitted)).14 As explained above,
the fact that the plain language of claim 10 requires the fulcrum member and back support member
to be pivotally interconnected supports the conclusion that those elements are separate structures.
The cases GCI cites in its response to Denovo’s petition for review are not inconsistent
with the Commission’s analysis of this issue. 	See GCI Resp. at 22–23. 	For example, Rexnord
Corp. v. Laitram Corp., supports the Commission’s reasoning insomuch as the Federal Circuit
explained that words indicating a connection of two components, “such as ‘attachment,’
‘mountable,’ ‘second piece,’ or ‘securable,” “connote a quality of being ‘separate.’” 	274 F.3d
14 The Commission further notes that the expert testimony on the page cited by the ID strays far
from the type of topics on which expert testimony is useful. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318.

PUBLIC VERSION
29
1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). And in Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
the Court’s determination that a “needle holder” and a “retainer member” need not be separate
structures was based on the fact that the claims and specification included language embracing an
integrally formed needle holder and retainer member. See 653 F.3d 1296, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(relying, for example, on claim language describing a needle holder with a head portion that
“comprises … a continuous retainer member”). Neither the claim language nor the specification
of the ’824 patent indicate that either the “fulcrum member” or the “back support member” is
comprised of the other.
In Linear Tech. Corp. v. International Trade Commission, the issue was whether the
claimed “second circuit” and “third circuit” could include overlapping components, not whether a
single circuit could be both the claimed second and third circuits, as is the issue in this
investigation. 	See 566 F.3d 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 	Likewise, NTP, Inc. v. Research in
Motion, Ltd. dealt with whether a claimed “RF receiver” and a claimed “destination processor”
could share the same physical housing. See 418 F.3d 1282, 1309–10 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Court
did not find that the same structure could be both the RF receiver and the destination processor; it
found only that they could share a common housing. See id. at 1310. Finally, in Powell v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., the Court focused on the absence of any claim language indicating that a
claimed “cutting box” and “dust collection structure” must be separate, in connection with
language in the specification suggesting otherwise, to conclude that the cutting box could function
as the dust collection structure. See 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As explained above,
the intrinsic evidence here is meaningfully different because the claim language describes the
fulcrum member and back support member as pivotally interconnected and the only embodiment

PUBLIC VERSION
30
in the specification that includes both a fulcrum member and a back support member illustrates
them as separate structures. See JX-1, at cl. 1, 10; id. at Fig. 9.
In 	the 	alternative 	to 	its 	finding 	that 	the 	Rok-It 	chair 	literally 	includes 	pivotally
interconnected back support and fulcrum members, the ID found that if the back support and
fulcrum members must be separate and distinct members of the side frame assembly, the Rok-It
chair would infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. ID at 57. The ID found that the differences
between the main tube in the Rok-It chair and the claimed pivotally interconnected back support
member and fulcrum member “would be insubstantial to a person of skill in the art because the
‘back support member’ and the ‘fulcrum member’ would still be pivotally connected relative to
the other members of the side frame assembly.” Id. (citing CX-2C (Smith DWS), at Q/A 319–20).
The ID also found that “the back support member performs substantially the same function,
providing a back support, in substantially the same way, by providing a physical structure to
support the user’s back, achieving substantially the same result, support of the user’s back.” Id.
And, the ID found that “Respondents did not adduce evidence to rebut GCI’s argument for
infringement of this claim limitation by the accused products under the doctrine of equivalents.”
Id. (citing Resps. Br. at 24–26). The Commission disagrees with the ID’s finding that the Rok-It
chair includes the equivalent of pivotally interconnected back support and fulcrum members.
First, as a matter of record, it is not correct that Denovo adduced no evidence to rebut GCI’s
doctrine of equivalents argument. Respondents’ joint posthearing brief before the ALJ includes
three pages specifically responding to and opposing GCI’s equivalency argument. Resps. Br. at
24–26. Moreover, this portion of Respondents’ brief includes citations to Respondents’ expert’s
testimony rebutting GCI’s expert’s equivalence theory. See id. (citing RX-490C, at Q/A 23). The
briefing also includes citations to precedent addressing the application of the doctrine of

PUBLIC VERSION
31
equivalents. See id. Respondents’ posthearing reply brief also similarly addresses GCI’s doctrine
of equivalents argument. Resps. Reply at 10–11. Whether the ID intended only to convey that the
evidence adduced by Respondents was unpersuasive is unclear. However, to the extent that was
the case, the Commission disagrees with the ID.
The Commission finds that the evidence on which the ID relies is insufficient to show, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the unitary main tubes of the Rok-It chair are insubstantially
different 	from 	the claimed 	pivotally 	interconnected 	back 	support 	and 	fulcrum 	members.
Specifically, the sole citation given by the ID in support of its equivalency finding amounts to two
question-and-answer pairs from GCI’s expert’s direct witness statement, which read:
Q.319: How, if at all, would it affect your opinions if the back
support member and the fulcrum member were required to
be separate, distinct structures?
A.319: It would not affect my opinions on Denovo’s infringement
at all.
Q.320: Why not?
A.320: To the extent it may be argued that the back support member
and the fulcrum member are not separate and distinct
members of the side frame assembly, the patent clearly
teaches that “the frame side assembly may be constructed
from an open design... where the frame members are
interconnected by rigid, pivotal, sliding, and/or telescopic
joints” ’842 Patent 6:51-58. The claim doesn’t require these
structures to be separate, and therefore Denovo’s structure
meets the limitation literally. However, if the claims are
somehow 	construed 	to 	require 	separate, 	distinct
structures, the differences would be insubstantial to a
POSITA because they would still be pivotally connected
relative to the other members of the side frame assembly.
CX-2C, at Q/A 319, 320 (emphasis added); see also ID at 57. Of the two answers GCI’s expert
gives, only the final sentence of the second answer arguably advances a doctrine of equivalents
argument. But that sentence fails to explain why a single main tube is the equivalent of separate

PUBLIC VERSION
32
fulcrum and back support members. 	Rather, that sentence addresses the separate dispute of
whether every claimed frame member must be pivotally interconnected to every other member.
See ID at 74–75. 	GCI’s expert’s testimony fails to explain why pivotal connection to other
members establishes that a single unitary main tube is equivalent to the two separately claimed
fulcrum and back support members that are pivotally connected to each other.
With respect to the ID’s “function-way-result” analysis, the only evidence the ID cites in
support of that finding is the testimony from GCI’s expert reproduced above, which is silent on
the function-way-result test. 	See id. (citing CX-2C, at Q/A 319, 320). 	Having reviewed GCI’s
expert’s witness statement, the Commission can find no instance where he gave testimony that
would support the ID’s function-way-result finding for the back support member. See generally
CX-2C. Similarly, after reviewing GCI’s posthearing briefing before the ALJ, the Commission
finds no instance where GCI employed the function-way-result test to establish equivalence
between the claimed back support member and the Rok-It chair’s main tube. See generally GCI
Br.; GCI Reply.
Lack of evidence aside, as Denovo explains in its petition, finding that the unitary main
tubes of the Rok-It chair are equivalent to the separately claimed pivotally interconnected back
support and fulcrum members necessarily eliminates one of the “fulcrum member” or “back
support member” limitations from the claim 10. Denovo Pet. at 33 (citing Freedman Seating Co.
v. American Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). In such a circumstance, the “all
limitations” (or “all elements”) rule precludes equivalence as a matter of law. Freedman Seating,
420 F.3d at 1358 (“[A]n element of an accused product or process is not, as a matter of law,
equivalent to a limitation of the claimed invention if such a finding would entirely vitiate the
limitation.”); see also Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997)

PUBLIC VERSION
33
(“It is important to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is
not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety.”); Lockheed
Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Under the all
elements rule, there can be no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if even one limitation
of a claim or its equivalent is not present in the accused device.”).
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, like literal infringement, is a question of
fact on which the patentee bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence.
On the record of this investigation, the Commission finds that GCI has not met its burden with
respect to showing equivalence between the separate back support and fulcrum members of claim
10 and the unitary main tube of the Rok-It chair. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to
reverse the ID’s finding that the Rok-It chair would satisfy the back support and fulcrum member
limitations under the doctrine of equivalents. 	In so doing, and in combination with the
Commission’s determination that the Rok-It chair does not literally infringe those limitations, the
Commission reverses the ID’s finding that the Rok-It chair infringes the asserted claims of the
’824 patent, all of which incorporate the back support and fulcrum member limitations of claim
10.
3. 	Domestic Industry Findings 	Concerning 	“Pivotally Interconnected”
Chair Frame Members and a Fulcrum Point “Adapted for Contacting the
Ground Surface”
The ID found that GCI’s own chairs do not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement because they do not include a fulcrum point adapted for contacting the
ground surface, and thus do not practice any claim of the ’824 patent. ID at 87–91. As explained
in the ID:
the fulcrum point of the ’824 GCI products rests on a bracket, which
itself 	rests 	on 	a 	foot 	member 	that 	also 	supports 	the 	rocker
mechanism and the rear leg (and the foot member itself rests on foot

PUBLIC VERSION
34
pads 	adapted 	for 	contacting 	the 	ground 	surface). 	Such 	a
configuration eliminates the need for the fulcrum point itself to be
“adapted for contacting the ground surface,” and to find that the
fulcrum point itself is so adapted here would read the limitation out
of the claim.
ID at 90. The Commission agrees with the ID’s reasoning and finds that this reasoning remains
correct under the Commission’s modified construction of “adapted for contacting the ground
surface.” Specifically, the structure GCI identifies in its own chairs as a fulcrum point is not suited
by design for contacting the ground surface on which the chair sits in a setup condition. To the
contrary, the design of that fulcrum point ensures that it will never contact the ground surface:
RX-490C, at Q/A 55 (magnified portion added for readability). The fulcrum point in GCI’s chairs
is effectively the opposite of a structure that is adapted to contact the ground surface. The fulcrum
point in GCI’s chairs is designed to pivot within a bracket, which is attached to support runner
(labeled “foot member” above), which in turn touches the ground through a rubber pad. See, e.g.,
CX-188, at 3. By virtue of its positioning within the bracket, that fulcrum point will never contact
the ground surface, i.e., it is designed not to touch the ground. Moreover, no evidence indicates
that the bracket itself is adapted to contact the ground surface. 	Accordingly, the ID correctly
determined that GCI’s chairs do not literally include the claimed fulcrum point adapted for
t~ulcru:m M,mbfl'

PUBLIC VERSION
35
contacting the ground surface required by the claims on which GCI relies to satisfy the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement.
The Commission likewise affirms the ID’s finding that the GCI chairs do not practice this
limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. 	Here again, the Commission’s modification of the
construction of “adapted for contacting the ground surface” does not undermine the ID’s
reasoning. 	Particularly, the ID correctly noted that GCI’s expert’s equivalency analysis was
marred by its focus on the substantiality of “any differences between directly touching the ground
and touching the ground through a foot.” CX-2C, at Q/A 754. In so doing, GCI’s expert failed to
address the actual structure of the fulcrum point in GCI’s chairs, which “does not simply touch the
ground through a foot.” ID at 90 (internal quotation omitted). Given that it is GCI’s burden to
establish equivalence by a preponderance of the evidence, GCI’s expert’s failure to address the
differences between the actual structure of GCI’s chairs and the structure required by the claims is
fatal to its equivalency argument.
The Commission adds, however, that GCI’s equivalency argument fails for an additional
reason. The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to cover structures disclosed, but not claimed,
in a patent because those structures are considered to have been dedicated to the public. 	See
Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen
a patent drafter discloses but declines to claim subject matter, as in this case, this action dedicates
that unclaimed subject matter to the public. Application of the doctrine of equivalents to recapture
subject matter deliberately left unclaimed would ‘conflict with the primacy of the claims in
defining the scope of the patentee’s exclusive right.’”); PSC Comput. Prod., Inc. v. Foxconn Int’l,
Inc., 355 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The disclosure-dedication rule requires an inventor
who discloses specific matter to claim it, and to submit the broader claim for examination.

PUBLIC VERSION
36
Otherwise, that matter is dedicated to the public and may not be recaptured under the doctrine of
equivalents.”). Such is the case here. The specification of the ’824 patent discloses fulcrum point
embodiments that are not adapted to touch the ground but instead rest in a bracket on a foot member
on a foot pad—exactly like those in GCI’s chairs:
Compare, e.g., JX-1, at Fig. 6 with RX-490C, at Q/A 55. But the ’824 patent does not claim those
embodiments. 	Accordingly, those embodiments cannot be equivalents to the fulcrum points
actually claimed in the ’824 patent. See Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1107 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (“A patentee may not narrowly claim his invention and then, in the course of an infringement
suit, argue that the doctrine of equivalents should permit a finding of infringement because the
specification discloses the equivalents.”). Accordingly, the Commission affirms the ID’s finding
that GCI’s chairs do not practice the “adapted for contacting the ground” limitation of the ’824
patent.
The ID also found that GCI’s domestic industry chairs practice the fulcrum member and
back support member limitations of claims 1 and 10 the ’824 patent. See ID at 84–87. As with
the Rok-It chair, however, the ID based its finding on its subsidiary findings that the claimed
y
72
44
3°
28
,~ 	56
~ 46
~
I
50 	,_ ...
,ii
FIG. 6 OC l ll7f_l>''41 7

PUBLIC VERSION
37
fulcrum back support members need not be separate, and that a unitary metal tube in GCI’s chairs
could be both the claimed back support member and fulcrum member. ID at 85. This aspect of
the ID’s reasoning is nearly identical to the reasoning it employed in the context of infringement.
See id. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to reverse the ID’s finding that the unitary
metal tube in GCI’s chairs satisfies the fulcrum member and back support member limitations of
claims 1 and 10 for the same reasons it reversed the ID’s finding that the unitary main tube of the
Rok-It chair satisfies those limitations.
4. 	Findings on which the Commission Takes No Position
The Commission has determined to review the ID’s findings with respect to the
obviousness of the asserted claims of the ’824 patent. ID at 113–46. The Commission has also
determined to review the ID’s finding that GCI satisfies the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement for the ’824 patent. 	ID at 282–94. 	On review, the Commission takes no
position on either of those issues. The Commission has determined not to review the ID’s other
validity findings.
B. 	The ’611 Patent
With regard to the ’611 patent, the Commission has determined to review the ID’s
determination on infringement, the ID’s determination on obviousness based on the MacSports
Directors Chair in view of Seng, the ID’s findings concerning secondary considerations of
nonobviousness, and the final ID’s finding on economic prong. The Commission has determined
not to review any other issues.
1. 	Infringement Findings Concerning “Fulcrum Point”
Before the ALJ, GCI argued that both the MacRocker and the Mulberry Bounce chairs
practice the “fulcrum point” limitation of the ’611 patent through the doctrine of equivalents. GCI
Br. at 95. 	To support that argument, GCI relied on a novel legal framework for analyzing

PUBLIC VERSION
38
equivalence. Rather than address the substantiality of the differences between the structure in the
accused chairs and the “fulcrum point” limitation of the claims, GCI instead argued that the
bending motion of compliant members in the accused chairs could be approximated with
simplified models based on rigid bars connected by pivoting joints. See id. at 96–99. GCI, and its
expert, refer to these models as pseudo-rigid-body models (“PRBM”). Id. at 96. GCI’s approach
effectively shifted the equivalence inquiry from a comparison of the accused chairs with the
claimed “fulcrum point,” to a comparison of the accused chairs with PRBMs. 	Thus, per GCI’s
theory, if it can show that the PRBM models are “equivalent” to the compliant members in the
accused chairs, it will have also shown that the compliant members are equivalent to the claimed
“fulcrum point” because the PRBM models include a pivot.
The ID rejected GCI’s theory of equivalence based on GCI’s expert’s failure to provide
necessary information about the PRBMs to show that they accurately modeled the compliant
members of the accused chairs. FID at 190–91. The Commission sees no error in those findings,
which indicate that GCI failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the predicate of its
doctrine of equivalence argument, i.e., that the PRBMs it relied on were in fact equivalent to the
compliant members in the accused chairs.
The Commission further notes that it is well-established that, regardless of the specific
linguistic formulation of the test for equivalency, “[a] finding of infringement under the doctrine
of equivalents requires a showing that the difference between the claimed invention and the
accused product was insubstantial.” Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co.,
559 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde
Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950)). Here, GCI’s approach focuses instead on a comparison
of the accused products to a simplified engineering model. 	The Commission is aware of no

PUBLIC VERSION
39
precedent that endorses establishing equivalency, as that term is used in the context of the doctrine
of equivalents, by substituting an entirely different structure, in this case PRBMs, for the structure
of the accused products in the comparison with the claimed structure. 	Respondents raised this
point in their posthearing briefing before the ALJ, but GCI’s reply cited no precedent in rebuttal.
See Resps. Br. at 70; GCI Reply at 34. Instead, GCI summarily asserted that the issue had been
resolved in its favor by an earlier order denying summary judgment to MacSports. GCI Reply at
34 (citing Order No. 19 at 2–3). However, nothing in that order establishes support in the law for
GCI’s departure from the traditionally-required comparison of the differences between an accused
product and a claimed structure in favor of a comparison between an approximating model and the
claimed structure. See generally Order No. 19. Similarly, GCI’s petition for review of the ALJ’s
“fulcrum point” findings lacks any citation to precedent that would support its novel approach to
the doctrine of equivalents. See GCI Pet. at 20–47.
The absence of supporting precedent is not merely an academic concern here. By focusing
its analysis of the PRBMs instead of the actual structures in the chair, GCI avoids addressing the
fact that the MacRocker and the Mulberry Bounce chairs achieve rocking motion without the need
for a fulcrum point at all. Under a conventional doctrine of equivalents analysis, that fact would
be fatal to GCI’s position. See Conopco, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 46 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (“The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase meaningful structural and
functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.”
(internal quotations omitted)). 	Accordingly, the Commission declines to endorse GCI’s
comparison of the differences between a model that approximates the behavior of the accused
chairs and the claimed “fulcrum point” in the ’611 patent for the purpose of establishing
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. GCI’s approach both lacks support in the law and

PUBLIC VERSION
40
reduces the “fulcrum point” limitation to a nullity. See also, RX-451C, at Q/A 26–41 (testifying
that a simplified model is not necessarily equivalent to the system it models).
The Commission additionally notes that the ID’s rejection of GCI’s doctrine of equivalents
argument is not based solely on GCI’s failure to show that the PRBMs it relies on are actually
equivalent to the accused products. For both the MacRocker and the Westfield chair, the ID also
cited with approval testimony from MacSports’ and Westfield’s expert witnesses applying proper
function-way-result analyses to determine whether differences between the accused chairs and the
claimed “fulcrum point” are substantial. See, e.g. ID at 179 (citing RX-392C, at Q/A 91–100); id.
at 193 (citing RX-451C, at Q/A 53–61). 	In addition to the citations in the ID, the Commission
finds the following portions of those experts’ testimony further supports the ID’s finding of no
equivalence based on the application of a function-way-result analysis: RX-392C, at Q/A 101–
110; RX-451C, at Q/A 62–67.
Consistent with the supplemented reasoning above, the Commission has determined to
affirm the ID’s ultimate finding of no infringement based on the ID’s finding that the accused
chairs lack the “fulcrum point” required by the asserted claims. ID at 179–204, 220–24.
2. 	Findings on which the Commission Takes No Position
The Commission has also determined to review the following findings in the ID: (1) the
findings that the MacRocker and Mulberry Bounce chairs accused of infringing the ’611 patent do
not practice the “rocker mechanism” limitation of the asserted claims, ID at 204–14, 231–33;
(2) the findings with respect to the obviousness of the asserted claims of the ’611 patent based on
the MacSports Directors Chair in view of Seng, ID at 267–71; (3) the findings concerning
secondary considerations of nonobviousness in connection with the ’611 patent,15 ID at 277–82;
15 Although the Commission takes no position as to the ID’s secondary considerations findings,

PUBLIC VERSION
41
and (4) the finding that GCI satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for
the ’611 patent, ID at 282–94. On review, the Commission takes no position on those issues.
V. 	CONCLUSION
The Commission has determined that there has been no violation of section 337 by the
remaining respondents in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the
sale within the United States after importation of certain collapsible and portable furniture by
reason of infringement of certain claims of the ’824 or ’611 patent. Consistent with the reasoning
laid out above, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part and, on review,
modify the ID in part, reverse the ID in part, and take no position on certain issues in the ID. The
Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. Accordingly, the investigation
is terminated with a finding of no violation of Section 337.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: May 18, 2021
the Commission does not disturb the ID’s findings of fact as to the obviousness of prior art
combinations other than the MacSports Directors Chair in view of Seng.

CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND PORTABLE FURNITURE 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1178
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION OPINION has been
served upon the following parties as indicated, on May 18, 2021.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.:
Gary M. Hnath Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Email: ghnath@mayerbrown.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondent Denovo Brands, LLC and
Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd.:
Jeff E. Schwartz, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 380 East
Washington, DC 20005
Email: jeschwartz@foxrothschild.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondent Westfield Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a
Westfield Outdoors:
David B. Jinkins, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Email: DJinkins@ThompsonCoburn.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondents MacSports Inc. and Meike
(Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd.:
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18th Street NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Email: ariley@meimark.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
In the Matter of
CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND
PORTABLE FURNITURE
Inv. No. 337-TA-1178
INITIAL D ETERMINATION
Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw
Pursuant to the notice of investigation, 84 Fed. Reg. 52896 (Oct. 3, 2019), this is the
initial determination in Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture, United States International
Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1178.
It is held that no viol ation of section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended, has occurred in
the importation into the United States, the sale for impo1tation, or the sale within the United
States after importation, of certain collapsible and portable furniture, with respe ct to asserted
claims 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,282,824, and asserted claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11,
14, 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,060,611.

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. 	Background .. ....... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......................... .. .......... .. ................................ .. 1
A. 	Institution of the Investigation; Procedural History ............. .............. .. .. .. ............. ... l
B. 	The Parties ... .. .. .. ............. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ........... .. ...... .. .... ...... .. ..... .. .......... .5
C. 	The Accused Products ............................................. .. .......... .. ....... .. ..........................6
D. 	The Domestic Industry Products ... .. ...... .... .. ...... ............. ...... ...... .. ................. .. ...... ...6
II. 	Jurisdicti on .......................................................................................................................... 7
Ill. 	In1portation .............................................. .. .............................................................. .. ........ .. 7
IV. 	General Principles of Law ...... .. .... .. ...... .... .. ...... .... .. ...... ........ .... .. ........... .. ....... .... .. ..... .. ...... .. 8
A. 	Claim Construction ......... .. .......... .. .................. .. ...... .. .......... .. ... .. ................. .. ...... .. ... 8
B. 	Infringen1ent. .......................................................................................................... 10
C. 	Va lidity ... .. .. ...... .... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. ..... .. ...... . 13
D. 	Domestic Industry ......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ....... .. ...... ... .. ...... . 18
V. 	The '824 Patent ................................................................................................................. 20
A. 	Overview of the '824 Patent ..................................................................................20
B. 	Claim Construction ......... .. .......... .. .......................... .. .......... .. ... .. ......................... .. .23
1. 	Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art.. ............................................................ 23
2. 	Disputed Constructions ..... .. ...... ............ .. ........... .. ...... .... .. .......... .. ..... .. ...... .23
a. 	"fulcrum member" ( claims 1 and 10) .......... ............ ... ............. ...... .23
b. 	"front leg member" ( claims 1 and 10) ...........................................27
c. 	"rear leg member" (claims 1 and 10) ....... .. .......... .. ....................... .31
d. 	"about which said chair frame can move between forward and
rearward positions" (claim 1) / "about which the chair can move
between fo rward and rearward rocking positions" (claim 10) ...... .33

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
e. 	"fulcrum point" (claims 1 and 10) .......... .. .......................... .. .........38
f. 	"adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits
in a set-up condition" (claims 1 and 10) .......... ............................. .41
g. 	"temunal end" (claims 1 and 10) ................................................. ..43
h. 	"fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits
in the set-up condition and for supporting the chair frame, and about
which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions" (claim 1) / "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at
a temunal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface
upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition thereof and about
which the chair can move between forward and rearward rocking
positions" (clain110) ........................................ .. ............................45
C. 	Infringen1ent. .. ................. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ................... .. ............................48
1. 	Claim 10. ...... . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .......... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. ... .... .. .. .. ... .. . .. ...... ... .. ...... .48
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising: ... ....... .. ...... .48
b. 	a pair of side frame assemblies including; ....... .. ........................... .48
c. 	a front leg men1ber; .................. .. ...................... .. .......................... .. 48
d. 	a rear leg n1en1ber; .........................................................................53
e. 	a back support men1ber; .................. .. .......... .. ... .. ............................53
f. 	a fulcrum member; . .... .. .......... .. .......... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. 58
g. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon whi ch the chair sits
in a set-up condition thereof; ..... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. 60
h. 	about which th e chair can move between forward and rearward
rocking positions; ................................. ............ .. ............................64
1. 	said members comprising each side frame assembly being pivotally
interconnected for folding movement between the set-up condition
of the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair; ..... .. ..... .. ......... 68
11

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
J. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side frame assembly
for supporting the chair during movement between said forward and
rearward positions; ... .. .......... .... ... ....... .. .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .......... .... .. 77
k. 	a flexible seat and a flexible backrest secured to and extending
between the side frame assemblies. ... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .... .. ... .. ...... .77
2. 	Claim l l . ...... . .... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ... .... .... .. ...... .. ...... ... .. ...... .77
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10 77
b. 	wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front
leg member and the rear leg member of each side frame assembly.
........................................................................................................77
3. 	Claim 12 . ...... . .... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .. .. .... ....... .... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. ...... .78
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 11 78
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve associated with
at least one of the front leg memb er and the rear leg member, said
sleeve further housing a spring to which said leg member is
connected............ .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .............. .. ... .. ..... .. ......... 78
4. 	Claim 15 .....................................................................................................79
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10 79
b. 	wherein each side frame assembly further comprises a seat support
member pivotally interconnected with other members of said side
frame assembly defining a seat support fo r supporting th e fl exible
seat. .. ....... .. .......... .. ...................................... .. ... .. ............................79
5. 	Claim 18 .....................................................................................................79
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10 80
b. 	wherein the side frame assemblies are interconnected by at least one
transversely extending connector mechanism...............................80
6. 	Claim 19. ...... . .... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... ........ .. .. .. ... .... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. ...... .80
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 18 80
lll

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
b. 	wherein the connector mechanism comprises a pair of connector
members 	pivotally 	connected 	to 	each 	other 	at 	a 	respective
intermediate portion thereof about a pivot axis and pivotally
connected at terminal extremities thereof to each of the side frame
assemblies ... ...... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .. .81
D. 	Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) ... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .....81
1. 	Clain1 1 .. .......................... .. .......... .. ............................................................. 81
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising: ...................81
b. 	an articulated chair frame defining a back support and a seat support,
wherein said frame has a set-up condition and a collapsed condition;
........................................................................................................ 82
c. 	a seat panel mounted on the seat support of the frame; ........ .. .. .. .. .82
d. 	a backrest panel mounted on the back support of the frame; .........82
e. 	wherein said chair frame comprises a pair of side frame assemblies
of opposite hand disposed in generally parallelly extending and
transversely spaced apart opposing relation to each other, . .. .........82
f. 	each of said side frame assemblies having a plurality of generally
ax ially elongated frame members being interconnected for pivotal
movement relative to one another about generally transversely
extending pivot axes, said frame members including: ...... ... ... ...... .83
g. 	a front leg member; .. .............. .... .. .... .. .. .......... .... .. ...... .. .......... .. ...... 86
h. 	a rear leg member; ........ .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. ........... .. .. .. ... .. . .. ...... ... .. ...... .87
1. 	a seat support member defining a respective side of the seat support;
.. .. ...... . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .......... .. .. .... .... .. .. .... .... ... ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. ...... .87
J. 	a back support member defining a respective side of the back
support; ..........................................................................................87
k. 	a fulcrum member defining a fu lcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits
in the set-up condition and for supporting the chair frame, .. ......... 87
IV

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
l. 	and about which said chair frame can move between forward and
rearward positions; .... ............ .... .. ...... .. ....... .... .. .. .. .............. ... .. .. .....92
m. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between
said forward and rearward positions .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... ...... .. ... .. ...... .92
2. 	Claim 2 . .. .... .. ..... .. ...... .... .. ...... .... .. ...... .... .. ...... ......... ........ .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .. .....92
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1 ..92
b. 	wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front
leg member and the rear leg member of each side frame assembly.
........................................................................................................92
3. 	Claim 3 . .. .... .. ..... .. ...... .... .. ...... .... .. .......... .. .. .. .... ..... .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. ...... .93
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 2 ..93
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve associated with
at least one of the front leg memb er and the rear leg member, said
sleeve further housing a spring to which said leg member is
connected............ ............ ............ ............ ..................... .................. 93
4. 	Claim 9 ................ ......................................................... ..............................94
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1 ..94
b. 	wherein the seat panel and the backrest panel are made of a flexible
mate ria l. .. ...... .... .. ...... ............ .. .. .. ...... .. .. .... .. ...... .. ............... ... .. .. .. .. .94
5. 	Claim 10. ...... . .. ...... .. ...... .. .... ...... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. ...... .. ...... .. .... .. ..... .. .....94
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising: ....... ... .. .. .....95
b. 	a pair of side frame assemblies including ........ ..............................95
c. 	a front leg member, ........................................................................95
d. 	a rear leg member, ..... .... .. ...... .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .. .95
e. 	a back support men1ber, ................................... ..............................95
V

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
f. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits
in a set-up condition thereof, ...... .. .......... .. ..................................... 95
g. 	and about which the chair can move between forward and rearward
rocking positions; .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .... .. ... .. .... .100
h. 	said members comprising each side frame assembly being pivotally
interconnected for folding movement between the set-up condition
of the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair; ... .. .. ....... .. .... .100
1. 	at least one rocker mechani sm attached to each side frame assembly
for supporting the chair during movement between said forward and
rearward positions; ........................................... ............................ 104
J. 	a flexible seat and a flexible backrest secured to and extending
between the side frame assemblies............................................. .104
E. 	Anticipation - Fowler ............................................. .. .......... .. ............................... 105
1. 	Claims 1 and 10 .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .... ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ....... .. .... .. ... .. .... .106
a. 	front l eg member ........... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ............... .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. ....... .. .... .106
b. 	rear leg men1ber ................................. .. .. .......... ............................ 106
c. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits
...................................................................................................... 107
d. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame (claim 1)
/ 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side frame
assembly (claim 10) ..................................................................... 108
e. 	members comprising each side frame assembly being pivotally
interconnected for fo lding movement between the set-up condition
of the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair ( claim 10) .... .109
2. 	Claims 2 and 11 .. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .... .. .......... .. ...... ......................... 1 11
3. 	Claims 3 and 12 .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .112
4. 	Claims 9, 15 and 18 ............................................................ .. ... .. ..... .. ...... .1 13
Vl

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
F. 	Obviousness -Dual Lock Hard Atm Chair + Prior Art Spring Mechanisms .. ... .113
1. 	DLHA Chair + Frajdenrajch . .... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ... .... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .... .117
2. 	DLHA Chair + JP 3036662 .................................................................... .119
3. 	DLHA Chair + Colbridge ....................................................................... .121
4. 	DLHA Chair + Hartman ... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .123
5. 	DLHA Chair + Smith .... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ............... ... .. .... .125
6. 	DLHA Chair + Seng ................................................................................ 126
7. 	DLHA Chair + Wekerle ................................... ............ .. .......................... 128
8. 	DLHA Chair + Koshimizu ...................................................................... .129
9. 	DLHA Chair + K.ielhorn . .. .......................... .. ... .. .......... .. .......................... 131
G. 	Obviousness - Chen or Lougee + Prior Art Spring Mechanisms .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .132
1. 	Chen + Frajdenrajch ...... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ..... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .134
2. 	Chen + JP 3036662 ..................................... .. .......... .. ............................... 136
3. 	Chen + Colbridge ..................................................................................... 137
4. 	Lougee + Frajdenrajch ............................................................................. 138
5. 	Lougee + JP 3036662 ..... .. .............................................................. .. ....... 139
6. 	Lougee + Colbridge ...... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. ..... .. ...... ... .. .... .140
H. 	Obviousness - Secondary Considerations ........................................................... 141
1. 	Conlffiercial Success ............................................... .. ............................... 142
2. 	Long-Felt But Unresolved Need ...... .... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ........ .. .... 143
3. 	Praise by Others .. .. ................................................................................... 144
4. 	Copying .................................................................................................... 145
I. 	Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........... .. .. .. .............. ... .. .... .146
vu

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
1. 	"adapted for contacting the ground surface" (claims 1 and 10)...... ........ .147
2. 	"at least one transversely extending connector mechanism" (clain1 18) .149
3. 	"a pair of connector members pivotally connected to each other at a
respective intermediate portion thereof about a pivot axis and pivotally
connected at terminal extremities thereof to each of the side frame
assemblies" ( clain1 19) .. ....................................................................... .... 151
VI. 	The '611 Patent ... ............ ............ ............ ........................................................................ 154
A. 	Overview of the '611 Patent ................................................................................ 154
B. 	Claim Construction .. ..... .. ...... .... .. .. .... .... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .. ......... .. ...... .. .. .... ... .. .. .. .157
1. 	Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art.. .......................................................... 157
2. 	Disputed Constructions . .. ...... .... .. ...... .... .. ........... .. .. ........ .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .. ... 158
a. 	"fulcrum point" (claims 1 and 14) .. .. .. ... ... .......... .. .. ........... ... .. .... .158
b. 	"rocker mechanism" (clain1 1) / "rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair
frame between said forward and rearward positions" (claim 14) 160
c. 	"a [first] / [second] foot associated with the [front] / [rear] leg
portion of each frame side assembly" ( clain1 14) ............... ........ .164
d. 	"a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each frame side
assen1bly" (claim 14) ....................................... ............................ 167
e. 	"wherein each frame side assembly contacts the support surface on
which said frame side assembly is set up with at least two of the
first, second and third feet at all positions between the fonvard and
rearward positions of the chair frame" (claim 14) ....... ................ 169
f. 	"a fulcrum point supporting each frame side assembly and about
wh ich said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions whereby the front and rear leg portions move relative to
the support surface on which the chair is set up with movement of
the chair frame about the fulcrum points" (clain1 14) ................. .170
C. 	lnfringen1ent. ................... ............ ............ ............ ......... ............ ............ ................ 172
Vlll

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
1. 	Clai1n 1 .. .......................... ............ .................................................... ......... 172
a. 	A collapsible and p ortable rocking chair comprising: ....... ... .. .. ...172
b. 	a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side assemblies having
substantially mirrored construction and being relatively movable
with re spect to one another between a set-up condition of said chair
where said frame side assemblies are transversely spaced apart from
one another and a collapsed condition of said chair where said frame
side assemblies are generally adjacent to one another, ...... .. ........172
c. 	each frame side assembly including a front leg portion and a rear leg
portion; .... ............ ......................................................................... 173
d. 	a pair of generally CT -shaped cross members pivotally connected to
one another ...................... ........................ ..................................... 173
e. 	for pivotal movement between an open condition wherein said cross
members 	are 	disposed 	to 	generally 	resemble 	an 	X-shaped
configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross members
are disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another, 174
f. 	said cross members collectively defining a seat support when in the
open condition, ............................................................................. 177
g. 	each cross member having terminal ends thereof pivotally secured
to the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of one of the frame
side assemblies; ... ...... ............ .... .. ....... .. ...... .... .. .. .. .. ............ ... .. .. ... 178
h. 	a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross members and
defining a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the
open condition; .. .. ...... .... .. ...... .... .. ... .. ...... .. .. ........ .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .. ... 178
1. 	a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said
chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions; 179
J. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between
said fo 1ward and rearward positions; ..... .. .... ...... .. ...... .. ...... .... .. ....204
k. 	wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross members
generally correspond to the set-up and collapsed conditions of the
chair. ........ .................................... .... .. ...... .... .. ... ............................214

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
2. 	Clai1n 2 .. .......................... .. .......... .. ...........................................................215
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1 215
b. 	wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least two contact
points with the support surface on which said frame side assembly
is set up ... .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .................. .. .... .215
3. 	Claim 8 . .. ...... . .... .. .......... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .216
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1 216
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front
leg portion and the rear l eg portion of each side frame assembly.
................. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .... .. ............... .. ..........................216
4. 	Claim 10. ...... . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ... .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .217
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1 217
b. 	wherein each cross memb er includes a front portion, a central front-
back portion, and a rear portion, such that the front portions of the
pair of cross members are pivotally connected at a front pivot point,
the rear portions of the pair of cross members are pivotally
connected at a rear pivot point, and the central front-back portions
collectively define th e seat support of th e chair and receive th e
flexible seat panel th erebetween for supported a seated user. .... .21 7
5. 	Clain1 11 ...................................................................................................218
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10,
further comprising: ............................... .. .......... .. ..........................218
b. 	a forward support brace connected between the front portion of each
cross member and the front leg portion of the frame side assembly
to which the cross member is not pivotally connected at the terminal
end there of; and a rear support brace connected between the rear
portion of each cross member and the rear leg portion of said frame
side assembly. ... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. ... .. .... .218
6. 	Claim 14 ...................................................................................................219
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising: ................. 219
X

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
b. 	a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side assemblies having
substantially min-ored const ruction and being relatively movable
with respect to one another between a set-up condition of said cha ir
where said frame side assemblies are transversely spaced apart from
one another and a collapsed condition of said chair where said frame
side assemblies are generally adjacent to one another, ................219
c. 	each frame side assembly including a front leg portion and a rear l eg
portion; ...... .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .......... .. .......... ... ....... .. .. ..... .. .. .... .219
d. 	a fulcrum point supporting each frame side assembly and about
which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions .. .. ...................................... .. .......... .. ................................220
e. 	whereby the front and rear leg portions move relative to th e support
surface on which the chair is set up with movement of the chair
frame about the fulcrum points; . ...... ............ ...... .. ....... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. 224
f. 	a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally connected to
one another for pivotal movement between ..... .. .... ... ....................224
g. 	an open condition wherein said cross members are disposed to
generally 	re semble 	an 	X-shaped 	configuration 	and 	a 	closed
condition wherein said c ro ss members are disposed in generally
parallel relationship with one another, . .. ....................................... 224
h. 	said cross members collectively defining a seat suppo1t when in the
open condition, ....................................................... ... ....................225
1. 	each cross member having terminal ends thereof pivotally secured
to the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of one of the frame
side assemblies; ... .... ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .... ... .. .... .. ..... .... .225
J. 	a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross members and
defining a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the
open condition; .. .. .......... .. ........ .... .. ... .. .. .......... .. .. .. .... ... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .225
k. 	a first foot associated with th e front leg portion of each frame side
assen1bly; ..................................................... .. ................................225
l. 	a second foot associated with the rear l eg portion of each frame side
asse1nbly; . .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... ............ .. .................... .. ..... .. .......226
Xl

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
m. 	a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each frame side
assembly; ........... .. .......... .. .. .... .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .......... .. ..... .. .. ....... .. .... .226
n. 	wherein each frame side assembly contacts the support surface on
which said frame side assembly is set up with at least two of the
first, second and third feet at all positions between the forward and
rearward positions of the chair frame ..........................................228
7. 	Clain1 15 .......................... .. .......... .. ...................... ... ..................................230
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 14
.... ...... . .... .. .. .... .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. .... .23 1
b. 	further comprising at least one rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair
frame between the forward and rearward positions .....................231
8. 	Claim 19 .............. .. .......... .. .......................... .. ............... .. .......... .. ..............233
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 15
.. .. ...... . .. ...... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .... ...... .. .. .. ...... ... .... ...... .. ...... .. .... .. ... .. .... .233
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front
leg portion and the rear leg portion of each side frame assembly.
·· ·· ······ · ···· ·· ·········· ·· ·········· ·· ······ ·· ·· ·· ·· ·· ·· ·· ·· ··· ······ ·· ·· ·· ·• •·••· ·· ······ ··· ·· ·· ·· ·233
D. 	Technical Prong . ........ .. .. ........ .. .. ...... . .... .. .... ...... .. .... .. .... .. ... .... .. .. .. ...... .. .... .. ... .. .... .234
1. 	Clain1 1 ........................................ .. ...........................................................234
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising: ....... ... .. .... .234
b. 	a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side assemblies having
substantially mirrored construction..............................................234
c. 	being relatively movable with respect to one another between a set-
up condition of said chair where said frame side assemblies are
transversely 	spaced 	apart 	from 	one 	another and 	a 	collapsed
condition of said chair where said frame 	side assemblies are
generally adjacent to one another, .. .. .......... .. .......... .. ...................234
d. 	each frame side assembly including a front leg portion and a rear leg
po11ion; .. .. .. .. ...... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... ... ...... .. ...... ... .. .... .235
XU

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
e. 	a pair of generally CT -shaped cross members pivotally connected to
one another for pivotal movement .. .......... .. ............ .. ...................235
f. 	between an open condition wherein said cross members are disposed
to generally resemble an X-shaped configuration and a closed
condition wherein said c ro ss members are disposed in generally
parallel relationship with one another, ............. ............................23 5
g. 	said cross members collectively defining a seat suppo1t when in the
open condition, .. .. .......... .. .. .... .. .... .. ... .. .... .. ...... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. ....... .. .... .238
h. 	each cross member having terminal ends th ereof pivotally secured
to the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of one of the frame
side assen1blies; ............................................................................239
1. 	a flexible seat panel mounted between the cro ss members and
defining a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the
open condition; .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .......... .. .... .. ...... .. .. ....... .. .. .. .239
J. 	a fu lcrum point suppo1ting the chair frame and about which said
chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions; 239
k. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between
said fo1ward and rearward positions; ..... .. ...... .... .. .. .. .. .. .......... .. ....239
l. 	wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross members
generally correspond to th e set-up and collapsed conditions of the
chair. ............................................................ .. ... .. ..........................240
2. 	Clain1 2 .....................................................................................................240
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to clain1 1,
.. .. ...... . .... .. .......... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. ... ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .... .240
b. 	wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least two contact
points with the support surface on which said frame side assembly
is set up ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .......... .. ....... .. .. ....... .. .... .240
3. 	Claim 8 .. .............. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .... .. ............... .. ..........................241
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to clain1 1,
.. .. ...... . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .......... ... ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .241
Xlll

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front
leg portion and the rear leg portion of each side frame assembly.
................. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. ................... .. ..........................241
E. 	On-SaleBarUnder35U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................... 241
F. 	Obviousness ..... .. ...... . .. .............. .. .......... .. .......... .. ...... ... ........ ...... .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .... .249
I. 	Simpson and Colbridge . .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .249
2. 	Glass and Maclaren ..................................................................................254
3. 	Kundtz and Seng ............. .. .......... .. ...........................................................262
4. 	MacSports Directors Chair in View of Seng . .. ............ .. .. ................. .. .....267
5. 	MacSports Directors Chair in View of Lampila ......................................271
G. 	Obviousness - Secondary Considerations .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... .. .... .277
1. 	Commercial Success . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... ... .. .... .278
2. 	Long-Felt But Unresolved Need .............................................................. 278
3. 	Praise by Others .. .. .......... .. .......... .. .......... .. .... ...... .... .. ...............................279
4. 	Copying .. ...... . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ... .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .280
VII. 	Econon1ic Prong .................................................. .. ...................... .. .................................. 282
A. 	GCI's Investm ents in Plant and Equipment.. .... ............ .. ...... .. .. ... ...... .. ......... .. .....283
B. 	GCI's Investments in Labor and Capital .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... ............ ...... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... 287
C. 	GCI's R&D Expenditures ............................................................... .. ... .. ..... .. .......288
D. 	GCI's Engineering-Related Travel Expenditures ................................................290
E. 	Contextual Analysis ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .......... .. .......... .. .. .... .... .. .. ............................. .. .... .291
F. 	Analysis of GCI's Investments ........................................................................... .293
VIII. 	Conclusions of Law ... .. .. ...... . .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... .. .... 294
IX. 	Initial Dete1mination on Violation ............................ .... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. ..... .. ...... ... .. .... 295
X lV

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
X. 	Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding............................................. ... 296
A. 	Limited Exclusion Order... .... .... .. ...... ... .... ..... .. .. .. ...... .. .. ... . .. .. .... .. .. ........ ..... ... .. .. ... 296
B. 	Cease and Desist Order .................................... .................................................... 297
C. 	Bond .... ................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ..................... ................ 298
XI . 	Order 	.. .. ........ .. .. ........ .. .. ........ .... ........ .. .. .... .... .. .. ... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .... .. .. ... .. .. ...... .... .. .. ... .. .. 	301
xv

PUBLIC VERSION
The following abbreviations may be used in this Initial Determination:
ALJ
CDX 	-
CPX 	-
ex
Dep. 	-
EDIS 	-
JPX
JX
MPEP -
P.H.
PTO 	-
RDX 	-
Rog
RPX 	-
RWS 	-
RX
Tr.
WS
Administrative Law Judge
Complainant's Demonstrative Exhibit
Complainant's Physical Exhibit
Complainant' s Exhibit
Deposition
Electronic Document Imaging System
Joint Physical Exhibit
Joint Exhibit
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
Prehearing
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Respondents' Demonstrative Exhibit
lnterrogato1y
Respondents' Physical Exhibit
Rebuttal Witness Statement
Respondents' Exhibit
Transcript
Witness Statement
XVl

PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	Background
A. 	Institution of the Investigation; Procedural History
By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on October 3, 2019, pursuant to
subsection (b) of section 33 7 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted
this investigation to determine:
[W]hether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 in the
importation into the United States, the sale for impo1tation, or the sale
within the United States after importation of ce1tain products identified in
paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3, 6,
8- 12, 15, 16, and 18-20 of the '824 patent [U.S. Patent No. 9,282,824] and
claims 1-3 , 8, 10, 11 , 13 -1 5, and 19 of the '611 patent [U.S. Patent No.
9,060,611]; and whether an industry in th e United States exists as required
by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
84 Fed. Reg. 52897 (Oct. 3, 2019).
The Commission named as complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc. of Higganum, Connecticut
("GCI" or "complainant"). Id.
The Commission named as respondents Denovo Brands, LLC ("Denovo") of Bentonville,
Arkansas; Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd. ("Zhenli") of Fujian, China; Fujian Zenithen
Consumer Products Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China; Zenithen Hong Kong Ltd. of Causeway Bay,
Hong Kong; Meike (Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd. ("Meike") of Qing Dao, China;
Zenithen USA, LLC of Upland, California; Westfield Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a Westfield Outdoors
("Westfield") oflndianapolis, Indiana; and MacSports Inc. ("MacSports") of La Verne,
California (collectively, "respondents"). Id.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party to this investigation.
Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
The target date for completion of this investigation was originally set at 15 months, i.e.,
January 4, 2021, with an evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on May 19, 2020. Order
No. 3 (Oct. 11, 2019).
GCI and respondents Fujian Zenithen Consumer Products Co., Ltd.; Zenithen Hong Kong
Ltd.; and Zenithen USA LLC (collectively, the "Zenithen Respondents") filed a joint motion to
temlinate the investigation as to the Zenithen Respondents based on a settlement agreement and
a consent order. The administrative law judge granted the motion in an initial detennination.
Order No. 6 (Feb. 20, 2020). The Commission affirmed the initial determination with mo dified
reasoning. Commission Determination to Review an Initial Determination Terminating the
Investigation as to the Zenithen Respondents Based on Consent Order and Settlement Agreement
and on Review Affirm with Modified Reasoning; Issuance of Consent Order (Mar. 13, 2020)
(EDIS Doc. No. 704921).
On March 31, 2020, GCI filed a motion "to partially terminate this investigation with
respect to claims 3 and 13 of asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,060,611 [] and claims 6, 8, 16, and 20 of
asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,282,824 [] based on a partial withdrawal of the amended complaint."
The administrative law judge granted the motion in an initial determination. Order No. 15 (Apr.
22, 2020), ajf'd, Commission Deternlination Not to Review an Initial Determination Partially
Terminating the Investigation Based on the Withdrawal of Ce1tain Claims (May 19, 2020)
(EDIS Doc. N o. 710611).
On April 15, 2020, the administrative law j udge issued Order No. 14, indicating that on
that date, the Commission Chairman infom1ed agency personnel that in view of the COVID-1 9
pandemic, the Comnlission ordered the adnlinistrative law judges to postpone any hearings until
after June 10, 2020. Order No. 14 at 1. Accordingly, the administrative law judge postponed the
2

PUBLIC VERSION
evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on May 19, 2020, and suspended the remainder of
the procedural schedule. Id.
On July l 7, 2020, the administrative law judge held a telephone conference with all
parties. See Conf. Tr. (EDIS Doc. No. 715663). During the conference, the administrative law
judge, among other things, informed the parties that the Commission had selected a video
platform for taki ng hearing testimony, and also heard assent, objection and other comments
relating to various hearing procedures (including video testin1ony, hearing on the papers, and the
receipt of deposition testimony in lieu of other testimony). In addition, the administrative law
judge requested that the parties confer, and then file a report with a proposal for completing the
rest of the procedural schedule, including a possible video hearing. Conf. Tr. 12, 25, 42-43.
On July 24, 2020, the parties filed their Joint Repori Regard ing Evident iary Hearing
(EDIS Doc. ID No. 715588), which contains, among other things, preferences and objections
with respect to procedures for an ev identiary heating (indicating the lack of unanimity among the
parties), and a proposed joint procedural schedule based on the parties' availability for a hearing
either on December 2-4, 2020, or on December 8-10, 2020. 1
On August 20, 2020, the administrative law judge issued Order No. 17, amending the
procedural schedule generally in the manner proposed in the Joint Report with a hearing to begin
on December 2, 2020, although one additional hearing day was added (December 7, 2020) with
the expectation that it might be necessary to discuss evidentiary and other matters after the
conclusion of testimony. Order No. 17 at 1-2 & n.l.
1 On August 10, 2020, the office of the administrative law judge was informed that not all parties
were available on the proposed hearing dates of December 8-10, 2020.
3

PUBLIC VERSION
On August 24, 2020, in accordance with Order No. 17, the administrative law judge
issued an initial determination setting the target date at approximately 20 and one-half (20.5)
months, i.e., June 18, 2021, which makes the deadline for th is initial determination February 18,
2021. Order No. 18 (Aug. 24, 2020), aff'd, Notice of a Commission Determination Not to
Review an Initial Determination Extending th e Target Date (Sept. 15, 2020) (EDIS Doc. No.
7197 00).
A prehearing conference was held on December 2, 2020, with the evidentiary hearing in
this investigation commencing immediately thereafte r. Complainant GCI and respondents
Denovo, Zhenli, Meike, Westfield and MacSports participated in the hearing. The hearing
concluded on December 4, 2020. See Order No . 17 (Aug. 20, 2020); P.H. Tr. 1- 25; Tr. 1-827.
The parti es were requested to fil e posthearing briefs not to exceed 180 pages in Length , and to file
reply briefs not to exceed 65 pages in length. Tr. 822-824.
On December 16, 2020, GCI filed its post-hearing brief, which asserts the fo llowing
clain1S against the following parties:
• 	clain1s 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 of the '824 patent against Denovo and Zhenli
(Compl. Br. at 24);
• 	claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 15 and 19 of the '611 patent against MacSports and Meike (id.
at 95); and
• 	clain1s 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the ' 611 patent against Westfield (id.).
Pursuant to Order No. 2 (Ground Rules), t he parties also submitted a jo int out line of the
issues to be decided in the Final Initial Determination. See Comprehensive Joint Outline of
Issues (EDIS Doc. ID No . 728207) ("Joint Outline ").
4

PUBLIC VERSION
B. 	The Parties
The complainant is GCI Outdoor, Inc. of Higganum, Connecticut. GCI is a corporation
organized and ex isting under the laws of Connecticut. See Amended Complaint, ,-i 9. GCJ was
founded in 1996 for the purpose of researching, developing, and manufacturing outdoor
furniture, such as chairs, tables and other equipment. See id., ,-i 11.
Respondent Denovo Brands, LLC is a limited liability company established under the
laws of Arkansas. See id., ,-i 14; Denovo Resp. to Compl. at 14. Respondent Zhenli (Zhangzhou)
Industrial Co., Ltd. is a company organized under the laws of China or Hong Kong. See id., ,-i
15; Zhenli Resp. to Compl. at 7. Denovo imports into and sells within the United States a
collapsible, portable, lightweight outdoor rocking chair manufactured by Zhenli. See id., ,-i 19;
CX-0216C (Denovo 's 5th Supp. Rog Resps .) at 5.
MacSports Inc. is a company organized under the laws of California. See Amended
Complaint, ,-i 29; MacSports and Meike Resp. to Compl. at 5. Meike (Qingdao) Lei sure Products
Co., Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of China. See id., ,-i 30; MacSports and Meike
Resp. to Compl. at 5. MacSports imports into and sells within the United States a collapsible,
po1table, lightweight outdoor rocking chair manufactured by Meike. RX-0l l 7C (Wei DWS) at
Q/A 30-31.
Westfield Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a Westfield Outdoors is a company organized under the laws
of Nevada. See Amended Complaint, ,-i 26; Westfield Resp. to Compl. at 8. Westfield sells
within the Un ited States after importation a collapsible, portable, lightweight outdoor rocking
chair called the Mulberry Bounce Chair, which is manufactured in China by Westfield's contract
manufacturer 	CX-0255C (Westfield 5th Supp. Rog Resps.)
at 3.
5

PUBLIC VERSION
C. 	The Accused Products
The accused products in this investigation are listed in a joint filing required by the
procedural schedule. See Order No. 5 (requiring a "file joint statement identifying accused
products"). By listing a product in the join t filing, respondents have not admitted
infringement. Nevertheless, the joi nt filing indicates the final extent of GCl's accusations in
this investigatio n. See Jo int Statement Regarding Identification of Accused Products (EDIS
Doc. N o. 694839).
GCI accuses Denovo and Zhenli's Kijaro Rok-lt Chair of infringing claims 10, 1 1, 12,
15 , 18, and 19 of the '824 patent. See Compl. Br. at 24-46. These products are stock numbers
99012 and 99009. See Joint Identification of Accused Products at 1.
GCI accuses MacSpo1ts and Meike 's MacRocker of infringing claims I; 2; 8; 14; 15 ; and
19 of the '6 11 patent. See Compl. Br. at 95 -11 7. These products are product numbers C21 63A,
C2161A, 1324440. See Joint Identification of Accused Products at 1.
GCI accuses Westfield 's Mulberry Bounce Chair of infringing claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of
the ' 611 patent. See Compl. Br. at 117-30.
D. 	The Domestic Industry Products
GCI identifies the domestic industry products for the '824 patent, as fo llows:
GCI's RoadTrip Rocker, Pod Rocker / Pod Rocker with Sunshade, and
Kickback Rocker (the " ' 824 Covered Rockers") each meet all of th e limitations of
at least claims 1-3, 9, and 10 of the '824 Patent, ei th er literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents.
Id. at 46.
GCI identifies the domestic industry products fo r the ' 61 1 patent, as follows:
GCI's Freestyle Rocker / Mesh Freestyle Rocker, FirePit Rocker, and Beach
Rocker products ("'611 Covered Rockers ") ea ch meet all of the limitations of at
6

PUBLIC VERSION
least claims 1, 2, and 8 of the '611 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents.
Id. at 136.
II. 	Jurisdiction
No party has contested the Commission's personal jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., Compl.
Br. at 9-10. Indeed, all parties appeared at the evidentiary hearing and presented evidence. It is
found that the Commission has personal jurisdiction over all parties. See, e.g., Certain Liquid
Crystal Display Modules, Products Containing Same, and Methods for Using the Same, Inv. No.
33 7-TA-634, Final Initial and Recommended Determinations at 3 (June 12, 2009) (not
reviewed).
GCI has filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 337, and the Commission,
therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction. See Amgen, Inc. v. United States Int'! Trade Comm 'n,
902 F.2d 1532, 1535-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The Commission also has in rem jurisdiction, as the re spondents have admitted to
in1porting the accused products. See CX-0216C (Denovo's 5th Supp. Rog Resps.) at 5;
CX-0239C (MacSports' s 2d Supp. Rog Resps.) at 3; CX-0255C (Westfield's 5th Supp. Rog
Resps.) at 4-7; Sealed Air Corp. v. lnt'l Trade Comm 'n, 645 F.2d 976, 985- 86 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
(noting that the Commission has jurisdiction over in1ported goods).
III. 	Importation
As indicated in the notice of investigation, quoted above, this investigation was instituted
to determine whether a violation of section 337 has occurred in "the importation into the United
States, the sale for in1portation, or the sa le within the United States after importation" of certain
products. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52896 (Oct. 3, 2019); 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B) (making unlawful,
in certain circumstances, the "impo1iation into th e United States, the sale for importation, or the
7

PUBLIC VERSION
sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles
that ... infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent .... "). It has long been recognized
that an importation of even one accused product can satisfy the importation requirement of
section 337. See Certain Trolley Wheel Assemblies, Inv. No. 337-TA-161, Comm'n Op. at 7-8,
USITC Pub. No. 1605 (Nov. 1984) (deeming the importation requirement satisfied by the
importation of a single product of no commercial value).
In this investigation, it is uncontested that the importation requirement is satisfied with
respect to the products alleged to infringe the asserted claims of the '8 24 and '6 11 patents. Each
respondent has sold for importation, imported, or sold after importation accused products. See
Compl. Br. at 9-10 (citing CX-0216C (Denovo's 5th Supp. Rog Resps.); CX-0239C
(MacSports's 2d Supp. Rog Resps.); CX-0255C (\Ves tfield's 5th Supp. Rog Resps .)).
IV. 	General Principles of Law
A. 	Claim Construction
Claim construction begins with the plain language of the claim. 2 Claims should be given
their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
viewing the claim terms in the context of the entire patent. 3 Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 11 70 (2006).
2 Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BVv. Int'! Trade Comm.,
366 F.3d 13 11, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng 'g, Inc., 200 F.3d
795,803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
3 Factors that may be considered when determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include:
"(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior
art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication
of the technology; and ( 6) educational level of active workers in the field." Environmental
Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 7 13 F.2d 693 ,696 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1043
(1984).
8

PUBLIC VERSION
In some instances, claim terms do not have particular meaning in a field of art, and claim
construction invo lves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
commonly understood words. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. "In such circumstances, general
purpose dictionaries may be helpful." Id.
In many cases, claim terms have a specialized meaning, and it is necessary to determine
what a person of skill in the art would have understood the disputed claim language to mean.
"Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not
immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court
looks to 'those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would
have understood disputed claim language to mean.'" Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v.
Safari Water Filtration Sys., I nc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The public sources
identified in Phillips include "the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the
specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific
principles, the meaning of technical term s, and the state of the art." Id.
In cases in which the meaning of a claim term is uncertain, the specification usually is the
best guide to the meaning of the term. Phillips, 4 15 F.3d at 1315. As a general rule, the
particular examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the
claims as limitations. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 96 7, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The specification is, however, always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis, and is usually dispositive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 13 15 (quoting
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Moreover, "[t]he
construction that stays true to the clain1 language and most naturally aligns with the patent' s
description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction." Id. at 1316.
9

PUBLIC VERSION
Claims are not necessarily, and are not usually, limited in scope to the preferred
embodiment. RF Delaware, Inc. v. Pacific Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fe d. Cir.
2003); Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated D ep't Stores, Inc., 527 F .3 d 1300, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2008) ("[The] description of a preferred embodiment, in the absence of a clear intention to limit
claim scope, is an insufficient basis on which to narrow the claims."). Nevertheless, claim
constructions that exclude the preferred embodiment are "rarely, if ever, correct and require
highly persuasive evidentiary support." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. Such a conclusion can be
mandated in rare instances by clear intrinsic evidence, such as unambiguous claim language or a
clear disclaimer by the patentees during patent prosecution. Elekta Instrument S.A. v. 0. UR . Sci.
ln.t'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
If the int1ins ic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic evidence
may be considered. Extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and the
prosecution history, and includes inventor testimony, expe rt testimony, and learned treatises.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Inventor testin1ony can be useful to shed light on the relevant art. In
evaluating expert testimony, a court should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds
with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the
prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the patent. Id. at 1318. Extrinsic
evidence may be considered if a court deems it helpful in determining the true meaning of
language used in the patent claims. Id.
B. 	Infringement
GCI accuses Denovo and Zhenli of direct infringement of clain1s 10, 11, 12 , 15, 18, and
19 of the '824 patent. See Comp l. Br. at 24. GCI accuses MacSports and Me ike of direct
10

PUBLIC VERSION
infringement of claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, and 19 of the '611 patent, and Westfield of direct
infringement of clain1s I , 2, 10, and 11 of the ' 61 1 patent. See id. at 95. There is no allegation
of indirect infringement. See id. at 24, 95.
Under 35 U.S.C. §27l(a), direct infringement consists of making, using, offering to sell,
or selling a patented invention without consent of the patent owner. The complainant in a
section 337 investigation bears the burden of proving infringement of th e asserted patent claims
by a " preponderance of the evidence." Certain Flooring Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-443,
Comm' n Notice of Final Determination of No Violation of Section 337, 2002 \VL 448690, at
*59, (Mar. 22, 2002); Enercon GmbH v. In t'/ Trade Comm 'n, 151 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Literal infringement of a claim occurs when eve1y lintitation recited in the claim appears
in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the accu sed device
exactly. 4 Amhil Enters., Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Southwall
Tec h. v. Cardinal JG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed Cir. 1995).
If the accused product does not literally infringe the patent clain1, infringement might be
found under the doctrine of equivalents. "Under this doctrine, a product or process that does not
literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if
there is 'equivalence' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed
elements of the patented invention." Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,
520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (citing Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605,
4 Each patent claim element or limitation is considered material and essential. London v. Carson
Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If an accused device lacks a lintitation
of an independe nt clain1, the device cannot infringe a dependent clain1. See Wahpeton Canvas
Co . v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F. 2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (Fe d. Cir. 1989).
11

PUBLIC VERSION
609 (1950)). "The determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an
element-by-element ba sis." 5 Id . at 40.
"An element in the accused product is equivalent to a claim limitation if the differences
between the two are insubstantial. The analysis focuses on whether th e element in th e accused
device 'performs substantially th e same function in substantially th e same way to obtain the
same result' as the claim limitation." AquaTex Indus. v. Techniche Solutions, 4 19 F.3d 1374,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 608); accord Absolute Software, 659
F.3d at 1139-40.6
Prosecution history estoppel can prevent a patentee from relying on the doctrine of
equivalents wh en the patentee relinquished subject matter during the prosecution of the patent,
either by amendment or argument. AquaTex, 419 F.3d at 1382. In particular, "[t]he doctrine of
prosecution history estoppel lintits the doctrine of equivalents when an applicant makes a
narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability, or clearly and unmistakably surrenders
subject matter by arguments made to an exantiner." Id. (quoting Salazar v. Procter & Gamble
Co ., 414 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
5 "Infringement, whe ther literal or under th e doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact."
Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
6 "The known interchangeability of substitutes for an element of a patent is one of the express
obje ctive factors noted by Graver Tank as bearing upon whether the accused dev ice is
substantially the same as the patented invention. Independent experim entation by the alleged
infringer would not always reflect upon the objective question whether a person skilled in the art
would have known of the interchangeability between two elements, but in many cases it would
likely be probative of such knowledge." Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 36.
12

PUBLIC VERSION
C. 	Validity
One cannot be held liable for practicing an invalid patent clain1. See Pandrol USA, LP v.
AirBoss Railway Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, each claim of
a patent is presumed to be valid, even if it depends from a claim found to be invalid. 35 U.S.C. §
282; DMI Inc. v. Deere & Co., 802 F.2d 421 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
A respondent that has raised patent invalidity as an affirmative defense must overcome
the presumption by "clear and convincing" evidence of invalidity. Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v.
United States Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 54 F.3d 756, 7 61 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
1. 	Anticipation
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact. z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft
Co1p., 507 F.3d 1340; 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Section 102 provides that; depending on th e
circumstances, a clain1ed invention may be anticipated by variety of prior art, including
publication s, earlier-sold products, and patents. See 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e.g., section 102(b)
provides that one is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention "was patented or described in
a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in publ ic u se or on sale in this country, more
than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States").
The general law of anticipation m ay be summarized, as follows:
A reference is anticipatory under § 102(b) when it satisfies particular
requirements. 	First, the reference must disclose each and every element of the
clain1ed invention, whether it does so explicitly or inherently. 	Eli Lilly & Co. v.
Zenith Goldfine Pharms., inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). While those
elements must be "an-anged or combined in th e same way as in th e claim," Net
MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008), th e reference
need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test, in re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33
(Fed.Cir.1990). Second, the reference must "enable one of ordinary skill in the art
to make the invention without undue experimentation." Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis
Pharms. Inc., 545 F.3d 13 12 , 13 14 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see in re LeGrice, 49 C.C.P.A.
1124, 301 F.2d 929, 940-44 (1962). As long as the reference discloses all of the
13

PUBLIC VERSION
claim limitations and enables the "subject matter that falls within the scope of the
claims at issue," the reference anticipates -- no "actual creation or reduction to
practice" is required. 	Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F .3d 1373,
1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed.Cir.1985).
This is so despite the fact that the description provided in the anticipating reference
might not otherwise entitle its author to a patent. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussing the "distinction between a written
description adequate to support a claim under § 112 and a written description
sufficient to anticipate its subject matter under § 102(b)").
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
2. 	Obviousness
Under section 103 of the Patent Act, a patent claim is invalid "if the differences between
the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
ski ll in the art to which said subj ect matter pertains." 7 35 U.S.C. § 103 . While the ultimate
determination of whether an invention would have been obvious is a legal conclusion, it is based
on "underlying factual inquiries including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the clain1ed invention and the prior art;
and ( 4) objective evidence of nonobviousness." 	Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., 619 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The objective evidence, also known as "secondary considerations," includes commercial
success, long felt need, and failure of others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U .S. 1, 13-17
(1966); Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. C ir. 2006).
"[E]vidence ari sing out of the so-called 'secondary consideration s' must always when present be
7 The standard for determining whether a patent or publication is prior art under section 103 is
the same as under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which is a legal question. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.
Co ., 810 F.2d 15 61 , 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
14

PUBLIC VERSION
considered en route to a determination of obviousness." Stratojlex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713
F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fe d. Cir. 1983). Secondary considerations, such as commercial success, will
not always dislodge a determination of obviousness based on analysis of the prior art. See KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 426 (2007) (commercial success did not alter conclusion
of obviousness).
"One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting
that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which the re was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent' s claims." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419-20. "(A]ny need or
pro blem known in the fie ld of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." Id.
Specific teachings, suggestions, or motiv ations to combine prior art may provide helpful
insights into the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. Id. at 420. Neveriheless, "an
obviousness anal ysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the wo rds teaching,
suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the
explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology
counsels against limiting the analysis in this way." Id. ''Under the correct analysis, any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the tin1e of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." Id. A "person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creat ivity." Id. at 421.
Nevertheless, "the burden falls on the patent c hallenger to show by clear and convincing
evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the
composition or device, or carry out the clain1ed process, and would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in doing so." PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, I nc., 491 F.3d
15

PUBLIC VERSION
1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (a combination of elements must do more
than yield a predictable result; combining elements that work together in an unexpected and
fmitful manner would not have been obvious). 8
3. 	Written Description
The issue of whether a patent is invalid for failure to meet the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,i 1 is a question of fact. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L.
Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A patent's written description must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is
claimed. The test for sufficiency of a written description is "whether the disclosure of the
application relied upon reasonable conveys to those skilled in the a11 that the inventor had
possession of the clain1ed subject matter as of the filing date." Id. (quoting Ariad Phann., Inc. v.
Eli Lilly& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane)).
4. 	Enablement
The Patent Act requires that " [t]he full scope of the claimed invention . . . be enabled ."
Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Northpoint Tech. Ltd.
v. MDS America Inc., 413 F.3d 1301, 1308-10 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming a finding of invalidity
for lack of enablement due to the patent's failure to disclose an embodiment with an antenna that
met the "directional reception range" limitation of each claim). Namely, "[a] patentee who
chooses broad claim language must make sure the broad claims are fully enabled. 'The scope of
the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of enablement' to 'ensure[] that the public
8 Further, "when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery
of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious." KSR, 550 U.S. at
416 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966)).
16

PUBLIC VERSION
knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the
scope of the claims."' Sitrick, 516 F .3 d at 999 (quoting Nat 'l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic
Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1 195 -96 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The enablement requirement is
satisfied when one skilled in the art, after reading the specification, could practice the claimed
invention without undue experin1entation. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234,
1244 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731 , 737 (Fed . Cir. 1988).
The question of undue experimentation is a matter of degree, and what is
required is that the amount of experimentation not be "unduly extensive." Chiron
Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting PPG
Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus., Corp., 75 F.3d 155 8, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For
example, the fact that a clinician's involvement may be necessary to determine
effective amounts of the single compound effervescent agent and its corresponding
soluble acid source does not itself constitute undue experimentation. See Ortho-
McNeil Phann., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365- 66 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(" [E]ven if clinical trials informed the anticonvulsively effective amount, this
record does not show that extensive or 'undue' tests would be required to practice
the invention."). In addition, extensive experin1entation does not necessarily r ender
the experiments unduly extensive where the experim ents involve repet ition of
known or commonly used techniques. See Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc.,
15 2 F .3 d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding that the difficulty in producing
certain antibodies could not be attributed to the shortcomings in the disclosure of
the patent at issue, but rather, the difficulty was attributed to th e technique
commonly used during experimentation that generally required repetition). Thus,
the 	focus 	"is 	not 	merely 	quantitative, 	since 	a 	considerable 	amount 	of
experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in
question provides a reasonable amount of guidance . ... " PPG Indus., Inc., 75 F.3d
at 15 64 (citation and quotation omitted).
Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 70 F.3d 1330, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Enablement is detemlined from the viewpoint of persons of ordinary skill in the field of
the inventi on at the time th e patent application was filed. Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-
Midland Co., 228 F.3d 1338, 13 45 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, a claim in an issued patent can be
rendered invalid due to lack of enablement if its scope is n ot fully enabled. Id.
17

PUBLIC VERSION
D. 	Domestic Industry
A violation of section 337(a)(l )(B), (C), (D), or (E) can be found "only if an industry in
the United States, with re spect to the articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark, mask
work, or design concerned, exists or is in the process of being established." 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(a)(2). Section 337(a) further provides:
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States shall be
considered to exist if there is in the United States, with respect to the articles
protected by the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design
concemed-
(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering,
research and development, or licensing.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).
These statutory requ irements consist of an economic prong (which requires certain
activities) 9 and a technical prong (which requires that these activities relate to the intellectual
property being protected). Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof; Inv.
No. 337-TA-586, Comm' n Op. at 13 (May 16, 2008) ("Stringed Musical Instruments"). The
9 The Commission practice is usually to assess the facts relating to the economic prong at the
time that the complaint was filed. See Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components
Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-560, Comm'n Op. at 39 n.17 (Apr. 14,
2010) ("We note that only activities that occurred before the filing of a complaint with the
Commission are re levant to whether a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being
established under sections 33 7(a)(2)-(3). ") ( citing Bally/Midway Mfg. Co. v. US. Int 'l Trade
Comm'n, 714 F.2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In some cases, however, the Commission wi ll
consider later developments in the alleged industry, such as "when a significant and unusual
development occurred after the complaint has been filed." See Certain Video Game Systems and
Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-743, Comm'n Op., at 5-6 (Jan. 20, 2012) ("[I]n appropriate
situations based on the specific facts and circumstances of an investigation, the Commission may
consider activities and investments beyond the filing of the complaint.").
18

PUBLIC VERSION
burden is on the complainant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the domestic
industry requirement is satisfied. Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and
Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA -694, Comm'n
Op. at 5 (July 22, 2011) ("Navigation Devices").
"With respect to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), the technical prong is th e requirem ent that
the investments in plant or equipment and employment in labor or capital are actually related to
'articles protected by' the intellectual property right which forms the basis of the complaint."
Stringed Musical Instruments at 13 -14. "The test for satisfying the 'technical prong' of the
ind ustry requirement is essentially same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic
products to the asserted claims." Alloc, Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). "With respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), the technical prong is the requirement that the
activities of engineering, research and development, and licensing are actually related to the
asserted intellectual prope1ty ri ght." Stringed Musical Instruments at 13.
With respect to the economic prong, and whether or not section 337(a)(3)(A) or (B) is
satisfied, the Commission has held that "whether a complainant has established that its
investment and/or employment activities are significant with respect to the articles protected by
the intellectual property right concerned is not evaluated according to any rigid mathematical
formula." Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof; Inv. No.
33 7-TA-690, Comm'n Op. at 27 (Feb. 17, 2011) ("Printing and Imaging Devices") ( citing
Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337 TA-546, Comm'n Op. at 39 (Au g. 1, 2007)
("Male Prophylactic Devices"). Rather, the Commission examines "the facts in each
investigation, the article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace." Id. "The
determination takes into account the nature of the investment and/or employment activities, 'the
19

PUBLIC VERSION
industry in question, and the complainant 's re lative size."' Id. (citing Stringed Musical
Instruments at 26). Moreover, "[t]here is no Commission precedent supporting the proposition
that a comparison of domestic and foreign producers' assets must be performed." Male
Prophylactic Devices at 43 n.15. There is no minimum monetary expenditure that a complainant
must demonstrate, and there is no need to define or quantify an industry in absolute mathematical
tem1s. See id. at 39 ("[T]here is no mathematical threshold test."). When a complainant
conducts operations abroad, a comparative analysis of a complainant's domestic expenditures
versus its foreign expenditures, or an analysis of the value added by the domestic activities, is
conducted to determine the significance of the domestic activities. See, e.g., Certain
Carburetors and Prod. Containing Such Carburetors ("Carburetors"), Inv. No. 337-TA- 11 23,
Comm'n Op. at 8- 9, 19 (Oct. 28, 2019).
V. 	The '824 Patent
A. 	Overview of the '824 Patent
Asserted U .S. Patent No. 9,282,824 ("the '824 patent") is titled, "Collapsible and
Portable Rocking Chair." JX-0001 ('824 patent). The '824 patent issued on March 15, 2016,
and the named inventor is Daniel Grace. Id.
GCI asserts independent claim 10 and dependent clain1s 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 of the '824
patent. These claims read as fo ll ows:
10. A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
a pair of side frame assemblies including a front leg member, a rear leg
member, a back support member, and a fulcrum member defining a
fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the
ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition thereof
and about which the chair can move between forward and rearward
rocking positions, said members comprising each side frame assembly
being pivotally interconnected for folding movement between the set-
up condition of the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair;
20

PUBLIC VERSION
at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side frame assembly for
supporting the chair during movement between said forward and
rearward positions; and
a flexible seat and a flexible backrest secured to and extending between
the side frame assemblies.
1 1. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10,
wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front leg
member and the rear leg memb er of each side frame assembly.
12. The co ll apsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 11 ,
wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve associated with at least
one of the front leg member and the rear leg member, said sleeve further
housing a spring to which said leg member is connected.
15. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10,
wherein each side frame assembly further comprises a seat suppo11 member
pivotally interconnected with other members of said side frame assembly
defining a seat support for support ing the flexible seat.
18. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10,
wherein the side frame assemblies are interconnected by at least one
transversely extending co nn ector mechanism.
19. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 18,
wherein the connector mechanism comprises a pair of connector members
pivotally connected to each other at a respective intermediate portion
thereof about a pivot axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities
thereof to each of the side frame assemblies.
Id. at col. 14, ln. 54 - co l. 15 , ln. 11; co l. 15 , Ins. 20-24; col. 16, lns. 5-14.
GCI relies on claims 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 of the '824 patent to satisfy the technical prong of
the domestic industry requirement. Claims 1, 2, 3 and 9 read as follows:
1. A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
an articulated chair frame defining a back support and a seat support,
wherein said frame has a set-up condition and a collapsed condition;
a seat panel mounted on the seat support of the frame;
a backrest panel mounted on the back support of the frame;
21

PUBLIC VERSION
wherein said chair frame comprises a pair of side frame assemblies of
opposite 	hand 	disposed 	in 	generally 	parallelly 	extending 	and
transversely spaced apart opposing relation to each other, each of said
side frame assemblies having a plurality of generally axially elongated
frame members being interconnected for pivotal movement relative to
one another about generally transversely extending pivot axes, said
frame members including:
a front leg member;
a rear leg member;
a seat support member defining a re spective side of the seat support;
a back support member defining a respective side of the back
support; and
a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end th ereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits
in the set-up condition and for supporting th e chair frame, and about
which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions;
at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting
the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward and
rearward positions.
2. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to clain1 1, wherein
said rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front leg member
and the rear leg member of each side frame assembly.
3. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to clain1 2, wherein
the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve associated with at least one of the
front leg member and the rear leg member, said sleeve further housing a
spring to which said leg member is connected.
9. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1 wherein
the seat panel and the backrest panel are made of a flexible material.
Id. at col. 13, ln. 53 - col. 14, ln. 24; col. 14, lns. 51-53.
22

PUBLIC VERSION
B. 	Claim Construction
1. 	Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
GCI contends a person of ordinary skill in the art for both the '824 and the '611 patents
has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or a sinlilar field, along with at least two years
of experience in the furniture industry, though additional education could substitute fo r less
experience, and vice versa. See Compl. Br. at 8-9. Denovo contends a person of ordinary skill
in the art with respect to the '824 patent has a bachelor 's degree in mechanics or mechanical
engineering (or similar discipline) with two years of experience in the field or three to five years
of experience in the field if the individual does not have such a degree. See Resps. Br. at 36.
The administrative law judge adopts GCI's proposal, which is that a person of ordinary
skill in the art for the '824 patent has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or a similar
field, along with at least two years of experience in the furniture industry, though additional
education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa. This is in accordance with the
education level of the inventor, Mr. Daniel Grace, as well as others of ordinary skill in this art.
See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 232. Denovo's proposal does not differ greatly, and its
expert did not provide substantive explanation justifying his proposal. See RX-0489C (Babcock
DWS) at Q/A 13.
2. 	Disputed Constructions10
a. 	"fulcrum member" (claims 1 and 10)
Below is a chart showing the parties' proposed claim constructions.
10 This initial determination addresses only the disputed claim terms identified by the parties as
needing construction. See Comprehensive Joint Outline oflssues (EDIS Doc. No. 728207)
("GRl 1 Filing"). The parties identified the claim terms for construction in a joint filing required
by Ground Rule 1 1, which provides: " On the same day the initial posthearing briefs are due, the
parties shall file a comprehensive joint outline of all of the issues, including sub-issues, to be
23

PUBLIC VERSION
Claim GCl's Construction 	Denovo 's Construction
Term/Phrase
fulcrum 	A chair frame member 	Elongated frame member attached to the side
member 	providing a fulcrum point 	frame assembly to help support the chair and
for the chair frame. 	has a terminal end with a fulcrum point.
The claim term "fulcrum member" appears in independent claims 1 and 10 of the '824
patent. JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 13, ln 53 - col. 14, ln. 15; col. 14, ln. 54 - col. 15, ln. 2.
The word "fulcrum" is not itself a disputed te1m. With respect to the term "fulcrum
member," GCI argues, in part:
The parties' primary dispute is whether the fu lcrum member is a part of the
chair frame, as GCI proposes, or a separate structure "attached to" the chair frame,
as Denovo proposes. In the course of this proceeding, Denovo has expanded upon
its construction to restrict the "fulcrum member'' from being rigidly connected to
the back support member. In this regard, GCI contends that the '824 Patent is not
so li miting.
The claim language shows that GCI is correct. For example, claim 1 states:
"each of said side frame assemblies having a p lurality of generally axially elongated
frame m embers 	... , said frame members including: 	.. . a 	fulcrum member."
(emphasis added). Clain1 10 similarly recites "a pair of side frame assemblies
including . .. a fulcrum member." (emphasis added). See also JX-0001 ('824
Patent), at 11:50-5 3 ("Each side frame assembly 120 further includes a fulcrum
point 154 provided on a frame member 155 ...." (emphasis added)). As confirmed
by GCI' s expe1t, David Smith, a POSITA would understand from this language that
the fulcrum member is part of the chair frame, not attached to it. CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 85 . Indeed, Den ovo's own expert, Mr. Babcock, makes this clear:
"the fulcrum member is claimed to be one of the plurality of generally elongated
frame members that make up the side frame assemblies and help support the chair."
RX-0489C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 29.
Moreover, the clain1s specifically recite that there must be "at least one
rocker mechanism attach ed to the chair frame." JX-0001 ('8 24 Patent) at cl. 1, cl.
IO ("at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side frame assembly"). Thus,
the clain1 language specifically denotes the structures that are attached to, rather
than a part of, th e chair frame. The fulcrum member is not one of those structures,
decided in the final Initial Determination. Exemplary issues and sub-issues include . . . disputed
clain1 terms (The clain1 terms briefed by the parties must be identical. . .). " Ground Rule 11
(emphasis original) (attached to Order No. 2 (Ground Rules)).
24

PUBLIC VERSION
and Denovo's proposed construction must be rejected.
Additionally, there is no disclosure in the '824 Patent that would restrict
individual members of a side frame assembly from being rigidly connected, as
Denovo asserts. Indeed, the '824 Patent desc1ibes a variety of embodiments for the
side frame 	assemblies, 	including a 	closed frame 	loop and an 	open frame
construction 	with 	defined 	front 	and 	rear 	legs. 	See 	JX-0001
('824 Patent), 6:27-38 & 48-58. As to whether the back support member can be
rigidly connected to another frame member (such as the fulcrum member), the
specification provides specific examples of alternate designs covered by the
invention. See id. at 6:32-35 & 38-45 (describing a backrest support member that
can be rigidly attached or removably attached to the frame), 10:9- 17 (describing a
backrest suppo1t member that can be rigidly attached, removably attached or
pivotally attached to other frame members).
Still further, the '824 Patent provides direct support for a fulcrum member
that is a separate member, part of an existing member, or an extension of another
member. For example, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 9, "[e]ach side frame
assembly 120 further includes a fulcrum point 154 provided on a frame member
155 extending from an intermediate point on the rear leg 128 to the ground or
support surface on which the set-up chair 1 10 rests." Id. at 11: 50-53. ''In alternate
designs of the chair of the present invention, such as designs that do not use a closed
frame loop as shown [in FIG. 2], the fulcrum 54 can be connected to a rear leg
member or at least a horizontal extension thereof, and still assist the rocking
movement of the chair in combination with a rocker mechanism 32 ... ." Id. at 8:33-
38. The key is that there is no requirement that the fulcrum member be a separate
and distinct member.
Compl. Br. at 10-12. 11
Denovo argues, in part:
Denovo's proposed consttuction is supported by the intrinsic evidence,
whereas GCI's proposed construction ignores the specification, is taken out of
context with the rest of the clain1, and is far too broad. Both Clain1s 1 and 10 of the
'824 patent require "a fulcrum me mber defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end
thereof." 	See JX-0001, claim 1, 10. 	With regard to the claimed side frame
assembly of the '824 patent, JX-0001 at 11 :45-56, discloses:
Each side frame assembly 120 includes an armrest 122, a front leg 124, a
rear leg 128, a seat support member 129, and a backrest support member
11 Emphasis in 01ig inal unless noted othe1wise.
25

PUBLIC VERSION
130, all interconnected by pivotal connections that facilitate folding of the
chair 110 between a set-up condition, as shown, and a folded condition.
Each side frame assembly 120 further includes a fulcrum point 154
provided on a frame member 155 extending from an intermediate point
on the rear leg 128 to the ground or support surface on which the set-up
chair l IO rests. As shown, the fulcrum member 155 has a fulcrum pivot
point 154 on its lowermost end that contacts the ground surface and aids
rocking of the chair 110.
TI1is disclosure, describing Fig. 9, makes it clear that the fulcmm member,
as recited in claims 1 and l 0, is an elongated frame member
attached to the side frame assembly to help suppo1t the chair
and has a fulcrum point at the terminal end. 	See JX-0001,
claim 10, Fig. 9. 	However, GCI's interpretation is merely a
functional definition of the claimed " fu lcrum member" but
does not structurally define the fulcmm member in a way that
allows the fact finder to compare the accused device and the
prior art to the claims. 	See U.S. Stlrgical Corp. v. Ethicon,
Inc., 	103 	F.3d 	1554, 	1568 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	1997) 	("Claim
construction is a matter of .. . clarify[ing] and .. . explain[ing]
what the patentee covered by the claims . ..."). GCI also does
not acknowledge in its construction that the fulcrum member
must include a fulcmm point at a terminal end as the clain1s
reqmre.
Resps. Br. at 8-9.
"
FIG. 9
As proposed by GCI, the term "fulcmm member" is construed to mean "a chair frame
member providing a fu lcrum point for the chair frame." The intrinsic evidence demonstrates that
the claimed fulcrum member is "a chair frame member providing a fulcrum point for the chair
frame." See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 11, lns. 50-53 ("Each side frame assembly 120 further
includes a fulcrum point 154 provided on a frame member 155 . . ..") . In particular, as
acknowledged by Denovo's expert, the fulcrum member is one of the plurality of generally
elongated frame members that make up the side frame assemblies and help support the chai r.
See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 29.
26

PUBLIC VERSION
By contrast, Denovo's proposed constmction for this claim limitation introduces
unnecessary language that creates ambiguity. For example, Denovo's proposed construction
includes the phrase "attached to the side frame assembly." Denovo has not demonstrated that the
fulcmm member must be attached to the side frame assembly. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col.
8, Ins. 33-38 ("In alternate designs of the chair of the present invention, such as designs that do
not use a closed frame loop as shown, the fulcrum 54 can be connected to a rear leg member or
at least a horizontal extension thereof, and st ill assist the rocking movement of the chair in
combination with a rocker mechanism 32."). Further, Denovo's proposed construction includes
the phrase "has a terminal end with a fulcmm point", which is redundant.
In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fulcmm
member is part of the chair frame, not attached to it. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 85.
Denovo's proposed construction is not adopted.
b. 	"front l eg member" (claims 1 and 10)
Claim
Term/Phrase GCl's Construction 	Denovo's Construction
A chair frame member for A generally axially elongated frame member at
front l eg supporting a forward the front of the chair that engages the ground
member portion of a chair. directly or with a rocker mechanism at all tin1es
to support the chair.
The clain1 term "front leg member" appears in independent claims 1 and 10 of the '824
patent. JX-0001 ('824 patent) at co l. 13, ln 53 - co l. 14, ln. 15; col. 14, ln. 54 - col. 15, ln. 2.
GCI argues, in part:
The parties agree that the front l eg member must support a forward portion
of the chair. The primary dispute is whether, in doing so, the "front leg member"
must at all times remain in contact with the ground. Both the claim language and
specification show it does not.
No claim language requires the front leg to maintain constant contact with
27

PUBLIC VERSION
the ground: the claim simply recites "a front leg member.'' See Phillips v. A WH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) ("[T]he words of a claim
'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. "'). In arguing to the
contrary, Respondents rely sole ly on one embodiment of Figure 9 of the '824
Patent. Tr. (Babcock) at 635:11-17. But the disclosure describing Figure 9 makes
clear that designing the legs to maintain constant contact with the ground is just one
possible design choice: "Referring again to FIG. 9 ... [a]s so designed, the sleeves
144 on each of the front and rear legs 124 and 128 maintain contact with the ground
surface at all times during use of the chair 110." JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 11:5 7-
12 :25.
In fact, the specification expressly discloses embodiments of Figure 9 in
which the front leg does not stay grounded. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 83. In
these "alternate designs of the chair shown in FIG. 9, a rocker mechanism 132 can
be provide[d] on the front leg or the rear leg without departing from the intended
operation of the chair 112 as a rocking chair." Id. at 12 :26-29; see id. at 4:4-8 ("In
an alternate embodiment of the rocking chair, a rocker mechanism may be provided
in connection with a front leg member or forward portion of the frame side
assemblies, either in combination with or in lieu of the rear rocker mechanism.").
If the rocker mechanism was only on the rear leg member, a POSITA would
understand that the front leg member would lift off the ground when the chair rocks
backwards around the fulcrum point. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 83.
Similarly, the '824 Patent contemplates alternate designs that ''utilize an
open frame construction whereby the side frame assemblies are formed of
interconnected frame members to define independent front and rear legs," and
wherein fu1ther, the frame is "connected to a fulcrum pivot point that facilitates
rocking of the chair back and fo rth - for example, the rear legs, or extensions
thereof, can be mounted to a fulcrum point," such as illustrated in FIG. 9. Id. at
11: 1-13. Instructively, "in such alternate designs, each side frame assembly,
regardless of construction, maintains at least two contact points with the support
surface to ensure sufficient safety and structural integrity during use of the chair."
Id. 11 : 14-17 (emphasis added). Of note, the FIG. 9 embodin1ent shows three such
contact points, and thus the patent clearly appreciates that the leg members could
be lifted off the ground without departing from the focus of the claimed invention.
Additional embodiments, features of which are readily applicable to the
claimed invention, also describe front and rear leg portions of a chair frame that lift
off the ground during rocking motion of the chair without depa1ting from the spirit
and principles of the invention. See, e.g., id. at 7:36-39 ("When the chair 10 is
rocked backwards, the first foot 36a lifts away from the ground such that the second
and third feet 36b and 36c support the chair 10."); 7:41-44 ("[I]n alternate designs,
the third foot 36c can be designed to lift off the ground which the chair is in a
forward position without departing from the spirit and principles of the present
invention."); 7:60-67 ("In a still further alternate design, the tubular member 38 and
s leeve 44 of the rocker mechanism 32 can be designed to move with the rocking
28

PUBLIC VERSION
movement of the chair 10 such that the lower end of the sleeve 44 (i.e., the third
foot 36c) lifts off the ground when the chair 10 is in a forward position and contacts
the ground as the chair 10 rocks backwards to support the chair 10 in a rearward
position."); 8:29-32 ("In alternate designs, the lower end of the rocker mechanism
32 can move with the frame loop and contact the ground or support surface with
movement of the chair 10."); 9:64 to 10:2 ("As the chair 10 pivots backwards, the
first foot 36a lifts off the ground, but the chair remains stabilized by the second and
third feet 36b and 36c maintaining contact with the support surface. As the chair IO
pivots forwards, the first foot 36a moves into contact with the support surface.").
In light of these express disclosures, a POSITA would readily understand
that a chair with a rocker mechanism on its rear legs only would indeed rock, and
the front legs would simply lift off the ground as the chair rocked back around the
fulcrum point. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 83, 109. Indeed, obviating "the
need to keep all the legs of [multi-directional foldable] chairs grounded .. . during
use" is an express goal of the patent. Id.; JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 2:52-57. Put
simply, Denov o's claim construction that the front leg must always remain on the
ground contradicts the express teachings of the patent and cannot be correct. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 107-09.
Denovo seeks to use one specific embodiment to limit the claims, and in
doing so proposes a construction that impermissibly excludes several preferred
embodiments. See Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) ("The patentee is entitled to the full scope of his claims, and we will not
limit him to his preferred embodiment or import a limitation from the specification
into the claims."); ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., 833 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("[A] specification's focus on one particular embodiment or purpose
cannot 	limit 	the 	described 	invention 	where 	that 	specification 	expressly
contemplates other embodiments or purposes."); Oatey Co. v. JPS Corp., 514 F.3d
1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("We no1mally do not interpret claim terms in a way
that excludes embodiments .... "). Thus, Denovo 's selective analysis of the '824
Patent is wholly improper.
Compl. Br. at 12-15 (footnote omitted).
Denovo argues, in part:
As Mr. Babcock testified, Denovo's construction is suppo1ted by the
specification: "the sleeves 144 on each of the front and rear legs 124 and 128
maintain contact with the ground surface at all times during use of the chair 110 ."
See RX-0490C, Q&A 30-32; see also JX-0001 at 12:22-25 (emphasis added); Fig.
9. This is the only place in the specification where ''front leg member" is described.
As this is the only disclosure related to the legs, a POSA would understand the
clain1ed front leg member like any "leg," must touch the ground in normal use.
GCl's proposed construction is unhelpful and confusing. Guided by it, Mr.
29

PUBLIC VERSION
Grace (the named inventor) testified that several elements on the Rok-It Chair could
be front leg members. See RX-0036C, at 43:6-46:24. Highlighting this, GCI had
initially identified the "front leg member" as the same element that it identified as
the "fulcrum member" on the Rok-It Chair. See RX-0333C. GCI later changed
positions and identified, instead, the Rok-It Chair 's armrest support as the claimed
front leg member. See RX-0335C; CX-0002C, at ,r,r 299-314; RPX-0014.
Initial Identification of Front L eg
Member
Final 	Identification 	of
Front Leg Me mber
Front leg
member
Finally, GCI's interpretation is too broad and divorced from the intrinsic
evidence. It fails to comport with the only description of "front leg member" in the
specification, lacks written support, and is entirely divorced from the plain and
ordinary meaning of the word "leg." Indeed,just looking at the evidence provided,
a POSA would not view the arm rest support tube to be the claimed "front leg
member." See RX-0490C, Q&A 30-32.
Resps. Br. at 9-10.
As proposed by GCI, the claim term "front leg member" is construed to mean "a chair
frame memb er for supporting a forward portion of a chair." This construction is consistent with
the claim language, and is supported by the patent specification.
This interpretation is consistent with the specification of the '824 patent. For example,
the specification describes an embodiment in which front portions of a chair frame lift off the
ground during rocking motion of the chair. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 7, Ins. 36-39
("When the chair 10 is rocked backwards, the first foot 36a lifts away from the ground such that
30

PUBLIC VERSION
the second and third feet 36b and 36c suppoit the chair 10. "); col. 12 , lns. 26-29 ("In alternate
designs of the chair shown in FIG. 9, a rocker mechanism 132 can be provide[d] on the front leg
or the rear l eg without departing from the intended operation of the chair 112 as a rocking
chair.").
The dispu te between the parties appears to center on whether or not the front l eg member
must remain in co ntact with the ground. See Compl. Br. at 12 -1 5; Resps. Br. at 9-10. Contrary
to Denovo' s arguments, however, the intrinsic evidence does not support so limiting the claimed
"front leg member." The intrinsic evidence does not preclude the configuration in which the
clain1ed front leg member lifts off the ground when the rocker pivots backwards. See JX-0001
('824 patent) at col. 9, ln. 64 to col. 10, ln . 2 ("As the chair 10 pivots backwards, the first foot
36a lifts off the ground, but the chair remains stabilized by the second and third feet 36b and 36c
maintaining contact with the support surface. As the chair 10 pivots fo rwards, the first foot 36a
moves into contact with the suppoit surface.").
Accordingly, the term "front leg member" is construed to me an "a chair frame member
for supporting a forward portion of a chair."
c. 	"rear leg member" (claims 1 and 10)
Claim GCl's Construction 	Denovo's Construction
Term/Phrase
A chair frame member for A generally axially elongated frame member at
rear leg supporting a rearward the rear of the chair that engages the ground
member portion of a chair. directly or with a rocker mechanism at all times
to support the chair.
The claim term "rear leg member" appears in independent claims 1 and 10 of the '824
patent. JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 13, In 53 - co l. 14, ln. 15; co l. 14, ln. 54 - col. 15, ln. 2.
GCI argues, in part:
31

PUBLIC VERSION
The parties' proposals track their constructions of "a front leg membe r. "
The only difference (the leg member 's location relative to a rearward, as opposed
to a forward, portion of the chair) has no b earing on the parties' disputes.
Accordingly, GCI's proposed construction of "rear l eg member" is correct for the
same reasons as is its construction for "a front leg member."
Comp!. Br. at 15 .
Denovo argues, in part:
The term should be interpreted in a similar manner as "front leg member"
for the very same reason. 	As discussed above, D enovo's constrnction is directly
supported by the specification. See RX-0490C, Q&A 30-32; see also JX-0001 , at
12:22-25; see also Fig. 9, above. Given this disclosure, a POSA would understand
that the claimed rear l eg member is required to touch the ground at all times in
nomial use. 	Accordingly, GC I' s constrnction, which is too broad, ignores the
specification and the plain meaning of the word "leg," shou ld be rejected.
See Resps. Br. at 10-11.
As proposed by GCI, it is determined that the meaning of the claim term "rear leg
member" means "a chair frame member for supporting a rearward portion of a chair." The
specification of the '824 patent describes configurations where the rear leg portions of the chair
frame lift off the ground during rocking motion of the chair. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('8 24 patent) at
col. 7, lns. 41-44 ("[ I]n alternate designs, the third foot 36c can be designed to lift off the ground
which the chair is in a forward position without departing from the spirit and princ iples of th e
present invention."); col. 7, lns. 60-67 ("In a still fu rther alternate design, the tubular member 38
and sleeve 44 of th e rocker mechanism 32 can be designed to move with the rocking movement
of the chair 10 such that the lower end of the sleeve 44 (i.e., the third foot 36c) lifts off the
ground when the chair 10 is in a forward position and contacts the ground as the chair 10 rocks
backwards to support the chair 10 in a rearward po sition. "). As noted above in the discussion
regarding "front leg member", Denovo's proposed construction is not supported by the intrinsic
32

PUBLIC VERSION
evidence. Therefore, Denovo has not demonstrated that its proposed construction of this claim
limitation should be adopted.
Claim Term/Phrase
about which said chair
frame can move between
forward and rearward
positions / about which the
chair can move between
forward and rearward
rocking positions
d. 	"about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions" (claim 1) / "about
which the chair can move between forward and
rearward rocking positions" (claim 10)
GCl's Denovo's Construction
Construction
Forward position is when a portion of the
chair moves farther right to left (in Fig. 9)
Rocking motion and across a vertical plane extending
between forward upward from the fulcrum point than at the
and backward set-up condition and rearwards is when a
directions. portion of the chair moves farther left to
right in Fig. 9 and across the ve1tical plane
extending upward from the fulcmm point
than at the set-up condition.
The claim term "about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions" appears in independent claim 1 of the '824 patent. JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 13, ln
53 - col. 14, ln. 15. The claim te1m "about which the chair can move between forward and
rearward rocking positions" appears in independent clain1 10 of the '824 patent. Id. at col. 14, ln.
54 - col. 15, ln. 2.
GCI argues, in pait:
Despite the complexity of Denovo's 66-word constmction, the parties'
dispute is simple: must the claimed chair, when rocking, move both forward and
rearward of a set-up position? The answer is no. The claim language and
specification teach that any back-and-forth rocking motion suffices (even if a "set-
up" position is the farthest forward or backward the chair can rock). The claim
simply recites "forward and rearward positions." It does not define them in terms
of any "set-up position," which in and of itself, is not a term used in the '824 Patent,
let alone the asserted claims. Nor does the specification define specific locations or
angles for forward and rearward positions. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 93.
Instead, the patent discloses embodin1ents in which a "set-up position" can be the
forward-most position. Id.; JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 5:11-13 ("[T]he chair can be
33

PUBLIC VERSION
used as a normal, stabilized chair in its forward position and will only rock when
the u se r chooses to rock."), 5:28-31 ("FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a collapsible
and portable rocking chair .. . with the chair in a forward, stabilized po sition.").
However, though disclosed as an embodiment, this is not required. Instead, the clear
focus of the claim language at issue is that when the claimed rocking chair is rocked,
it moves about the fulcrum point between relative forward and rearward positions.
No t only is Denovo proposing a construction that improperly imports
linutations into the clain1s, Denovo's asserted construction creates new linutations
that make no sense in light of the actual description provided. Indeed, Denovo
appears to conflate their created "set-up position" fo r rocking motion relative to
which any "forward" or "rearward" position must be measured with the set-up
condition of the chair itself. This is an inco1Tect reading of the '824 Patent. Notably,
the same language is recited in the 	' 61 1 Patent, and neither Westfield nor
MacSports has adopted or leant any credence to Denovo 's construction.
The '824 Patent is directed to a collapsible and portable rocking chair that
is re adily fo ldable and unfoldable between a set-up condition - for u se - and a
collapsed condition - for transportation and/or storage. See JX-0001 ('82 4 Patent)
at 1:1 5-19; 3:20-25. The chair remains in a set-up condition during rocking motion,
so it is "set-up" regardless of whether the chair frame is in a forward po sition, a
rearward pos ition, or any position in between. See id. 9: 15-19 ("The cross members
56 also provide support for the chair frame 12 in the open, set-up condition by
balancing and redistributing the fo rces exerted on the chair frame 12 by a person
seated on the seat panel 14 and leaning back on the backrest panel 16."); 10:60-62
("The lateral dimension of the slot 70 acts to lock the seat support in an open, set-
up condition - especially when the weight of the seated user is applied to the chair
10 ."); 13:20-23 ("In the set-up condition of the chair, the seat panel 14 and the
backrest panel 16 extend between the side assemblies 20 and are generally taut for
supporting a seated user."). There is no support in the specification that would
require the set-up condition to impart any restriction on the rocking movement of
the chair frame or any positions to which the chair can rocked during such
movement.
Further, the '824 Patent does not define, let alone require, specific forward
and rearward po si tions that must be met in order for the clain1 s to be infringe d. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at QI A 93 . Instead, the patent describes a clear back-and-fo1th
rocking motion for an open, set-up chair, which, by definition, has re lative positions
reflective of forward and rearward motions as the chair is rocked by any seated
user. Id. Indeed, the rocking motion, and the resultant positions to which the chair
frame rocks in forward and rearward directions, understandably will vary based on
a number of factors, including the weight, height and girth of the seated user, the
position of the seated user on the chai r, and the speed and force with which the
seated user is moving the chair. Id.; see also JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 7:54-57 and
11:62-12:22.
34

PUBLIC VERSION
As a result, the clear language of the claims fully informs the POSITA of
the intended scope of the claim with regards to there being forward and rearward
positions when the chair is rocked. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 93. If the chair
is rocking back-and-forth about a fulcrum point, it will automatically have relative
forward and rearward positions. Id.
Accordingly, there is no basis for Denovo 's attempt to limit th e scope of the
claims to the illustration shown in Figure 9. Id. The speci fi cation discloses
embodiments in which the forward position is forward of a hypothetical set-up
position, and embodiments in which it is not. The claim language does not
distinguish between the 	two. Denovo 's narrowing construction 	is 	therefore
in1p roper. See ScriptPro, 833 F.3d at 1341 ("[A] specification's focus on one
particular embodiment or purpose cannot limit the described invention where that
specificati on expressly contemplates other embodiments or purposes."); Oatey, 514
F.3d at 1276 ("We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes
embodiments .... "); see also SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular
Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that "reading a
limitation from the written desc1iption into the clain1s" is "o ne of the cardinal sins
of patent law").
Compl. Br. at 16- 18 (footnote omitted).
Denovo argues, in part:
Denovo's proposed construction properly recognizes that the chair begins
in the set-up condition, as explained in the claims and as illustrated in Fig. 9 of the
'824 patent, shown above in §II.A.I , supra. See JX-0001, 5-43-45, 11:45-49, Fig.
9; RX-049 0C, Q&A 42. 	The forward position would be when the chair (and
person) moves to the left in Fig. 9 of the set-up position, and a rearward position
would be when the chair (and person) moves to the right of the set-up position to
another place. RX-0490C, Q&A 42. This interpretation is consistent with th e plain
meaning of the te1m " fo rward and rearward ... position s" read in the context of the
words "about" in re lation to th e "set up condition" as set forth in the remainder of
the claim, and what a POSA would understand from the language in the '824 patent.
RX-0490C, Q&A 42.
GCl' s interpretation of this claim element is unreasonable and contrary to
the plain meaning of the words in the claim. GCl's proposed construction changes
the plain language of this clain1 from "forward and rearward . . . positions" to
"forward and backward directions." (emphasis added). RX-0490C, Q&A 42. In
trying to support the claim construction in his Rebuttal \\fitness Statement, CX-
0464C, M r. Smith fails to note that the portion of the disclosure he relies on
describes a structure not covered by th e '824 claims. 	For example, Mr . Smith
asserts that the ' 824 Patent re fers to " 'all positions between the forward and
rearward positions of the chair frame,"' a passage in the summary clearly referring
to th e unclaimed embodiment shown in Figs. 2-7, from th e re ference to a "third"
35

PUBLIC VERSION
foot. 	JX-0001 at 5:9-10; CX-0464C, Q&A 93. 	He also describes "examples of
when and where the forward and rearward positions might be achieved," and
discussing Fig. 2 re fe rencing a further passage in the summary and the brief
description of Fig. 2. CX-0464C, Q&A 93 (citing JX-0001 at 5:11-13, 28-31). Mr.
Smith extrapolates from these passages the unsupported theory that t he "set-up
condition" of the disclosed chair can simultaneously be the "forward position."
This is wrong for at least two reasons. First, Mr. Smith's theory would effectively
write the requirement that the chair moves "about" the set-up condition "between
forward and rearward rocking positions" out of the claim. JX-0001, at claim 10.
Second, Mr . Smith's quoted passages describe the chair in Figs. 2-7 which he
concedes does not di sclose or include any of the required pivotal interconnections
required in the '824 patent claims, and is therefore not covered by those claims.
Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 222:9-223:17. 	Indeed, Mr. Smith acknowledged t hat this
embodiment was a "rectangular loop" or "closed frame loop," an embodiment not
covered by the '824 patent claims. Id. at 130:14-22; 221 :2-222:13.
It is inappropriate for GCI to rely to on an embodiment that is not clain1ed,
during clain1 construction. 	At best this embodiment relates only to the very
different '611 patent claims. It is axiomatic that "the meaning of a clain1 tem1 was
not limited by its 	specific usage in the written description of a preferred
embodiment." Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp.; Inc,; 262
F.3d 1258, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v.
Zebco Corp., 	175 F.3d 985, 992 (Fed. Cir. 	1999) ("[J]ust as the preferred
embodiment itself does not limit claim terms, mere inferences drawn from the
description of an embodiment of the invention cannot serve to limit claim
tem1s ...."). 	GCI's arguments are particularly misleading when the embodin1ent
GCI relied upon here, in Figs. 2-7, is plainly not covered by the '824 patent claims.
The embodiment shown in Fig. 9 is the only disclosure that relates to the claims of
the '824 patent. The '824 claims requi re the members of the side frame assembly
to be pivotally interconnected to one another. 	Figs. 2-7 depict a chair having a
closed frame loop, with no pivotal interconnections between any frame "members."
Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 222:9-2 23 :17. 	Indeed, Figs. 2-7 do not disclose any frame
"members" to speak of. Rather, the specification describes all of the features of the
closed frame loop of Figs. 2-7 as "portions" - e.g., "front leg portion." By contrast,
every time the specification discusses a frame "member" - e.g., front leg member
or fulcrum member - it is describing Fig. 9. This is not by accident; there is a clear
difference between a ''member" and a "portion." A "member" is understood to be
a separate and distinct thing, whereas a "po1i ion" is understood to be a part or
segment of a thing. See 180s, inc. v. Gordini US.A., Inc. , 699 F. Supp. 2d 714, 720
(D. Md. 2010) (construing each claimed "member" as "separate and distinct from
each other."). Because Figs. 2-7 are not covered by the claims, a POSA would not
look to Figs. 2-7, or the portions of the specification describing Figs. 2-7, and that
are plainly inconsistent with the '824 claims, to construe those clain1s. 	See RX-
0490C, Q&A 22-23; JX-0001 at Figs. 3 and 9.
36

PUBLIC VERSION
Further, upon 	rev iew of Mr. 	Smi th's ill-considered analysis 	of this
unclaimed embodiment, Mr. Babcock notes that "it is the set-up condition that is
shown in Figs. 2 and 3, not the forward position." 	The detailed description
establishes this view of Figs. 2 and 3. 	See JX-0001 at 8:63-64 ("the chair 10 is
opened to the set-up condition, as shown in FIG. 2"); 9:56-59 ("In a forward
position of the chair 10, the chair 10 acts as a normal, fully stabilized chair. ..");
10: 1-2 (" As the chair 10 pivots fo rward s, the first foot 36a moves into contact with
the support surface."); RX-0490C, Q&A 42. 	In Fig. 3, "it is easily seen that the
first foot 36a is not [moving into or] touching the support surface" and therefore "is
not in a forward position." Id. (see annotated image therein).
In contrast to Mr. Smit h's unmoored construction theories, Mr. Babcock
follows the plain meaning of the terms, within the context of the words of the '824
claims, and provides reference to the only relevant disclosure in the '8 24 Patent.
RX-0490C, Q&A 42; see also RDX-0058. For example, in Fig. 9, the chair is in
the set-up condition (JX-0001 at 5:45) and the description of the rocking motion of
the chair is at 11 :62 to 12 :2. 	The rocking motion is when the chair moves to a
forward position from set-up when the front l eg member 124 presses down on the
springs and then to a rearward position when the rear l eg member presses down on
the spring 146. RX-0490C, Q&A 42. This movement requires that th e c ha ir move
as in Denovo's proposed con struction . Indeed; when he reviews the appropriate
disclosure in the '824 patent, Mr. Smith agrees, acknowledging that, "in the
embodin1ent of Figure 9, the forward position of the chair frame may be forward of
the set-up position and the rearward position of the chair frame may be behind the
set-up position." 	See CX-0464C, Q&A 93. 	Additionally, as exp la ined, the
embodin1ents of Figs. 2-7 cannot meet, and are inconsistent with, the '8 24 patent
clain1s (e.g. the pivotally interconnected side frame requirement) and provide no
help interpreting these unrelated claims.
Finally, changing the claim te rm "position" to "direction" fundamentally
alters the meaning of the claim, and is without any intrins ic evidence support.
Therefore, GCI's proposed construction should be rejected. See RX-0490C, Q&A
42.
Resps. Br. at 11-14.
As proposed by GCI, the terms "about which said chair frame can move between forward
and rearward positions" and "about which the chair can move between forward and rearward
rocking positions" are construed to mean "ro cking motion between forward and backward
directions." The intrinsic evidence demonstrates that the "set-up position" can be the forward-
most position. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 5, lns. 11-13 ("[T]he chair can be used as a
37

PUBLIC VERSION
no1mal, stabilized chair in its foiward position and will only rock when the user chooses to
rock."); id. at col. 5, lns. 28-31 ("FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a collapsible and portable
rocking chair ... with the chair in a foiward, stabilized position.").
The intrinsic evidence does not support Denovo's proposed construction of "about which
said chair frame can move between forward and reaiward positions" and "about which the chair
can move between foiward and rearward rocking positions." The claim language simply states:
"a fulcrum point ... about which said chair frame can move between foiward and reaiward
positions" (claim 1), and "a fulcrum point ... about which the chair can move between foiward
and reanvard rocking positions" (claim 10). Contrary to Denovo 's argument, the claim language
does not preclude the "set-up condition" from being either the foiward or reaiward rocking
positions.
e. 	"fulcrum point" (claims 1 and 10)
Claim 	GCl's Construction 	Denovo's Construction
Term/Phrase
fulcrum point 	A point on which a chair 	This claim term is indefinite or, in the alternati ve
frame is supported and 	is construed as "the point on the terminal end of
about which the chair 	the fulcrum member that touches the ground
frame pivots. 	surface and about which the chair rocks between
a forward and reaiward position.
The claim term "fulcrum point" appears in independent claims 1 and 10 of the '824
patent. JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 13, ln 53 - col. 14, ln. 15; col. 14, ln. 54 - col. 15, ln. 2.
GCI argues, in part:
GCI's 	construction is 	consistent with both the 	claim language 	and
specification, and it should be adopted. For example, both the claims and
specification state that the fulcrum point is "a point on which a chair frame is
supported." See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at c l. I ("a fulcrum po int at a terminal
end thereof ... for supporting the chair frame"), 3:45-47 ("In preferred embodin1ents
of the rocking chair, each frame side assembly is supported on a fulcrum point .... "),
38

PUBLIC VERSION
4:38-40 ("The chair further comprises a fulcrnm point supporting the chair frame
and about which said chair frame can move between fo1ward and rearward
positions .. .."). The patent also states that the frame's movement about a fulcrum
point is a pivoting motion. See id. at 11: 10-13 ("fulcrum pivot point"), 8: 1-32
("pivoting is what causes the chair 10 to rock"). Denovo's expert Dr. Babcock
confirmed that "the plain and ordinary meaning of 'fulcrum point' to an engineer
is the point about which something pivots." Tr. (Babcock) at 639: 16- 19 .
. . . [S]eeking to use Figure 9 to improperly limit the scope of the clain1s, Denovo
would require the fulcrum point to contact the ground surface. See Tr. (Babcock)
at 641 :7-9 (confirming that he is "limiting the scope of fulcrum point to what's
shown in [element] 154 in Figure 9"). But the specification explicitly discloses
embodin1ents in which the fulcrum point does not touch the ground. For example,
Figure 6 teaches that support runner 34 can be between the fulcrum 54 and the
ground surface. JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at Fig. 6, 8: 1-2; see also CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 87 ("[T]he '824 Patent teaches that support runner 34 can be between
the fulcrum 54 and the ground surface, as shown in Figure 6 .. .. "). Nor does the
claim language require the fulcrum point to touch the ground surface, as GCI's
expert confirms. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 91.
Compl. Br. at 19-20.
Denovo argues, in part:
According to the plain claim language, a fulcrum point located "at the
terminal end" of a fulcrum member and "adapted for contacting the ground surface
upon which the chair sits in the set up condition" is required in clain1s 1 and 10.
See JX-0001, at claims 1, 10. 	There is, however, no description of an adapted
fulcrum po int in the '8 24 patent specification. 	The disclosure of this element is
lintited to what may be divined from Fig. 9 and the following description:
Each side frame assembly 120 includes a fulc rum point 154 provided on a
frame member 155 extending from an intermediate point on the rear leg 128
to the ground or support surface on which the set-up chair 110 rests. 	As
shown, the fulcrum member 155 has a fulcrum pivot point 154 on the
lowe1most end that contacts the ground surface and aids rocking of the
chair.
Id., at 11 :5 0-56. Thus, to the extent it can be construed, the clain1ed fulcrum point
is the point at the end of the fulcrum memb er that touches the ground, supports the
chair frame, and about which the chair frame pivots. Id.; see also RX-0490C, Q&A
38. The fulcrum point 154 as illustrated in Fig. 9 is a circular piece. 	Other than
this illustration, there is no other description of the "fulcrum point" in the patent.
See JX-0001 at 11:1 8-12:29.
39

PUBLIC VERSION
GCl's interpretation is too broad and there is no explanation of what a
"point" is in the patent. 	Additionally, GCI's interpretation is divorced from the
plain language and the context of the words in the claims. It does not include, for
example, that the point must be on the very end (i.e. the "terminal end") of the
fulcrum member. Deno vo's proposed construction is supported by the disclosure
in the '82 4 patent and the context of the plain language of the claims.
Resps. Br. at 15.
"Fulcrum point" appears in the following portion of claim 1:
a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for
contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition and
for supporting the chair frame, and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions. . .
JX-0001 at col. 14, lns. 6-12.
"Fulcrum point" appears in the following portion of clain1 10:
a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for
contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition thereof
and about which the chair can move between forward and rearward rocking
positions ...
Id. at col. 14, lns. 57-61.
In view of the surrounding clain1 language, the administrative law judge finds Denovo 's
proposed construction redundant. It is determined that the meaning of the claim term "fulcrum
point" is "a point on which a chair frame is supported and about which the chair frame pivots."
This is in accordance with the plain language of the claim, and consistent with the intrinsic
evidence. Both the claims and specification state that the fulcrum point is "a point on which a
chair frame is supported." See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 14, lns. 6-12 ("a fulcrum point
at a terminal end thereof ... for supporting the chair frame"), col. 3, lns. 45-47 (" In prefe ITed
embodiments of the rocking chair, each frame side assembly is supported on a fulcrum point
...."), col. 4, lns. 38-40 ("The chair further comprises a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame
40

PUBLIC VERSION
and about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions ... .''). The
meaning of these words is clear, and no further construction is needed.
f. 	"adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which
the chair sits in a set-up condition" (claims 1 and 10)
Claim Term/Phrase 	GCl's Construction 	Denovo's Construction
adapted for contacting the 	Capable of touching and Terminal end touches the
ground surface (not a part of
ground surface upon which the 	sitting on a surface when in the chair) in the set-up
chair sits in a set-up condition 	a set-up condition. condition.
The claim term "adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in
the set-up condition" appears in independent claim 1 of th e '824 patent. JX-0001 ('8 24 patent)
at col. 13, ln. 53 - co l. 14 , Ln. 15 . The claim term "adapted for contacting the ground surface
upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition" appears in independent claim 10 of the '824
patent. Id. at col. 14, ln. 54 - col. 15, In. 2.
GCI argues, in part:
This term is part of the longer phrase "a fulcmm point at a terminal end
thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair si ts.'' Once
again, Denovo argues that the temlinal end of the fulcrum point must directly touch
the ground. As discussed with respect to the terms "fulcrum point" and "terminal
end," Denovo 's position la cks merit. The specification expressly teaches that the
terminal end of the fu lcrum point need not physically touch the ground, but can
instead sit on top of a support runne r. JX-0001 ('824 Patent), Fig. 6, 8: 1-2. GCI's
expert confirms that a POSITA would understand "adapted fo r" to pemlit the
temlinal end of the fulcrum point to contact the ground either directly or indirectly
through 	a 	support 	structure. 	CX-0464C 	(Smith 	RWS) 	at 	Q/A 	91. 	GCI's
construction, allowing the terminal end to be "capable of touching and sitting on a
surface," accurately reflects the specification's teachings.
Denovo, meanwhile, cannot even agree with its own expert on the proper
construction of this term. Rather than endorse D enovo 's construction, Mr. Babcock
opined that the term lacks written desc1iption. See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at
QIA 59. While that is not Denovo's position (nor can it be, as it has argued at length
that the claims clearly require the terminal end to touch th e ground), th at its own
expert could not find the direct-contact requirement in the claim language speaks
41

PUBLIC VERSION
volumes. Denovo's construction finds no support in the '8 24 Patent and should be
rejected.
Compl. Br. at 21 .
Denovo argues, in part:
Denovo 's proposed construction is supported by th e intrinsic evidence: " th e
fulcrum member 155 has a fulcrum point 154 on its lowermost end that contacts
the ground surface and aids rocking of the cha ir 110." 	JX-0001, at 11-54-56
(emphasis added); see also RX-0490C, Q&A 38, 55. Denovo 's construction is also
supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "adapted," i.e., "suited by
nature, character, or design to a particular use, purpose, or s ituation-u sed with to
orfor . " Merriam-Webster 's Online Dictionary, available at https://www .merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/adapted. In other words, the terminal end of the fulcrum
member is suited by design for contacting the ground surface-i.e., it touches the
ground.
GCl's proposed construction, "capable of touching and sitting on a surface
when in a set-up condition" (RX-0305, 	,r 14), is too broad and ignores the
specification. 	Specifically, GCI does not explain the meaning of "capable of
touching" - an ambiguous phrase. And Mr. Smith, erroneously explains that other
structures can come between the fulcrum point and the ground surface. CX-0464C,
Q&A 87. 	GCl's interpretation is not supported by the specification, which only
discloses that the fulcrum point itself actually touches the ground surface. See JX-
0001, at 11:54-56. 	The specification does not disclose any structure between a
fulcrum member and the ground. Indeed, the specification clearly states that the
fulcrum point is "on the lowem1ost end that contacts the ground surface." I d. GCl's
interpretat ion is contrary to the patent 's teaching.
Resps. Br. at 16.
It is detennined that the claim term "adapted for co ntacting the ground surface upon
which the chair sits in a set-up condition" is construed so that the "terminal end touches the
ground surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up condition." GCl' s proposed construction,
"capable of touching and sitting on a surface when in a set-up condition" is too broad and
specifically allows the fulcrum point to sit on a support structure that is itself part of the chair,
which conflicts with the plain language of the claim. GCI's expert opined that other structures
can come between the fulcrum point and the ground surface. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
42

PUBLIC VERSION
QIA 91 . This is in conflict with the plain language of the claim, which recites, "adapted for
contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition."
g. 	"terminal end" (claims 1 and 10)
Claim 	GCl's Denovo's Construction
Term/Phrase 	Construction
terminal end The end of a 	End of the fulcrum member that directly engages the
member. 	ground surface at the fulcrum point.
The claim term "te1minal end" appears in independent claims 1 and 10 of the '824 patent.
JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 13, 1n 53 - col. 14, ln. 15; col. 14, ln. 54 - col. 15, ln. 2.
GCI argues, in paii:
Denovo's argument that the specification does not describe the term
"fulcrum point at a terminal end" is difficult to understand. The '824 Patent
repeatedly and consistently uses and describes the term "terminal end." JX-0001
('824 Patent) at 4:32-33 and 4:64-65; see also CX-0464C (SmithRWS) at Q/A 299;
'824 Patent at 3:45-47, 3:52-57, 4:8-14, 4:38-43, 4:52-58, 5:3-7, 11:3 -1 3, 11:23-
27, 11 :45-56, Figs. 2 -7 and 9 (e.g., item numbers 54 and 154).
From those 	disclosures, 	a 	POSITA 	reading the 	specification would
understand that a terminal end is simply at the end of a member, and that the
specification consistently uses that term in accordance with that plain and ordinary
meaning. 	See 	CX-0464C 	(Smith RWS) at Q/A 	299; 	CX-0438 (MacMillan
dictionary defining "terminal" as "at the end of something"); see also B lue Calypso,
LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the
written description "must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed").
As with "fulc.rum point," Denovo attempts to read in a requirement that the
temlinal end "directly engages the ground surface," despite no such language
appearing in the clain1. Denovo once again looks solely to Figure 9, in which a
fulcrum pivot point 154 is described as being at the "lowermost end" of the fulcrum
member 155. See JX-0 001 ('824 Patent) at 11 :53-56. But a description of one
embodin1ent cannot limit claims. See Kara Tech., 582 F.3d at 1348. When viewed
in full, the specification supports GCI's proposa l. See SanDisk Corp. v. Jv/emore.,'C
Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The court must always read the
clain1s in view of the full specification."); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
429 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("It is necessary to consider the specification
as a whole, and to read all portions of the written description."). Moreover, it is
clear that "lowem1ost end" is being used to distinguish from an uppermost end or
43

PUBLIC VERSION
intermediate portion of the fulcrum member 155 depicted in FIG. 9. In any event,
use of the terms "terminal" or "lowermost" do not restrict the claim language to
mean the absolute end of the member.
The '8 24 Patent 's specification discloses numerous examples of a cross
member having a "terminal end" that is not the absolute, dis tal end of the member-
in other word s, not the "lowermost end" of the member. For example, the
specification discloses an embodiment in which "each cross member has its
temlinal ends pivotally secured to the front and rear leg portions of one of the frame
side assemblies." JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 4:32-34, 4:64-66 (emphasis added). In
that embodiment, a portion of the cross member is shown after (i.e., closer to the
end) the pivotal attachments to the front leg portions, as shown in CDX-0355. Thus,
the patent' s use of the te1m "end" is clearly identifying a region or portion,
providing relative distinction from other ends, regions or portions, and should not
be interpreted to a literal extreme.
Thus, cross members 56 are not pivotall y attached at their lowermost ends
to leg portions, just as the claimed "terminal end" need not be
the lowermost end of the fulcrnm member. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 87. Indeed., as detailed during the discussion of
"fulcrum point," the specification discloses an embodiment in
which no part of the fu lcrum (terminal end or otherwise)
26 	directly touches the ground. See, e.g. JX-0001 ('8 24 Patent) at
~ 	Fig. 6, 8:1-2; see also CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 91. In
short, Denovo's attempt to require "terminal end" to "directly
CDX-0355 	engage the ground surface" finds no support in the intrinsic
evidence. The ALJ should accordingly reject it.
Compl. Br. at 21-23.
Denovo argues, in part:
Denovo 's construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence: "the fulcrum
member 155 has a fulcrum point 154 on its lowermost end that contacts the ground
surface and aids rocking of the chair 110." JX-0001, at 11 :54-56 (emphasis added);
see also RX-0490C, Q&A 38.
GCI's reliance in the specification to unrelated uses of the word "te rminal"
is without me ri t given that GCI again relies on an unclaimed embodiment. 	See
§II.AA., supra. GCI's interpretation that the temlinal end must merely be near the
end of a member is simply unsupportable and divorced from the words of the claim
44

PUBLIC VERSION
a nd the specification. A s Mr. Babcock testified, (he fulcrum point identified by
GCI in the Rok-lt Chair is not at the lowermost end of the fulcrnm member. RX-
0490C, Q&A 38". 	GCJ points to an area that encompasses abom 3 inches of the
fulcrum member as being the tenninal end. 	See CX-
0037C in CX-0002C at Q&A 331 . A POSA would find
that GCJ's construction for ''the terminal end" is too
broad, ignores the words of the claim and th e teaching
in the specification. GCI's proposal should be rejected.
Resps. Br. at 17.
As proposed by GCI, it is determined that the clain1
te1m "te1minal end" means "the end of a member." One of 	GCll 178_043234 (onnow,o,u adckd)
ordinary skill in the art would understand that a tem1inal end is simply at the e nd of a member,
and the '824 patent consistently uses that term in accordance with that plain and ordinary
meaning. See CX -0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 299; CX-0438 (MacMillan dictionary defining
"tenninal" as "at the end of something").
Claim Term/Phrase
fulcrum member defining a
h. 	"fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a
terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition
and for supporting the chair frame, and about which
said chair frame can move between forward and
rearward positions" (claim 1) / "fulcrum member
defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which
the chair sits in a set-up condition thereof and about
which the chair can move between forward and
rearward rocking positions" (claim 10)
GCl's Construction 	Denovo's Construction
A chair frame member 	An elongated frame member
fulcrum point at a terminal end 	with an end defining a 	attached to the side frame
thereof adapted for contacting 	point that can touch the 	assembly that has a fulcrum
the ground surface upon which 	surface on which the chair 	point at the terminal end to
the chair sits in the set-up 	sits when set-up, and on 	engage the ground surface ( no
condition and for supporting 	which a chair frame is 	part of the chair) in the set-up
the chair frame, and about 	supported and about which 	condition and around which
which said chair frame can 	the chair frame pivots 	the chair rocks between a
move between forward and 	dming rocking motion in 	forward position ( a portion of
45

PUBLIC VERSION
reaiward positions / fu lcrum 	forward and backward 	the chair moves farther right to
member defining a fulcrum 	directions. 	left (in Fig. 9) and across a
point at a temlinal end thereof 	vertical plane extending
adapted fo r contacting the 	upward from the fulcrum po int
ground smface upon which the 	than at the set-up condition)
chair sits in a set-up condition 	and a rearward position (when
thereof and about which the 	a portion of the chair moves
chair can move between 	farther left to right (in Fig. 9)
forward and rearward rocking 	and across the vertical plane
positions 	extending upward from th e
fulcrum point than at the set-up
condition).
The claim term "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof
adapted fo r contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition and
for supporting the chair frame, and about which said chair frame can move betwe en forward and
rearward positions" appears in independent claim 1 of th e '8 24 patent. JX-0001 ('824 patent) at
col. 13, ln 53 - col. 14, ln. 15. The claim tem1 "fulcrum m ember defirung a fulcrum point at a
te rminal end ther eof adapted fo r contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a
set-up condition there of and about which the chair can move between forward and rearward
rocking positions" appears in independent claim 10 of the '8 24 patent. Id. at col. 14, ln. 54 - co l.
15, ln. 2.
GCI argues, in part:
The pattie s' constructions of this term incorporate their constructions of
several shorter, constituent tem1s, which are addressed in order above.
Comp 1. Br. at 24.
Denovo argues, in part:
This claim term is a combination of a number of other disputed claim terms.
When viewed as a whole, in context, this clain1 term becomes clearer. Denovo 's
proposed constrnction is supported by the plain language of the claims and the
intrinsic evidence. 	The claim construction suggested by GCI, in contrast, lacks
support and ignores the plain claim language.
46

PUBLIC VERSION
Denovo's claim constrnction has support, as noted above, with each of the
particular claim elements. 	This includes "fulcrum member" ( § II.A. I, supra),
"fulcrum point"(§ II.A.5, supra); "terminal end"(§ II.A.7, supra); and "forward
and rearward positions"(§ II.A.4, supra).
GCI's construction becomes unmoored immediately with "a point that can
touch the surface." Rather, the '824 specification explicitly informs a POSA that
the point does touch th e ground and the '824 claims specifically require that it must
be on the terminal end. See JX-0001, at 11 :54-56, claims 1, 10; RX-0490C, Q&A
38, 55. Contrary to this clear language, GCI asserts that other strnctures can come
between the fulcrnm point and the ground surface. CX-0464C, Q&A 87. And, as
noted above, GCI has changed the claim language by arguing that "position" be
changed to "direction." 	Such an interpretation is unsupported and should be
rejected.
Resps. Br. at 18.
It is determined that the meaning of the claim term "fulcrnm member defining a fulcrnm
point at a terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair
sits in the set-up condition and for supporting the chair frame, and about which said chair frame
can move between fo1ward and rearward positions" is "a chair frame member with a point on the
terminal end thereof that touches the ground surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up
condition, and on which a chair frame is supported and about which the chair can move between
forward and rearward rocking positions." As noted by the parties, this claim term is a composite
of other claim terms, each of which has been constrned above.
Sin1ilarly, the claim term "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end
thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition
thereof and about which the chair can move between forward and rearward rocking positions"
means "a chair frame member with a point on the terminal end thereof that touches the ground
surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up condition, and on which a chair frame is suppo1ted
and about which the chair can move between forward and rearward rocking positions."
47

PUBLIC VERSION
C. 	Infringement
1. 	Claim 10
The Rok-It Chair is accused of infringing independent claim 10 of the '824 patent.
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
The Rok-It Chair constitutes "a collapsible and portable rocking chair." CX -0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 284-86, 290-91; CX-0383 (Denovo v. GCI Compl. (W.D. Ark.)), ,r 8.
Denovo does not contest that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 18-34.
b. 	a pair of side frame assemblies including;
The Rok-lt Chair includes "a pair of side frame assemblies." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at
Q/A 295-97. Denovo does not contest that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this limitation. See Resps.
Br. at 18-34.
c. 	a front leg member;
The record evidence demonstrates that the Rok-It Chair includes a front leg member.
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 299-309.
GCI argues, in pati:
The ROK-IT chair satisfies the claim element "a front leg member ," as
recited by claim 10 of the '824 Patent. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 299. As
shown in CDX-0 028, the ROK-IT chair 's side frame assemblies have a front leg
member supporting a fo 1ward portion of the ROK-IT chair. CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 300, 303. Specifically, the front of the armrest on the ROK-IT chair
is supported by the front leg member, and the front of the armrest is a forward
portion of the chair. Id. at Q/A 305-306, 309; Tr. (Penn) at 573:2 -1 3; CX-0273C
(Penn Dep.) at 44:20-46: 13; CX-0307C at .0004 (showing "front arm support tube"
(item 9) on Hard Arm Dual Lock).
Denovo believes that the front leg member of the ROK-IT chair can be
removed and that the seat of the chair would still be "supported." RX-0490C
(Babcock RWS) at Q/A 33. But with the front leg member removed, there would
be no support for at least the forward portion of the armrest, and the armrest is
indisputably part of the ROK-IT chair. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 305-06,
309; Tr. (Oliphant) at 518:16-24. Indeed, Denovo has never sold a version of the
48

PUBLIC VERSION
ROK-IT chair without the armrest and front leg member shown in CDX-0028, and
such a hypothetical chair is not the focus of this proceeding. Tr. (Oliphant) at
518:16-24; CX-0258C (Oliphant Dep.) at 59:17-19.
While supporting the front portion of the armrest is an independently
sufficient basis to find that the front leg member supports a forward portion of the
chair, the front leg member also supports at least the torque applied to the seat
support at a forward portion by the connector member and bracket. CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 304. The connector member is attached to the front leg
member and the seat support by a bracket and hardware. Id. In the set-up condition,
the force from the connector member is underneath the force on the seat support
from the user seated on the flexible seat. Id. The distance between the two forces
causes a moment (a rotational force) or a torque. Id.; CX-0468 (Smith DWS Errata);
CX-0192; CDX-0029 (showing forces creating torque). This torque is supported by
the front l eg member through the bolt that connects the front l eg member and the
seat support. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 304; CDX-0029.
In portable and collapsible chairs, the actual support for the seated user's
weight is provided by all of the interconnected members working together; there
are generally no superfluous parts of the chair frame owing to the desire to keep the
frame lightweight and collapsible without compromising sturdiness and integrity.
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 302. As a result, no single "member" exclusively
supports the chair; each member's interaction with other members helps to stabilize
the chair frame under the seated user's weight and during rocking. Id. This includes
the support member Mr. Smith has identified as the front leg member of the ROK-
IT chair.
Denovo argues that the front leg member on the ROK-IT chair does not
satisfy GCI's claim construction and does not support a forward portion of the chair
because a user can still sit in the ROK-IT chair even if the front leg memb er has
been removed. RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 33. In so arguing, Denovo
implies that the "front leg member" must be the only means for supporting the front
portion of the cha ir. Denovo improperly interprets GCI's claim construction to
require that the front leg member fully or exclusively supports a forward portion of
the chair. In reality, as discussed above, GCI's construction of "front leg member"
is not so limited. A POSITA would recognize that multiple frame members work
together to support the chair vertically, laterally and torsionally, especially in the
field of collapsible and portable furniture. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/ A 302.
As described, the front leg member supports a forward portion of the chair
in combination with other frame members. Without the front leg member, the
unsupported moment between the force from the connector member and the force
on the seat support from a seated user would act to rotate the top of the seat support
inward toward the seat panel, increasing stress in other components. CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 304. This unsupported moment at the forward portion of the
seat support increases stresses at other locations and is much more likely to lead to
49

PUBLIC VERSION
failure, especially under the weight of a seated user and more so during rocking due
to the dynamic loads and the fatigue from the high cyclical loads expected in a
rocking chair. Id. at Q/A 309. The unsupported moment was great enough to
permanently deform the bolts that connect the seat support, front l eg me mber, and
cross m ember bracket. Id.; CX-0468 (Smith DWS Errata); CX-0 191 (bent bolts);
CDX-00 30 (same). Mr. Smith explained that he sat in the chair without the front
leg member, and it did not have the same support. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A
3 10. Thus, the front leg member on the ROK-IT chair plainly performs the function
of supp orting a forward portion of th e chair and chair frame, especially under th e
weight of a seated user. Id. at Q/A 305.
Compl. Br. at 25-27.
Respondents argue, in part:
Claim 10 requires side frame assemblies including a front leg member. See
JX-000 1. 	The structure on the Rok-It Chair identified by GCI as the front leg
member is really a front arm rest support tube. See RDX-0021C (bel ow left); CX-
0002C, Q&A 300; CDX-0028 (below right).
As is clear, the alleged front leg member on the Rok-It Chair would never
touch the ground in normal use. Thus, GCI's identified structure is not a front leg
member. Under GCl's construction, the alleged front l eg member must support the
front of the chair. 	GCI argues that the arm rest support tube accomplishes this
through co nnections with other chair members. 	CX-0002C, Q&A 302. 	But the
purpose of this arm rest support tube is to support the hard arm rest, not the front
of the chair. 	See RX-0490C, Q&A 25, 33-34; see also Hrg. Tr. (Oliphant), at
523:10-20. In fact, the Rok-It Chair is fully supported and can sustain the weight
of an adult even after the arm rest support tube is remove d. See RX-0490C, Q&A
25, 33-34; see also Hrg. Tr. (Oliphant), at 525:6-11. 	Thus, und er GCI's own
construction, the Rok-lt Chair does not infringe because the element GCI itself
identifies as the "front leg member" does not support the front portion of the chair
in normal use. See RX-0490C, Q&A 25, 33-34; Hrg. Tr. (Oliphant), at 523:10-20;
see also Hrg. T r. (Babcock), at 667:22-668:19.
As noted above, GCI initially identified the lower end of the main tube as
the alleged front leg member, the same element it identifies as the back support
member and fulcrum member. See RX-0333C at 66-70 (Exhibit A of RX-0333C
at 28-32). Realizing this would render one or both elements insufficient to meet
claim 10, it later changed its theory of infringement, instead identifying the Rok-lt
Chair's front arm rest support tube was the front leg member. See §11.A.2, supra.;
see also RX-0335C, at 88-90 (Exhibit A to RX-0335C, at 39-4 1). GCI now alleges,
upon realizing again that the Rok-It Chair does not li terally infringe under GCI's
own theory, that the front am1 rest support tube of the Rok-lt Chair meets the "front
leg member" element under the DOE. GCI alleges that the function of the front leg
member is to support "a forward portion of a chair. " 	RX-0305, at 10, Term 17.
50

PUBLIC VERSION
However, with the a im rest support tube removed, the chair still supports a user's
weight. 	See RX-0490C, Q&A 33-34; RPX-0014; RPX-0015; see also Hrg. Tr.
(Oliphant), at 523:10-20; Hrg. Tr. (Babcock), at 667:22-668: 19. 	The cross
members that are connected to the seat members sufficiently supported a user 's
weight with no change in the seating experience. 	See RX-0490C, Q&A 33, 34.
The primary function of the alleged "front leg member" is merely to support the
am1rest. See Hrg. Tr. (Oliphant), at 523: 10-20. When that member is removed, the
chair still supports at least 260 lbs., demonstrating that GCI is wrong. id. at 525:6-
11 ; Hrg. Tr . (Babcock), at 66 7: 22-668:19; see also RX-0490C, Q&A 31 -34, RPX-
0015.
The alleged way the front leg member carries out the alleged function also
is different. Id. 	As GCI contends, the alleged front l eg member supports the front
po1tion of the chair by distributing forces and stress on the chair to other chair
members. 	See CX-0002C, Q&A 31 1. 	Yet, Denovo wit ne sses testifi ed and
demonstrated that the chair would fully support the weight of an adult male even
after the purported "front leg member" was removed. See RX-0490C, 	Q&A 33-
34; RPX-0014; RPX-0015; see also Hrg. Tr. (Oliphant), at 523:10-20; Hrg. Tr.
(Babcock), at 667:22-668: 19. Finally, the result also is different. Under GCl's own
allegations, the alleged front leg member must support th e armrest, yet under any
interpretat ion the claimed front leg member must instead suppoii 	the chai r.
Sin1ilarly, claim 10 does not include an armrest and must be read broadly enough
to cover chairs that do not include am1rests yet have front leg members. Thus, the
claimed front leg member must be capable of supporting a chair that has no armrest.
The purported front l eg member identified by GCI on the Rok-It Chair cannot
perform this function. In addition, GCl's theory that the front am1 support tube of
the Rok-It Chair is equivalent to the claimed front leg m ember would ensnare the
prior art DL Hard Arm chair, the Lougee chair, and the Chen chair. For at least the
above reasons, GCI's assertion of doctrine of equivalents must be rejected.
The Rok-lt Chair does not have the claimed front leg member and,
therefore, does not infringe. See RX-0490C, Q&A 25-34.
Resps. Br. at 26-29.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; the claim term "front leg
member" is construed to mean "a chair frame memb er for suppotting a forward portion of a
chair. "
Under the adopted construction, the evidence adduced by GCI shows that the accused
products include a front leg member because the alleged front leg member is a chair frame
member that at least supports the arm rest, which is a forward portion of th e chair. See
51

PUBLIC VERSION
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 305-06, 309; Penn Tr. 573; CX-0273C (Penn Dep.) at
44:20-46: 13; CX-0307C at 4 (showing "front arm support tube" (item 9) on Hard Arm Dual
Lock). Respondents argue that "the Rok-It Chair is fully supported and can sustain the weight of
an adult even after the arm rest support tube is removed." Resps. Br. at 27. However, with the
front leg member removed, there would be no support for at least the forward portion of the
a1mrest, and the armrest is indisputably part of the Rok-It chair. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at
Q/A 305-06, 309; Oliphant Tr. 518.
Even if Denovo's proposed construction for this claim limitation were adopted, GCI
adduced evidence showing that all accused products would nevertheless satisfy this claim
limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. Specifically, the front l eg member achieves
substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same
result whether or not the front leg member directly engages the ground at all times to support the
chair. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 311. For example, the function of the front leg
member is to provide support to a forward portion of the chair and the user seated therein. id.
The way it does this is by distributing force and stress from a forward portion of the chair. id.
The result is a chair that does not break under expected loads. id. The differences between a
front leg member directly engaging the ground and one that engages other members are
insubstantial. Id.
Accordingly, it is detem1ined that the accused products satisfy this claim linutation under
the adopted claim constructions. Alternatively, it is dete1mined that the accused products satisfy
this claim linutation under the doctrine of equivalents even if Denovo's proposed clain1
construction were adopted.
52

PUBLIC VERSION
d. 	a rear leg member;
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; the claim term "rear leg
member" is construed to mean "a chair frame member for supporting a rearward portion of a
chair." Under the claim construction adopted above, the record evidence demonstrates that th e
Rok-It Chair includes a rear leg member. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 312-14. Denovo
does not contest with p articularity that the accused products satisfy this limitation, especially
under GCI's proposed claim construction which has been adopted. See Resps. Br. at 18-34.
Even if Denovo 's proposed construction for this claim limitation were adopted, GCI
adduced evidence showing that all accused products would nevertheless satisfy this claim
limitation under respondents' proposed construction. Specifically, the Rok-It Chair's side frame
assemblies include a generally axially elongated frame member at the rear of the chair that
engages the ground directly or with a rocker mechanism at all times to support the chair. See
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 313-14.
Accordingly, it is determined that the Rok-It Chair includes a rear leg member.
e. 	a back support member;
The term "a back support member" was not a disputed term proposed by the parties for
construction. Nevertheless, the parties dispute whether or not the Rok-It Chair satisfies the
limitation. The administrative law judge finds that the Rok-It Chair includes a back support
member. Each side frame assembly in the accused chair has a portion that supports the back.
See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 315, 318.
GCI argues, in part:
The ROK-IT satisfies the clain1 element "a back support member" as
recited by claim 10 of the '824 Patent. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 315, 318.
As shown in CDX-0033, the ROK-IT's side frame assemblies have a back support
53

PUBLIC VERSION
member that supports the back. Id. at Q/A 316; Tr. (Penn) at 572:7-10. The back
support member on the ROK-IT chair extends upwardly from the seat support
member to the top of the chair and is separate from (i.e., does not overlap with) the
fulcrum member. Tr. (Smith) at 286:15-287:4; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A
316, 320. The back support member is pivotally connected to at least the seat
support member, and there is also a bracket on the back support member that has
pivotal attachments with the armrest and the rear leg member. Tr. (Smith) at
290:19-25; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 348.
[T]he identified structure on the ROK-IT chair meets the "back support member"
limitation literally. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/ A 320, 348; see Powell, 663 F.3d
at 1231-32 (upholding infringement whereby two claim elements were satisfied by
two halves of the same structure). Denovo's erroneous reading of the claim
language requiring the back suppo1i 	member and the fulcrum member to be
"separate and distinct" members is incorrect and contrary to the plain and ordinary
meaning of the claim.
Not only does Denovo's argument fail on the merits, it also should be
rejected as untimely. Denovo did not raise the argument that all members of the
side frame assembly must be separate and distinct members that are pivotally
interconnected (and only pivotally interconnected) during the exchange of claim
construction positions, thus waiving it. See Certain Printing and Imaging Devices
& Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Order No. 29, at 21 (May 4, 2010)
(holding that respondents waived claim construction arguments by failing to offer
a proposed construction in Joint Claim Construction Statement).
Compl. Br. at 28-31 (footnotes omitted).
Respondents argue, in part:
The clain1s require separate fulcrum members and back support members,
and 	that 	the 	fulcrum 	member 	and 	back 	support 	members 	are 	pivotally
interconnected with each other and with the other frame members. 	The back
support members in the Rok-It Chair are not pivotally interconnected with any of
the other chair frame members, including the fulcrum member.
Specifically, 	the 	'824 patent (JX-0001), 	clain1 	10 (emphasis 	added)
requires:
a pair of side frame assemblies including a front leg member, a rear leg
member, a back support member, and a fulcrum member . .. , said
members 	comprising 	each 	side 	frame 	assembly 	being 	pivotally
interconnected for folding movement between the set-up condition of the
chair and a collapsed condition of the chair ...
54

PUBLIC VERSION
The Rok-It Chair does not satisfy these elements for at least three reasons.
First, the feature that GCI identifies as the back support member is not pivotally
connected to any other member of the side frame assembly. 	Second, these back
support and fulcrum members form a single unitary element whereas the claims
require that these be separate elements. 	Third, a unitary rod cannot be the
equivalent of two interconnected members. See RX-0490C, Q&A 17-24.
First, the members of the side frame assemblies are recited in claim 10 as
separate elements. See JX-0001, at claim 10 ("side frame assemblies including a
front leg member, a rear leg member, a back support member, and a fulcrum
member . .. "). 	The '824 patent clearly indicates that each of the side frame
assembly members are separate elements:
Each side frame assembly 120 includes an armrest 122, a front leg 124, a
rear leg 128, a seat support member 129, and a backrest support member
130, all interconnected by pivotal connections that facilitate folding of
the chair 110 between a set-up condition, as shown, and a fo lded condition.
JX-0001 at 11 :45-49 (emphasis added) ....
The element of the Rok-It Chair that GCI identifies as both the back support
member and the fulcrum member runs from the very top to the very bottom of the
chair. . . . 	But this purported back support member/fulcrum member are not
separate in the Rok-It Chair (RX-0490C, Q&A 21) - 	they are the same member
and GCI has admitted as much. 	See Hrg. Tr. (Smith), at 227:21-23 (discussing
CDX-0033 and -0034 and acknowledging that the Main Tube identified in both
exhibits "is the same physical piece") ....
Further, the plain language of claim IO requires inte rc onnection between
the members of the frame side assembly. The detailed description GCI itself relies
on discloses that the members are interconnected by jo ints, thus the members must
be separate elements. See RX-0490C, Q&A 22-23 ....
Second, claim 10 requires that all side frame assembly members be
interconnected for pivotal movement or pivotally interconnected. JX-0001 at clain1
10 	("said 	members 	comp ri sing 	each 	side 	frame 	assembly 	being 	pivotally
interconnected ... "). However, the Rok-It Chair's purported back support members
are not pivotally interconnected with any other members of the side frame
assembly ....
Third, a single, unitary member cannot be an equivalent of two separate,
pivotally 	connected 	members. 	In 	the 	Rok-It 	Chair 	there 	is 	no 	pivotal
interconnection at all between the back suppori member and the fulcrum member
or any other side frame assembly member, much less one that is equivalent to this
element in the claims. See RX-0490C, Q&A 22.
55

PUBLIC VERSION
In any case, a "rigid" connection is the exact opposite of a pivotal
interconnection and cannot be an equivalent, at least because it, by definition,
cannot perform the function or achieve the result of the claimed invention in the
same way. Advanced Steel Recovery, 808 F.3d at 1320. Specifically, the elongated
rod will not fold at the location of the seat, where the alleged fulcrum and back
support member meet. If there was a pivotal interconnection between the alleged
back support and fulcrum members, it would be possible to fold the chair into a
smaller configuration, allowing for greater ease of storage. 	Since this unitary
member cannot be folded at the location of the seat, this results in a much longer
configuration, which in itself is a substantially different way to fold the Rok-It
Chair and substantially different result.
Resps. Br. at 19-26.
Denovo argues that the back support member and the fulcrum member must be separate
and di stinct members of the side frame assembly that are pivotally connected to each other. See
id. However, the specification of the '824 patent discloses different elements of the chair frame
as separate portions of a single tube. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, lns. 27-37
(discussing portions of the side frame assembly 20 including the am1Iest portion 22, front leg
po1tion 24, a lower support portion 26, a rear leg po1tion 28, and a backrest support member 30
and stating "[t]hough illustrated as being formed from a singular tubular member, the side frame
assembly 20 may be constructed from multiple tubular members with departing from the spirit
and principles of the present invention"); col. 6, lns. 38-45 (describing a backrest support
member that can be rigidly attached or removably attached to the frame); col. 10, lns. 9-17
(describing a backrest support member that can be rigidly attached, removably attached, or
pivotally attached to other frame members); Smith Tr. 293-294. Claim 10 of the '824 patent
does not include any language requiring a specific structural relationship between the back
support member and the fulcrum member. Smith Tr. 287.
Denovo cites the following portion of the specification: "[e]ach side frame assembly 120
56

PUBLIC VERSION
includes an armrest 122, a front l eg 124, a rear leg 128, a seat suppo1t member 129, and a
back.rest support member 130, all interconnected by pivotal connections that facilitate fo lding of
the chair 110 between a set-up condition, as shown, and a folded condition." JX-0001 ('824
patent) at col. 11 , ln s. 45-49. However, this se ntence does not refer to the fulcrum member and
is included in a paragraph describing only the specific embodiment shown in Figure 9.
Even ifDenovo's proposed construction that the back support member and the fulcrum
member must be separate and distinct members of the side frame assembly that are pivotally
connected to each other were adopted, GCI adduced evidence showing that all accused products
would nevertheless satisfy this claim limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. The
differences would be insubstantial to a person of skill in the art because the "back support
member" and the "fulcrum member" would still be pivotally connected relative to the other
members of the. side frame assembly, and thus the identified structure on the Rok-It Chair meets
these limitations under the doctrine of equivalents. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 319-20.
For example, the back support member performs substantially the same function, providing a
back support, in substantially the same way, by providing a physical structure to support the
user 's back, achieving substantially the same re sult, support of the u ser' s back. See id.
Respondents did not adduce evidence to rebut GCI's argument for infringement of this clain1
limitation by the accused products under the doctrine of equivalents. See Resp s. Br. at 24-26.
Accordingly, it is detem1ined that the Rok-It Chair includes a back support member under
the adopted claim constructions. Alternatively, it is dete1mined that the Rok-It Chair satisfies
this claim linutation under the doctrine of equivalents even if Denov o's proposed clain1
constructions were adopted.
57

PUBLIC VERSION
f. 	a fulcrum member;
The administrative law judge finds that Denovo's Rok-It Chair includes this feature of
claim 10. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 322.
GCI argues, in pa1i:
The ROK-IT chair satisfies the clain1 element "a fulcrum member," as
recited by claim 10. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 322. As shown in CDX-0034,
the ROK-IT has a fulcrum member in the form of an elongated member attached as
part of the side frame assembly to help support the chair, which has a fulcrum point
at its terminal end. Id. at Q/A 323-24. The fulcrum point further comprises a foot
on the end of the fulcrum member for directly engaging the ground surface. Id. The
fulcrum member on the ROK-IT chair extends downwardly from just below the
seat support member to the fulcrum point and is separate from (i.e., does not overlap
with) the back support member. Tr. (Smith) at 286:15-287:4; RX-0337C at Ex. A,
p. 44. The fulcrum member has both a pivotal and sliding connection to at least the
front leg member, which is part of the side frame assembly, as well as the cross
membe r. Tr. (Smith) at 291: 1-7.
Denovo argues that the fulcrum member and the back support member are
not separate and distinct members of the side frame assembly that are pivotally
connected to each other. But as discussed above with respect to the back support
member, claim 10 of the '824 Patent does not require that the fulcrnm memb er and
the back suppo tt member be separate components pivotally connected to each
other. Tr. (Smith) at 290:5-15; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 320, 347-48; CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 96 . Indeed, claim 10 of the '824 Patent does not
include any language requiring a specific stmctural relationship between the
fulcrum member and the back support member. Tr. (Smith) at 287: 15-21.
Compl. Br. at 31-32.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; the clain1 term "fulcrum
member" is construed to mean "a chair frame member providing a fulcrum point for the chair
frame."
The evidence adduced by GCI shows that the Rok-It Chair includes a fulcrum member
because the Rok-It Chair includes an elongated member attached as part of the side frame
assembly to help support the chair, which has a fulcrum point at its terminal end. See CX-0002C
(Smith D\VS) at Q/A at Q/A 323-24. As noted above, Denovo argues that the back support
58

PUBLIC VERSION
member and the fulcrum member must be separate and distinct members of the s ide frame
assembly that are pivotally connected to each other. See Resps. Br. at 19-26. However, as
previously discussed, the specification of the '8 24 patent discloses different elements of the chair
frame as separate portions of a single tube. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, lns. 27-37.
Even if Denovo 's proposed construction that the back support memb er and the fulcrum
member must be separate and dist inct members of the side frame assembly that are pivotally
connected to each other were adopted, GCI adduced evidence showing that all accused products
would nevertheless satisfy this claim limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. The
differences would be insubstantial to a person of skill in the art because the "b ack support
member" and the "fulcrum member" would still be pivotally connected relative to the other
members of the s ide frame assembly, and thus the identified structu re on the Rok-It Chair meets
these limitations under the doctrine of equivalents. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 329.
For example, the fulcrum member perfo rm s substantially the same function, allowing motion of
the frame side assemblies, in substantially the same way, by providing a pivot, achieving
substantially the same result, rocking motion of the Rok-It Chair. See id.
Accordingly, it is determined that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this claim limitation under
the adopted claim construction. Alternatively, it is determined that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this
claim limitation under the doctrine of equivalents even if Denovo 's proposed claim construction
were adopted.
59

PUBLIC VERSION
g. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a
terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition
thereof;
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "a fulcrum member defining a
fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the
chair sits in a set-up condition thereof" is "a chair frame member with a point on the terminal end
thereof that touches the ground surface (not a pait of the chair) in the set-up condition, and on
which a chair frame is supported." Under the adopted construction, the record evidence
demonstrates that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this linlitation of asserted independent clain1 10.
CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 299-309.
GCI argued, in part:
The ROK-IT chair satisfies the clain1 element "a fulcrum 	member
defining a fulcrum point," as recited by clain1 10. CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at
Q/A 325; Tr. (Babcock) at 639: 16-25. As shown in CDX-0035 and CDX-0036, the
ROK-IT has a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at its terminal end in
association with the fulcrum member's foot that is in direct contact with the ground
surface and supports the chair in the setup position and as it rocks between forward
and rea1ward positions. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 326-27; Tr. (Babcock) at
639:20-640:6 (testifying that the ROK-IT chair pivots around the rivets in the front
foot).
The ROK-IT chair has a literal fulcrum member defining a literal fulcrum
point at the ternlinal end thereof, as shown in CDX-0001 . CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 633. According to the '824 Patent, the fulcrum member is a "generally
axially elongated frame membe r. " Id. at Q/A 634; JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at cl. I.
The claim language pernlits more than just a steel tube component. CX-0002C
(Snlith DWS) at QIA 635. The inclusion of a fulcrum point and a foot at the terminal
end of the fulcrum member does not change the generally axially elongate nature
of this frame member. Id .
Denovo's arg ument also fails on the merits. Denovo again relies exclusively
on the Figure 9 embodiment, even though the clain1 language in1poses no
60

PUBLIC VERSION
restrictions on the shape of the fulcrum point. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A
87; Tr. (Babcock) at 640:21-641:9 ("Q. Are you limiting the scope of fulcrum point
to what's shown in 154 in Figure 9? Yes or no? A. Yes"). By doing so, Denovo
again violates basic tenets of claim constmctio n. See, e.g., Kara Tech., 582 F.3d at
1348 ("The patentee is entitled to the full scope of his claims, and we will not linlit
him to his preferred embodiment or import a limitation from the specificati on into
the clain1s."); Ph illips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[W]e
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments."); see
also Tr. (Smith) at 294:24-295:2 ("Q. And would one of ordinary skill in th e art
limit the scope of the claims to th at particular embodiment? A. My understanding
is that claims are not usually limited to a particular embodiment.").
In addition to meeting the "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point"
limitation literally, Mr. Smith explained that the ROK-IT also meets this limitation
under the doctrine of equivalents because the differences (if any) are insubstantial.
CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 329. F or example, the fulcmm member defining
a fulcrum point perfom1s substantially the same function (allowing motion of the
frame side assemblies), in substantially the same way (by providing a pivot), to
achieve substantially the same result (rocking motion of the chair). Id.
The ROK-IT chair satisfies the claim language that the fulcrum po int be "at
a terminal end thereof [of the fulcrum member]," as recited by claim 10 of the
'824 Patent. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 33 0. As shown in CDX-0037, the
ROK-IT has a fulcmm member defining a fulcrum point with a foot that directly
engages the ground at a terminal end thereof, and therefore would meet this
limitation under any party's claim constmction. Id. at Q/A 331 -32. As used in
the'824 Patent, "temlinal end" is not linlited to the distal or lowermost end, and
clain1 10 does not require that the fulcrum point be on the "lowermost end" of the
fulcmm member. Tr. (Snlith) at 29 7: 21 -298:10, 298:24-299: 1. Denovo 's expert
agrees t hat the foot is at the end towards the ground of the fulcrum m emb er. Tr.
(Babcock) at 640: 16-20. The ROK-IT also meets this limitation under the doctrine
of equivalents as the differences between th e area at the end of th e member and the
distal end of the member are insubstantial. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at QIA 329;
CX-0464C (Snlith RWS) at Q/A 87.
The ROK-IT chair satisfies the claim element "adapted for contacting the
ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition thereof," as
recited by claim 10 of the '824 Patent. CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 333. As
shown in CDX-0035 and CDX-0036, the ROK-IT has a fulcrum member with a
fulcmm point adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which it s its in the
setup position through the foot, which is pari of the fulcrum member. CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 334-35. The fulcmm point supports the chair frame, and the
contact of the fulcmm memb er with the support surface, whether direct or indirect,
helps movement of the chair frame between forward and rearward positions. Id. A
POSITA would understand that "ground surface" refers to the surface on which the
chair sits when set up. Id. at Q/A 338; Tr. (Babcock) at 639: 12- 15 ; JX-0001 ('824
61

PUBLIC VERSION
Patent) at 11 :53-56, 12:20-25 .
Denovo argues that the fulcrum point itself needs to "engage the ground
surface" or "tou ch the ground or support surface" (see RX-0490C (Babcock RWS)
at Q/A 43). In so arguing, Denovo effectively reads out of the claim the requirement
that the fulcrum point be "adapted for contacting the ground surface," JX-0001
('824 Pate nt) 14:57-58 (emphasis added), and would rewrite the claims to mean
"directly contacting the ground surface." But the claim includes the specific words
"adapted for," and it would be improper to simply ignore those words. See ERBE
Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Technology LLC, 629 F. 3d 1278, 1286 (Fed. Cir.
2010) ("[ A ]11 the limitations of a claim must be considered meaningful. ") ( internal
citations omitted). The ROK-IT chair has a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum
point at its terminal end that is adapted fo r contacting the ground surface through
the fulcrum member's foot, which in turn directly contacts the ground surface. CX-
0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 323,326,3 31, 334; see JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 9:52-
54 ("The chair frame 12 is generally adapted to rest on a generally horizontally
oriented supporting surface, such as a floor or the ground, in a set-up condition.").
Comp!. Br. at 32-36.
Denovo argues, in part:
Claim 10 requires "a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal
end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon whi ch the chair sits in
a set-up condition thereof and about which the chair can mo ve between forward
and rearward rocking positions." JX-0001, at claim 10. This element co TI'esponds
to elements 154 and 155 in the ' 824 patent: "the fulcrum member 15 5 has a fulcrum
point 154 on its lowermost end that contacts the ground surface and aids rocking
of the chair 110." Id. (emphasis added).
As is detailed above, GCI construes this clain1 element to mean: "a chair
frame member with an end defining a point that 9!!! touch the surface on which the
chair sits when set-up, and on which the chair frame is supported and about which
the chair frame pivots during the rocking motion in forward and backward
directions." RX-0305 (emphasis added). GCI first identified the part of the foot
that actually touches the ground as the terminal e nd . . ..
Further, GCI identified as the claimed fulcrum point the rivet that connects
an upper part of a foot to a lower part of a foot and about which th e two parts rotate
relative to one another. 	Id . The upper part of the foot connects to the main tube
(GCI's "fu lcrum member"), and th e lower part of the foot engages th e ground. See
CDX-0001 (reproduced above). Thus, the terminal end, as GCI initially identified,
is properly considered th e bottom of th e foot.
62

PUBLIC VERSION
GCI also argues that a fulcrum point that is off the ground is an equival ent
of the claimed fulcrum point that is "adapted for contacting the ground surface."
JX-0001, at claim 10; see also CX-0002C, Q&A 329. 	Yet again, Mr. Smith's
testimony "is broad and scant." Akzo Nobel Coatings, 811 F.3d at 1343. GCI has
failed to "p rovide particularized testimony and linking argument" necessary to
establish the doctrine of equivalents. Advanced Steel Recovery, 808 F .3d at 1319.
First, the front leg, which GCI identified as the fulcrum member, does not function
as a fulcrum and thus cannot have a fulcrum point; it is a support member. See RX-
0490C, Q&A 36-37. 	Second, the purported fulcrnm point is not part of the GCI
identified fulcrum member but is part of and interior to an entirely different design
element, called a foot. Id. Q&A 36, 38. Third, the purported fulcrum point is not
a point about which the Rok-It Chair can move between a forward and a rearward
position, as required by Claim 10. 	Id. 	Q&A 36, 39-42. 	Finally, the purported
fulcrum point is not adapted for contacting the ground. Id. Q&A 36, 43. Mr. Smith
does not even attempt to address these differences much less support his claim that
they are insubstantial.
Furthe1more, GCI has repeatedly argued that the prior art lodged against the
'824 patent (e.g., Dual Lock, Chen, Loungee) is not applicable because there is no
pivot po int about which the chair rocks and contacts the ground. See CX-0464C,
Q&A 219; 240; 254. By presenting this argument; GCI is admitting that the design
of the foot in the Rok-It Chair is substantially different than the clain1ed invention.
It is so different, in fact, that GCI cannot accept an element of a prior art device that
actually does touch and pivot upon the ground as an equivalent to th e Rok-It pivot
above the ground. By its own distinctions from the prior art, GCI points out why
Denovo's raised pivot point, above the ground, is not equivalent to the prior art feet
that contacted and pivoted on the ground. See RX-0490C, Q&A 43.
Resps. B r. at 31-34.
The evidence adduced by GCI shows that the accused products include this limitation
because the Rok-lt Chair has a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at the temunal end
thereof that touches th e ground surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up condition, and on
which a chair frame is supported. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A at Q/A 633.
Denovo argues that "the alleged fulcrum point of the Rok-lt Chair does not contact the
ground; it is within the foot, well above the ground, and a substantial amount of pla stic material
is below it that contacts the ground." Resps. Br. at 32. However, the Rok-It Chair has a fulcrum
member defining a fulcrum point within a foot that directly engages the ground at a terminal end
63

PUBLIC VERSION
thereof, and therefore meets the adopted claim construction. See CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at
Q/A 33 1-32. Denovo's expert agreed that the foot is at the end towards the ground of the
fulcrum member. Babcock Tr. 640.
Fmthermore, inasmuch as Denovo admits the alleged fulcrum point is "within the foot,"
Resps. Br. at 32, the Rok-lt Chair satisfies the claim element "adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition thereof." The Rok-lt Chair has a fulcrum
member defining a fulcrum point at its terminal end that is adapted for contacting the ground
smface through the fulcrum member 's foot, which in turn directly contacts the ground surface.
See CX -0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 323,326,331,334; JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 9, lns. 52-
54 {"The chair frame 12 is generally adapted to rest on a generally horizontally o riented
supporting surface, such as a floor or the ground, in a set-up co ndition .").
Accordingly, it is determined that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this claim limitation under
the adopted claim constructions. Inasmuch as GCl's proposed construction is "capable of
touching and sitting on a surface when in a set-up condition", Denovo 's accused products would
also infringe under GCI's construction.
h. 	about which the chair can move between forward and
rearward rocking positions;
The record evidence demonstrates that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this limitation of
asserted independent clain1 10. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 339.
GCI argues, in pait:
The ROK-IT satisfies the claim element "about which the chair can move
between fonvard and rearward rocking positions," as recited by clain1 10, under
each party's proposed construction. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 339. As
shown in CDX-0038, CDX-0039, and CDX-0040C, the ROK-IT moves about the
fulcrum point between forward and rearward positions under GCl's proposed
construction. Id. at Q/A 340-41; Tr. (Smith) at 291 :3 -15; Tr. (Penn) at 558:24-
64

PUBLIC VERSION
560: 18; Tr. (Babcock) at 635 :22-63 7:16. The forward and rearward positions are
further shown in CX-0150 (video of ROK-IT chair rocking); CX-0141C at .0015
(showing the initial (forward) and final (rearward) positions of the ROK-IT chair);
CX-0279C at .0008.
Denovo argues that the ROK-IT chair does not move between forward and
rearward positions about the fulcrnm member because the ROK-IT chair cannot
move forward from "an initial, or set up position," as defined by Denovo apart from
the patent description. RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 40. Initially, Denovo is
attempting to incorrectly equate the new term "initial, or set up position" with the
actual term used in the '824 Patent, the "set-up condition." As described in Section
V.A.4, supra, the '824 Patent does not ev en use the terms "initial position" or "set
up position" but instead uses the term "set-up condition" throughout the patent to
describe simply the unfolded state of the chair as compared to the folded state of
the chair. JX- 0001 ('824 Patent) at 1: 15-19 ( explaining that the invention relates to
"rocking chairs that are foldable and unfoldab le between a set-up condition for use
and a substantially collapsed condition for transportation and/or storage."); id. at
14:58-59 ("the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition
thereof'); id. at 14:61-64 ("said members being pivotally interconnected for folding
movement between the set-up condition of the chair and a collapsed condition of
the chair."). The chair remains in a set-up condition during rocking motion. JX-
0001 ('824 Patent) at 9:15-19 and 10:60-62. Moreover, the '824 Patent only
describes the forward and rearward positions relative to each other and not relative
to some " initial or set-up position," terms that are completely absent from the '824
Patent. Id. at 38-43.
Claim 10 of the '824 Patent does not include any language requiring that
the forward position of the chair be forward of the initial position. JX-0001 (' 824
Patent) 14:57-61; Tr. (Smith) at 295: 13-24. Indeed, the '824 Patent does not require
any specific location for the forward and rearward positions and does not specify
the amount of forward or rearward movement that is necessary for a rocking
motion. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 343; Tr. (Cameron) 338:8-11; Tr. (Smith)
at 295:24-296:7. As the location of the forward position would change based on,
for example, the size of the user and how forcefully the us er is rocking, a POSITA
would understand that the forward position is simply the location where the rocking
motion changes from moving in a forward direction to moving in a rearward
direction. Tr. (Smith) at 296:3-9; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 343; CX-0464C
(SmithRWS) at Q/A 93. Thus, the ROK-IT moves about the fulcrnm point between
forward and rearward positions under GCI's proposed constrnction. Id. at Q/A 340-
41; Tr. (Penn) at 558:24-560:18.
Comp!. Br. at 36-38.
Denovo argues, in part:
65

PUBLIC VERSION
Claim IO requires that the chair frame "move between forward and rearward
rocking positions" about the fulcrum member and about the "setup condition." JX-
0001, at claim 10. 	GCI's proposed construction for this element is a "rocking
motion in a forward and rearward direction." 	RX-0305, at 10, Term 16. Denovo
believes that a "forward position is when a portion of the chair moves farther right
to left (in Fig. 9) and across a vertical plane extending upward from the fulcrum
point than at the set-up condition and rearwards is when a poriion of the chair moves
farther left to right (in Fig. 9) and across the vertical plane extending upward from
the fulcrum point than at the set-up condition." Id. Denovo 's position is illustrated
in an annotated Fig. 9 (above). RDX-0058. As discussed above in Section II.A.,
GCI's construction of this limitation is contrary to the plain meaning of the claim,
ignores that it must move "about" the setup condition.
Contrary to the claimed requirement, the Rok-It Chair does not move to a
forward pos ition from the set-up. 	Indeed, the Rok-It Chair cannot move in a
forward direction from the set-up condition either (per GCI's construction), it
would tip forward, 	lift the rocker mechanism off the ground, and fail the
requirement for a rocker mechanism to "support[] the chair during movement of
the chair frame between said forward and rearward positions." 	See RX-0490C,
Q&A 41. Further, when a user is seated in the Rok-It Chair in normal use, the chair
never even returns to the set-up condition. Hrg. Tr. (Penn); at 559:25-560: 11; Hrg.
Tr. (Babcock), at 664 :2-11.
When the Rok-It Chair is opened and placed on the ground, it is in the set-
up position. 	See CX-0002C at p. 40; CDX-0020. 	In that position, the spring
mechanism in the Rok-It Chair is physically incapable of moving any higher in the
sleeve. The two rollers are at their highest position when the chair is in the set-up
condition. See RX-0490C, Q&A 40; RX-0076 (reproduced at right). As Mr. Smith
conceded in cross-examination, the Rok-It Chair cannot move from the set-up
position in a forward direction to a forward position. 	See Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at
232:22-24. If the chair were to move any fariher to the right in RX-0076, the chair
would tip over, removing any suppori of the chair by the rocker mechanisms, as
required by the clain1S. id. at 233:5-14; RX-0490C, Q&A 40. Indeed, the Rok-lt
Chair was specifically designed so that it would move only in a rearward direction
to a final rearward position and then return towards the set-up (or initial) position.
See RX-0481C, Q&A 17-22; RX-0176C; RX-0375C, Q&A 32. That is illustrated
in Denovo's product development direction, dated June 26, 2014. See RX-0220C,
at DENOVO 02047; see also RX-490C, Q&A 40.
Mr. Babcock demonstrated this concept in the picture illustrated below in
RDX-0057 where it is shown that the Rok-It Chair cannot move to a forward
position. See also RX-0285; RX-0220C, at DENOVO 02047; RX-0490C, Q&A 40
("At the initial or set-up condition, the springs in the housing are preloaded so that
they hold the Rok-lt Chair at the initial position with rear legs as high as possible.").
Since the Rok-lt Chair cannot move between the clain1ed forward and rearward
position, about the setup condition, the Rok-It Chair does not infringe the claims of
66

PUBLIC VERSION
the '824 patent. 	Additionally, if the Rok-It Chair were to move in a forward
direction from the set-up position, the spring mechanisms would be lifted off the
ground and would not be supporting the chair in that forward position as required
by claim 10. 	Thus, the Rok-It Chair does not infringe for this additional reason.
See RX-0490C, Q&A 40-42.
Resps. Br. at 29-31.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; the claim term "about which the
chair can move between forward and rearward rocking positions" is construed to mean "rocking
motion between forward and backward directions."
Under the adopted construction, the evidence adduced by GCI shows that the Rok-It
Chair includes a fulcrum point about which the chair can move between forward and rearward
rocking positions because the Rok-It Chair moves about the fulcrum point between forward and
rearward positions under the adopted construction. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 339.
The intrinsic evidence demonstrates that the "set-up position" can be the forward-most position.
See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at co l. 5, lns. 11 -13 (" [T]he chair can be used as a normal, stabilized
chair in its forward position and will only rock when the user chooses to rock."); id. at col. 5, lns.
28-31 ("FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a collapsible and portable rocking chair ... with the chair
in a forward, stabilized position."). The claim language simply states: "a fulcrum point . . . about
which the chair can move between forward and rearward rocking positions." Contrary to
Denovo's argument, the claim language does not preclude the "set-up condition" from being
either the forward or rearward rocking positions.
Even under Denovo's proposed construction that forward position is when a p01tion of
the chair moves farther right to left (in Fig. 9) and across a vertical plane extending upward from
the fulcrum point than at the set-up condition and reaiwards is when a p01tion of the chair moves
farther left to right in Fig. 9 and across the vertical plane extending upward from the fulcrum
67

PUBLIC VERSION
point than at the set-up condition, GCI adduced evidence showing that the Rok- It Chair would
nevertheless satisfy this claim limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 344-45. The function of a fulcrum point about which the chair can move between
forward and rearward positions is to allow motion of the chair frame. Id. The way is by the u se
of a pivot, and the result is rocking motion of the chair. Id . The differences between a forward
position being the same as the set up position, being slightly rearward of the setup position, or
being at some further forward position, are insubstantial. Id.
Accordingly, it is determined that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this clain1 linutation under
the adopted claim construction. Alternatively, it is determined that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this
claim limitation under the doctrine of equivalents even if Denovo's proposed claim construction
were adopted.
i. 	said members comprising each side frame assembly
being pivotally interconnected for folding movement
between the set-up condition of the chair and a
collapsed condition of the chair;
The administrative law judge finds that the Rok-lt Chair includes this lim itation of claim
10. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 322.
GCI argues, in part:
The ROK-IT satisfies the claim element "said members comprising each
side frame assembly being pivotally interconnected for folding movement
between the set-up condition of the chair and a collapsed condition of the
chair," as recited by clain1 10. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 346. As shown in
CDX-0046 and CDX-0047, the members comprising each side frame assembly of
the ROK-IT chair are pivotally interconnected for folding movement between the
setup and collapsed condition of the chair. Id . at Q/A 348-49.
Denovo's expert, M r. Babcock, agrees that the members of each side frame
assembly of the ROK-IT chair are pivotally interconnected for folding movement
between the setup and collapsed condition of the chair. Tr. (Babcock) at 641: 10-
642: 5:
68

PUBLIC VERSION
Q. 	Okay. Let me talk to you about how the components in the Rok-It
are connected. You would agree with me that the Denovo chair has
a number of interconnected member s, correct?
A. 	Yes, the Denovo chair has a number of interconnected members.
Q. 	Okay. And the Denovo -- the Rok-It Chair, Denovo chair has a setup
condition; is that correct?
A. 	Yes, the Rok-It Chair has a setup condition.
Q. 	And it has a collapsed condition, correct?
A. 	Yes, that's true.
Q. 	And it has two side frame assemblies, correct?
A. 	Yes, it has two side frame assemblies.
Q. 	Okay. And each side frame assembly includes some members that
are pivotally interconnected, correct?
A. 	Yes, it includes some members that are pivotally interconnected.
Q. 	And those connections enable the Rok-It to move between a setup
condition and a collapsed condition, correct?
A. 	That is certainly one of their functions, yes.
During the exchange of proposed claim constructions, no party contended
that "being pivotally interconnected for fo lding movement" ne eded construction.
See Joint Clain1 Construction Statement (EDIS Doc. ID 695324). Nonetheless,
Denovo belatedly seeks a de facto narrowing construction of this linlitation. See
RPreHB at § II. B. 1. It argues that this language requires that every interconnection
between the members of the side frame assembly must be pivotal (and only pivotal),
and that every frame member must be pivotally connected to other frame members.
See RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 4. The ALJ should reject that argument.
Because D enovo did not raise its argument during clain1 construction, it cannot do
so now, and the plain and ordinary meaning of the te nn controls. See Printing &
Imaging Devices, Inv. No . 337-TA-690, Order No. 29, at 21.
Denovo's argument also fails on its merits. Denovo relies on narrow
constructions of this phrase, purportedly based solely on a single embodin1ent
illustrated in FIG. 9, to assert that the recited back support member and fulcrum
member must be separate and distinct members and cannot be different parts of the
same rigid membe r. RPreHB, at 6-8. But th e claim language is not as narrow as
Denovo 	contends. 	Rather 	than 	defining 	specific 	locations 	for 	the 	pivotal
connections between specific frame members, clain1 10 recites only that "said
members comprising each side frame assembly being pivotally interconnected for
fo lding movement between the set-up condition of the chair and a collapsed
condition of the chair." JX-0001 ('8 24 Patent) at 6:61-64.
* 	* 	*
Moreover, Denovo's interpretation ignores clear disclosures of alternate
embodin1ents in the '824 Patent which are readily applicable to a POSITA's
interpretation of the claim language at issue, let alone th e embodiment in FIG. 9,
69

PUBLIC VERSION
which Denovo purports to be using to advance its narrow construction. Indeed, in
FIG. 9, the fulcrum member 154 is not pivotally connected to the back support
member 130, and thus Denovo' s proposed construction deviates even from the FIG.
9 embod iment. See JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at Fig. 9.
In support of its interpretation, Denovo implores th e ALJ to ignore the '824
Patent for all that it teaches, including th e embodiment sh own in FIGS. 2-7 and th e
associated description. But to restrict the analysis of the claims at issue to a single
embodin1ent is in1prop er. ScriptPro, 833 F.3d at 1341 ("[A) specification's focus
on one particular embodiment or purpose cannot limit the described invention
where that specification expressly contemplates other embodiments or purposes.").
Indeed, the various disclosed embodiments share salient features of the clain1ed
invention, and thus the disclosure of alternate embodiments is instructive to the
POSITA's understanding of the claimed invention.
Comp !. Br. at 38-42 (footnotes omitted).
Denovo argues:
The claims require ... that the fulcrum member and back support members
are pivotally interconnected with each other and with the other frame members.
The back support members in the Rok-It Chair are not pivotally interconnected with
any of the other chair frame members, including the fulcrum m embe r.
Specifically, 	the 	'824 patent (JX-0001), clain1 	10 (emphasis 	added)
requir es:
a pair of side frame assemblies including a front leg member, a rear
leg member, a back support member, and a fulcrum member .. . ,
said members comprising each side frame asse mbly being
pivotally interconnected for folding movement between the set- up
condition of the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair ...
The Rok-It Chair does not satisfy these elements for at least three reason s.
First, the feature that GCI identifies as the back suppo rt member is not pivotally
connected to any other memb er of the side frame assembly. 	Second, these back
support and fulcrum members form a single unitary element whereas the claims
require that these be separate elements. 	Th ird, a unitary rod cannot be th e
equivalent of two interconnected members. See RX-0490C, Q&A 17-24.
First, the members of the side frame assemblies are recited in claim 10 as
separate elements. See JX-0001 , at clain1 10 ("side frame assemblies including a
front leg member, a rear l eg member, a back support member, and a fulcrum
member ... "). 	The '824 patent clearly indicates that each of the side frame
assembly members are separate elements:
70

PUBLIC VERSION
Each side frame assembly 120 includes an armrest 122, a front leg
124, a rear leg 128, a seat support member 129, and a backrest
support member 130, all interconnected by pivotal connections
that facilitate folding of the chair 110 between a set-up condition, as
shown, and a folded condition.
JX-0001 at 11:45-49 (emphasis added). "Where a claim lists elements separate ly ,
the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct
components of the patented invention." 	Becton, 	Dickinson & Co. 	v. 	Tyco
Healthcare Grp., 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 	The use of the teim
"member" connotes that each is separate and distinct from the other claimed
members and Courts have consistently construed this term accordingly. See 180s,
Inc., 699 F. Supp. 2d at 720 (construing each claimed "member" as "separate and
distinct from each other."). As noted, claim 10 requires each member of the side
frame assemblies to be separate.
The element of th e Rok-It Chair that GCI identifies as bo th th e back support
member and the fulcrum member runs from the very top to the very bottom of the
chair. See CDX-00 33 (above left); CDX-0034 (above right); see also CX-0002C
at Q&A 3 16, 323. But this purported back support member/fulcrum member are
not separate in the Rok-It Chair (RX-0490C, Q&A 21) - 	they are the same
member and GCI has admitted as much. 	See Hrg. Tr. (Smith), at 227 :2 1-23
(discussing CDX-0033 and -0034 and acknowledging that the Main Tube identified
in both exhibits "is the same physical piece"); see also RPX-0014; RX-0281
(reproduced below left); RDX-0021C; RX-0161C (reproduced below right).
Further, the plain language of claim 10 requires inte rc o nn ection between
the members of the frame side assembly. The detailed description GCI itse lfrelies
on discloses that the members are interconnected by jo int s, thus the members must
be separate elements. 	See RX-0490C, Q&A 22-23. 	It is the claims and the
specification that control clain1 construction and, by extension, infringement
analysis, not the cleverness of a patentee's purported identification of allegedly
infringing elements. See Regents ofthe Uni v. ofMinnesota v. A GA Medical Corp.,
717 F.3d 929, 939 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (because the claims "consistently use the terms
affixed and conjoint in the sense of their ordinary meanings" and the specification
"comports with the plain language of the claims, fully supporting the conclusion
that the disks are separate ''). Hence the Rok-It Chair does not infringe claim 10 for
at least this reason.
Second, claim 10 requires that all si de frame assembly members be
interconnected for pivotal movement or pivotally interconnected. JX-0001 at clain1
10 	("said 	members 	comprising 	each 	side 	frame 	assembly 	being 	pivotally
interco nnected ... "). However, the Rok-It Chair 's purported back support members
are not pivotally interconnected with any other members of the side frame
assembly. As shown in CDX-0046 (reproduced above), the Rok-It Chair 's pivotal
interconnections identified by GCI do not encompass the identified back support
71

PUBLIC VERSION
member 	(identified in CDX-0034, reproduced above), meaning that there is no
pivotal interconnection at all with the back support member and any other member.
Rather, the so-called "back support member" is attached to the "rear leg member"
with a slidable attachment. 	See RDX-0101. 	Similarly, the alleged "front l eg
member" and "fulcrum member" are connected together with a slidable attachment.
See Id. 	Mr. Smith admitted that these are slidable connections, not pivotal
connection s. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 310:1-4; 310:24-311:7. 	This is contrary to the
plain language of the claims and explicit disclosure in the '824 patent specification
that the members are "all interconnected by pivotal connections." 	JX-0001 at
11 :46-48. 	Further, although the center of the unitary rod is connected to the seat
support (as shown in CDX-46), GCI had never alleged - prior to Mr. Smith's
ambiguous hearing testimony - that the portion of the rod connected to the seat
support member is actually part of the back support member. 	In fact, GCI
previously identified the center of that rod, where it connects to the seat, as the
"fulcrum member end." 	See RX-0337C at Ex. A, p. 14 (reproduced below).
Remarkably, on cross-examination, Mr. Smith attempted to change this narrative,
but sti ll co uld not be certain whether the section of the unita1y rod that connects to
the seat support member is part of the alleged back support member; he merely
testified that the back support member ''probably includes the connection to the
seat support member." Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 225:22-226:4. GCI cannot now change
its position, in support of its nebulous allegation that the Rok-It chair includes these
elements, and allege that the back support member is somehow fortuitously now
connected to the seat support member at the middle of the unitary rod. 	And,
notably, if the back support member is connected to the seat support member at the
center of the rod, that necessarily means that the fulcrum member is now not
connected to the seat support member at the center of the rod, because Mr. Smith
confirmed that the back support member and fulcrum member do not occupy the
same space on that rod- 	i. e., they do not overlap. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 226:5-11.
Thus, if the back support member is connected to the seat support member, then the
fulcrum member is necessarily not pivotally interconnected to any other frame
member because its connection to the alleged front leg member is a slidable
connection. Mr. Smith fails to address any of the above issues with regard the plain
language in the claims or the explicit disclosure of pivotal interconnection in his
conclusory assertion of infringement. 	See CX-0002C, Q&A 320, 347. 	For this
additional reason, the Rok-It Chair does not infringe claim 10.
Third, a single, unitary member cannot be an equivalent of two separate,
pivotally 	connected 	members. 	In 	the 	Rok-lt 	Chair 	there 	is 	no 	pivotal
interconnection at all between the back support member and the fulcrum member
or any other side frame assembly member, much less one that is equivalent to this
element in the claims. See RX-0490C, Q&A 22.
To establish equivalence, GCI must, for each function, way, result prong,
"provide particularized testimony and linking argument . . . with respect to the
function, way, result test when such evidence is presented to suppo1t a finding of
72

PUBLIC VERSION
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents." 	Advanced Steel Recovery, 808
F.3d at 1319. Mr. Smith alleges that the claims do not require the two members to
be separate elements, and the difference between a singular element and two
separate pieces are insubstantial. CX-0002C, Q&A 320. He is wrong for at least
four reasons.
First, as noted above, the claims and the specification require the back
support member and the fulcrum member to be separate elements. See RX-0490C,
Q&A 21-23. 	Second, Mr. Smith asserts that the differences between a singular
element and distinct separate elements is insubstantial. Mr. Smith is attempting to
shoehorn his unmoored infringement theory into a DOE theory. However, under
DOE, 	"an 	infringement 	theory 	. . . 	fails 	if it 	renders 	a 	claim 	limitation
inconsequential or ineffective." 	Akzo Nobel Coatings, 811 F.3d at 1342. 	Each
claim element must be applied to the accused product and cannot simply be
disregarded because GCI arbitrarily decides that certain claim elements are
somehow "insubstantial." 	Third, to the extent GCI is attempting to use the '824
patent's disclosure of unclain1ed alternative types of connections beyond pivotal
joints, it is seeking to reclaim "specifically-disclosed-but-unclaimed matter under
the [DOE]" which "would eviscerate the public notice function of patents and
create unceitainty in the law." 	PSC Computer Prod., Inc. v. Foxconn Int'l, Inc.,
355 F.3d 1353; 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[T]he public would have no way of
knowing which disclosed matter infringed and which did not."). Fourth, "[a DOE]
theory cannot be asserted if it will encompass or 'ensnare' the prior art." Jang v.
Bos. Sci. Corp., 872 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 	Here, GCI's DOE th eory
that the same unitary metal rod is equivalent to the claimed back support and
fulcrum members in the Rok-It Chair would ensnare the prior art Dual Lock Hard
Arm chair, and the Lougee chair. See RX-0489C, Q&A 44-45; RX-0490C, Q&A
58; Hrg. Tr . (Smith) at 78 1:20-782:4.
In any case, a "rigid" connection is the exact opposite of a pivotal
interconnection and cannot be an equivalent, at least because it, by definition,
cannot perform the function or achieve the result of the claimed invention in the
same way. Advanced Steel Recovery, 808 F.3d at 1320. Specifically, th e elongated
rod will not fold at the location of the seat, where the alleged fulcrum and back
support member meet. If there was a pivotal interconnection between the alleged
back support and fulcrum members, it would be possible to fo ld the chair into a
smaller configuration, allowing for greater ease of storage. 	Since this unitary
member cannot be folded at the location of the seat, this results in a much longer
configuration, which in itself is a substantially different way to fold the Rok-It
Chair and substantially different result.
GCI's DOE theory would also improperly vitiate multiple claim limitations,
including "said members .. . being pivotally interconnected for folding movement",
thereby violating the "a ll elements" rule. See RX-0490, Q&A 23. As in Akzo Nobel
Coatings, Mr. Smith's testimony "is broad and scant" and is insufficient to support
GCI's assertion of the doctrine of equivalents. 	811 F.3d at 1343. 	All Mr. Smith
73

PUBLIC VERSION
can muster to support his DOE theory is that the fulcrnm member and back suppo1t
member ''would still be pivotally connected relative to the other members of the
side frame assembly." 	CX -0 002C, Q&A 320. 	But, as noted above, the back
support member is not pivotally connected to anything and the identified fulcrum
and back support members of the Rok-It Chair cannot be pivotally connected to
each other because they are the same member. See RX-0490C, Q&A 23. Further,
as explained above, GCI has admitted that the "back suppo1i member" and "rear
leg member" are slidably connected as are the "front leg member" and "fulcrum
member". See Hrg. T r. (Smith) at 310 :1 -4; 310:24-311:7; RDX-0101. 	Although
GCI made no DOE argument regarding the Rok-It's sliding connections, and has
no evidentiary support for such an argument, neither these slidable connections, nor
the rigid unitary rod identified as the back support/fulcrum member, are equivalent
to the claimed pivotal interconnections because they do not allow for the explicitly
claimed "fo lding movement" functio n. See JX-0001, at claim 10. Moreover, these
sliding connections are unavailable as equivalents because they are unclain1ed
alternatives that are dedicated to the public. See P SC Computer Prod., 355 F.3d at
1360. For these additional reasons, the Rok-It Chair cannot infringe claim 10.
In sum, the Rok-It Chair does not infringe independent claim 10 and,
accordingly, dependent claims 1 1-1 2, 15 , and 	18-19 are also not infringed.
Monsanto, 503 F.3d at 1359.
Resps. Br. at 19-26.
As an initial matter, the a dministrative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand this claim limitation to require that each and every frame member has to be
pivotally connected to other frame members. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art wou ld
understand that members of the side frame assembly pivot relative to other members of the side
frame assembly to permit fo lding movement between the set-up condition and a collapsed
condition of the chair. Smith Tr. 290; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 347; CX -0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 96. Requiring pivotal interconnections between each and every member of the
side frame assembly would read linutations into the claim that are not necessary and are not
suggested by the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language.
Moreover, the specification teaches that the frame members are sufficiently pivotally
interconnected so long as the chair frame can fold into a collapsed condition for easy storage and
74

PUBLIC VERSION
transportation. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, Ins. 51-58 ("[T]he frame side assembly 20
may be constructed from an open design instead of a closed frame loop, including the set-up of a
front and rear leg generally associated with standard folding chair designs, such as shown in FIG.
9, where the frame members are interconnected by 1i gid, pivotal, sliding and/or telescopic jo ints
to effect easy folding and unfolding of the chair between a set-up and collapsed condition."); id.
at col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3; Smith Tr. 293-294. The specification does not state that every
frame member must be pivotally connected to other frame members to fold or unfold the chair.
Denovo argues that the alleged back support member and fulcrum memb er in the accused
chair are not separate elements, as required by claim 10. Resps. Br. at 19-22. However, the
specification of the '824 patent discloses elements of the chair frame being separate portions of a
single tube. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, lns. 27-37 ( "Though illustrated as being
formed from a singular tubul ar member, the side frame assembly 20 may be cons hucted from
multiple tubular members with departing from the spirit and principles of the present
invention."); co l. 6, Ins. 38-45; col. 10, Ins. 9-17. Claim 10 of the '824 patent does not include
any language requiring a specific structural relationship between the back support member and
the fulcrum memb er. Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the back support member and
fulcrum member could be integrally formed. See Powell v. Home Depot US.A., Inc., 663 F.3d
1221, 1232 (Fed. Ci r. 2011 ) ("[The specification] does not suggest that the claim terms require
separate structures.").
Denovo further argues that claim 10 requires that all side frame assembly members be
interconnected for pivotal movement or pivotally interconnected. See Resp s. Br. at 22-24. As
noted above, the administrative law judge does not find that the claim language is so linliting.
The specification of the '824 patent allows for "rigid, pivotal, sliding and/or telescopic joints,"
75

PUBLIC VERSION
regarding the embodiment of FIG. 9. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, lns. 51-58. FIG. 2
illustrates a chair frame 12 that is "comprised of several frame members rigidly and/or pivotally
connected together to define the chair frame 12 and permit folding and collapsing of the frame
12 to a condition suitable for easy transportation and storage." Id. at col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3.
Additionally, ''the frame side assemb ly 20 may be constructed from an open design instead of a
closed frame loop, including th e set-up of a front and rear leg generally associated with standard
folding chair designs, such as shown in FIG. 9, where the frame members are interconnected by
rigid, pivotal, slid ing and/or telescopic jo ints to effect easy fo lding and unfolding of the cha ir
between a set-up and collapsed condition." Id. at col. 6, lns. 51-58.
Denovo' s third argument is that GCI's doctrine of equivalents argument fails because "a
s in gle, unitary member cannot be an equivale nt of two separate, pivotally co nnected members."
Resps. Br. at 24. Inasmuch as Denovo did not propose this tem1 for construction, the
administrative law judge finds that it cann ot do so now, and th e plain and ordinary meaning of
the term controls. Moreover, as noted above, GCI has adduced evidence demonstrating that one
of ordinary sk ill in the art would understand that the back support member and the fulcrnm
member may be formed of a single rod, and still be pivotally interconnected with other members
of the side frame assembly for folding movement between the set-up condition of the chair and a
collapsed condition of the chair. See Sm ith Tr. 290; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 347; CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 96.
Accordingly, it is determin ed that the Rok-It Chair literally satisfies this claim limitation.
76

PUBLIC VERSION
j. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side
frame assembly for supporting the chair during
movement between said fonvard and rearward
positions;
The Rok-It Chair includes at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side frame
assembly for supporting the chair during movement between said forward and rearward
positions. See CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 350-59. Denovo does not contest that the Rok-It
Chair includes this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 18-34.
k. 	a flexible seat and a flexible backrest secured to and
extending between the side frame assemblies.
The Rok-It Chair includes a flexible seat and a flexible backrest secured to and extending
between the side frame assemblies. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 360. Denovo does not
contest that the Rok-It Chair includes this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 18-3 4.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused Rok-It Chair infringes asserted independent
clain110 of the '824 patent.
2. 	Claim 11
The Rok-It Chair is accused of infringing dependent clain1 l l of the '824 patent.
a. 	The colJapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 10
As discussed above, the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies all limitations of independent
claim 10.
b. 	wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least
one of the front leg member and the rear leg member of
each side frame assembly.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies the
additional claim 11 lintitation "wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the
77

PUBLIC VERSION
front leg member and the rear leg member of each side frame assembly." See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 365.
Denovo does not contest that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this claim limitation. See Resps.
Br. at 18-34.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused Rok-It Chair infringes asserted dependent
claim 11 of the '8 24 patent.
3. 	Claim 12
The Rok-It Chair is accused of infringing dependent clain112 of the '824 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 11
As discussed above, the accused Rok-lt Chair satisfies all limitations of dependent claim
11 , as well as those of independent claim 10, upon which clain1 11 depends.
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve
associated with at least one of the front leg member and
the rear leg member, said sleeve further housing a
spring to which said leg member is connected.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies the
additional claim 12 limitation "wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve associated with
at least one of the front leg member and the rear leg member, said sleeve further housing a spring
to which said l eg member is connected." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 369.
Denovo does not contest that the Rok-lt Chair satisfies this claim limitation. See Resps.
Br. at 18-34.
* 	* 	*
78

PUBLIC VERSION
It is therefore determined that the accused Rok-It Chair infringes asserted dependent
claim 12 of the '824 patent.
4. 	Claim 15
The Rok-It Chair is accused of infringing dependent claim 15 of the '824 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 10
As discus sed above, the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies all limitations of independent
claim 10.
b. 	wherein each side frame assembly further comprises a
seat support member pivotally interconnected with
other members of said side frame assembly defining a
seat support for supporting the flexible seat.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies the
additional claim 15 limitation "wherein each side frame assembly further comprises a seat
support member pivotally interconnected with other members of said side frame assembly
defining a seat support for supporting the flexible seat." See CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A
373.
Denovo does not contest that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this claim limitation. See Resps.
Br. at 18-34.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused Rok-It Chair infringes asserted dependent
claim 15 of the '824 patent.
5. 	Claim 18
The Rok-It Chair is accused of infringing dependent claim 18 of the '824 patent.
79

PUBLIC VERSION
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 10
As discussed above, the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies all limitations of independent
claim 10.
b. 	wherein the side frame assemblies are interconnected
by at least one transversely extending connector
mechanism.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies the
additional claim 18 limitation "wherein the side frame assemblies are interconnected by at least
one transversely extending connector mechanism." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 378.
Denovo does not contest that the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies this claim limitation. See
Resps. Br. at 18-34.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused Rok-It Chair infringes asserted dependent
claim 18 of the ' 824 patent.
6. 	Claim 19
The Rok-It Chair is accused of infringing dependent claim 19 of the '824 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 18
As discussed above, the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies all limitations of dependent clain1
18, as well as those of independent claim 10, upon which claim 18 depends.
80

PUBLIC VERSION
b. 	wherein the connector mechanism comprises a pair of
connector members pivotally connected to each other at
a respective intermediate portion thereof about a pivot
axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities
thereof to each of the side frame assemblies.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Rok-It Chair satisfies the
additional claim 18 limitation "wherein the connector mechanism comprises a pair of connector
members pivotally connected to each other at a respective intermediate portion thereof about a
pivot axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities thereof to each of the side frame
assemblies." See CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 383.
Denovo does not contest that the Rok-It Chair satisfies this claim limitation. See Resps.
Br. at 18-34.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused Rok-It Chair infringes asserted dependent
claim 19 of the '824 patent.
D. 	Domestic Industry (Technical Prong)
GCI alleges that its RoadTrip Rocker, Pod Rocker / Pod Rocker with Sunshade, and
Kickback Rocker (the "' 824 GCI products") satisfy all limitations of independent claim 1 of the
'824 patent.
1. 	Claim 1
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
The '824 GCI products all satisfy the claim 1 lintitation "[a] collapsible and portable
rock ing chair." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 696-99, 701. Denovo does not contest that
this claim limitation is satisfi ed . See Resps. Br. at 165 -68.
81

PUBLIC VERSION
b. 	an articulated chair frame defining a back support and
a seat support, wherein said frame has a set-up
condition and a collapsed condition;
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that the '824 GCI products satisfy th e
claim 1 limitation "an articulated chair frame defining a back support and a seat support, wherein
said frame has a set-up condition and a collapsed condition." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at
Q/A 702-05. Denovo does not contest that this claim limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
165-68.
c. 	a seat panel mounted on the seat support of the frame;
The record evidence shows that the '824 GCI products satisfy the claim I limitation "a
seat panel mounted on the seat support of the frame." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A
707-10. Denovo does not contest that this claim limitation is satisfi ed . See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
d. 	a backrest panel mounted on the back support of the
frame;
The record evidence demonstrates that the '824 GCI products satisfy this claim
limitation. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 712-15. Denovo does not contest that this claim
limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
e. 	wherein said chair frame comprises a pair of side frame
assemblies of opposite hand disposed in generally
parallelly extending and transversely spaced apart
opposing relation to each other,
GCI adduced evidence showing that each of the '824 GCI products satisfies this
limitation of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 717-20. Denovo does not contest
that this claim limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
82

PUBLIC VERSION
f. 	each of said side frame assemblies having a plurality of
generally axially elongated frame members being
interconnected for pivotal movement relative to one
another about generally transversely extending pivot
axes, said frame members including:
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 722-26.
GCI argues, in part:
The '824 Covered Rockers' chair frames comprise side frame assemblies,
each 	having 	a 	plurality 	of 	generally 	axially 	elongated 	frame 	members
interconnected for pivotal movement relative to one another about generally
transversely extending pivot axes. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 347,723,827 .
Denovo argues that this language requires that every interconnection between the
members of the side frame assembly must be pivotal (and only pivotal), and that
every frame member must be pivotally connected to other frame members. See RX-
0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 4. But as discussed in detail above, the plain
meaning of this language to a POSIT A is that "members of the side frame assembly
pivot relative to other members of the side frame assembly" so that the chair frame
can fo ld from the set-up condition into a collapsed position, not that every
interconnection between the members of the side frame assembly must be pivotal
or that every frame member must be pivotally connected to other frame members.
See Section V.B.1, supra; CX-0464C (SmithRWS) at Q/A 96; Tr. (Smith) at 289:2-
11 , 290:5-15.
Compl. Br. at 48.
Denovo argues, in part:
As noted above, clain1s 1 and 10 require separate fulcrum members and
back 	support 	members 	and 	that 	all 	of the 	frame 	members 	are 	pivotally
interconnected. That is not the case with GCI's '824 DI Chairs. 	First, the back
support member and the fulcrum member are a single, unitary element. CDX-0180
and CDX-0183 (reproduced below) show that the back support member and the
fulcrum member of the RoadTrip Rocker are a unitary element. GCJ's own expert
admitted as much. 	See Hrg. Tr., at 233:23-234:1 ("They are the same piece of
metal, yes."). This fact is also confirmed by GCI's assembly drawings of this chair.
See RDX-0020C; RX-0296C. The Pod and Kickback Rockers have the same frame
configuration as the RoadTrip Rocker. 	Therefore, GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not
practice clain1s 1-3, 9, and 10. See RX-0490C at Q&A 52.
Second, all of the side frame assembly members are required by the claims
to be pivotally interconnected. 	Id. 	GCl's '824 DI Chairs do not have a pivotal
83

PUBLIC VERSION
interconnection at all between the back support member and the fulcrnm member
- they are a single element. Thus, GCI's '824 DI Chairs are not covered for this
reason as well. See id.; see also Hrg. Tr., at 234:2-5 ("Those two components are
not pivotally connected to one another, no.").
Third, GCI' s '824 DI Chairs do not fall with in the scope of equivalents of
the ' 824 claims because such an equivalence would vitiate the claim requirement
that all the members of the side frame assembly are "pivotally interconnected," and
that the fulcrum member has a fulcrum point as clain1ed. See RX-0490C, Q&A 44-
58; see also §II.B. l , supra. Additionally, the inability to fold the elongated single
rod means the chair will fold in a different way - not at the seat or middle - and
provides a substantially different result - a much larger/longer collapsed condition.
Further, such an argument would ensare the prior art. 	For example. 	The same
single metal rod that GCI argues is an equivalent to the claimed back support and
fulcrum members in the GCI's '824 DI chairs is also found in the prior art Dual
Lock chair, DL Hard Arm chair, and Lougee chair. See RX-0489C, Q&A 58; RX-
0490C at Q&A 58; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 781 :20-782:4.
Resps. Br. at 165-67.
As an initial matter, the admi ni strative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand this clain1 linutation to require that each and every frame member has to be
pivotally connected to other frame members. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that members of the side frame assembly pivot relative to other members of the side
frame assembly to permit folding movement between the set-up condition and a collapsed
condition of the chair. See Smith Tr. 290; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 347; CX-0464C
(Snuth RWS) at Q/A 96 . Requiring pivotal interconnections between each and every member of
the side frame a ssembly would read li nu tations into the claim that are not necess ary and are not
suggested by the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language.
Moreover, the specification teaches that the frame members are sufficiently pivotally
interconnected as long as the chair frame can fold into a collapsed condition for easy storage and
transportation. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, Ins. 51-58 ("[T]he frame side assembly 20
may be constructed from an open design inste ad of a closed frame loop, including the set-up of a
84

PUBLIC VERSION
front and rear leg generally associated with standard folding chair designs, su ch as shown in FIG.
9, where the frame members are interconnected by rigid, pivotal, sliding and/or telescopic joints
to effect easy folding and unfolding of the chair between a set-up and collapsed condition."); id.
at col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3; Sm ith Tr. 293-294. The specification does not state that every
frame member must be pivotally connected to oth er frame members to fold or unfold the chair.
Denovo argues that "claims 1 and 10 require separate fulcrum members and back support
members and that all of the frame members are pivotally interconnected." Resps. Br. at 165.
However, the specification of the '824 patent discloses elements of the chair frame being
separate po1tions of a single tube. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at co l. 6, lns. 27-37 ("Though
illustrated as be ing formed from a singul ar tubul ar member, the side frame assembly 20 may be
constructed from multiple tubular members with departing from the spirit and principles of the
present invention."); col. 6, lns. 38-45; col. 10, lns. 9-17. Claim 10 of the '8 24 patent does not
include any language requiring a specific structural relationship between the back support
member and the fulcrum member. Thus, the administrative law judge finds that the back support
member and fulcrum member could be integrally formed. See Poivell v. Home Depot US.A .,
Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[The specification] does not suggest that the claim
tem1s require separate structures.").
Denovo further argues that "all of the side frame assembly members are required by the
clain1s to be pivotally interconnected." Resps. Br. at 166 (emphasis in original). As noted
above, the adminish·ative law judge does not find that the claim language is so limiting. The
specification of the '824 patent allows for "rigid, pivotal, sliding and/or telescopic joints,"
regarding the embodiment of FIG. 9. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, lns. 51 -58. FIG. 2
illustrates a chair frame 12 that is "comprised of several frame members rigidly and/or pivota ll y
85

PUBLIC VERSION
connected together to define the chair frame 12 and pe1mit fo lding and collapsing of the frame
12 to a condition suitable for easy transportation and storage." Id. at col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3.
Additionally, " the frame side assembly 20 may be constructed from an open design instead of a
closed frame loop, including the set-up of a front and rear leg generally associated with standard
folding chair designs, such as shown in FIG. 9, where the frame members are interconnected by
rigid, pivotal, sliding and/or telescopic jo ints to effect easy fo lding and unfolding of th e chair
between a set-up and collapsed condition." Id. at co l. 6, Lns. 51-58.
Denovo's third argument is that GCI's doctri ne of equivalents argument fails because "a
single, unitary member cannot be an equivalent of two separate, pivotally co nnected members."
Resps. Br. at 166. Inasmuch as Denovo never argued that this term required construction, the
administrative law judge find s that it cannot do so now, and the plain and ordinary mean ing of
the term c ontrols. As noted above, GCI has adduced evidence demonstrating that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that the back support memb er and th e fulcrum member
may be formed of a single rod, and still be pivotally interconnected with other members of the
side frame assembly for folding movement between the set-up condition of the chair and a
collapsed condition of the chair. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 96; Smith Tr. 289, 290.
Accordingly, it is determined that the '824 GCI products literally satisfy this claim
limitation.
g. 	a front leg member;
Each of the '824 GCI products incl udes this feature of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 728-31. Denovo does not contest that this clain1 linlitation is satisfie d. See Resps.
Br. at 165-68.
86

PUBLIC VERSION
h. 	a rear leg member;
The record evidence demonstrates that the '824 GCI products satisfy the claim 1
limitation "a rear leg member." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 734-37. Denovo does not
contest that this Limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
i. 	a seat support member defining a respective side of the
seat support;
GCI adduced evidence showing that the '8 24 GCI products satisfy the claim 1 limitation
"a seat support member defining a respective side of the seat support." See CX -0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 738-4 1. Denovo does not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
165-68.
j. 	a back support member defining a respective side of the
back support;
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at 743-46. Denovo does not contest that this linlitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 165-
68.
k. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a
terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition
and for supporting the chair frame,
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that the '824 GCI products do not
include this fea ture of clain1 1. See RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at QIA 56.
GCI argues, in pari :
The '824 Covered Rockers' side frame assemblies include a fulcrum member that
defines a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted to contact the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition through the foot member.
Id.; CDX-0183; CDX-0184; CDX-0185. The fulcrum member on the '824 Covered
Rockers extends downwardly from ju st below the seat support member to the
fu lcrum point and is separate from (i.e., does not overlap with) the back support
member. Tr. (Smith) at 291 :8-22. The contact of the fulcrum member with the
87

PUBLIC VERSION
ground smface, whether directly or indirectly through the foot, helps movement of
the chair frame between forward and rearward positions. Id.
While Denovo argues that the fulcrum member does not touch or engage
the ground s urface directly, th e '824 Patent teaches that "there is a need for a chair
that can be rocked by a seated user. ..on all types of surfaces, including so ft ground
and sand." JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 2:58- 3: 1. A POSITA would understand that
when used on soft ground, for example sand, the foot member may sink into the
soft ground providing direct contact between the fu lcrum member and the ground
surface. CX -0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 753, 819.
This element is met by the '8 24 Covered Rockers under either party's
proposed 	constructions, 	at 	least 	through 	the 	doctrine 	of equivalents. 	Any
differences between directly touching the ground and touching the ground through
a foot are insubstantial. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 754, 819. For example,
the "fulcrum member adapted for contacting th e ground surface upon which the
chair sits" perfom1s substantially the same function of allowing motion of the chair,
in substantially the same way (by rotating about a point whether directly on the
ground or on a stationary foot that sits on the ground), with substantially the same
result (rocking motion of the chair frame). Id. at Q/A 755 ,8 19.
Compl. Br. at 50-52.
Denovo argues, in part:
Above, Denovo showed that claims l and l 0 require a fulcrum member with
the fulcrum point at a terminal end- 	the lowermost end of the fulcrum membe r.
GCI points to CDX-0183 (above) to explain that fulcrum point L is at a terminal
end of the fulcrum memb er K. CX-0002C, Q&A 816. However, the fulcrum point
L identified by GCI in its chairs is a rivet that connects the fulcrum member K to a
bracket on a foot. See RX-0490C, Q&A 55-56. This alleged fulcrum point is not
at a terminal end of anything and does not tou ch th e ground. See Id. 	GCI's own
expert agreed. See Hrg. Tr. (Smith), at 234:6-8 ("The fulcrum point does not touch
the ground, no."). 	GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not satisfy this element. 	See RX-
0490C, Q&A 53-55, RX-0287.
* 	* 	*
GCI's '8 24 DI Chairs have a fulcmm point L that is separated from the
ground by at least four items - the material around the rivet in the end of the fulcrum
member, a bracket, a static runner, and then two foot pads. RX-0490C, Q&A 56.
GCI apparently realizes that the fulcmm point does not meet this claim term
literally as its expert, Mr. Smith, perfom1s only a DOE analysis. See CX-0002C,
Q&A 819; RX-0490C,Q&A 56. 	However, the analysis lacks substance, is
conclusory, and ba ld ly posits that the differences betv.,een the claimed fulcrum
point and the four different components between the rivet and the ground are
88

PUBLIC VERSION
insubstantial. 	Such "broad and scant" analysis is plainly insufficient to support a
DOE infringement theory. Akzo Nobel Coatings, 811 F.3d at 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
("Broad conclusory statements offered by Telemac's expert are not evidence and
are not sufficient to estab li sh a genuine issue of material fact."). Clearly adding a
substantial number of components to the fulcrum member K is a substantial
difference. GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not meet this claim limitation. See RX-0490C,
Q&A56.
Resps. Br. at 167-68.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "a fulcrum member defining a
fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the
chair sits in a set-up condition thereof' is "a chair frame member with a point on the te1minal end
thereof that touches the ground surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up condition, and on
which a chair frame is supported."
GCI argues that "[t]he contact of the fulcrum member with the ground surface; whether
directly or indirectly through the foot, helps movement of the chair frame between forward and
rearward positions." Compl. Br. at 51. However, as shown in the figures below, GCI's fulcrum
point rests on the foot member (which is a part of the chair) in the set-up condition, and this foot
member itselfrests on two foot pads. See RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 56.
GOtt"'.-i"
Pod Rocker (from RX-0287)
89

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX-0183 	CDX-0184 	CDX-0185
GCI argues that this element is met by the '824 GCI products under Denovo' s
construction at least through the doctrine of equivalents. GCI relies on the following analysis
from Mr. Smith:
This element would still be met by the '824 Covered Rocker Products under
eith er party's proposed constructions, at least through the doctrine of equivalents
as any differences between directly touching the ground and touching the grou nd
through a foot are insubstantial.
For example, the "fulcrum memb er adapted for contacting t he ground
surface upon which the chair sits" perfom1s substantially the same function of
allowing motion of the chair, in substantially the same way, by rotating about a
point whether directly on the ground or on a stationary foot that sits on the ground,
with substantially the same result, rocking motion of the chair frame.
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 754-55.
As an initial matter, the administrative law judge finds that the fulcrum point of the '824
GCI products does not simply "touch[] the ground through a foot." Id. Instead, the fulcrum
point of the '824 GCI products rests on a bracket, which itself rests on a foot member that also
supports the rocker mechanism and the rear leg ( and the foot memb er itself rests on foot pads
adapted for contacting the ground surface). Such a configuration eliminates the need for the
fulcrum point itself to be "adapted for contacting the ground surface," and to find that the
fulcrum point itself is so adapted here would read th e limitation out of the claim. Hence the '824
GCI products do not include "a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end
90

PUBLIC VERSION
thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition
thereof' because the fulcrum point is not adapted for contacting the ground surface, but instead
rests on the foot member, a completely separate element of the chai r.
If GCI's proposed construction for this claim limitation were adopted, howeve r, the
administrative law jud ge finds the '824 GCI products would satisfy this limitation. As noted
above, GCI argues that "adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a
set-up condition" means "capable of touching and sitting on a surface when in a set-up
condition." GCI argues that the contact of the fulcrum member with the ground surface, whether
directly or indirectly through the foot, helps movement of the chair frame between forward and
rearward positions. See Compl. Br. at 51 ( citing Smith Tr. at 291 ).
CDX-0183 	CDX-0184 	CDX-0185
The administrative law judge finds that the fulcrum point is capable of touching and
sitting on a surface when in a set-up condition, because the fulcrum point touches and sits on the
foot member of the chair when in a set-up condition.
It is therefore determined that the '824 GCI products do not satisfy this claim limitation.
Alternatively, it is determined that the '824 GCI products satisfy this claim limitation if GCI's
proposed claim construction were adopted.
91

PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions;
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 75 6-59. Denovo does not contest that this limitat ion is satisfied. See Re sps. Br. at
165-68.
m. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair
frame for supporting the chair during movement of the
chair frame between said forward and rearward
positions.
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 762-66. Denovo does not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
165-68.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the '824 GCI products do not practice independent clain1 1
of the '824 patent.
2. 	Claim 2
GCI alleges that its '824 GCI products satisfy all lin1itations of dependent claim 2 of the
'824 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1
As discussed above, the '824 GCI products do not satisfy all linutations of independent
claim 1.
b. 	wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least
one of the front leg member and the rear leg member of
each side frame assembly.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the '8 24 GCI products satis fy the
additional clain1 2 limitation "wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the
92

PUBLIC VERSION
front leg member and the rear leg member of each side frame assembly." See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 770-72.
Denovo does not contest that the '8 24 GCI products satisfy this claim limitation. See
Resps. Br. at 165 -6 8.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the '824 GCI products do not practice dependent claim 2 of
the '8 24 patent.
3. 	Claim 3
GCI alleges that its '824 GCI products satisfy the limitations of dependent clain1 3 of the
'824 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 2
As discussed above, the '82 4 GCI products do not satisfy all linlitations of indep endent
claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve
associated with at least one of the front leg member and
the rear leg member, said sleeve further housing a
spring to which said leg member is connected.
The evi dence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the '824 GCI products satisfy the
additional claim 3 limitation "wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a sleeve associated with
at least one of the front leg member and the rear leg member, said sleeve finther housing a spring
to which said leg member is connected." See CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 775-81.
Denovo does not contest that the '8 24 GCI products satisfy this claim limitation. See
Resps. Br. at 165-68.
* 	* 	*
93

PUBLIC VERSION
It is therefore determined that the '8 24 GCI products do not practice dependent claim 3 of
the '824 patent.
4. 	Claim 9
GCI alleges that its '824 GCI products satisfy the limitations of dependent claim 9 of the
'824 pa tent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1
As discussed above, the '824 GCI products do not satisfy all limitations of independent
claim 1.
b. 	wherein the seat panel and the backrest panel are made
of a fl exible material.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the '824 GCI products satisfy the
additional claim 9 limitation "wherein the seat panel and the backrest panel are made of a
flexible material." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 784-86.
Denovo does not contest that the '8 24 GCI products satisfy this claim limitation. See
Resps. Br. at 165-68.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the '8 24 GCI products do not practice dependent claim 9 of
the '824 patent.
5. 	Claim 10
GCI alleges that the '824 GCI products satisfy all limitations of indep endent claim 10 of
the ' 824 patent.
94

PUBLIC VERSION
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
The '824 GCI products all satisfy the claim 10 limitation "[a] collapsible and portable
rocking chair." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 789-92. Denovo does not co ntest that this
claim limitation is sati sfied. See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
b. 	a pair of side frame assemblies including
GCI adduced evidence showing that each of the '824 GCI products satisfies this
limitation of claim 10. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 794-97. Denovo does not contest
that this claim limitation is satisfie d. See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
c. 	a front leg member,
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 10. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 799-802. Denovo does not contest that this claim limitation is satisfied. See
Resps. Br. at 165-68.
d. 	a rear leg member,
The record evidence demonstrates that th e '824 GCI products sati sfy th e claim 10
limitation "a rear leg member." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 805-0 8. Denovo does not
contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resp s. Br. at 165-68.
e. 	a back support member,
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 10. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at 809-12. Denovo does not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See R esps. Br. at 165-
68.
f. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a
terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up condition
thereof,
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that the '824 GCI products do not
95

PUBLIC VERSION
include this feature of claim 10. See RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 56.
GCI argues, in part:
The '824 Covered Rockers' side frame assemblies include a fulcrum member that
defines a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted to contact the ground
surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition through the foot member.
Id.; CDX-0183; CDX-0184; CDX-0185. The fulcrum member on the '824 Covered
Rockers extends downwardly from just below the seat suppo1i member to the
fulcrum point and is separate from (i.e., does not overlap with) the back support
member. Tr. (Smith) at 291:8-22. The contact of the fulcrum member with the
ground surface, whether directly or indirectly through the foot, helps movement of
the chair frame between forward and rearward positions. Id.
While Denovo argues that the fulcrum member does not touch or engage
the ground surface directly, the '824 Patent teaches that "there is a need for a chair
that can be rocked by a seated user ... on all types of surfaces, including soft ground
and sand." JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 2:58-3:1. A POSITA would understand that
when used on soft ground, for example sand, the foot member may sink into the
soft ground providing direct contact between the fulcrum member and the ground
surface. CX -0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 753, 819.
This element is met by the '824 Covered Rockers under either party's
proposed 	constructions, 	at 	least 	through 	the 	doctrine 	of equivalents. 	Any
differences between directly touching the ground and touching the ground through
a foot are insubstantial. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 754, 819. For example,
the "fulcrum member adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the
chair sits" performs substantially the same function of allowing motion of the chair,
in substantially the same way (by rotating about a point whether directly on the
ground or on a stationary foot that sits on the ground), with substantially the same
result (rocking motion of the chair frame). Id. at Q/A 755,819.
Compl. Br. at 50-52.
Denovo argues, in part:
Above, Denovo showed that claims I and IO require a fulcrum member with
the fulcrum point at a terminal end-the lowermost end of the fulcrum member.
GCI points to CDX-01 83 (above) to explain that fulcrum point L is at a terminal
end of the fulcrum member K. CX-0002C, Q&A 816. However, the fulcrum po int
L identified by GCI in its chai rs is a rivet that connects the fulcrum member K to a
bracket on a foot. See RX-0490C, Q&A 55-56. This alleged fulcrum point is not
at a terminal end of anything and does not touch the ground. See Id. 	GCI's own
expert agreed. See Hrg. Tr. (Smith), at 234:6-8 ("The fulcrum point does not touch
the ground, no."). 	GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not satisfy this element. 	See RX-
0490C, Q&A 53-55, RX-0287.
96

PUBLIC VERSION
* 	* 	*
GCl's '824 DI Chairs have a fulcrum point L that is separated from the
ground by at least four items - the material around the rivet in the end of the fulcrum
member, a bracket, a static runner, and then two foot pads. RX-0490C, Q&A 56.
GCI apparently realizes that th e fulcrum point does not meet this claim term
li terally as its expert, Mr. Smith, performs only a DOE analysis. See CX-0002C,
Q&A 819; RX-0490C,Q&A 56. 	However, the analysis lacks substance, is
conclusory, and baldly posits that the differences between the claimed fulcrum
point and the four different components between the rivet and the ground are
insubstantial. 	Such "broad and scant" analysis is plainly insufficient to support a
DOE infringement theory. Akzo Nobel Coatings, 811 F.3d at 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
("Broad conclusory statements offered by Telemac's expert are not evidence and
are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact."). Clearly adding a
substantial number of components to the fulcrum member K is a substantial
difference. GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not meet this clain1 linlitation. See RX-0490C,
Q&A56.
Resps. Br. at 167-68.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "a fulcrum member defining a
fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the
chair sits in a set-up condition thereof ' is "a chair frame member with a point on the terminal end
thereof that touches the ground surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up condition, and on
which a chair frame is supported."
GCI argues that "[ t]he contact of the fulcrum member with the ground surface, whether
directly or indirectly through the foot, helps movement of the chair frame between forward and
rearward positions." Comp l. Br. at 51. However, as shown in the figures below, GCl' s fulcrum
point rests on the foot member (which is a part of the chair) in the set-up condition, and this fo ot
member itselfrests on two foot pads. See RX-0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 56.
97

PUBLIC VERSION
Pod Rocker (from RX-0287)
CDX-0183 	CDX-0184 	CDX-0185
GCI argues that this element is met by the '824 GCI products under Denovo' s
construction at least through the doctrine of equivalents. GCI relies on the following analysis
from Mr. Smith:
To the extent that it might be argued that the terminal end of the fulcrum
member does not touch or engage the ground surface directly, the '824 patent
teaches that "there is a need for a chair that can be rocked by a seated user. ..on all
types of surfaces, including soft ground and sand." '824 Patent, 2:58- 3:1. A
POSITA would understand that when used on soft ground or sand, the foot member
may sink in providing direct contact between the fulcrum member and the ground
surface.
Further, this element would still be found in the '82 4 Patent Covered Rocker
Products under either party's proposed constructions at least through the doctrine
of equivalents as any differences between directly touching the ground and
touching the ground through a foot are insubstantial. F or example, the "fulcrum
member adapted fo r contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits"
performs substantially the same function of allowing motion of the chair, in
substantially the same way, by rotating about a point whether directly on the ground
98

PUBLIC VERSION
or on a stationary foot that sits on the ground, with substantially the same result,
rocking motion of the chair frame.
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 819.
As an initial matter, the administrative law judge finds that the fulcrum point of the '824
GCI products does not simply "touch[] the ground through a foot." Id. Instead, the fulcrum
point of the '824 GCI products rests on a bracket, which itself rests on a foot member that also
supports the rocker mechanism and the rear leg ( and the foot member itself rests on foot pads
adapted for contacting the ground surface). Such a configuration eliminates the need for the
fulcrum point itself to be "adapted for contacting the ground surface," and to find that the
fulcrum point itself is so adapted here would read the limitation out of the claim. Hence the '824
GCI products do not include "a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end
thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a set-up cond iti on
thereof' because the fulcrum point is not adapted for contacting the ground surface, but instead
rests on the foot member, a completely separate element of the chair.
If GCl's proposed construction for this claim limitation were adopted, however, the
administrative law judge finds the '824 GCI products would satisfy this limitation. As noted
above, GCI argues that "adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in a
set-up condition" means "capable of touching and sitting on a surface when in a set-up
condition." GCI argues that the contact of the fulcrum member with the ground surface, whether
directly or indirectly through the foot, helps movement of the chair frame between forward and
rearward positions. See Compl. Br. at 51 (citing Smith Tr. at 291 ).
99

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX-0183 	CDX-0184 	CDX-0185
The administrati ve law j udge finds that the fulcrum point is capable of touching and
sitting on a surface when in a set-up condition, because the fulcrum point touches and sits on the
foot member of the chair when in a set-up condition.
It is therefore determined that the '824 GCI products do not satisfy this claim linlitation.
Alternatively, it is determined that the '824 GCI products satisfy this claim limitation if GCI's
proposed claim construction were adopted.
g. 	and about which the chair can move between forward
and rearward rocking positions;
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 10. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 820-23. Denovo does not contest that this linlitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
165-68.
h. 	said members comprising each side frame assembly
being pivotally interconnected for folding movement
between the set-up condition of the chair and a
collapsed condition of the chair;
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 10. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 826-30.
GCI argues, in pari :
The '824 Covered Rockers' chair frames comprise side frame assemblies,
each 	having 	a 	plurality 	of 	generally 	axially 	elongated 	frame 	members
interconnected for pivotal movement relative to one another about generally
transversely extending pivot axes. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 347 ,72 3,827.
Denovo argues that this language requires that every interconnection between the
100

PUBLIC VERSION
members of the side frame assembly must be pivotal (and only pivotal), and that
every frame member must be pivotally connected to other frame members. See RX-
0490C (Babcock RWS) at Q/A 4. But as discussed in detail above, the plain
meaning of this language to a POSITA is that "members of the side frame assembly
pivot relative to other members of the side frame assembly" so that the chair frame
can fold from the set-up condition into a collapsed position, not that every
interconnection between the members of the side frame assembly must be pivotal
or that every frame member must be pivotally connected to other frame members.
See Section V.B.1, supra; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 96; Tr. (Smith) at 289:2-
11, 290:5-15.
Comp1. Br. at 48.
Denovo argues, in part:
As noted above, clain1s 1 and 10 require separate fulcrum members and
back 	support 	members 	and 	that 	all 	of 	the 	frame 	members 	are 	pivotally
interconnected. 	That is not the case with GCI's '824 DI Chairs. 	First, the back
support member and the fulcrum member are a single, unitary element. CDX-0180
and CDX-0183 (reproduced below) show that the back support member and the
fu lcrum member of the RoadT1ip Rocker are a unitary element. GCI's own expert
admitted as much. 	See Hrg. Tr., at 233:23-234: 1 ("They are the same piece of
metal, yes."). This fact is also confirmed by GCI's assembly drawings of this chair.
See RDX-0020C; RX-0296C. The Pod and Kickback Rockers have the same frame
configuration as the RoadTrip Rocker. 	Therefore, GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not
practice clain1s 1-3, 9, and 10. See RX-0490C at Q&A 52.
Second, all of the side frame assembly members are required by the claims
to be pivotally interconnected. Id. 	GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not have a pivotal
interconnection at all between the back support member and the fulcrum member
- they are a single element. 	Thus, GCI's '8 24 DI Chairs are not covered for this
reason as wel l. See id.; see also Hrg. Tr., at 234:2-5 ("Those two components are
not pivotally connected to one another, no.").
Third, GCI's '824 DI Chairs do not fall within the scope of equivalents of
the '824 claims because such an equivalence would vitiate the clain1 requirement
that all the members of the side frame assembly are "pivotally interconnected," and
that the fulcrum member has a fulcrum point as clain1ed. See RX-0490C, Q&A 44-
58; see also §II.B.l, supra. Additionally, the inability to fold the elongated single
rod means the chair will fold in a different way - not at the seat or middle - and
provides a substantially different result - a much larger/longer collapsed condition.
Further, such an argument would ensare the prior art. 	For example. 	The same
single metal rod that GCI argues is an equivalent to the claimed back support and
fulcrum members in the GCI's '824 DI chairs is also found in the prior art Dual
Lock chair, DL Hard Arm chair, and Lougee chair. See RX-0489C, Q&A 58; RX-
0490C at Q&A 58; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 781:20-782:4.
101

PUBLIC VERSION
Resps. Br. at 165-67.
As an initial matter, the administrative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand this claim limitation to require that each and every frame member has to be
pivotally connected to other frame members. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the a1t would
understand that members of the side frame assembly pivot relative to other members of the side
frame assembly to permit folding movement between the set-up condition and a collapsed
condition of the chair. See Smith Tr. 290; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 347; CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 96. Requiring pivotal interconnections between each and every member of
the side frame assembly would be reading extra limitations into the claim that are not suggested
by the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language.
Moreover, the specification teaches that the frame members are sufficiently pivotally
interconnected so long as the chair frame can fold into a collapsed condition for easy storage and
transportation. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at co l. 6, lns. 51-58 ("[T ]he frame side assembly 20
may be constructed from an open design instead of a closed frame loop, including the set-up of a
front and rear leg generally associated with standard folding chair designs, such as shown in FIG.
9, where the frame members are interconnected by rigid, pivotal, sliding ancl/or telescopic jo ints
to effect easy folding and unfolding of the chair between a set-up and collapsed condition."); id.
at col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3; Smith Tr. 293-294. The specification does not state that every
frame memb er must be pivotally connected to other frame members to fold or unfold the chair.
Denovo argues that "claims I and IO requi re separate fulcrum members and back support
members and that all of the frame members are pivotally interconnected." Resps. Br. at 165.
However, the specification of the '824 patent discloses elements of the chair frame being
separate portions of a single tube. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at co l. 6, lns. 27-37 ("Though
102

PUBLIC VERSION
illustrated as being formed from a singul ar tubular member, the side frame assembly 20 may be
constructed from multiple tubular members with departing from the spirit and principles of the
present invention."); col. 6, lns. 38-45; col. 10, Ins. 9-17. Claim 10 of the '824 patent does not
include any language requiring a specific structural relationship between the back support
member and the fulcrum member. As such, the administrative law judge finds that the back
support member and fulcrum member could be integrally formed. See Powell v. Home Depot
US.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[The specification] does not suggest that the
claim terms require separate structures.").
Denovo further argues that "all of the side frame assembly members are required by the
claims to be pivotally interconnected." Resps. Br. at 166 (emphasis in original). As noted
above, the administrative law judge does not find that the claim language is so lim iting. The
specification of the '824 patent allows for "rigid, pivotal, sliding and/or telescopic joints,"
regarding the embodiment of FIG. 9. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 6, ins. 51-58. FIG. 2
illustrates a chair frame 12 that is "comprised of several frame members rigidly and/or pivotally
connected together to define the chair frame 12 and pe1mit folding and collapsing of the frame
12 to a condition suitable for easy transportation and storage." Id. at col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3.
Additionally, "the frame side assembly 20 may be constructed from an open design instead of a
closed frame loop, including the set-up of a front and rear leg generally associated with standard
folding chair designs, such as shown in FIG. 9, where the frame members are interconnected by
rigid, pivotal, slid ing and/or telescopic jo ints to effect easy fo lding and unfolding of th e chair
between a set-up and collapsed condition." Id. at col. 6, Ins. 51 -58.
Denovo's third argument is that GCI's doctrine of equivalents argument fails because "a
single, unitary member cannot be an equivalent of two separate, pivotally co nnected members."
103

PUBLIC VERSION
Resps. Br. at 166. Inasmuch as Denovo did not offer this term for construction, the
administrative law judge finds that it cannot do so now, and the plain and ordinary meaning of
the term controls. Moreover, as noted above, GCI has adduced ev idence demonstrating that one
of ordinary sk ill in the art would understand that the back support member and the fulcrum
member may be fo 1med of a single rod, and still be pivotally interconnected with other members
of the side frame assembly for folding movement between the set-up condition of the chair and a
collapsed condition of the chair. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 96; Smith Tr. 289, 290.
Accordingly, it is determined that the '824 GCI products literally satisfy this claim
limitation.
i. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side
frame assembly for supporting the chair during
movement between said forward and rearward
positions;
Each of the '824 GCI products includes this feature of claim 10. CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at QIA 831-34. Denovo does not contest that this linlitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
165-68.
j. 	a flexible seat and a fl exible backrest secured to and
extending between the side frame assemblies.
GCI adduced evidence showing that the '824 GCI products satisfy the claim 10 limitation
"a flexible seat and a flexible backrest secured to and e xtending between th e side frame
assemblies." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 838-41. Denovo does not contest that this
linutation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 165-68.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the '82 4 GCI products do not practice independent clain1
10 of the '824 patent.
104

PUBLIC VERSION
E. 	Anticipation - Fowler
Denovo argues, in part:
Claims 1-3 , 9-12, 15, and 18, as applied by GCI to the accused product, are
disclosed in a single prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 4,772,067 to Fowl er (RX-
0049), and thus are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Fowler issued on
September 20, 1988 and is therefore prior art to the '824 patent. Fowler discloses
a portable, collapsible rocking chair that has a set up condition and a collapsed
condition. RX-0049, Figs. 1 and 7. See RX-0489C (Babcock D\VS) Q&A 50. Cf
'824 patent (JX-0001) at 6:24-26. 	Fowler also has side frame assemblies that
include a front leg member, rear leg member, fulcmm member, and rocker
mechanism. As Mr. Babcock explained, Fowler anticipates these claims because it
discloses each and every element. 	RX-0489C, Q&A 35-39 and RX-0049; RDX-
0059 (portion reproduced below):
* 	* 	*
In this claim chart for claim 10, Mr. Babcock used GCI's identification of the '82 4
patent's claim elements in the Rok-It Chair and '82 4 DI Chairs (defined below in
Section V.A.1.a) and applied them to Fowler. See Hrg. Tr. (Babcock) at 666:6-14;
RX-0369C (GCl's infringement claim chart fo r the Rok-It Chair) and RX-0370
(GCI's DI technical prong claim chart for the '824 DI Chairs). In addition, using
GCI's claim analysis (RX-0369C, RX-0370), Fowler has a seat support member as
disclosed in claims 1 and 15, a rocker mechanism attached to a front leg member
and/or rear l eg member as disclosed in claims 2 and 11, a rocker mechanism within
a sleeve as disclosed in claims 3 and 12, and a connector mechanism as disclosed
in claim 18. See RX-0489C, Q&A 39.
Resps. Br. at 34-35.
GCI argues, in part:
U.S. Patent No. 4,772,067 ("Fowler") describes a full-size platform rocker
that does not have a fulcmm member defining a fulcmm point at its terminal end
and that is not foldable without disassembly of portions of the chair. CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 159; RX-0049 (Fowler); Tr. (Babcock) at 650:20-21. Fowler
alone fails to teach or disclose certain claim limitations of, and thus does not
anticipate, claims 1-3, 9-1 2, 15, and 18 of the '824 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 162, 174. In addition, Denovo's treatment of this reference in Respondents'
Prehearing Brief is l imited to a single paragraph and small screen captures of claim
charts that are nearly unreadable. RPreHB at 27. This approach fails to comply with
Ground Ru le 7.c 's mandate that th e prehearing brief not incorporate material by
reference to circumvent the page limit. Order No. 2 (Ground Rules) at 11 ("Any
contentions not set forth in detail as required therein shall be deemed abandoned.").
105

PUBLIC VERSION
Compl. Br. at 55.
1. 	Claims 1 and 10
GCI disp utes whether Fowler discloses the following limitations: "front Leg member";
"rear leg member"; "a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum po int at a terminal end thereof
adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits"; "at least one rocker
mechanism attached to the chair frame" (claim 1) or "at l east one rocker mechanism attached to
each side frame assembly" (claim 10); and "members comprising each side frame assembly
being pivotally interconnected for folding movement between the set-up condition of the chair
and a collapsed condition of the chair". See Compl. Br. at 55-57.
a. 	front leg member
GCI argues, in part:
Fowler does not have a "front leg member" as defined by Denovo in its
proposed clain1 construction. Id. at Q/A 165; Tr. (Babcock) at 648:5-8. T he alleged
front l eg member in Fowl er (front l eg 22) does not engage the ground directly (as
sh ovvn in Fig. 1, it is attached to rocker 12) and does not engage with the supposed
rocker mechanism (support means 14).
Compl. Br. at 56.
As noted above, the claim term "front leg member" is construed to mean "a chair frame
member for supporting a forward portion of a chair," as proposed by GCI.
The evidence shows that Fowler discloses a chair frame member for supporting a forward
po1tion of a chair. See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 39; RX-0049, Fig. 1.
b. 	rear leg member
GCI similarly argues that Fowler does not disclose a "rear leg member" u nder Denovo' s
proposed claim construction. Com p!. Br. at 56.
106

PUBLIC VERSION
However, as noted above, the claim term "rear leg member'' is construed to mean "a chair
frame memb er for supporting a rearward portion of a cha ir," as proposed by GCI.
The evidence shows that Fowl er discloses a chair frame member for supporting a
rearward portion of a chair. See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 39; RX-0049, Fig. 1.
GCI argues:
c. 	a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a
terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon which the chair sits
Fowler does not disclose "a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point
at a terminal e nd thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon
which the chair sits," as recited by claims 1 and 10 of the '824 Patent, under any
party 's claim construction. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 167. Mr. Babcock has
identified rocker 12 as the alleged fulcrum member. Id. But rocker 12 is not part of
the chair frame, and Mr. Babcock has not identified where rocker 12 defines a
fulcrum po int at the terminal end that is "adapted for contacting the ground surface
upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition." Id . Rocker 12 also appears to be
sin1i lar in shape to the rails of prior art rockers, as shown in Fig. 1 of the '82 4 Patent,
whi ch th e patent expressly distingui shes, JX-0001 ('824 Patent), 2:27-40, 2:41-44;
7:3-9, 7:17-22; see also id., 2:50-57; 5: 11-16, although Fowl er does not teach how
rocking actually occurs. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 167. Rocker 12 may rock
on base 10, or the chair may rock solely on the springs (support means 14) sinular
to the spring rockers often found at children 's playgrounds. Id. In either case, there
is no fulcrum point on the fulcrum member that is "adapted for contacting the
ground surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition." Id.; Tr. (Babcock)
at 649:11-21.
Compl. Br. at 56.
As noted above, the claim te rm "fu lcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal
end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits" is construed to
mean "a chair frame member with a point on the terminal end thereof that touches the ground
smface (not a p art of the chair) in the set-up condition, and on which a chair frame is supported."
The administrative law judge has detemuned that Denovo has not shown, through clear
and convincing evidence, that F ow ler discloses a chair frame memb er with a point on the
107

PUBLIC VERSION
terminal end thereof that touches the ground surface (not a part of the chair) in the set-up
condition, and on which a chair frame is supported. In particular, Fowler does not disclose a
fulcrum point on the fulcrum member that is "adapted for contacting the ground surface upon
which the chair sits in the set-up condition." See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 39;
RX-0049, Fig. l. As shown in Q/A 39 of Mr. Babcock 's witness statement, reproduced below,
the identified fulcrum member does not include such a fulcrum point adapted for contacting the
ground surface.
GCI argues, in pa1i :
RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 39
d. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair
frame (claim 1) / at least one rocker mechanism
attached to each side frame assembly ( claim 10)
Fowl er does not disclose "at least one rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame" (claim 1) or "at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side
frame assembly" (claim 10) under any party 's claim construction. CX-0464C
(Smith R WS) at Q/A 168. The alleged "rocker mechanism" identified by Mr.
Babcock in Fowler (support means 14 and support means 15) is not "attached to
the chair frame" or "attached to each side frame assembly," as the claims plainly
require. Id. The alleged "rocker mechanism" (support means 14 and support means
15) is only attached to the base 10 and rocker 12, which are not part of the chair
frame or side frame assembly. Id.
108

PUBLIC VERSION
Compl. Br. at 56.
The evidence shows that Fowler discloses "at least one rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame" ( claim 1) or "at least one rocker mechanism attached to each side frame assembly"
(claim 10). See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 39; RX-0049, Fig. 2. As shown in FIG. 1 of
Fowler, reproduced below, the rocker mechanism 14 is attached to the chair frame or the side
frame assembly at least via rocker 12, which is a part of the chair frame or the side frame
assembly.
GCI argues, in part:
FIG. 1 ofFowler
e. 	members comprising each side frame assembly being
pivotally interconnected for folding movement behveen
the set-up condition of the chair and a collapsed
condition of the chair ( claim 10)
Fowler does not disclose "members comprising each side frame assembly being
pivotally interconnected for folding movement behveen the set-up condition of
the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair" as recited by claim 10 of the
'824 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 169. The front legs of the Fowler
chair need to be disconnected in order to "fold" the chair. Id.; RX-0049 (Fowler) at
Figs. 3-6; Tr. (Babcock) at 650:20-21. A POSITA would not interpret "'pivotally
interconnect ed for folding movement between the set-up condition of the chair and
a collapsed condition of the chair" to include chairs with frame members that must
109

PUBLIC VERSION
be disconnected. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 169.
Compl. Br. at 56.
Yet, the evidence shows that Fowler discloses "members comp1ising each side frame
assembly being pivotally interconnected for folding movement between the set-up condition of
the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair" (claim 10). See RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at
Q/A 39; RX-0049, Fig. 2. As shown in Q/A 39 of Mr. Babcock's witness statement, reproduced
below, members of the side frame assembly are pivotally interconnected for folding movement
between the set-up condition of the chair and a collapsed condition of the chair.
RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 39
Moreover, GCI argues, with re spect to claim construction:
As confirmed by GCI's expert, a POSITA would understand this language to mean
that members of the side frame assembly pivot relative to other members of the side
frame assembly to permit folding movement between the set-up condition and a
collapsed condition of the chair. Tr. (Smith) at 290:5-15; CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 347; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 96. Moreover, a POSITA would not
understand this claim language to mean that each and every interconnection must
be pivotal or that each and every frame member has to be pivotally connected to
other frame members. See id. Such an interpretation, as advanced by Denovo's
expert (Mr. Babcock), would be reading extra limitations into the claim that are not
suggested by the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language.
110

PUBLIC VERSION
Compl. Br. at 39-40. Inasmuch as GCI argues that "a POSITA would not understand this claim
language to mean that each and every interconnection must be pivotal or that each and every
frame member has to be pivotally connected to other frame members," it is unclear why this
limitation would exclude chairs where folding or unfolding would require partial disconnection.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that Fowler does not anticipate either independent claim 1 or
independent claim 10 of the '824 patent.
2. 	Claims 2 and 11
GCI argues, in part:
Fowler does not disclose "wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to
at least one of the front leg member and the rear leg member of each si de frame
assembly," as recited by claims 2 and 11 of the '824 Patent. Id. at QIA 171. The
alleged "rocker mechanism" identified by Mr. Babcock in Fowler (support means
14) is not attached to the front leg member or the rear leg member; it is only attached
to th e base 10 and rocker 12 . Id.; Tr. (Babcock) at 654:3- 10.
Compl. Br. at 56.
The administrative law judge has determined that Denovo has not shown, through clear
and convincing evidence, that Fowler discloses "wherein said rocker mechanism is attached to at
least one of the front leg member and the rear leg member of each side frame assembly." As
shown in Q/A 39 of Mr. Babcock's witness statement, reproduced below, the identified rocker
mechanism is attached to rocker 12 and not to th e front leg memb er or the rear leg member.
111

PUBLIC VERSION
Front Leg
Membe,
Fig. I
RX-0489C (Babcock DWS ) at Q/ A 39
Moreover, as noted above, Denovo has not shown that Fowler anticipates either
independent claim 1 or independent claim 10 of the '8 24 patent.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that Fow ler do es not anticipate either dependent claim 2 or
dependent clain1 11 of the '824 patent.
3. 	Claims 3 and 12
GCI argues, in part:
Fowler does not disclose "wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a
sleeve associated with at least one of the front leg member and the rear leg
member," as recited by clain1s 3 and 12. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 172; Tr.
(Babcock) at 650:10-12. As can be seen in Figure 2 of Fowler, there is no sleeve
on the spring. CX-0464C (Smith R\VS) at Q/A 172. The dotted line box that Mr.
Babcock identifies as a sleeve in Fowler is just an outline of where support means
14 is located on the opposite side of rocker 12 and base 1O; it does not identify any
actual structural co mponent of the chair. Id. Fowler does not describe suppo1t
means 14 being encased in a sleeve. Id.
Compl. Br. at 57.
1 12

PUBLIC VERSION
The administrative law judge has determined that Denovo has not shown, through clear
and convincing evidence, that Fowler discloses "wherein the rocker mechanism comprises a
sleeve associated with at least one of the front l eg member and the rear leg member." Mr.
Babcock identifies box 14 of FIG. 1 as a sleeve in Fowler, but this is just an outline of where
support means 14 is located between rocker 12 and base 10. No actual structural component of
the chair is depicted. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 172. Furthermore, as noted above,
the rocker mechanism of Fowler is not attached to the front leg member or the rear leg member,
further attenuating any connection between the alleged sleeve and the front leg member or the
rear leg member.
Moreover, as noted above, Denovo has not shown that Fowler anticipates either
independent claim 1 or independent claim 10 of the '824 patent.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that Fowler does not anticipate either dependent claim 3 or
dependent claim 12 of the '824 patent.
4. 	Claims 9, 15 and 18
GCI does not dispute whether Fowler discloses these claim limitations. See generally
Compl. Br. at 55-57. However, as noted above, Denovo has not shown that Fowler anticipates
either independent claim 1 or independent claim 10 of the '824 patent. It is therefore determined
that Fowler does not anticipate dependent claims 9, 15 and 18 of the '824 patent.
F. 	Obviousness - Dual Lock Hard Arm Chair+ Prior Art Spring
Mechanisms
Denovo argues that Denovo's Dual Lock Hard Arm ("DLHA") chair, in combination
with prior art spring mechanisms, renders obvious clain1s 1-3, 9-12, 15, and 18-19 of the '824
113

PUBLIC VERSION
patent. Resps. Br. at 37-61 . The DLHA chair was offered for sale and on sale by June 201 1.
See RX-0375C (Oliphant DWS) at Q/A 8-9, 12-15; RX-0380C (Boehmler DWS) at Q/A 7-19
and RX-0209C - RX-0217C; RX-0244C. Thus, under section 102(b), it is prior art to the '824
patent, which claims priority to October 5, 2012.
GCI argues that adding springs to a collapsible chair was not obvious at the time of the
invention of the '824 patent because Denovo's own development of the accused Rok-lt Chair
began in 2013 and did not conclude until 2018. Compl. Br. at 60. GCI argues that Denovo 's
lengthy development evidences the non-obviousness of the clain1ed invention. See id. at 60-63;
CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn' t work"); Penn Tr . 566-568; Smith Tr. 798; CX-0463C
(Boehml er Dep.) at 41:8-42:13 (testifying that it was "very difficult" to add motion to the Hard
Am1 Dual Lock chair). It is argued that RJ Penn (the "primary developer" of the Rok-It Chair)
testified to the difficulties Denovo faced in designing this rocker. See Comp l. Br. at 60; CX-
0273C (Penn Dep.) at 16:17-1 7:15, 20:15-21:5, 24: 17-25, 37:23-38:16, 46:14-47:21, 59:4-18,
81:14-86:20; see CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 114; Smith Tr. 794.
GCI also argues that its own development process provides further evidence of
non-obviousness, as it involved multiple prototypes and redesigns and extensive testing. See
Compl. Br at 65; CX-418C (Grace RWS) at Q/A 6-7, 14-25, 40-93; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 135.
Denovo argues that the modifications it made to the DLHA frame to create the Rok-It
Chair were within the skill level of a PO SA and were easily in1plemented. See Resps. Br. at
39-41; Penn Tr. 590 (testifying that "Making the modifications to th e chair were pretty, pretty
simple and straightforward" and that "There wasn ' t anything that was j ust terribly complicated
with it."); see also id. (Smith) at 774 :4-17 (acknowledging that a PO SA would know to shorten
114

PUBLIC VERSION
the length of the cross members and the back leg tube to accommodate the addition of a spring to
the rear legs); RX-0376C (Perry DWS) at Q/A 16; RX-0480C (Oliphant RWS) at Q/A 6.
Denovo argues that the amount of time between Mr. Penn's initial work on a Denovo chair with
motion (December 2013) and the launch of the Rok-It Chair (June 2018) has no bearing on the
obviousness inquiry. See Resps. Br at 44-45.
The DLHA chair is a stationary chair that can be collapsed. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 183. Denovo argues that the DLHA chair teaches all the limitations of the asserted claims,
with the exception of the rocker mechanism, which is taught by various secondary references
(Frajdenraj ch, JP 3036662, Smith, Seng, Colbridge, Hartman, Wekerle, Koshimizu, and
Kielhom). See Resps. Br. at 44-56; RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 45.
GCI contends that the DLHA chair lacks a "fulcrum member" and a "fulcrum point" in
addition to the missing rocker mechanism. Compl. Br. at 59.
GCI argues, in part:
[T]he Hard Arm Dual Lock chair does not disclose a "fulcrum member" or a
"fulcrum point" as recited by claims 1 and 10 of th e '824 Patent, under any party' s
clain1 construction. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 219. The foot on the front leg
of the Dual Lock Hard Arm chair is a stationary chair foot. Id . The foot is not "a
point on which a chair frame is supported and about which the chair frame pivots"
as defined by GCI, nor is it "the point on the temlinal end of the fulcrum member
that touches the ground surface and about which the chair rocks between a forward
and rearward position" as defined by Denovo. Id. Without a fulcrnm point, there is
no fulcrum member. Id.
Simply adding springs to the Hard Arm Dual Lock chair does not transform
the stationary front member and foot into a functioning "fulcrum member defining
a fulcrum point." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 112 ,220; Tr. (Smith) at 793:19-
794:7. The front foot in the Hard Arm Dual Lock chair is one piece that is connected
to the main tubes. Id. With a frame that is essentially rigid in the set up condition
with two points touching the ground, decreasing the length of one of the frame
members by compressing a straight or linear spring requires that the two points
touching the ground must necessarily move towards each other. Id. When the front
foot moves linearly toward the back foot, the re is no fulcrum point. CX-0464C
1 15

PUBLIC VERSION
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 220; Tr. (Smith) 787:23-789:3, 800: 1-10.
See id. at 67-68.
Denovo argues, in part:
In a further attempt to attack the DLHA as a primary reference, GCI
contends that the DLHA lacks certain elem ents of the claims: a "fulcrum member"
and a "fulcrum point" that gives the chair the ability to "move between forward and
rearward rocking positions" as required by clain1 10. See GCI's Preheating Brief
(hereafter GCI Pre.Br.) at 55-56. In support of its argument, GCI asserts that the
stationary front feet of the DLHA would not act as a fulcrnm point if sp1ings were
added to the rear legs. Id. at 56. This is simply not true. The evidence shows that
before Denovo changed the stationary front foot to a pivoting front foot during the
development process, the stationary front foot served as a fulcrum point about
which the chair pivo ted . Hrg. Tr. (Penn) at 593:9-19 (testifying that th e Denovo
sample chair pivoted on the stationary front foot); see also id. (Babcock) at 655:7-
13 (testifying that adding springs to the back leg transforms a stationary foot into a
fulcrum member with a fulcrum point); id. (Smith) at 773:22 - 774:2 (testifying
tha t, when you put springs on the back of the Dual Lock chair, the chair "might
move around the back lower-most portion of the front foot"); id. (Smith) at 805:23
- 806:6 (testifying that the intent of the springs shown in Denovo's provisional
application, RX-0074, "was that it would pivot around the back edge of the front
foot"); RX-0484C (video ofDenovo's sample showing rotation about the stationary
front foot); RX-0480C, Q&A 6, 9-10; RX-048 1C, Q&A 11-12, 16.
Relatedly, Mr. Smith's opinion that the Rok-It Chair satisfies the claim
limitation "a fulcrnm member defining a fulcrnm point" is based upon several
documents that relate to Denovo's Dual Lock chairs with the old stationary foot
design, including CX-0075C, which states: "the front feet are the fulcrum about
which the system (whole chair) rotates." See CX-0002C (Smith Direct WS), Q&A
325-327. See also CX-0076C - CX-0078C; CX-0082C; CX-0103; CX-0133 (upon
which Mr. Smith relies). Thus, Mr. Smith's opinion that the Rok-It Chair includes
a "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point" is based upon his review of Denovo 's
Dual Lock chairs with the old foot design - an admission that the Dual Lock, with
the old foot design and with a spring attached to the rear legs has a fulcrum po int
at the bottom of the old foot, as he also admitted on cross examination.
Resps. Br. at 42-44.
As discussed below, Denovo has failed to demonstrate that the DLHA chai r, in
combination with the cited prior a1i spring mechanisms, renders obvious ce1iain claim limitations
of the asserted claims of the '824 patent.
116

PUBLIC VERSION
1. 	DLHA Chair+ Frajdenrajch
French patent FR 1.232.555 to Frajdenrajch, entitled "Telescopic Suspension Seat,"
issued on October 10, 1960, and is th erefore prior aii to the '824 patent. RX-0247; RX-0274;
RX-0495; RX-0496.
Denovo argues, in part:
Frajdenrajch di sc loses that springs can be added to the back legs of any style chair,
can be adapted to be used with old chairs, and may also be added to all types of
seats, arm chairs, stools, etc. 	See RX-0247 and RX-0495 ("The invention is
applicable to all kinds of seats, chairs, stools, etc."). 	Thus, the motivation to
combine the springs of Frajdenrajch with any chair - including the DLHA - is
explicitly stated in the reference itse lf. 	This motivation to combine would have
been bolstered by many other Spring Mechanism References that teach adding
compression springs to chair legs to fom1 rocking chairs. 	RX-0121C (Cameron
Direct WS), Q&A 54.
No tably, the Frajdenrajch chair le gs are similar to the DLHA 's legs. And
the combination of the spring mechanism with the Dual Lock chair is similar to one
of Mr. Penn's first samples[.)
* 	* 	*
[W]hen sp rings (such as the Frajdenrajch spring mechanism) are attached to the
back legs of th e DLHA, the front leg of th e chair becomes th e fulcrum memb er and
the am1rest support tube becomes the front leg member, pursuant to GCI's
infringement analysis of the Rok-It Chair. See RX-0369C." The addition of the
Frajdenrajch spring further allows the chair to move between forward and rearward
rocking positions, according to GCI's interpretation of that claim requiremen t.
Hence, the elements of the independent claims that GCI alleges are "missing" from
the DLHA (i. e., the fulcrum member with a fulcrum point at its terminal end, and
the ability to rock between forward and rearward po sitions about the fulcrum point)
are present once the Frajdenrajch spring is attached to the back legs of the chair.
Hrg. Tr. (Penn) at 593 :9 -19; id. (Babcock) at 655:7-13; id. (Smith) at 773:22 -
774:2; RX-0484C. Thus, the DLHA + Frajdenrajch combination renders obvious
clain1s 1-3, 9-1 2, 15 , and 18-19.
Resps. Br. at 46-48.
GCI argues, in part:
Frajdenrajch d is closes a telescopic suspension seat and does not even
mention 	the 	word 	"rock." 	RX-0495 	(Frajdenrajch). 	In 	Frajdenrajch, 	the
1 17

PUBLIC VERSION
compression of the springs can vary from one leg to the other depending on how
the person is sitting on the chair. Id. at p. 3 ("This compression can vary from one
leg to another depending on whether one is sitting in the middle or on the side").
It would not have been obvious to add the straight sp1ing mechanism of
Frajdenrajch to the Denovo Hard Arm Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock
in RDX-0034. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at QI A 234. Indeed, the straight spring
mechanism of Frajdenrajch looks very similar to so me of Mr. Penn's initial
prototype spring mechanisms for the ROK-IT chair, the very same arrangement that
Mr. Penn tried but ultimately failed to get to work. Id.; RX-0375C (Oliphant DWS)
at Q/A 24 (discussing RDX-0034 and stating that "the top two pages are very
similar to some of the first embodiments that Mr. Penn constrncted right from the
very beginning."). Mr. 	Babcock even acknowledges the similarity between
prototype #4 of the ROK-IT's spring mechanism and the spring in Frajdenrajch.
RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 48.
Comp 1. Br. at 70.
The evidence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited translational
movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C
(Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4 ("Standard front foot; notice chair creeps as it is
rocking .. .Hinged front foot; notice chai[r] no longer creeps"); RX-0484C (showing the front foot
of the prototype Rok-It Chair moving back and forth as the chair rocked). Mr. Penn testified that
the chairs did not work when the prototype Rok-It Chairs had stationary front feet. CX-0075C at
6 ("Leverage the design and seating experience of the Kijaro dual lock chair, with modification
to incorporate spring actuated mechanisms on the rear legs ... Why it doesn' t work - Difficult to
locate the fulcrum reasonably behind the center of gravity, without th e chair wanted to tip
forward"); CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 221.
This translating front foot problem, which also created a tipping hazard, was not obvious
or easy for Denovo to solve. Although Denovo eventually replaced the stationary front foot with
a pivotable front foot (Penn Tr. 553), Denovo did not even consider making this change until
over three years into the Rok-It Chair's development process. CX-0084C (May 4, 2017 Rok-It
118

PUBLIC VERSION
Product Development Direction) at 6. Even after Denovo first incorporated a pivoting front foot,
the Rok-It Chair still did not work as intended, and Denovo made additional modifications to the
front foot to make the chair safe. CX-0283C at 3 (''New Front Foot Design, Adjustments to the
Front Foot. .. Moved the forward edge (A) of socket to effectively reduce amount of negative
rotation. The design intent is to reduce amount chair can rotate forward and minimize tipping
hazard."). Thus, simply adding a spring to the back legs of the DLHA chair did not transfom1
the stationary front member and foot into a functioning "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum
point" as required by the claims. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 220-21.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of the DLHA chair with
Frajdenrajch would not re sult in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point"
because the prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when
attached to the DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during
rocking motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 234; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn 't work"). The spring
mechanism ofFrajdenrajch would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 234. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of
Frajdenrajch to the Denovo DLHA chair would not create a workable collapsible and portable
rocking chair. Id.
2. 	DLHA Chair+ JP 3036662
Japanese patent JP 3036662 was published on May 2, 1997, and is therefore prior art to
the '824 patent. See RX-0248, RX-0494; RX-0496.
Denovo argues, in part:
JP 3036662 shows the use of a spring within a sleeve that is attached to the front
119

PUBLIC VERSION
feet of the chai r. 	Rocking in this chair would cause the chair to pivot about the
back feet. 	The spring mechanism in this reference has a similar configuration to
the first embodin1ent in Mr. Penn's provisional patent application filed on March
6, 2014. RX-0489C at Q&A 47; compare RX-0248 at DENOVO-02585, 02587
with RX-0074 at p. 18.
This similarity indicates that adding Mr. Penn's spring mechanism to a chair
not only was not difficul t, but the combination of the chair with the spring
mechanism was obvious to a POSA. Adding the spring mechanism of JP 3036662
to the DLHA would not be difficult and a POSA would be motivated to do so[.]
* 	* 	*
Since the Rok-lt Chair allegedly infringes clain1s 10-12, 15 and 18- 19, those
clain1s must, by the same logic, be obvious over the combination of the DLHA and
the JP 3036662 rocker mech anis m. RX-0489C, Q&A 48; see also Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
at 781 :20 - 782:4; 782:22 - 78 3: 19; RDX-0034 at p. 8; RX- 01 61C; RX-0248; RDX-
0099. The DLHA + JP 3036662 combination renders obvious claims 1- 3, 9-12, 15,
and 18-19 for the same reasons discussed above regarding DLHA + Frajdenrajc h.
Resps. Br. at 48-49.
GCI argues, in p ari :
JP 3036662 d iscloses a toddler chair with a shock absorber, the dimensions
of which would be considerably different from those of the Hard Arm Dual Lock
chair, and does not even mention th e word "rock." RX-0494 (JP 3036662). Indeed,
JP 3036662 teaches a POSITA not to attach th e spring mechanism to the rear legs
of a chair. Id. at p. 10 ("Since the sh ock -absorbing mechanism 11 is provided only
on the front leg 1 and not on the rear leg 2, unlike the case where the chair tilts
forward when the spiral spring 15 is compressed, it is safer and less likely for a
child seated in the chair to fall backwards, unlike the case where the chair tilts
forward when the spiral spring 15 is compressed.").
It would not have been obvious to add the straight spring mechanism of JP
3036662 to the Denovo Hard Arm Dual Lock chair as a ll eged by M r. Babcock in
RDX-0034. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 234. Indeed, the straight spring
mechanism of JP 3036662 looks very similar to some of Mr. Penn 's initial
prototype spring mechanisms for th e ROK-IT chair, which, again, did n ot work.
Id .; RX-0375C (Oliphant DWS) at Q/A 24 (discussing RDX-0034 and stating that
"the top two pages a re very similar to some of the first embodin1ents that Mr. Penn
constructed right from the very beginning."). M r. Babcock even acknowledges the
similarity between prototype #3 of the ROK-IT 's spring mechanism and the spring
in JP 3036662. RX-0489C (Babcock DWS) at Q/A 47.
Compl. Br . at 71-72.
120

PUBLIC VERSION
As noted above, the ev idence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn T r.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engine ering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge fi nds that the combination of the DLHA chair with JP
3036662 would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrnm point"
because the prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-lt Chair did not work when
attached to the DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during
rocking motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 23 4; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doe sn't work"). The spring
mechanism of JP 3036662 would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 234. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of JP 3036662
to the Denovo DLHA chair would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair.
See id.
3. 	DLHA Chair + Colbridge
U.S. Patent No. 2,056,957 to Colbridge issued on October 13, 1936, and is therefore prior
ait to the '824 patent. See RX-0057.
Denovo argues, in part:
Colbridge discloses a "chair attachment and more particularly to attachments which
may be readily applied to feet of legs of articles of furniture, such for example, as
chairs, ... , so that such articles of furniture may be rocked or tilted ...." See also
Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 780:8 -11 (acknowledging that the Colbridge chair attachment
may be readily attached to the feet of chair legs). T hus, th e motivation to combine
the Colbridge chair spring with any chair - including the DLHA - is explicitly
provided in Colbridge itself. 	This motivation to combine would have been
bolstered 	by 	many other 	Spring Mechanism References 	that teach 	adding
compression springs to chair legs to form rocking chairs. 	RX-01 21C, Q&A 54.
See also infra, Section III.B.2.
121

PUBLIC VERSION
Colbridge's "chair attachment" comprises a conically coiled spring (C), a
flexible rubber cover (7), and a screw or other fastener for attaching the spring to
the chair (5). 	RX-0121C, Q&A 52; RX-0057 at 2:34-48 & Fig. 2. 	These
components are shown in Colbridge Figure 2, pictured below. Once the chair
attachment is affixed to the chair, the user may then rock in the chair by tilting the
chair and shifting the user 's weight. RX-0121C, Q&A 52. Colbridge allows for
rocking or tilting, without the risks of falling and injuring oneself by tilting on the
back legs of a chair. See Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 778: 10 - 780: 1 (acknowledging that
Colbridge does not say "that the chair of Colbridge is in an unstable condition" or
"that hi s springs cause it to become unbalanced "). 	The compression sp rings of
Colbridge meet GCI's definition of "rocker mechanism" and enable the chair to
rock between forward and rearward po si tions. 	See Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 778:2-5;
780:2-11 .
Adding the Colbridge spring mechanism to the DLHA would not be
difficult and a POSA would, from the disclosure of the reference and the practice
in the industry of using other prior chairs to make a new chair, add the Colbridge
spring mechanism to those chairs. Indeed, Mr. Oliphant envisioned a combination
like the DLHA+ Colbridge combination shown in his Direct Witness Statement
when he instrncted Mr. Penn to add motion to a Denovo Dual Lock chair:
Since the accused Rok-It Chair allegedly infringes claims 10-12, 15 , and
18-19, then applying that same logic, those same clain1s must be obvious over the
DLHA + Colbridge combination. See, e.g., Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 785:15-19; 786:13-
17 (testifying about RDX-100 and acknowledging that the fulcrum member
identified in the image of the DLHA with the Colbridge spring mechanism attached
to the back legs is "substantially sinular" to the fulcrum member identified on the
Rok-It Chair shown in CDX-0034); see also RDX-100 (right); RX-0057; RX-0272;
CDX-0034; CX-0149.
Accordingly, the DLHA + Colbridge combination renders obvious claims
1-3, 9-12, 15, and 18- 19 for the same reasons discussed above regarding DLHA +
Frajdenrajch.
Resps. Br. at 49-51.
GCI argues, in pari:
It would not have been obvious to add the spring mechanism of Colbirdge
to the Denovo Hard Arm Dual Lock chair. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 234.
Colbridge itself noted that its chair attachment created a tipping hazard when added
to a stationary chair. Id. at Q/A 151, 201, 234. Specifically, Colbridge notes that
when leaning a chair back "under such circumstances, th e chair occupant must
necessarily be mindful of his unbalanced position . ..as otherwise he might suffer a
fall and injury." Id.; RX-0057 (Colbridge) at 1:11-15. Accordingly, adding the
spring mechanism of Colbridge to the Denovo Hard Arm Dual Lock chair would
122

PUBLIC VERSION
not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 234. Rather, it would create an unsafe tipping hazard. A POSITA
would not be motivated to combine these references. Id.; see also Section
V.D.2(ii)(c), supra.
Comp!. Br. at 71-72.
As noted above, the ev idence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn Tr.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of the DLHA chair with
Colbridge would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum m ember" and "fulcrum point"
because the prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when
attached to th e DLHA chair. That is, the straight sp1ings experienced friction/binding during
rocking motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 234; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn 't work"). The spring
mechanism of Colbridge would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 234. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Colbridge
to the Denovo DLHA chair would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair.
Id.
4. 	DLHA Chair+ Hartman
U.S. Patent No. 114,812 to Hartman, entitled "C hair Spring," issued on May 16, 1871,
and is therefore prior art to the '824 patent. See RX-0222.
Denovo argues, in part:
Hartman describes a sleeve for spiral springs attached to the legs of furniture,
including bedsteads, chairs, sofas, and settees and similar items. It does not limit
the application to any particular type of chair. Hartman discloses: "This invention
relates to a new and useful in1provement in constructing and arranging a suitable
123

PUBLIC VERSION
casing or guard for spiral springs, designed for the legs of . .. chairs, ... etc.; and
consists in a hollow tubular casing for containing the spring, and in a socket or box
to work inside the casing for receiving the end of the chair or bedstead-leg... " RX-
0222 at 1:9- 15 . 	Accordingly, the motivation to combine the Hartman spring
mechanism with any kind of chair - including the DLHA - is explicitly provided
by the Hartman reference. Indeed, even Hartman 's title - "Chair Spring" - would
provide the motivation to attach a spring to a chair. 	This motivation to combine
would have been bolstered by many other Spring Mechanism References that teach
adding compression springs to chair legs to form rocking chairs. RX-012 lC , Q&A
54.
Adding the Hartman spring mechanism to the DLHA would be as sin1ple to
a POSA as adding the spring mechanisms of Frajdenrajch, JP 3036662, and
Colb1idge, discussed above. RX-0489C, Q&A 48. And since the accused Rok-lt
Chair allegedly infringes claims 10- 12 , 15, and 18-19, then applying that same
logic, those same clain1s must be obvious over the DLHA + Hartman combination.
The D LHA + Hartman combination renders obvious clain1s 1-3, 9-12, 15, 18, and
19 for the same reasons discussed in above regarding DLHA + Frajdenrajch.
Resps. Br. at 51 -52.
GCI argues, in part:
U.S. Patent No. 114,812 ("Hartman") describes in1proved leg guards for
furniture that is not collapsible. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 199. Hartman is a
straight "shock absorber"-style spring intended for linear, not rocking motion. RX-
0222 at 2:8-9 ("The socket is designed to fit inside the case, so that it will readily
play up and down."). For the same reasons as Frajdenrajch and JP 3036662, it
would not have been obvious to add the straight spring arrangement of Hartman to
the Hard Arm Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 215-17, 226,235.
Compl. Br. at 72.
As noted above, the evidence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn Tr.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of the DLHA chair with
Hattman would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point"
because the prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-lt Chair did not work when
124

PUBLIC VERSION
attached to the DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during
rocking motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 226; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn't work"). The spring
mechanism ofHariman would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 235. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Hartman to
the Denovo DLHA chair would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
5. 	DLHA Chair+ Smith
U.S. Patent No. 92,758 ("Smith"), entitled "Chair Spring," issued on July 20, 1869,
making it prior art to the '824 patent. RX-0321.
Denovo argues, in part:
Smith discloses that a chair may easily and quickly be changed from a stationary
chair to a rocker or oscillating chair by attaching hinged springs to the chair's front
legs. RX-0321, at col. 1, lines 18-21. The patent does not limit the type of chair to
which the springs can be attached. 	Accordingly, the motivation to combine the
Smith chair spring mechanism with any type of chair - including the DLHA - is
explicitly taught in the Smith reference. Indeed, even Smith's title - "Chair Spring"
- 	would provide the requisite motivation to attach a spring to a chair. 	This
motivation to combine 	would have 	been bolstered by many 	other 	Spring
Mechanism References that teach adding compression springs to chair legs to fo rm
rocking chairs. RX-0121C, Q&A 54.
The DLHA + Smith combination renders obvious claims 1, 2, 9-11, 15, 18,
and 19 of the '824 patent. Claims 3 and 12, requiring a sleeve for the spring, are
obvious if this combination were further combined with any of the references cited
above that disclose a spring within a sleeve, such as Frajdenrajch, JP 3036662,
Colbridge, or Hartman. See Hrg. Tr. (Lee) at 489:25 - 490: 17.
Resps. Br. at 52-53.
GCI argues, in part:
U.S. Patent No. 92,758 ("Smith") describes a rigid chair that is not
collapsible with a spring on each of the front legs. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A
189. The springs urge the chair to an unstable position where the likelihood of
tipping is increased. Id. In addition, Smith does not disclose that the purported
rocker mechanism has a sleeve, as required by claims 3 and 12 of the '824 Patent.
125

PUBLIC VERSION
CX-0464C (Smith R\VS) at Q/A 	224, 243, 257. 	For the same reasons as
Frajdenrajch and JP 3036662, it would not have been obvious to add the straight
spring of Smith to the Hard Arm Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock. Id. at
Q/ A215-17,226,235.
Comp!. Br. at 73 .
As noted above, the ev idence shows that th e front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn Tr.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of the DLHA chair with Smith
would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point" because the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs expe1ienced friction/binding during rocking motion
and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 226;
Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doe sn' t work"). The spring mechanism of Smith
would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 235. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Smith to the Denovo DLHA chair
would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
6. 	DLHA Chair+ Seng
U.S. Patent No. 490,366 ("Seng") issued on January 24, 1893, and is therefore prior art to
the '824 patent. See RX-0316.
Denovo argues, in part:
Seng's invention provides the elements that allow an ordinary chair to operate as a
rocking chair. A spring J is attached to the front leg, a rear leg B is attached to the
seat and has a spring mechanism D, and a fulcrum is disposed between the front
and rear legs. 	The user til ts the chair backward to compress the spring in spring
mechanism D. RX-0316, at p. 1, line 76 -p. 2, l. 3; see also RX-0119C (Lee Direct
WS), Q&A 135 and 15 1 (discussing the fulcrum point of Seng); Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
126

PUBLIC VERSION
at 763:24 - 765:1 (admitting that Seng discloses a "fulcrnm point" under GCI's
definiti on of that term). The chair has a back support, a seat support, a seat panel,
a back panel, a pair of side frame assemblies, a fulcrnm contacting the suppo1t
surface, and at least one rocker mechanism. Seng also discloses that springs can be
used on both sides of the chair. RX-0316, at p. 1, ll. 26-29. For the same reasons
discussed above regarding the DLHA + Frajdenrajch combination, adding the
springs of Seng to the DLHA renders obvious claims 1, 2, 9 -1 1, 15, 18, and 19.
Indeed, Mr. Smith admitted that a POSA could develop a way to attach the spring
attachment from Seng to the back of a normal chair, and that M r. Smith himself
could probably accompl ish it in less than a day. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 765: 16-24.
Claims 3 and 12, requiring a sleeve for the spring, are obvious if this combination
were further combined with any of the references cited above that disclose a spring
within a sleeve, such as Frajdenrajch, JP 3036662, Colbridge, or Hartman. See Hrg.
Tr. (Lee) at 480:25 - 481:6; 489:25 - 490: 17. See also infra, Section III.C.4.a-b.
Resps. Br. at 53-54.
GCI argues, in part:
U.S. Patent No. 490,366 ("Seng") describes a supplementary leg B that is
attached to the seat of a rigid chair that is not collapsible or portable. CX-0464C
(Smith R WS) at Q/A 191. In addition, Seng does not disclose a rocker mechanism
with a sleeve, as required by clain1s 3 and 12 of the '824 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 224,243,257. For the same reasons as Frajdenrajch and JP 3036662,
it would not have been obvious to add the straight spring mechanism of Seng to the
Hard Arm Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock. Id. at Q/A 215-17, 226, 235.
Comp 1. Br. at 73 .
As noted above, the evidence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn Tr.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge fi nds that the combination of the DLHA chair with Seng
would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point" because the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-lt Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking motion
and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 226;
127

PUBLIC VERSION
Penn Tr. 546-547; CX -0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn' t work"). The spring mechanism of Seng
would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See CX -0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 235. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Seng to the Denovo DLHA chair
would not create a workable co ll apsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
7. 	DLHA Chai r+ WekerJe
German Publication No. DE 1554179 ("\Vekerle"), entitled "Rocking Chair," was
published on May 27, 1970, and is therefore prior art to the '824 patent. See RX-0324; RX-
0269.
Denovo argues, in part:
The rocking chair of Wekerle has a fulcrum 6 about which the chair frame moves
in a forward and a backward motion as per arrow I 0. (RX-0269, at p. 15). There
are spring mechanisms 2 and 3 attached to legs (see id. at Fig. 2). The springs of
Wekerle can be encased in a sleeve. 	See RX-0269 at DENOVO-03141 ("The
springs can be protected also to prevent any gam1ents being caught in the springs
and being clamped on the springs."). Combining Wekerle with the DLHA would
be obvious to a POSA for the same reasons stated above with respect to DLHA +
Frajdenrajch. Thus, the DLHA + Wekerle combination render obvious claims 1-3,
9-12, 15, 18, and 19.
Resps. B r. at 55.
GCI argues, in pari:
Gem1an Publication No. DE 1554179 ("Wekerle") describes a rigid rocking
chair that is not collapsible or portable. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 203. In
addition, Wekerle also does not disclose a rock er mechanism with a sleeve, as
required by claims 3 and 12 of the '824 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A
224, 243, 257. For the same reasons as Frajdenrajch and JP 3036662, it would not
have been obvious to add the straight spring mechanism of Wekerle to the Hard
Arm Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock. Id . at Q/A 215-17, 226,235 .
Compl. B r. at 73.
128

PUBLIC VERSION
As noted above, the ev idence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn T r.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engine ering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge fi nds that the combination of the DLHA chair with Wekerle
would not result in a chair with a working "fu lcrum member" and "fu lcrum point" because th e
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-lt Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking motion
and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 226;
Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doe sn ' t work"). The spring mechanism of Wekerle
would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See CX-0464C (Smith R\VS)
at Q/A 235. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Wekerle to the D enov o DLHA chair
would not create a workable co ll apsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
8. 	DLHA Chair + Koshimizu
JP Hl 1-3 18627 ("Koshimizu") was published on November 24, 1999, so it is prior art to
the ' 824 patent. See RX-0317 and RX-0270.
Denovo argues, in part:
The Koshinlizu chair has a fulcrum member and three legs that h ave springs
disposed between the seat and the bottom of th e legs. The chair allows a rocking
motion using springs on each of the legs to rock around the point of contact of the
fulcrum memb er on the support surface. Adding Koshinlizu ' s springs a nd fulcrum
to the DLHA renders obvious clain1s 1-2, 9-11, 15, 18, and 19 .. 	Claims 3 and 12
are obvious if this combination were further modified by any of the references cited
above that have a spring in a sleeve, such as Frajdenrajch, JP 3036662, Co lbridge,
and Hartman. See Hrg. Tr. (Lee) at 489:25 - 490: 17.
Resps. Br. at 55.
GCI argues, in part:
129

PUBLIC VERSION
Koshimizu describes a chair with supplementary legs that, in a manner
similar to exercises for back pain, reinforces muscles smrnunding the lower back
while they try to maintain equilibrium (i.e., try not to tip over). CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 207 . . . .
* 	* 	*
Stability is a core concern in a standard front-to-back folding chair,
particularly if the front-to-back folding chair is tipped back from the set up position.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 274. In contrast, instability is a core feature of the
invention in Koshimizu, which strengthens muscles surrounding the lower back
while the user tries to 	maintain equilibrium. 	Id.; 	RX-0270 (Koshimizu) at
DENOVO-03157. Indeed, Koshimizu teaches away from a combination with the
stable front-to-back folding chair, and thus there would be no reason to modify it
as suggested by Mr. Babcock. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at QI A 274.
Finally, Koshimizu does not disclose a rocker mechanism with a sleeve, as
required by claims 3 and 12 of the '824 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A
271.
For the same reasons as Frajdenrajch and JP 3036662, it would not have
been obvious to add the straight spring arrangement ofKoshimizu to the Hard Arm
Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock. Id. at Q/A 215-17, 226,235.
Compl. Br. at 73 -74.
The administrative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine
the Denovo DLHA chair with Koshimizu to arrive at a combination where the support leg is part
of each side frame assembly, as required by claims 1 and 10. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
269. Koshinli.zu distinguishes his invention from rocking chairs when describing the prior art.
See id.; RX-02 70 (Koshimizu) at DENOVO-03156. Koshimizu discloses only one Support Leg
1 for the entire chair, located in the center of the seat. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 269.
In addition, inasmu ch as the purpose of the spring coils on th e supplementary legs is to
help the user with balance and to hold the chair upright and floating when a person is not sitting
in the chair, the administrative law judge finds that Koshimizu does not disclose to one of
ordinary skill "at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair
130

PUBLIC VERSION
during movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward positions," as required
by claims 1 and 10. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 270.
9. 	DLHA Chair + Kielhorn
U.S. Patent Publicati on No. 2001/0028187 ("Kielhorn"), entitled "Seating Furniture with
Rocking Seat," was published on October 11, 2001 and is therefore prior art to the '824 patent.
See RX-0323.
Denovo argues, in part:
Kielhorn discloses a number of seating aITangements in its more than 25 figures.
Particularly in Fig. 5 and the accompanying text, Kielhorn discloses that seat 12
has two fulcrums, 22 and 24, and two leg s, 28 and 30, with springs attached to the
ends to dampen the touching of the floo r. 	RX-0323, at p. 42. The reference al so
describes 	that 	the 	furniture 	can have 	a 	fo ldable 	construction 	to 	facilitate
transportation. Id. at p. 17; see also id. at Figs. 24a-24c. And, the chair may have
a backres t. See id. at p. 18. Combining Keilhorn with the DLHA renders obvious
clain1S 1-2, 9-11, 15, 18, and 19. C lain1 s 3 and 12 are obvious if DLHA + Kielhom
we re then combined with any of the re ferences cited above that disclose a spring
within a sleeve, such as Frajdenrajch, JP 3036662, Colbridge, and Hartman. See
Hrg. Tr. (Lee) at 489:25 - 490:17.
Resps. Br. at 56.
GCI argues, in pa1i :
Kielhom describes seating furniture with a rocking seat. CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 209. Kielhorn brie fl y mentions that the furniture can have a "foldable
construction" (RX-0075 at DENOVO-02386) but does not actually disclose or
teach a POSITA how to make the furniture foldable, particularly for one of its
"rockin g" embodiments. Kielhom also does not disclose a rocker mechanism with
a sleeve, as required by claims 3 and 12 of th e '8 24 Paten t. CX-0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 224, 243, 257. For the same reasons as Frajdenrajch and JP 3036662, it
would not have been obvious to add the straight spring arrangement of Kielhom to
the Hard Arm Dual Lock chair as alleged by Mr. Babcock. Id. at Q/A 215-17, 226,
235.
Compl. Br. at 74-75.
131

PUBLIC VERSION
As noted above, the ev idence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Tr. 554-555;
CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Enginee1ing Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of the DLHA chair with
Kielhorn would not result in a chair with a working "fu lcrum member" and "fu lcrum point"
because even the prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when
attached to the DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/bind ing during
rocking motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 226; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doe sn't work"). The spring
mechanism ofKielhom would experience similar issues when added to the DLHA chair. See
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 235. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Kielhorn to
the Denovo DLHA chair would not create a workable collapsible and po1iable rocking chai r. Id.
G. 	Obviousness - Chen or Lougee + Prior Art Spring Mechanisms
Denovo further contends the asserted clain1s of the '824 patent are invalid in view of
either of two additional primary prior art references, U.S. Patent No. 6,926,356 ("Chen ") and
U.S. Patent No. 8,100,469 ("Lougee"), in view of the prior art spring mechanisms. See Resps.
Br. at 56. Chen issued on August 9, 2005, and is therefore prior art to the '824 pat ent. See
RX-0236. Lougee was published on January 13, 2011, and is th erefore prior art to the '824
patent. See RX-0231 .
Denovo argues, in part:
Chen is directed to a portable folding chair that is suitable for travel and leisure and
can be u sed in a variety of environments, including outdoors. RX-0236 at 1:5-9.
The Chen chair has all of the chair frame members required in independent clain1s
1 and 10 of the '824 patent, according to GCl' s reading of the claim s. 	See RX-
0369C, RX-0370, RDX-0060, and RX-0489C, Q&A 53. 	Notably, unlike the
132

PUBLIC VERSION
accused Rok-It Chair and the DLHA, the Chen chair has a back support member
that is separate and distinct from the fulcrum member - i.e., they are two separate
pieces in the Chen chair. 	Thus, Chen includes a "back support member" and
"fulcrum member" under both GCI's and Denovo/Zhenli 's understandings of the
clain1s.
. . . Lougee is directed to a portable and collapsible cha ir. 	RX-0231 at 1:22-23;
2:34-36. The Lougee chair frame is nearly identical to Denovo's DLHA and Rok-
It Chair frames. 	Lougee has all of the chair frame members required in claims 1
and 10 of the '824 patent, according to GCI's reading of the claims. See RX-0369C,
RX-0370, RDX-0061, and RX-0489C, Q&A 54.
Because the frames of the Chen and Lougee chairs correspond to the
claimed chair frame members under GCI's constructions, as do the chair frame
members of Denovo's 	DLHA, then the combinations of the Spring Mechanism
References with Chen and/or Lougee render the claims obvious for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to the DLHA. 	See Hrg. Tr. (Babcock) at
666: 15-24 (testifying that he labeled the frame members of Lougee in his claim
chart according to GCI's constructions and infringement contentions). Adding any
of the Spring Mechanism References to either the Chen or Lougee chair invalidates
claims 1 and 10, the two independent claims of the '824 patent. RX-0489C, Q&A
45 .
As illustrated in the following demonstratives, the combination of Chen and
Lougee with Frajdenrajch, Colbridge, or JP 3036662 is not complicated, and the
combination would be obvious to a POSA, particularly in light of the explicit
language in each of these secondary re ferences providing a motivation to combine
a spring with a chair leg in order to impart motion to the chair. Attaching the spring
mechanisms of Frajdenrajch, Colbridge, or JP 3036662 to the rear legs of either the
Chen or the Lougee chair would satisfy claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, as well as the sleeve
requirements of claims 3 and 12. In addition, the Chen and Lougee chairs have seat
support members according to claim 15, backrests and seat rests made from flexible
material according to claim 9, and the connector mechanisms of claims 18 and 19.
Mr. Babcock's claim charts at RDX-0060 and RDX-0061 show where each element
of these clain1s is disclosed by combinations of the Spring Mechanism References
with the chair frames disclosed by Chen and Lougee. 	These combinations are
obvious to a POSA and, thus, render claims 1-3, 9-12, 15, 18, and 19 invalid. RX-
0489C, Q&A 45, 53, 54.
Resps. Br. at 56-58.
GCI argues, in paii:
Chen does not disclose a "fulcrum member" or a "fulcrum point" as recited
by claims 1 and 10 of the '824 Patent, under any party's claim construction. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 240. The alleged "fulcrum point" (plastic shoe 18) is
133

PUBLIC VERSION
just a stationary chair foot. Id . Plastic shoe 18 is not "a point on which a chair frame
is supported and about which the chair frame pivots" p er GCI's proposed
construction, nor is it "the point on the terminal end of the fulcrum member that
touches the ground surface and about which the chair rocks between a forward and
rearward position" as interpreted by Denovo. Id . Without a fulcrum point, there is
no fulcrum member. Id .
Adding springs to the Chen chair would not transform the stationary front
member and foot into a "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point." CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 241. The modification to Chen, as suggested by Mr. Babcock,
would encounter the same development issues, problems, and time delays that
plagued Denovo's own development process for the ROK-IT chair. Id.; see
Sections V.D.2(ii)(a), V.D.2(iii), supra (discussing Denovo's difficulties).
* 	* 	*
Lougee does not disclose a "fulcrum member" or a "fulcrum point" as
recited by claims 1 and 10 of the '824 Patent, under any party's claim construction.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 254. The alleged "fulcrum point" is just a
stationary chair foot. Id . The foot is not "a point on which a chair frame is supported
and about which the chair frame pivots" per GCI's proposed construction, nor is it
"the point on the terminal end of the fulcrum member that touches the ground
surface and about which the chair rocks between a fo 1ward and rearward position"
as defined by Denovo. Id. at Q/A 254. Without a fulcrum point, there is no fulcrum
member.Id.
Adding springs to the Lougee chair would not transform the stationary front
member and foot into a "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point." CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 255. The modification to Lougee, as suggested, would
encounter the same development issues, problems, and time delays discussed in
Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(iii), supra, that Denovo endured with respect to
modifying the Hard Arm Dual Lock chair. Id.
Compl. Br. at 75-76, 77.
As discussed below, Denovo has failed to demonstrate that Chen or Lougee, in
combination with the cited prior aii spring mechanisms, renders obvious ce1iain claim limitations
of the asserted claims of the '824 patent.
1. 	Chen + Frajdenrajch
Denovo argues, in part:
Because Chen's chair frame is nearly identical to the DLHA's frame, the
134

PUBLIC VERSION
Chen + Frajdenrajch combination renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, 15, 18, and 19
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to DLHA+ Frajdenrajch. 	The
illustration (RDX-0034, at 10), prepared by Mr . Babcock and discussed in his
testimony (RX-0489C, Q&A 45, 53), show that these claims are obvious in light of
Chen + Frajdenrajch. See also RX-0236; RX-0318.
Resps. Br. at 58.
GCI argues, in part:
The addition of the straight spring from Frajdenrajch to Chen would not be
obvious, as discussed in Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(ii)(b), supra. CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 245. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify or
combi ne Chen with Frajdenrajch, as discussed in Section V.D.2(ii)(c), supra, nor
does Mr . Babcock explain how this combination would actually be accomplished.
Id . at Q/A 247. For the same reasons discussed in Section V.D.2(iii), supra, it would
not have been obvious to add the straight spring arrangement of Frajdenrajch to
Chen as shown by Mr. Babcock in RDX-0034. Id. at Q/A 249.
Compl. Br. at 76 .
Chen describes a collapsible chair that does not rock. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 185. As noted above, the evidence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair, a sinlilarly
collapsible stationary chair, exhibited translational movement when straight springs were added
to the back legs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of Chen with Frajdenrajch would
not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point" because the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok- lt Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. The straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking motion and the
stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 245; Penn Tr.
546-547; CX-0075C at 6 (difficulties in adding a spring mechanism). The spring mechani sm of
Frajdenrajch would experience similar issues when added to Chen. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 249. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism ofFraj denrajch to Chen would not
135

PUBLIC VERSION
create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
2. 	Chen + JP 3036662
Denovo argues, in part:
Because Chen 's chair frame is nearly identical to the DLHA's frame, the
Chen + JP 3036662 combination renders obvious claims 1-3, 9- 12 , 15 , 18, and 19
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the DLHA + JP 3036662
combination. 	The illustration (RDX-0034, at 6), a nd Mr. Babcock 's testimony
(RX-0489C, Q&A 45, 53), show that these claims are obvious in view of Chen +
JP 3036662. See also RX-0236; RX-0248.
Resps. Br. at 59.
GCI argues, in pa1i :
The addition of the straight spring from JP 3036662 to Chen wou ld not be
obviou s, as discussed in Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(ii)(b), supra. CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 245. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify or
combine Chen with JP 3036662, as discussed in Section V.D.2(ii)(c), supra, nor
does Mr. Babcock explain how this combination would actually be accomplished.
Id. at Q/A 247. For the same reasons discussed in Section V.D.2(iii), supra, it would
not have been obvious to add the straight spring arrangement of JP 3036662 to
Chen as shown by Mr. Babcock in RDX-0034. Id. at Q/A 249.
Compl. Br . at 76.
As noted above, the evidence shows that the front feet of the DLHA cha ir, a collapsible
stationary chair, exhibited translational movement when straight springs were added to the back
legs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N ' Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of Chen with JP 3036662 would
not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point'' b ecause the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. In pa1ticular, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking
motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 245; Penn T r. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6. The spring mechanism of JP 3036662 would
136

PUBLIC VERSION
experience similar issues when added to Chen. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 249.
Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of JP 3036662 to Chen would not create a workable
collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
3. 	Chen + Colbridge
Denovo argues, in part:
Because Chen 's chair frame is nearly identical to the DLHA 's frame, the
Chen + Colbridge combination renders obvious claims 1-3, 9 -1 2, 15 , 18, and 19 for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to the DLHA + 	Colbridge
combination. 	The illustration (shown in RX-0375C, Q&A 24) shows that these
claims are obvious in view of Chen + Colbridge. See also RX-0236; RX-0057.
Resps. Br. at 59-60.
GCI argues, in part:
The addition of the spring from Colbridge to Chen would not be obvious,
as discussed in Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(ii)(b), supra. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 245. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify or
combine Chen with Colbridge, as discussed in Section V.D.2(ii)(c), supra, nor does
Mr. Babcock explain how this combination would actually be accomplished. Id. at
Q/A 247. For the same reasons discussed in Section V.D.2(iii), supra, it would not
have been obvious to add the spring attachment of Colbridge to Chen. Id. at QIA
249.
Compl. Br. at 76-77.
As noted above, the evidence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair, a collapsible
stationary chair, exhibited translational movement when straight springs were added to the back
legs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N ' Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of Chen with Colbridge would
not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member'' and "fulcrum point" because the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. That is, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking motion
and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 245;
137

PUBLIC VERSION
Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 (difficulties in adding a spring mechanism). The spring
mechanism of Colbridge would experience similar issues when added to Chen. See CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 249. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Colbridge to Chen
would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
4. 	Lougee + Frajdenrajch
Denovo argues, in part:
Because Lougee' s chair frame is nearly identical to the DLHA 's frame, the
Lougee + Frajdenrajch combination renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, 15, 18, and
19 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to DLHA + Frajdenrajch . The
illustration (RDX-0034, at 9) and Mr. Babcock's testimony (RX-0489C, Q&A 45,
54), show that these claims are obvious in view of Lougee + Frajdenrajch. See also
RX-0231 ; RX-00318 .
Resps. Br. at 58-59.
GCI argues, in part:
The addition of the straight spring from Frajdenrajch to Lougee would not
be obvious, as discussed in Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(ii)(b), supra. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 259. A POSITA would not have been motivated to
modify or combine Lougee with Frajdenrajch, as di scussed in Section V.D.2(ii)(c),
supra, and, again, Mr. Babcock fails to explain how this combination would
actually be accomplished. More is required than just adding springs to the legs of a
stationary chair such as Lougee. Id . at Q/A 261. For the same reasons discussed in
Section V .D.2(iii), supra, it would not have been obvious to add the straight spring
a1Tangement of Frajdenrajch to Lougee as shown by Mr. Babcock in RDX-0034.
Id . at Q/A 263.
Compl. Br. at 77-78.
Lougee describes a collapsible chair with a curved back support that does not rock. See
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 187. As noted above, the evidence shows that the front feet of
the DLHA chair, a similarly collapsible stationary chair, exhibited translational movement when
straight springs were added to the back le gs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock
Engineering Recap) at 4.
138

PUBLIC VERSION
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of Lougee with Frajdenrajch
would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point" because the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. As noted above, the straight springs experienced friction/binding dming rocking
motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 259; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6. The spring mechanism of Frajdenrajch would
experience similar issues when added to Lougee. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 263.
Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Frajdenrajch to Lougee would not create a
workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
5. 	Lougee + JP 3036662
Denovo argues; in part
Because Lougee's chair frame is nearly identical to the DLHA 's frame, the
Lougee + JP 3036662 combination renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, 15, 18, and
19 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the DLHA + JP 3036662
combination. The illustration (RDX-0034, at 5) and Mr. Babcock's testimony (RX-
0489C, Q&A 45, 54), show that these clain1s are obvious in view of Lougee + JP
3036662. See also RX-0231; RX-0248.
Resps. Br. at 59.
GCI argues, in pari:
The addition of the straight spring from JP 3036662 to Lougee would not
be obvious, as discussed in Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(ii)(b), supra. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 259. A POSITA would not have been motivated to
modify or combine Lougee with JP 3036662, as discussed in Section V.D.2(ii)(c),
supra, and, again, Mr. Babcock fails to explain how this combination would
actually be accomplished. Id. at Q/A 261 . For the same reasons discussed in Section
V.D.2(iii), supra, it would not have been obvious to add the straight spring
mechanism of JP 3036662 to Lougee as shown by Mr. Babcock in RDX-0034. Id.
at Q/A 263.
Comp 1. Br. at 78 .
139

PUBLIC VERSION
As noted above, the ev idence shows that the front feet of the DLHA chair, a collapsible
stationary chair, exhibited translational movement when straight springs were added to the back
legs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of Lougee with JP 3036662
would not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and " fu lcrum point" because th e
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when attach ed to th e
DLHA chair. The straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking motion and the
stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 259; Penn T r.
546-547; CX-0075C at 6. The spring mechanism of JP 3036662 would experience similar issues
when added to Lougee. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 263. Accordingly, adding the
spring mechanism of JP 3036662 to Lougee would not create a w01~kable collapsible and portable
rocking chair. Id.
6. 	Lougee + Colbridge
Denovo argues, in part:
Because Lougee's chair frame is nearly identical to the DLHA 's frame, the
Lougee + Colbridge combination renders obvious claims 1-3, 9-12, 15, 18, and 19
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to DLHA + Colb1idge. 	The
illustration (RX-0375C, Q&A 24) shows that these clain1 s are obvious in view of
Lougee + Colbridge. See also RX-023 1; RX-0057.
Resps. Br. at 60.
GCI argues, in part:
The addition of the spring from Colbridge to Lougee would not be obvious,
as discu ssed in Sections V.D.2(ii)(a) and V.D.2(ii)(b), supra. CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/A 259. A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify or
combine Lougee with Colbridge, as discussed in Section V.D.2(ii)(c), supra, nor
does Mr. Babcock explain how this combination would actually be accomplished.
Id . at Q/A 261. For the same reasons discussed in Section V.D.2(iii), supra, it would
140

PUBLIC VERSION
not have been obvious to add the spring attachment of Colbridge to Lougee. Id. at
Q/A 263.
Comp 1. Br. at 78 .
As noted above, the ev idence shows that th e front feet of the DLHA chair, a collapsib le
stationary chair, exhibited translational movement when straight springs were added to the back
legs. See Penn T r. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N ' Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law judge finds that the combination of Lougee with Colbridge would
not result in a chair with a working "fulcrum member" and "fulcrum point" because the
prototype straight spring mechanisms for the Rok-It Chair did not work when attached to the
DLHA chair. F or example, the straight springs experienced friction/binding during rocking
motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 259; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6. The spring mechanism of Colbridge would
experience similar issues when added to Lougee. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 255
("Modifications to Lougee, as suggested, would encounter the same development issues,
problems, and time delays that Denovo and Zhenli endured with respect to modifying the Hard
Arm Dual Lock chair"), 263. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Colbridge to Lougee
would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair. Id.
H. 	Obviousness - Secondary Considerations
The objective evidence, also known as "secondary considerations," includes commercial
success, long felt need, and failure of others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13 -17
(1966); Dystar Textilfarben GmbHv. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Ci r. 2006).
"[E]vidence arising out of the so-called ' secondary considerations' must always when present be
considered en route to a determination of obviousness." Stratojlex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 7 13
141

PUBLIC VERSION
F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Secondary considerations, such as commercial success, will
not always dislodge a determination of obviousness based on analysis of the prior art. See KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 426 (2007) (commercial success did not alter conclusion
of obviousness).
GCI argues there is substantial evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness of the
invention in the '824 patent. See Compl. Br. at 79-85. GCI argues several factors weigh in favor
of a finding of non-obviousness:
• 	the claimed invention of the '824 patent is a commercial success
• 	the claimed invention of the '824 patent addresses a long-felt but unresolved need
• 	there is substantial recognition in the industry of the claimed invention of the '824
patent
• 	there has been copying of the claimed invention of the '824 patent
As noted above, GCI has not demonstrated that the '824 patent is implemented in the
'824 GCI products. Therefore, GCI has not established a nexus between the '824 GCI products
and the '824 patent, and the secondary considerations do not support a finding of
non-obviousness.
1. 	Commercial Success
GCI argues that the '824 GCI products (RoadTrip Rocker, Pod Rocker / Pod Rocker with
Sunshade, and Kickback Rocker) practice the '824 patent, and have been commercially
successfu l. See Compl. Br. at 80-81. For the reasons discussed above in the domestic industry
section concerning "fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted
for contacting the ground surface upon which the chair sits in the set-up condition and for
supporting the chair frame," GCI has not demonstrated that the '824 patent is in1plemented in the
'824 GCI products. GCI has adduced evidence demonstrating that the '824 GCI products are
142

PUBLIC VERSION
commercially successfu l. See id. Furthermore, GCI adduced evide nc e showing that that the
ability of the '824 GCI products to safely rock in a portable, collapsible chair drove the success
of these products. See CX-0419C (Po Ike RWS) at Q/A 58-60, 68, 78-80, 84-89, 94-95, 103-05,
13 1-3 3; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 28 4. However, as the administrative law judge finds
that '824 GCI products do not practice th e '8 24 patent, GCI has not established a nexus between
the '824 GCI products and the '824 patent.
2. 	Long-Felt But Unresolved Need
GCI argues that was a long-felt but unresolved need for portable and collapsible rocker
chairs embodying the claims of the '824 patent, and that respondents have identified no portable
rocking chairs that are collap sible in the manner described by the '824 patent. See Compl. Br. at
81-82 . Fo r the reasons di scus sed above in the domest ic industry section co ncern ing " fu lcrum
member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground
surface upon w hich the chair sits in the set-up condition and for supporting the chair frame," GCI
has not demonstrated that the '824 patent is implemented in the '824 GCI products. Moreover,
GCI mainly relies on the testimony of its expert, Mr. Smith, who cites the asserted patent for
support. See id. (citing CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 285). GCI cites the following passages
of the '824 patent:
• 	[T]here is a desire for a rocking chair that is likewise foldable and portable,
so that a user at a picnic or an outdoor event can rock in their chair or recline
as desired.
JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 2, Ins. 21-24.
• 	Prior art foldable and portable chairs, su ch as those described above, have
not been capable of rocking due to the design and construction of such
chairs.
Id. at co l. 2, lns. 24-27.
143

PUBLIC VERSION
The administrative law judge finds that these statements are oflittle probative value
because the patent does not explain how the need arose or describe how long it was felt. See
Certain Strontium-Rubidium Infusions Systems, and Components Thereof Including Generators,
337-TA-1110, Final Initial Determination (Aug. 1, 2019) at 120, ajf'd in pertinent part, Comm'n
Opinion (Dec. 11, 2019) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. JD 696920) at 38. GCI's other evidence
does not demonstrate any long-felt unresolved need for the claimed invention of the '824 patent.
See CX-0258C (Oliphant Dep.) at 26: 17-27:8; 34:1-12, 36:6-37:4. Viewing the evidence as a
whole, this factor does not support a conclusion of non-obviousness.
3. 	Praise by Others
GCI argues that the invention of the '824 patent "has[s] received contemporaneous praise
by others and professional approval; which shows that tho se with ordinary skill in the ait
consider GCI's inventions to be new and nonobvious." Compl. Br. at 82. GCI has adduced
articles and awards that praise the rocking features (such as the "rocker mechanism" and
"fulcrum point" I "fulcrum member") of the '824 GCI products. See CX-0419C (Polke R WS) at
Q/A 138-6 1; CX-0418C (Grace RWS) at Q/A 94-95; CX-0421 (Dream Guides: "Best Portable
Fishing Chair in 2019"); CX-0422 (Gear Junkie: "Best Camping Chairs (That Rock)"); CX-0423
(Gear Patrol: "The 11 Best Camp Chairs of 2019"); CX-0424 (Men's Health: "Best Camping
Chairs 2019"); CX-0425 (Popular Mechanics: "Best Camping Chairs 2019"); CX-0426 (The
Manual: "Best Camp Chairs on Amazon for Chilling Around the Campfire"); CX-0428
(Business Insider: "The best folding chair in 2019"); CDX-0386 (Photo of2013 Tailgater
Magazine Best in Show at the National Hardware Show for GCI's Freestyle Rocker). For the
reasons discussed above in the domestic industry section concerning "fulcrum member defining
a fulcmm point at a te1minal end thereof adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which
144

PUBLIC VERSION
the chair sits in the set-up condition and for supporting the chair frame," GCI has not
demonstrated that the '824 patent is implemented in the '824 GCI products. As the
administrative law jud ge finds that '824 GCI products do not practice the '824 patent, GCI has
not established a nexus between the '824 GCI products and the '824 patent.
4. 	Copying
GCI argues that Denovo' s copying is further objective evidence of the non-obviousness
of the invention of the '824 patent. See Compl. Br. at 83-85. GCI argues that Denovo was
aware of the '824 GCI products at least as early as March 2014 and made efforts to copy those
designs. See id. (citing CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 287; RX-0376C (Peny DWS) at Q/A
28; CX-0079C at 4 (Product Development Direction dated June 26, 2014 showing GCI Freestyle
Rocker)).
Denovo argues that it only became aware of any GCI chair with a spring mechanism in
March 2014, after Mr. Penn had already built three different samples of a chair with springs
attached to the back feet and filed a provisional application. See Resps. Br. at 163 (citing
RX-0377C (Penn DWS) at Q/A 10-12; RX-0074). Denovo further argues that it expressly
avoided copying GCI's chair. See id. (citing Penn Tr. 583-584).
The administrative law judge finds that GCI has not adduced evidence demonstrating that
Denovo copied the invention of the '824 patent. GCI cites CX-0079C at 4, reproduced below.
145

PUBLIC VERSION
Examples of Other Cha i rs
Curv ed Rail Rock ing Cha ir 	Rocking Di rector's Chair
C0'\11 OE'IT.A.L· NOT FORD STA:13tJT•ON,
i:tFPilOOUC"ION, ORD ':SEM NMION
CX-0079C at 4
GCI Rock ing Cha ir
The administrative law judge finds that this evidence shows that Denovo was aware of
the GCI Freestyle Rocker, but the Freestyle Rocker is not one of the '824 GCI products. Hence,
even ifDenovo had copied the Freestyle Rocker, GCI has not even contended that a nexus exists
between the GCI Freestyle Rocker and the claims of the '824 patent.
* 	* 	*
Accordingly, the administrative law judge finds that there is no evidence of secondary
considerations that tends to support non-obviousness of the claims of the '824 patent.
I. 	Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Denovo contends the asserted claims of the '824 patent are invalid for failure to comply
with the requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Resps. Br. at 61. 12 Denovo argues the
12 Although respondents mentioned possible indefiniteness or lack of enablement in their main
posthearing brief, only alleged lack of written description is presented in any detail as an
146

PUBLIC VERSION
following limitations lack sufficient written descriptio n: "adapted for contacting the ground
smface" (claims 1 and 10); "at least one transversely extending connector mechanism" ( claim
18); and "a pair of connector members pivotally connected to each other at a respective
intermediate portion thereof about a pivot axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities
thereof to each of the side frame assemblies" (claim 19). See id.
1. 	"adapted for contacting the ground surface" (claims 1 and 10)
Denovo argues, in part:
Claims 1 and 10 are invalid for lack of written description. 35 U.S.C. § 112.
These clain1s require that the terminal end of the fulcrum m ember "be adapted for
contacting the ground surface." 	The fu lcrum point 154 illustrated in Figure 9
appears to be a circular piece. No other description of this fulcrum point appears
anywhere in the patent. Because there is no written description for the full scope
of this term, as asserted by GCI to somehow cover a two-piece foot member having
a flat bottom, where th e alleged fu lcrum point does not come in contact with the
ground, if GCI's assertion is accepted, the patent fails to inform a POSA, with
reasonable certainty, about such a scope of the invention, nor enable i t. RX-0489C,
Q&A 59 &60.
Resps. Br. at 61 .
GCI argues, in part:
The specification plainly describes what it means to be "adapted for
contacting the ground surface." JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 9:52-54 ("The chair frame
12 is generally adapted to rest on a generally horizontally oriented supporting
surface, such as a floor or the ground, in a set-up condition. "). Further, as explained
by Mr. Smith, the specification discloses embodiments in which the terminal end
touches the ground directly, and others in which it does so indirectly through a foot
or runner. CX-0464C ( Smith RWS) at Q/A 297; JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 8:1-2,
11 :50-56. Thus, a POSITA would understand that the terminal end must be near
the ground surface, so it can contact it either directly or indirectly through a support
structure. CX -0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 297.
* 	* 	*
[A] POSITA would understand that the "ground surface" is simply the surface on
affirmative defense. See Resps. Br . at 61 -63 ("Clain1s 1 and 10 are invalid for lack of written
description. 35 U.S.C. § 1 12 .").
147

PUBLIC VERSION
which a chair sits when set-up. CX-0464C (Smith R\VS) at Q/A 89. Indeed,
Denovo's 	own 	expert 	admits 	as 	much. 	See 	Tr. 	(Babcock) 	at 	639:12-15.
Accordingly, no antecedent basis is required. See Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d
1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir.2001) ("[T]he failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for
terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be
reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite."
(quotation omitted)).
Compl. Br. at 85-86 (footnote omitted).
The administrative law judge finds that there is adequate written description suppo 1t for
the term "adapted for contac ting the ground surface."
Denovo 's argument conflates grounds of possible invalidity. For example, Denovo
argues, "Because there is no written description for the full scope of this tem1, as asserted by
GCI to somehow cover a two-piece foot member having a flat bottom, where the alleged fulcrum
point does not come in contact with th e ground; if GCI's assertion is accepted; th e patent fails to
infom1 a POSA, with reasonable certainty, about such a scope ofthe invention, nor enable it."
Resps. Br. at 61 (emphasis added).
The test for sufficiency of a written description is "whether the disclosure of the
application reli ed upon reasonable conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date." Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v.
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Ariad Phann., Inc. v.
Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane)). The enablement requirement is
satisfied when one skilled in the art, after reading the specification, could practice the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. AK Steel Corp. v. So/lac & Ugine, 344 F.3d 1234,
1244 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As an initial matter, both experts opining on the '824 patent agree on the plain and
ordinary meaning of "ground surface": the surface on which the chair would sit. See CX-0464C
148

PUBLIC VERSION
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 297; Babcock T r. 639 ("Q. Can you answer, would you agree that the plain
and ordinary meaning of 'ground surfac e' is the surface on which the chair would sit? Yes or no?
A. Yes."). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the "ground surface" is the
surface on which the chair sits. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 89.
The specification provides multiple examples demonstrating that the chair frame,
including a fulcrum member defining a fulcrum point at a terminal end th ereof adapted for
contacting the ground surface, is designed to stably rest on the ground surface below the chair.
See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at co l. 9, lns. 52-54 ("The chair frame 12 is generally adapted to rest
on a generally horizontally oriented supporting surface, such as a floor or the ground, in a set-up
condition."); id. at co l. 11, lns. 50-53 ("Each side frame assembly 120 further includes a fulcrum
point 154 provided on a frame member 155 ex tending from an intermediate point on the rear leg
128 to the ground or support surface on which the set-up chair 110 rests.").
As noted above, the claim te rm "adapted for contacting the ground surface upon which
the chair sits in a set-up condition" means "terminal end touches the ground surface (not a part of
the chair) in the set-up condition." Inasmuch as the claim term lends itself to this construction,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of "adapted for contacting the ground
surface" with reasonable certainty.
2. 	"at least one transversely extending connector mechanism"
(claim 18)
Denovo argues, in part:
Claim 18 requires that th e side frame asse mblies be connected by "at least
one transversely extending connector mechanism." This term is found nowhere in
the '824 patent other than in claim 18. 	RX-0489C, Q&A 61. Claim 18 is not an
originally filed claim (compare JX-0001 at clain1 18 with JX-0003 at JX-
0003.0026 -0030) and thus cannot, itself: provide written description support.
Turbocare Division of Demag Delaval Turbo machinery Corp. v. General Electric
149

PUBLIC VERSION
Co ., 264 F.3d 11 1 1, 1 11 8 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Mentor Graphics Corp. v. E VE-USA,
Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 	Accordingly, it does not reasonably
convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter
as of the filing date. See RX-0489C, Q&A 59.
Resps. Br. at 62.
GCI argues, in part:
The disclosure of the '824 Patent clearly conveys to a POSITA the meaning
of"at least one transversely extending connector mechanism" (claim 18). See CX-
0464C (Smith R WS) at QIA 30 1. Denovo does not genuinely dispute this fact.
Instead, it argues that this term does not appear verbatin1 outside of the clain1s in
the ' 824 Pat ent. RPreHB at 50.
Comp!. Br. at 86-87.
The specification of th e '824 patent describes transversely extending members that
connect the side frame assemblies. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 3, lns. 29-34, col. 8,
ln. 39 -co l. 9, In. 14, co l. 9, lns. 43-48; Figures 1, 2-7.
The administrative law judge finds that the specification of the '824 patent provides
sufficient written description for the term "at lea st one transversely extending connector
mechanism." See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 8 15 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
("[W]hen examining the written description for suppo1t for the claimed invention, we have held
that the exact terms appearing in the claim ' need not be u sed in haec verba. '"); Vasudevan
Software, inc. v. MicroStrategy, inc., 782 F.3d 671,682 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (" The test for the
suffi ciency of th e written description is whether th e disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
s ubj ect matter as of the filing date.").
Transverse ly extending members that connect the side frame assemblies are described in
the specification of the. '824 patent. For example, the specification recites: "[T]he chair also
15 0

PUBLIC VERSION
includes cross members that connect the left and right frame side assemblies." JX-0001 ('824
patent) at col. 3, Ins. 29-31. The specification further recites: "The cross members are pivotally
connected to one another as well as to the left and right frame side assemblies." Id. at co l. 3, Ins.
32-34.
3. 	"a pair of connector members pivotaJly connected to each
other at a respective intermediate portion thereof about a pivot
axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities thereof to
each of the side frame assemblies" (claim 19)
Denovo argues, in part:
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and further limits th e claim term
"connector mechanism" to being "a pair of connector members piv otally connected
to each other at a respec ti ve intermediate portion thereof about a pivot axis and
pivotally connected at terminal extremities thereof to each of the side frame
assemblies." It is not clear from the '824 patent or its prosecution history whether
the "connector mechanism" in claim 19 refers back to the "at least one transversely
extending connector mechanism" in claim 18 or if there is some other "connector
mechanism" to which it is referring. RX-0489C, Q&A 61. On their face, they are
two different claim terms. 	The specification does not support this claim te1m ,
rendering claim 19 invalid.
Fmiher, there is no suppo rt for "a pair of connector members pivotally
connected to each other at a respective intermediate portion thereof about a pivot
axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities thereof to each of the side
frame assemblies." This element is only present in the claims of the '824 patent.
1n addition, the chair in Figs. 2-7 and its description are not relevant to infom1ing
or disclosing an embodim ent of claims 10, 18, and 19. Hence, th ere is no written
description in the specification that supports claim 19. RX-0489C, Q&A 61.
Resps. Br. at 62-63.
GCI argues, in paii:
Denovo asserts that th e te1m "connector mechanism" in claim 19 does not
appear in claim 18 (the clain1 from which claim 19 depends), clain1 IO (the claim
from which clain1 18 depends), or the specificatio n. That is plainly false. Claim 18
reads: "The collapsible and po1iable rocking chair according to claim 10, wherein
the side frame assemblies are interconnected by at least one transversely extending
connector mechanism." JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at 16:5-9 (emphasis added). Claim
19 reads: "The collapsib le and portable rocking chair according to claim 18 ,
wherein the connector mechanism comprises a pair of connector members pivotally
151

PUBLIC VERSION
connected to each other. ..." Id. at 16:9-12 (emphasis added). There is no ambiguity
in that language: "the connector mechanism" recited in clain1 19 is the same
"connector mechanism" recited in claim 18. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 303.
A POSITA would understand that claim 19 simply adds limitations to the connector
mechanism described in claim 18. Id.
* 	* 	*
Denovo next contends that the '824 Patent does not describe "a pair of
connector members pivotally connected to each other at a respective intermediate
portion thereof about a pivot axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities
thereof to each of the side frame assemblies." Again, Denovo is wrong. . ..
Denovo agrees (as it must) that the "cross members" (item 56 in the image
above) describe the claimed pair of connector members and that a POSITA reading
the specification would understand this phrase. See RX-0489C (Babcock D\VS) at
Q/A 61; Tr. (Babcock) at 657:5-10. Undeterred, it argues that the term lacks written
description simply because the cross members are not visible in the illustration of
Figure 9. See id.
Compl. Br. at 87-89 (footnotes omitted).
The administrative law judge finds that there is no ambiguity in the limitation "connector
mechanism": "the connector mechanism" recited in clain1 19 is the same "connector mechanism"
recited in claim 18. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at QIA 303. One of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that claim 19 sin1ply adds linutations to the connector mechanism described in
clain1 18.
Regarding the "pair of connector members'', the specification describes such a pair of
connector members pivotally connected to each other at a respective intermediate portion thereof
about a pivot axis and pivotally connected at terminal extrenuties the re of to each of the side
frame assemblies. See JX-0001 ('824 patent) at col. 2, lns. 6-9, col. 8, ln. 39- col. 9, ln. 14;
Figures 2, 4, 7 (e.g., item numbers 56, 58, 60, and 62)); CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 303.
The "pair of connector members" 56 are shown in Figure 2, reproduced below.
152

PUBLIC VERSION
36a
44
36c
FIG. 2 of JX-0001 ('824 patent)
Denovo argues that there is no written description in the specification that supports claim
19 because the chair in Figs. 2-7 and its description are not relevant to informing or disclosing an
embodin1ent of clain1s 10, 18, and 19. See Resps. Br. at 63. However, "[t]he court must always
read the claims in view of the full specification." See SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Products, Inc.,
415 F.3d 1278, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As indicated above, the specification of the '824 patent
discloses a pair of connector members pivotally connected to each other at a respective
intermediate portion thereof about a pivot axis and pivotally connected at terminal extremities
thereof to each of the side frame assemblies. See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 patent) at Fig. 2. Denovo
has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that claim 19 lacks sufficient written
description.
15 3

PUBLIC VERSION
VI. 	The '611 Patent
A. 	Overview of the '611 Patent
Asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,060,611 ("the '61 1 patent") is titled, "Collapsible and
Portable Rocking Chair." JX-0002('611 patent). The '611 patent issued on June 23, 2015, and
the named inventor is Daniel Grace. Id.
GCI asserts independent claims 1 and 14 and dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 11, 15 and 19 of
the '611 patent. These claims read as follows:
1. A collapsible and po1table rocking chair comprising:
a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side assemblies having
substantially mirrored construction and being relatively movable with
respect to one another between a set-up condition of said chair where
said frame side assemblies are transversely spaced apart from one
another and a collapsed condition of said chair where said frame side
assemblies are generally adjacent to one another, each frame side
assembly including a front leg portion and a rear leg portion;
a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally connected to one
another for pivotal movement between an open condition wherein said
cross 	members 	are disposed to 	generally 	resemble 	an X-shaped
configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross members are
disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another, said cross
members 	collectively defining a 	seat 	support when in 	the open
condition,
each cross member having terminal ends thereof pivotally secured to the
front leg po1tion and the rear leg po1tion of one of the frame side
assemblies;
a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross members and defining
a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the open condition;
a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair
frame can move between fo1ward and reaiward positions; and
at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting
the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward and
rearward positions;
154

PUBLIC VERSION
wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross members generally
correspond to the set-up and collapsed conditions of the chair.
2. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to clain1 1, wherein
each frame side assembly maintains at least two contact points with the
support surface on which said frame side assembly is set up.
8. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 1,
wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front leg
portion and
the rear leg portion of each side frame assembly.
I 0. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim I, wherein
each cross member includes a front portion, a central front-back portion,
and a rear portion, such that the front portions of the pair of cross members
are pivotally connected at a front pivot point, the rear portions of the pair of
cross members are pivotally connected at a rear pivot point, and the central
front-back portions collectively define the seat suppo 1t of the chair and
receive the flexible seat panel therebetween for supported a seated user.
11. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 10, further
compnsmg:
a forward support brace connected between the front po 1tion of each
cross member and the front leg portion of the frame side assembly to
which the cross member is not pivotally connected at the terminal end
thereof; and
a rear support brace connected between the rear portion of each cross
member and the rear leg portion of said frame side assembly.
14. A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side assemblies having
substantially mirrored construction and being relatively movable with
respect to one another between a set-up condition of said chair where
said frame side assemblies are transversely spaced apart from one
another and a collapsed condition of said chair where said frame side
assemblies are generally adjacent to one another, each frame side
assembly including a front leg portion and a rear leg portion;
a fulcrum point supporting each frame side assembly and about which
said chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions
whereby the front and rear leg portions move relative to the support
155

PUBLIC VERSION
surface on which the chair is set up with movement of the chair frame
about the fulcrum points;
a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally connected to one
another for pivotal movement between an open condition wherein said
cross 	members 	are disposed 	to 	generally 	resemble 	an X-shaped
configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross members are
disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another, said cross
members 	collectively defining a 	seat 	support when 	in 	the open
condition,
each cross member having terminal ends thereof pivotally secured to the
front leg portion and the rear leg portion of one of the frame side
assemblies;
a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross members and defining
a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the open condition;
a fa-st foot associated with the front leg portion of each frame side
assembly;
a second foot associated with the rear leg portion of each frame side
assembly; and
a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each frame side
assembly;
wherein each frame side assembly contacts the support surface on which
said frame side assembly is set up with at least two of the first, second
and third feet at all positions between the forward and rearward
positions of the chair frame.
15. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 14, further
comprising at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between the
forward and rearward positions.
19. The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to claim 15 ,
wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the front leg
portion and the rear leg portion of each side frame assembly.
Id. at col. 13, ln. 52 - col. 14, In. 21; col. 14, Ins. 55-59; col. 15, lns. 1-23; col. 15, ln. 30- col.
16, In. 20; col. 16, lns. 44-47.
156

PUBLIC VERSION
GCI relies on claims 1, 2 and 8 of the '6 11 patent to satisfy the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement.
B. 	Claim Construction
1. 	Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
GCI contends a person of ordinary skill in the art for both the '824 and the '611 patents
has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field, along with at least two years
of experience in the furniture industry, though additional education could substitute for less
experience, and vice versa. See Compl. Br. at 8-9. For the '611 patent, respondents argue:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art ( "POSA") with respect to the '611 patent
would be aware of all pertinent art, think consistent with conventional wisdom in
the art, and be a person of ordinary creativity; or have a bachelor 's degree in
Engineering or Mechanics and one year of industry experience; or an associate's
degree in technology and three years of industry experience; or four years of
industry experience in the field of mechanical products or collapsible furniture.
Id. at 63.
The administrative law judge adopts GCI's proposal, which is that a person of ordinary
skill in the art for both the '824 and the '611 patents has a bachelor 's degree in mechanical
engineering or a similar field, along with at least two years of experience in the furniture
industry, though additional education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa. This is
in accordance with the education level of the inventor, Mr. Daniel Grace. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 232. Moreover, others of ordinary skill in the art have this level of education and
experience. See id. Respondents' experts did not provide substantive explanation justifying
their alternative proposals. See RX-0121C (Cameron DWS) at Q/A 19-21; RX-l 19C (Lee
DWS) at Q/A 40; RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 40.
157

PUBLIC VERSION
2. 	Disputed Constructions 13
a. 	"fulcrum point" (claims 1 and 14)
Claim 	Westfield 's Proposed MacSports's
GCl's Construction 	Proposed
Term/Phrase 	Construction Construction 14
A point on which a chair 	Point (i.e. axis of An independent
frame is supported and 	rotation) about which the
fulcrum point about which the chair 	chair frame rotates and is pivot, pin, axle or
frame pivots. 	supported. other structure.
The claim term " fu lcrum point" appears in independent claims 1 and 14 of the ' 611
patent. JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 13, ln. 52-col. 14, ln. 17; col. 15, ln. 30 - col. 16, ln. 15.
GCI argues, in part:
GCl's 	construction is 	consistent with both the 	claim 	language 	and
specification, and it should be adopted. For example, both the claims and
specification state that the fulcrum point is "a point on which a chair frame is
supported." See, e.g., JX-0001 ('824 Patent) at c l. 1 ("a fulcrnm point at a terminal
end thereof ... fo r supporting the chair frame"), 3: 4 5-47 (" In prefe1Ted embodiments
of the rocking chair, each frame side assembly is supported on a fulcrum point .... "),
4:38-40 ("The chair further comprises a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame
and about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions . .. ."). The patent also states that the frame's movement about a fulcrum
point is a pivoting motio n. See id. at 11 : 10- 13 ("fulcrum pivot point"), 8: 1-32
("pivoting is what causes the chair 10 to rock"). Denovo's expert Dr. Babcock
confirmed that "the plain and ordinary meaning of ' fulcrum point' to an engineer
13 This initial determination addresses only the disputed claim terms identified by the parties as
needing construction. See Comprehensive Joint Outline oflssues (EDIS Doc. No. 728207)
("GRl 1 Filing"). The parties identified the clain1 tem1 s for construction in a joint filing required
by Ground Rule 1 1, which provides: " On the same day the initial posthearing briefs are due, the
parties shall file a comprehensive joint outline of all of the issues, including sub-issues, to be
decided in the final Initial Determination. Exemplary issues and sub-issues include .. . disputed
clain1 terms (The clain1 terms briefed by the parties must be identical. . .)." Ground Rule 11
(emphasis original) (attached to Order No. 2 (Ground Rules)).
14 MacSports and Westfield each proposed constructions of certain te1ms, and MacSpo 1ts
proposed constructions for certain other terms. See Resps. Br. at 64-68. Hence, for any given
tem1 of the '61 1 patent, only MacSports may have offered constructions on the side of
respondents. See id.
158

PUBLIC VERSION
is the point about which something pivots." Tr. (Babcock) at 639:16-19.
MacSports 's proposal is likewise flawed. See Tr. (Lee) at 469:12-16
(confirming the lack of intrinsic evidence in support of MacSports's construction).
It construes the fulcrum point as "an independent pivot, pin, axel [sic] or other
structure." A POSITA would understand, however, that fulcrums are commonly
points of a triangle without a pin, axle, or other structure. See id. at Q/A 67 ( citing
CX-0441; CX-0442). Indeed, when discussing Figure 9, the specification discloses
a fulcrum point that has no pin, axle, or sinlilar structure. See JX-0001 ('824 Patent)
at 11:50-53, Fig. 9; see also CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 67. MacSports also
contends that a fulcrum point cannot support a chair frame by itself, but GCI's
construction is not so limited. See CX -0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 70. As
explained, the claim language and specification demonstrate that the fulcrum point
along with other structure s supports th e chair frame. See JX-0002 ('611 Patent)
(clain1 1 ("at least one rocker mechanism . . . for supporting the chair during
movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward positions")).
Finally, Westfield proposes construing the fulcrum point as an "axis of
rotation." But as explained, construing the fulcrum point as a "pivot," rather than
in terms of rotation, comports with the plain meaning of this claim language as well
as the teachings of the specification. MacSports's non-infringement expert, Dr.
Howle, confirmed that the '611 Patent "never mentions an axle being a fulcrum
point" or "use[s] the word axle at all." Tr. (Howle) at 442: 1-7.
Compl. Br. at 19-20 (footnote omitted).
Respondents argue, in part:
Westfield's position: The term fulcrum point is used in the '611 patent in
a manner consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of "fulcrum," only located
at a point. See RX-0134; RX-0135; RX-0136; JX-0002 at abstract, 3:42-66, 4:1-5 :7,
7:65-8:35, 9:50-67, 10:6-11:5 4, & fig s. 2 -9. Thus, the proper construction is a "point
(i.e. axis of rotation) about which the chair frame rotates and is supported."
MacSports' position: MacSports contends "fulcrum point" should mean
"an independent pivot, pin, axle or other structure." RX-0305, Attachment A at 1.
A fulcrum point, to a POSA, is simply a point at which something pivots or rotates.
RX-0119C, Q&A 54. There must be something at that point, like a pin, axel, or
other structure, to pivot. Id.
Resps. Br. at 64.
159

PUBLIC VERSION
It is dete1mined that the claim term "fulcrum point" means "a point on which a chair
frame is supported and about which the chair frame pivots." Both the claims and specification
state that the fulcrum point is "a point on which a chair frame is supported." See, e.g., JX-0002
('611 patent) at cl. l ("a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame"), col. 4, lns. 35-37 ("The chair
furth er comprises a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair frame
can move between forward and rearward positions ...").
Westfield proposes construing the fulcrum point as an "axis of rotation." However,
construing the fulcrum point as a "pivot," rather than in terms of rotation, comports with the
plain meaning of this claim language as well as the teachings of the specification.
MacSports construes the fulcrum point as "an independent pivot, pin, axle or other
structure. " One of ordinary skill in the art wou ld understand, however, that fu lcrums are
commonly points of a triangle without a pin, axle, or other structure. See CX -0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 67 (citing CX-0441; CX-0442). Moreover, in th e context of Figure 9, the
specification discloses a fulcrum point that has no pin, axle, or similar structure. See JX-0002
('6 11 patent) at col. 11, Ins. 51 -54, Fig. 9.
Claim Term/Phrase
rocker mechanism /
rocker mechanism
attached to the chair
frame for supporting the
chair during movement
of the chair frame
b. 	"rocker mechanism" (claim 1) / "rocker mechanism
attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair
during movement of the chair frame between said
forward and rearward positions" (claim 14)
GCl's Construction Westfield a nd MacSports's
Construction
Construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 	Construed pursuant to 3 5
112(£): 	u.s.c. § l 12(f):
The function is identified in clain1 	The function is identified in
one as "for supporting the chair 	clain1 one as "for supporting
dming movement of the chair 	the chair during movement of
frame between said forward and 	the chair frame between said
rearward positions." The 	fo1ward and rearward
160

PUBLIC VERSION
between said forward 	means/structure described in the 	positions." The
and rearward positions 	specification are set forth in 3:55- 	means/structure described in
4:11, 6:56-64, 7:42-64, 11:17-32, 	the specification are set forth
11 :55-12:27, and Figs. 2, 6, and 9 	in column 11 lines 17 through
of the '61 1 patent. 	32.
The claim term "rocker mechanism" appears in independent claim 1 of the '6 11 patent.
JX-0002 (' 611 patent) at col. 13, ln. 52 - col. 14, ln. 17. The claim term "rocker mechanism
attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between
said forward and rearward positions" appears in independent claim 14 of the '611 patent. Id. at
col. 15, ln. 30 - col. 16, ln. 15.
GCI argues, in pari:
The ALJ should construe the structure corresponding to the claimed "rocker
mechanism" to include the following portions of the specification: 3:55-4: 11, 6:56-
64, 7:42-64, 1 1: 17-32, 11:55-12:27, and FIGS. 2, 6, and 9.
Respondents Westfield and MacSports contend that this term should be
construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(t). For purposes of streamlining the issues
in dispute, GCI has agreed to apply 35 U.S.C. § 112(t) to this term in order to
facilitate an infringement determination in view of the evidentiary record. In doing
so, GCI agrees to Respondents' proposed function - namely, "for supporting the
chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward
positions." GCI does not, however, agree to Respondents' proposed structure,
which is too limited and improperly omits disclosed structural embodiments for the
recited rocker mechanism.
Properly determining corresponding structure requires looking to the entire
specification. Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2001 ). "When multiple embodiments in the specification correspond to the claimed
function, proper application of § 112, ,r 6 generally reads the clain1 element to
embrace each of those embodiments." Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem.
Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The construction of a means-plus-
function term must include equivalents of the disclosed structure within its literal
scope. 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Here, 	Respondents 	have 	not 	identified 	each 	embodiment 	disclosing
structure corresponding to the rocker mechanism function, and instead narrowly
focus on only one discussion associated with Figure 6. See RPreHB at 54-55. As
stated during that discussion, "the rocker mechanism 32 can take a variety of forms
161

PUBLIC VERSION
without departing from the spirit and principles of the present invention.'' JX-0002
('611 Patent) at 11:18-20.
Indeed, the specification describes a variety of possible structures of the
rocker mechanism. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 273-77; CX-0464C (Smith
R\VS) at Q/ A 63-65; JX-0002 ('6 11 Patent) at 3:55-67 (describing a "rocker
mechanism comprising a tubular extension member projecting ou twardly and
downwardly from the rear of the frame side assemblies and received within a sleeve
housing a compression spring to which the tubular extension member is attached"),
4: 1-11 (disclosing alternate embodiments in which the rocker mechanism may be
provided (i) in connection with the front leg member, either together with or in lieu
of a rear rocker mechanism; (ii) in connection with both the front and rear leg
members on each side of the chair frame, each positioned about a fulcrum point; or
(iii) as "a torsion spring operatively associated with the fulcrum point of each frame
si de assembly"), 7:42-64 (detailing the structure of alternate designs of a rocker
mechanism that "can comprise an axially-elongated tubular memb er 38 pivotally
attached at a first end via a pivot joint 40 and pivot pin 42 to the rear leg portion 28
of the frame loop"), 11 :21 - 25 (describing altemate designs for a rocker mechanism
using "torsion springs provided on the lower portion of each frame side assembly");
11:55-12:27 (describing the structure of the "built in rocker mechanism" included
on the front and rear legs of the chair shown in Figure 9); 6:56 -64; Fig. 2.
Because each of these embodiments describe structure corresponding to the
rocker mechanism, any construction that does not account for all of them, and
equivalents thereof, is necessarily incorrect. See Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg.,
Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (district court erred by not accounting
for all embodiments of structure in the specification co1Tesponding to the clain1ed
"cutting means").
Accordingly, the ALJ should construe the structure corresponding to the
clain1ed "rocker mechanism" to include the following portions of the specification:
3:55-4: 11 , 6:56-64, 7:42-64, 11:17-32, 11:55-12:27, and FIGS. 2, 6, and 9.
Compl. Br. at 90-91 .
Respondents argue, in part:
GCI previously advocated for a different construction of the "rocker
mechanism" terms, but agreed to a § 112(f) construction in its pre-hearing brief.
GCI Pre. Br. at 73-75. 	The only remaining dispute with respect to these "rocker
mechanism" terms is what structures are disclosed in the specification. Westfield
and MacSports contend the function for "rocker mechanism" is identified in claims
1 and 15 as "for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between
said forward and rearward positions." The means is described in the specification
and shown in Figure 6. JX-0002, 11:17-32, fig. 6; RX-0119C, Q&A 53; see also
RX-0305, Attachment A at 1.
162

PUBLIC VERSION
GCI faults Respondents for not identifying other sections of the '611
patent's specification where the concept of a "rocker mechanism" is discussed. See
GCI Pre. Br. at 73-75. But none of these additional sections identify any structure
for performing the claimed function of "rocker mechanism" that is not also
identified in the sections cited by Respondents. Tellingly, neither GCI nor Mr.
Smith provides any arguments or opinions on invalidity, infringement, or technical
domestic industry referencing GCI's added sections of the specification. 	So, in
addition to lacking merit, GCl's criticism is merely academic and devoid of
relevance to the issues in this Invest igation.
Resps. Br. at 65 -66.
As agreed to by the parties, "rocker mechanism" and "rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward
and rearward positions" are both construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and t he function is
identified in claim 1 as "for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between
said forward and rearward positions." 15 As proposed by GCI ; it is determined that the structure
corresponding to the claimed "rocker mechanism" includes the following portions of the
specification: col. 3, In. 55 - col. 4, ln. 1 1, col 6, lns. 56-64, co l. 7, In s. 42-64, col. 11 , In s. 17-32,
col. 11 , ln. 55 - col. 12, ln. 27, and FIGS. 2, 6, and 9. "When multiple embodiments in the
specification correspond to the claimed function, proper application of§ 112, 16 generally reads
the claim element to embrace each of those embodiments." Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains
Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Inasmuch as the specification describes a
variety of po ssible structures of the rocker mechanism, the administrative law judge finds that
the claim element embraces each of these embodiments. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 273-
15 The Patent Act recites: "An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means
or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts desc ri bed in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 112(:f).
163

PUBLIC VERSION
77; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 63-65; JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at col. 3, lns. 55-67; id. at col.
4, lns. 1-11.
Claim Term/Phrase
a [first] / [second] foot
associated with the
[front] / [rear] leg portion
of each frame side
assembly
c. 	"a [first] / [second] foot associated with the [front] /
[rear] leg portion of each frame side assembly" (claim
14)
GCl's Construction 	MacSports's Construction
A contact at the lower portion of A protrusion toward the
each side of a chair frame, each
con-esponding to a portion of the ground or other support
surface from the frame side
chair frame supporting a [forward] / assembly at or near the
[rearward] portion of the chair [front] I [rear] leg.
frame.
The claim terms "a first foot associated with the front leg portion of each frame side
assembly" and "a second foot associated with the rear leg portion of each frame si de assembl y"
appear in independent clain1 14 of the '611 patent. JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 15, ln. 30 - col.
16, ln. 15.
GCI argues, in part:
The issue in dispute is whether the claimed "foot" must protrude toward the
ground. Neither the clain1 language nor the specification supports such a nan-owing
construction.
All parties agree that the first foot and second foot should be capable of
contacting or touching the ground. The parties also agree that the first foot should
be at or near the front leg (or supporting a forward portion of the chair frame), and
that the second foot should be at or near the rear leg (or supporting a rearward
portion of the chair frame). CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 72, 75.
MacSpo1is's proposed requirement that the feet protrude toward the ground,
however, is divorced from the patent. In the context of the patent, the feet are clearly
described as acting as contact points between the chair and the ground or support
surface on which the chair is placed for use. JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 7:7 -1 9 ("By
maintaining more than one contact point, the stability and safety of the chair 10 is
improved."); 9:50-67. No clain1 language suggests that a protrusion is required.
CX-0464C (Smith R\VS) at Q/A 73, 76. MacSpo1ts cannot point to a single portion
of the specification that supports its position- 	indeed, the word protrusion does not
appear in the '611 Patent at all.
164

PUBLIC VERSION
With no support in the patent, MacSports resorts to arguing that a foot
should "implicitly" be capable of touching a support surface, and hence require a
protrusion. See RPreHB at 57-58 . But a POSITA would understand that there are
many non-protruding configurations of the claimed feet that still would be capable
of contacting the ground surface. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 73, 76.
Indeed, MacSports's expe1t, Dr. Lee, agrees with Mr, Smith on this crucial point.
Tr. {Lee) at 470: 11-19. Figure 3 of the ' 611 Patent discloses one such configuration,
where first foot 36a (in orange), second foot 36b (in red), and third foot 36c {i n
blue) touch the ground without protruding toward it:
FIG. 3
CDX-0354
In sum, MacSports is attempting to in1port an additional linlitation into the
claim- 	requiring that a foot be a protrusion- 	without any support in the intrinsic
or extrinsic record. The ALJ should accordingly decline this invitation to narrow
the scope of the plain clain1 language.
Comp!. Br. at 92-93.
Respondents argue, in part:
MacSports contends [the phrase "a first foot associated with the front leg
portion of each frame side assembly"] means "a protrusion toward the ground or
other support surface from the frame side assembly at or near the front leg." RX-
0305, Attachment A at 2. 	A "foot" implicitly should be capable of touching a
support surface; hence, a protrusion toward the ground or other support surface.
RX-0119C, Q&A 55. The clain1 language, itself, directly associates the first foot
(or protrusion) "with the front leg portion of each frame side assembly." Id .
GCI's proposed construction ignores recitations 	in the claim and 	is
ambiguous. 	RX-011 9C, Q&A 55. 	For example, a "forward portion of the chair
frame" could mean any part of the front half of the chair frame, but the claim
language indicates that a first foot must be associated with a front leg portion. RX-
0119C, Q&A 55 . Moreover, the word "contact" implies that one or more objects
are touching or contacting each other, but there is no direct requirement for that in
this claim phrase. 	RX-0119C, Q&A 55. 	Finally, there is no requirement in the
clain1 language for the purported "contact" (or first foot) to be "at the lower portion
of each side of a chair frame" as GCI contends. 	RX-0119C, Q&A 55. 	The ALJ
should adopt MacSpo1ts' construction and reject GCI's flawed proposal for "a first
foot."
165

PUBLIC VERSION
* 	* 	*
MacSports contends [the phrase "a second foot associated with the rear leg
portion of each frame side assembly"] means "a protrusion toward the ground or
other support surface from the frame side assembly at or near the rear leg." RX-
0305, Attachment A at 2. Again, any "foot" implicitly should be capable of
touching a support surface; hence, a protrusion toward th e ground or other suppo1t
surface. 	RX-0119C, Q&A 56. 	The claim language itself directly associates the
second foot (or protrusion) with the rear leg portion of each frame side assembly.
Id.
GCI's proposed construction again ignores recitations in the claim and is
ambiguous. RX-0119C, Q&A 56. 	For example, a "rearward portion of the chair
frame" could mean any part of the rear half of the chair frame, but the claim
language indicates a second foot must be associated with a rear leg po1t ion. 	Id.
Moreover, th e word "contact" imp li es that one or more objects are touching or
contacting each other, but there is no direct requirement for that in this claim phrase.
Id. 	Finally, there is no requirem ent in the claim language for the purported
"contact" (or second foot) to be "at the lower portion of each side of a chair fram e"
as GCI contends. I d. 	Because of these flaws, the ALJ should adopt MacSports'
proposed con struction.
Resps. Br. at 66-67.
As proposed by GCI, it is determined that the clain1 term "a [first] / [second] foot
associated with the [front] / [rear] leg portion of each frame side assembly" means "a contact at
the lower portion of each side of a chair frame, each corresponding to a portion of the cha ir
frame supporting a [forward] / [rearward] portion of the chair frame." Indeed, MacSports's
proposed construction introduces additional limitations that are not required by the intrinsic
evidence.
No claim language suggests that a protrusion is required, CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 73 , 76, and the word "protrusion" does not appear in the '6 11 patent. Moreover, the
specification of the '6 11 patent teaches that the feet of the chair serve as contact po ints for the
stability of the cha ir. See JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at col. 7, lns. 7-1 9 ("By maintaining more than
one contact point, the stability and safety of the chair 10 is improved."); col. 9, lns. 50-67.
166

PUBLIC VERSION
d. 	"a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each
frame side assembly" (claim 14)
Claim Term/Phrase 	GCI's Construction 	MacSports 's Construction
a third foot associated A contact at the lower portion of each 	A protrusion toward the
with the fulcrum point side of a chair frame, each 	ground or other support
of each frame side corresponding to a point on which the 	surface from the frame side
assembly chair frame is supported and about 	assembly near the fulcrum
which the chair frame pivots. 	po int.
The claim term "a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each frame side
assembly" appears in independent claim 14 of the '611 patent. JX-0002 ('6 11 patent) at col. 15,
ln . 30 - col. 16, ln. 15.
GCI argues, in pati :
As with the previous term, the parties dispute whether the claimed "third
foot" must protrude toward the ground. The only difference here is that the third
foot is associated with the fulcrum point, rather than the front or rear legs. Because
the location of the foot is immaterial to the parties' dispute, GCI's construction of
"third foot" is correct for the same reasons as its constructions of "first foot" and
"second foot."
Indeed, just as it does for the first and second feet, Figure 3 depicts a foot
36b (shown in red in the image above) associated with the fulcrum 54 and
positioned to touch the ground without protruding toward it. See JX-0002 ('611
Patent) at 6:64-67, 7:22-24, 7:65-66, FJG. 3; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 77-
79. Therefore, Respondents' claim construction cannot be correct. See Duncan
Parking Techs., Inc. v. JPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("[A]
claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is highly disfavored.")
(citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(holding that a claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is
"rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.")).
Compl. Br. at 93-94.
Respondents argue, in part:
MacSports contends [the phrase "a third foot associated with the fulcrum
point of each frame side assembly"] means "a protrusion toward the ground or other
support surface from the frame side assembly near the fulcrum po int." RX-0305,
Attachment A at 2-3. Again, a "foot" implicitly should be capable of touching a
support surface; hence, a protrusion toward the ground or other support surface.
167

PUBLIC VERSION
RX-0119C, Q&A 57. The claim language itself directly associates the third foot
(or protrusion) with the fulcrum point of each frame side assembly. Id.
Here again, GCI's proposed construction ignores recitations in the claim
and is ambiguou s. RX-0119C, Q&A 57 	For example, the word "contact" implies
that one or more objects are touching or contacting each other, but there is no direct
requirement for that in this claim phrase. Id. Moreover, there is no requirement in
the claim language for the purported "contact" (or third foot) to be "at the lower
portion of each side of a chair frame" as GCI contends. 	Id. 	Further, GCI's
construction apparently pulls in other claim elements to interpret this claim phrase.
As with the claim phrase "fulcrum point," a POSA would not understand that a
"third foot associated with the fulcrum point," alone, to necessarily support a chair
frame. Id. The ALJ should not adopt GCI's construction because it attempts to add
three additional requirements (e.g., one or more objects are touching, contact to be
at the lower po1tion of each side of a chair frame, and a point on which the chair
frame is supported) to this claim phrase.
Re sps. Br. at 67-68.
As proposed by GCI, it is detem1ined that the claim term "a third foot associated with the
fulcrum point of each frame side assembly" means "a contact at the lower portion of each side of
a chair frame, each corresponding to a point on which the chair frame is supported and about
which the chair frame pivots." This construction comports with the plain meaning of the claim
language, and the disclosures in the specification. Indeed, MacSports's proposed construction
introduces additional limitations that are not required by the intrinsic evidence.
As discussed above with reference to the first and second feet, no claim language
suggests that a protrusion is required, CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 73, 76, and the word
"protrusion" does not appear in the '611 patent. Moreover, the specification of the ' 611 patent
teaches that the feet of the chair serve as contact points for the stability of the chair. See JX-0002
('6 11 patent) at col. 7, lns. 7-19 ("By maintaining more than one contact point, the stability and
safety of the chair 10 is improved.") ; col. 9, lns. 50-67.
168

PUBLIC VERSION
e. 	"wherein each frame side assembly contacts the support
surface on which said frame side assembly is set up with
at least hvo of the first, second and third. feet at all
positions between the forward and rearward positions
of the chair frame" (claim 14)
Claim Term/Phrase 	GCI's Construction MacSports's
Construction
wherein each frame side 	Of three contact surfaces at the
assembly contacts the support 	lower portion of each side of the At least two feet
surface on which said frame side 	chair frame, at least two of said must always be in
assembly is set up with at least 	contact surfaces touch the surface contact with the
two of the first, second and third 	on which the chair frame sits in its ground or other
feet at all positions between the 	set-up condition at any position of
forward and rearward positions of 	the chair frame during rocking support surface.
the chair frame 	motion of the chair frame.
The claim term "where in each frame side assembly contacts the support surface on which
said frame side assembly is set up with at least two of the first, second and third feet at all
positions between the forward and rearward positions of the chair frame" appears in independent
claim 14 of the '611 patent. JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 15, ln. 30- col. 16, ln. 15.
GCI argues, in part:
The only substantive difference in the parties' proposals for this recitation
is the construction of the first, second, and third feet. For the reasons discussed
already, there is no basis to require the feet to protrude toward the ground. The ALJ
should therefo re adopt GCI's construction.
Comp!. Br. at 94.
Respondents argue, in part:
MacSports contends this phrase means "at least two feet must always be in
contact with the ground or other support surface." RX-0305, Attachment A at 4.
This construction is the plain meaning of this oddly-worded clain1. 	RX-0119C,
Q&A58 .
GCl's proposed construction suffers the same flaws as its proposals for
"first foot," "second foot," and "third foot." GCI again introduces the extraneous
concept of "at the lower portion of each side of the chair frame" and "contact
surfaces" which are nowhere supported in the recited clain1 language. RX-0119C,
169

PUBLIC VERSION
Q&A 58. Indeed, "contact" and "contact s urfaces" are better interpreted as the feet
from the prior claim elements. 	Id. 	For these reasons, MacSports' 	claim
constructions should be accepted.
Resp s. Br. at 68.
It is detenn ined that the claim term "wherein each frame side assembly co ntacts th e
support surface on which said frame side assemb ly is set up with at least two of the first, second
and third feet at all positions between the forward and rea1ward positions of the chair frame"
means "at least two of the first, second and third feet must always be in contact with the ground
or other support surface." GCI states, "The only subst antive difference in the parties' proposals
for this recitation is the construction of the first, second, and third feet." Compl. Br. at 94.
GCI's proposed construction introduces verbiage that is not supported by the intrinsic record,
and is therefore rejected.
f. 	"a fulcrum point supporting each frame side assembly
and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions whereby the front and
rear leg portions move relative to the support surface
on which the chair is set up with movement of the chair
frame about the fulcrum points" (claim 14)
Claim Term/Phrase 	GCl's Construction Respondent s'
Construction
a fulcrum point supporting each A point on each lateral side of a chair
frame, on which the chair frame is
frame side assembly and about supported and about which the chair
which said chair frame can move
between forward and rearward frame pivots during rocking motion in
positions whereby the front and rear forward and backward directions, None.
leg portions move relative to the whereby the forward supporting
frame members and rearward
support surface on which the chair supporting frame members are not
is set up with movement of the chair stationary during rocking motion of
frame about the fulcrum points the chair frame.
The claim term "a fulcrum point supporting each frame side assembly and about which
said chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions whereby the front and rear
170

PUBLIC VERSION
leg portions move relative to the support surface on which the chair is set up w ith movement of
the chair frame about the fulcrum points" appears in independent claim 14 of the '611 patent.
JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 15, ln. 30 - co l. 16, ln. 15.
GCI argues:
No respondent has proposed a construction fo r this term. See Joint Claim
Construction 	Statement (EDIS 	Doc. 	ID 	695324). 	The 	first 	half of GCI's
construction incorporates its construction of "fulcrum point," which is correct for
the reasons previously discussed in Section V.A.5, supra. The second half simply
streamlines the language used to describe the motion of the front and rear portions
of the chair frame. The ALJ should thus adopt GCI's uncontested construction.
Comp 1. Br. at 94.
As noted by GCI, no respondent proposed a construction for this term. See Joint Clain1
Construction Statement (EDIS Doc. ID 695324). Moreover, as GCI also notes, this claim term
incorporates its construction of "fulcrum point," discussed above, which has been adopted as the
construction of "fulcrum po int" for the '6 11 patent.
As proposed by GCI, it is determined that the claim term "a fulcrum point supporting
each frame side assembly and about which said chair frame can move between forward and
rearward positions whereby the front and rear leg portions move relative to the support surface
on which the chair is set up with movement of the chair frame about the fulcrum points" means
"point on each lateral side of a chair frame, on which the chair frame is supported and about
which the chair frame pivots during rocking motion in forward and backward directions,
whereby the forward supporting frame members and rearward supporting frame members are not
stationary during rocking motion of the chair frame."
171

PUBLIC VERSION
C. 	Infringement
1. 	Claim 1
The MacRocker and the Mulberry Bounce Chair are accused of infringing independent
clain11 of the '6 11 patent.
a. 	A collapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
The MacRocker constitutes "a collapsible and portable rocking chair." CX-0002C
(Smith D\VS) at Q/A 390-93. MacSports does not contest that th e MacRocker sat is fi es this
linlitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair constitutes "a collapsible and portable rocking chair."
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 53 1-36. Westfield does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce
Chair satisfies this linlitation. See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
b. 	a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side
assemblies having substantially mirrored construction
and being relatively movable with respect to one
another between a set-up condition of said chair where
said frame side assemblies are transversely spaced
apart from one another and a collapsed condition of
said chair where said frame side assemblies are
generally adjacent to one another,
The MacRocker satisfies "a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side assemblies
having substantially mirrored construction and being relatively movable with respect to one
another between a set-up condition of said chair where said frame side assemblies are
transversely spaced apart from one another and a collapsed condition of said c hair where said
frame side assemblies are generally adjacent to one another." CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A
394-400. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker satisfies this limitation. See Resps.
Br. at 92-107.
172

PUBLIC VERSION
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satis fi es "a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side
assemblies having substantially mitrnred construction and being re latively movable with respect
to one another between a set-up condition of said chair where said frame side assemblies are
transversely spaced apart from one another and a collapsed condition of said c hair where said
frame side assemblies are generally adjacent to one another." CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A
537-51. Westfield does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies this limitation. See
Resps. Br. at 72-92.
c. 	each frame side assembly including a front leg portion
and a rear leg portion;
The MacRocker satisfies "each frame side assembly including a front leg po1tion and a
rear leg portion." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 401-08. MacSports does not contest that th e
MacRocker satisfies this linlitatio n. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies "each frame side assembly including a front leg
portion and a rear leg portion." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 552-54. Westfield does not
contest that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satis fi es th is linlitation. See Resps. Br. at 72 -92.
d. 	a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally
connected to one another
The MacRocker satisfies "a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally
connected to one another." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 409-12. MacSports does not
contest that the MacRocker satisfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satis fi es "a pair of generally U-shaped cross members
pivotally connected to one another." CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 555-58. Westfie ld does
not contest that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies this linlitation. See Resps. Br . at 72-9 2.
173

PUBLIC VERSION
e. 	for pivotal movement between an open condition
wherein said cross members are disposed to generally
resemble an X-shaped configuration and a closed
condition wherein said cross members are disposed in
generally parallel relationship with one another,
i. 	MacSports
The MacRocker satisfies "for pivotal movement between an open condition wherein said
cross members are disposed to generally resemble an X-shaped configuration and a closed
condition wherein said cross members are disposed in generally parallel relationship with one
another." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 409-16. MacSports does not contest that the
MacRocker satisfies this linutation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
ii. 	Westfield
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies "for pivotal movement between an open condition
wherein said cross members are disposed to generally resemble an X-shaped configuration and a
closed condition wherein said cross members are disposed in generally parallel relationship with
one another." CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 559-65.
GCI argues, in part:
The Westfield chair satisfies the claim element "for pivotal movement
between an open condition wherein said cross members are djsposed to
generally resemble an X-shaped configuration and a closed condition wherein
said cross members are disposed in generally parallel relationship with one
another," as recited by claim 1 of the '611 Patent. CX-0002C (Snuth DWS) at Q/A
559-65. As shown in CDX-0136 and CDX-0137, the pivotal movement of the cross
members allows the Mulberry Bounce Chair to 	move between open/set-up
conditions and collapsed/closed conditions. Id. at Q/A 560, 563, 565; see also CX-
0154 (Video); CX-0155 (Video); CX-0156 (Video); CX-0067C (Features Sheet).
The phrase "generally parallel" was never identified as a te1m needing
construction, thus the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as used in the context
of the '6 11 Patent should contro l. One embodiment disclosed in the '6 11 Patent is
a portable and collapsible rocking chair that can readily be folded and unfolded
between a set-up condition for use and a collapsed condition for transportation and
storage. JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 1:13-17; 3:17-22; FIGS. 2, 7.
174

PUBLIC VERSION
As described in that embodiment, the chair comprises left and right frame
side assemblies that are joined to each other by a pair of movable X-frame
connector assemblies to enable, in part, transverse, or left-right, folding of the chair
frame. In the se t-up condition of the chair (e.g., FIG. 2), the cross members 56 of
the connector assemblies generally open into the shape of an "X". See id. at 8:56 to
9: 1. When the chair is co llapsed, ''the cross members 56 are pivoted to close the X-
frame so that the cross-members 56 are flattened and brought adjacent to one
another. .. the frame side assemblies 20L and 20R are brought inward and adjacent
to one another as well." Id. at 9:6-11; see also id. at 10:25-28 ("[T]he cross members
56 are moved from a relaxed state - where they are disposed adjacent to one another
(FIG. 7)- to a set-up state - where they generally fom1 an X-shape with one another
(FIG. 2)").
Thus, 	the 	claim language 	"generally parallel" describes the 	relative
relationship of the cross members between the set-up and collapsed conditions -
the two main conditions for the chair. And Figure 7 provides illustrative evidence
of this relationship - i.e., approaching but not exactly parallel - in comparison with
the open, set-up condition of the same cross-members illustrated in Figure 2. S ee
id. at 3:32-38; 12:28-39.
Accordingly, a POSITA would readily understand the intended meaning of
the phrase "generally parallel" 	as described 	in the 	intrinsic evidence 	(i.e.,
specification) and would not interpret "generally parallel relationship" as used in
the ' 611 Patent to require the members to be "perfectly" or "absolutely" parallel.
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 562.
Indeed, GCI's expert, Mr. Smith, and MacSpo1ts's expert, Dr. Lee, had no
difficulties understanding and applying this claim tem1. CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 561-62; Tr. (Smith) at 152:3-8; Tr. (Lee) at 470:20-471:8 (agreeing that a
POSITA would be able to understand and apply the te1m "generally parallel" as
used in the '611 Patent), 476:2-477: 1 (confirming the dots-dashed illustration in
Fig. 3 of RX-0087 (Kundtz) shows members 24 in "generally parallel" position).
Despite stating that "in general, I don't consider lines that intersect to be
generally parallel," Tr. (Cameron) at 335:23-25, Westfield's expert nevertheless
testified that the intersecting lines shown in CDX-0390 are "generally parallel
within the meaning of the ' 611 Patent," id. at 335:18-336:24. Dr. Cameron reached
this conclusion without measming the angle between the intersecting lines in CDX-
0390. Id. Sintilar to the intersecting lines shown in CDX-0390, Figure 7 of the '611
Patent depicts an example arrangement of cross members that are "generally
parallel" in the same manner as the cross members in the Mulb erry Bounce Chair
are "generally parallel." CX-0002C (Sntith DWS) at Q/A 562; Tr. (Smith) at
151 : 16-21.
175

PUBLIC VERSION
30
FIG. 7
Closed Condition
Cross Members
Gene rally Paralle l
JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at Fig. 7 	CDX-0137
Thus, there can be no credible dispute that the Westfield chair meets this
limitation.
Comp!. Br. at 11 9-22.
Westfield argues, in part:
Another independent reason that the WBC does not practice any of the
asserted claims is because it does not contain cross members that can be "disposed
in generally parallel relationship with one another." RX-045 lC at 43-44. Claim 1
of the '611 Patent contains the fo llowing limitation:
a pair of generally CT -shaped cross members pivotally connected to
one anoth er for pivotal movement between an open condition . .. and
a closed condition wherein said cross members are disposed in
generally parallel relationship with one another
JX-0002 at 13 :62-14 :1 (emphas is added).
As discussed in Section V.A.2 below, the plain and ordinary meaning of
"generally parallel" cannot encompass members that cross one another. Even in its
most compact configuration, the WBC's cross members nonetheless still cross one
another. RDX-0051 at 6; RPX-0006; RX-045 1C at 43-44. Therefore, the WBC 's
cross members are never "disposed in generally parallel relationship with one
another." RX-0451C at 43-46. The WBC thus cannot infringe any of th e asserted
claims of the '61 1 Patent.
Resps. Br. at 91 -9 2.
176

PUBLIC VERSION
The evidence adduced by GCI shows that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies "for
pivotal movement between an op en condition wherein said cross members are disposed to
generally resemb le an X-shaped configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross
members are disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another." See CX-0002C
(Smith D\VS) at QI A 559-65. The intiinsic evidence demonstrates th at "ge nerally parallel"
describes the relative relationship of the cross members between the set-up and collapsed
conditions - the two main conditions for the chair. See JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 9, Ins. 6-1 1;
id. at col. 10, lns. 25-28 ("[T]he cross members 56 are moved from a relaxed state - where they
are disposed adjacent to one another (FIG. 7) - to a set-up state - where they generally form an
X-shape with one another (FIG. 2)"). Contrary to \Vestfield 's argument, the claim language does
no t preclude members that cros s one another.
According ly, it is determined that the Mu lberry Bounce Chair satisfies this claim
limitation.
f. 	said cross members collectively defining a seat support
when in the open condition,
The MacRocker satisfies "a pair of generally CT-shaped cross members pivotally
connected to one another." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 4 17-19. MacSports does not
contest that the MacRocker satisfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92- 107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies "said cross members collectively defining a seat
support when in the open condition." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 566-69. Westfield does
not contest that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies this limitat ion. See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
177

PUBLIC VERSION
g. 	each cross member having terminal ends thereof
pivotally secured to the front leg portion and the rear
leg portion of one of the frame side assemblies;
The MacRocker satisfies "each cross member having terminal ends thereof pivotally
secured to the front leg portion and the rear leg po1i ion of one of the frame side assemblies."
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 420-23. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker
satisfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies "each cross member having temlinal ends thereof
pivotally secured to the front leg portion and the rear leg po1iion of one of the frame side
assemblies." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 570-73. Westfield does not contest that the
Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies this linlitation. See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
h. 	a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross
members and defining a generally taut seat when the
cross members are in the open condition;
The MacRocker includes "a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross members and
defining a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the open condition." CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 424-27. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker includes this
limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair includes "a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross
members and defirung a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the open condition."
CX-0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 574-77. Westfield does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce
Chair includes this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
178

PUBLIC VERSION
i. 	a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about
which said chair frame can move between forward and
rearward positions;
i. 	MacSports
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that the MacRocker does not include a
fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions. See RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 91 -100.
GCI argues:
The MacRocker satisfies the claim element "a fulcrum point supporting
the chair frame and about which said chair frame can move between forward
and rearward positions ," as recited by clain1 1 of the '6 11 Patent under the
doctrine of equivalents. CX-0002C (Smi th DWS) at Q/A 428-33; 636-64.
As shown in the engineering literature and explained by Mr. Smith, who has
extensive 	experience 	researching 	and 	designing 	products 	with 	compliant
mechanisms, the PRBM [pseudo -rigid body model] "shows there are insubstantial
differences between th e claimed fulcrum po int and the flex ible member that is used
in the MacRocker" and "does an excellent job of showing that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand those to be equivalent." Tr. (Smith) at 200:9-201 : 1;
see also T r. (Smith) at 242:9-2 1, 243:13-245:19, 251:7-23; 252:15-253:6; CDX-
0080; CDX-0081.
• ,P
-i8"' 	•
t _	,...ic__ _ .l
r:----1'
\ 	Ounict~ruoc
""'"'	(b)
CDX-0080 	CDX-0081
179

PUBLIC VERSION
In his analysis, Mr. Smith took great care to choose the correct pseudo-rigid-
body model based on the specific loading conditions he observed on the flexible
member/leaf spring of each product. See Tr. (Smith) at 140:2-6, 253:12-14.
MacSports does 	not dispute 	that Mr. 	Smith correctly determined 	that the
MacRocker should be analyzed under loading condition Case 1 with moment and
force in the same direction as shown in CDX-0004 and CDX-000 7. See generally
RPreHB at 73-84. In particular, the fixed end of the flexible member of the
MacRock er is attached to the frame, and the force and moment are applied by the
ground surface. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 661 .
(,_.---------	®-l-· _,
CDX -0004 ( PRBM Concept for MacR ocker Spri ng Member) 	C DX - 0007
CDX-0008
Thus, as shown in CDX-0004 (line drawing showing equivalent PRBM of
the MacRocker spring member), CDX-0007 (annotated figure comparing the
MacRocker spring member with its equivalent PRBM), and CDX-0008 ( annotated
figure showing equivalent fulcmm point), the MacRock er's flexible member is
equivalent to and interchangeable with a rigid linkage of two links with a torsion
180

PUBLIC VERSION
spring at the pin joint between the links. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 654,663.
This equivalent (or, "characteristic") fulcrum point at the pin joint both supports
the chair frame and is the point about which the chair frame rotates. Id. at QIA 429-
32.
The equivalent fulcrum point meets both GCI' s and Respondents' proposed
constructions for thi s term. Id. at Q/A 433. For example, the equivale nt fulcrum
point identified by Mr. Smith is plainly "a point on which a chair frame is supported
and about which the chair frame pivots ," as proposed by GCI. Id. The equivalent
fulcrum po int also meets "an independent pivot, pin, axel or other structure ," as
proposed by MacSports. Id. In addition, the equivalent fulcrum point on the
MacRocker is also "a point (i.e., axis of rotation) about which the chair frame
rotates and is supported" as proposed by Westfield. See Tr. (Smith) at 135:24-136:9
(confirming analysis concerning the "fulcrum point" limitation does not depend on
which proposed construction is adopted).
The MacRocker meets the "fulcrum point" lin1itation under the doctrine of
equivalents because its equivalent fulcrum point perfom1s substantially the same
function in substantially the same way, producing substantially the same result as
the clain1ed fulcrum point. Id. QIA 432, 663. The pin jo int (in the PRBM) is referred
to as the characteristic pivot and is equivalent to the claimed fulcrum point because
the differences are insubstantial. Id. For instance, this characterist ic pivot performs
substantially the same function of supporting the chair and allowing motion about
it, in substantially the same way (by providing a pivot either real or characteristic),
and having substantially the same result (rocking motion of the frame). Id. at Q/A
663. It is this configuration that allows the chair to move between forward and
rearward positions. Id. at QIA 432. In addition, the overall rocking motion of the
MacRocker is pivotal, a generally circular motion about the equivalent fulcrum
poin t. Id. at QIA 664. CDX-0009 bel ow shows the MacRocker in forward and
rearward positions with the motion of the chair closely follows the concentric
circles whereas the green concentric circles are centered at the equivalent fulcrum
point. Id.
/==-
\
~-~~vCDX-0009
181

PUBLIC VERSION
Thus, the MacRock er satisfies the fulcrum point limitation under the
doctrine of equivalents under each party's proposed construction for this term.
MacSports's contention that the MacRocker uses a flexible member that
"bends and rolls more like a traditional rocking chair" is without merit. See RPreHB
at 75 -79. As explained by Mr. Smith, a traditional rocking chair with arched rails
would roll back and fo1th along the ground with a changing contact point at any
given time. Tr. (Smith) at 285:18-23, 286:5-9; see also Tr. (Howle) at 440:6- 11
(confirming that at any given time there is only a single point of contact on each
rocker rail). Such chairs cannot be analyzed by the PRBM because "the motion isn' t
achieved through bending of flexible members." Tr. (Smith) at 285:24-286:4.
Indeed, MacSports's non-infringement expert admitted that the MacRocker and a
traditional rocking chair with rigid rails, like that shown in Figure 1 of the '611
Patent, are "not identica l" in how they rock. Tr. (Howle) at 440: 12-20.
Unlike a traditional rocker wi th rigid rails, the MacRock er achieves its
rocking motion by deforming a fl exible member which has an equivalent fu lcrum
point. Tr. (Smith) at 286: 10-12, 215:25-216: 11,21 1: 17-23; see also Tr. (Howle) at
440:21-441: 10 (confirming that "the traditional rocking chair would have a solid or
rigid beam" 	that does not deform whereas the "MacRocker has an elastic
deformable beam"). Noticeably, MacSports's argument is also contradicted by
materials prepared by its own expert Dr. Howle outside this investigation, which
emphasizes that "Curved beams [e.g., the arch rails in Figure 1 of the '6 11 Patent]
are 	N OT bent 	straight 	beams 	[e.g., 	the 	flexible 	members 	in 	the 	accused
MacRocker] !" RX-0390 (Howle Lecture Presentation) at p. 	13 (emphasis in
original).
MacSports' s assertion largely rests on Dr. Howie's de fi cient test results
using pressure-sensitive film. See RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 67-85; T r.
(Smith) at 280: 11-21 (explaining why pressure sensitive film is not a suitable tool
for this case). These tests are insufficient for two reasons.
First, Dr. Howle failed to choose the correct type of pressure-sensitive film
with an appropriate pressure rating. Tr. (Smith) at 306: 12-307: 1. Indeed, the film
used by Dr. Howle "has a contact pressure range of 28 to 85 psi" and comes with
an explicit user instruction that " [i]f no color appears at all, you should try a lower
pressure range." RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 80; RX-0391 at p. 5. In other
words, any loads that result in a pressure of lower than 28 psi would not appear on
the film Dr. Howle used. His witness statement makes no effort to justify his
selection of this particular fi lm, and there is nothing in the record explaining why
this particular film was suitable fo r t hi s task.
And Dr. Howle never tried to use another film with a more sensitive range.
Because pressures lower than 28 psi would not have been recorded, Dr. Howie's
test cannot provide "accurate data of where it contacts because it can certainly
contact wi th lower than 28 psi." Tr. (Smith) at 306:1 2-307:1, 281 :3-12. Thus, the
182

PUBLIC VERSION
contact areas shown in RX-0397 (p. 7) do not reflect the actual contact locations
between the MacRocker's flexible memb er and the ground. Without re liable
documentation of the actual contact areas at the non-rocked and rocked po sitions,
Dr. Howle's measurements of the length of the contact areas and calculations of the
movement of the contact areas are unsound.
Second, the marking on the pressure-sensitive film "only tells you where
pressure has been applied, not where pressure is no longer applied." Tr. (Smith) at
280:11-281:2, 283:8- 13 (same), 198:5-25 (explaining why pressure sensitive film
is not suitab le to "document the contact stress and the mo ve ment between the
MacRocker and the rigid surface"). Thus, apart from the film used by Dr. Howle
not being in a suitable pressure range, the markings recorded by his experiments
(RX-0391 at 7) do not indicate the length of the contact area when the MacRocker
was rocked backwards because the film cannot show "where pressure is no longer
applied." Tr. (Smith) at 280:1 1-281:2.
Indeed, all Dr. Howle could measure we re the "length of' "the seated
(nonrocked) Hertzian contact area" and "the total length of' "the trace of a ll
locations that have contacted the ground." RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 84-85.
But he was not able to measure the length of the contact area at the final rocked
position or any intermediate position during the rocking motion based on the
markings on RX-0391 at 7. Thus, Dr. Howl e's assertion- 	"[w]hile rocking, the
contact pressure area does not substantially change from its original length"-is an
unfounded assumption unsupported by the exp erin1ents he ran. See RX-0392C
(Howle RWS) at Q/A 84 (citing no support or reasoning for his conclusory
statement). As a result, Dr. Howle's opinions relying on his "constant contact
pressure length" are inherently unreliable and should be given no weight. See Gen.
Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 139 (1997) (expert testin1ony found unreliable
based on "analytical gap" between data and conclusions); Certain Radio Frequency
Microneedle Dermatological Treatment Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No .
337-TA-1112, Order 30 at 2 (May 1, 2019) ("[Expert] opinions that are un scientific
and unreliable will be given little weight.").
By contrast, as shown in RX-0064, Mr. Smith 's visual illustration of the
result from his sin1ple paper thickness gauge test of the MacRocker shows "a
po1tion of the flexible member that's always touching the ground when so meone is
sitting and rocking in the chai r. " Tr. (Smith) at 281:13-283:7. This is significantly
different from the rocking motion of the traditional rocking chair with arched rails,
which contacts the ground at a different point at any given time during rocking. See
Tr. (Smith) at 286:5-12; see also Tr. (How le) at 440:6-11. And, unlike Dr. Howle's
expe1iments, Mr. Smith's test was independent of the amount of pressure applied
and would show contact areas in places where Dr. Howie's experiments could not.
MacSports should not be 	allowed to avoid 	infringement by merely
substituting a structure described in the '6 11 Patent (a pin joint and torsion spring)
with a well-known equivalent (a compliant spring m ember). See Graver Tank &
183

PUBLIC VERSION
lv{fg. Co . v. Linde Air Products Co ., 339 U.S. 605, 612 (1950) ("It is difficult to
conceive 	of a 	case 	more 	appropriate 	for 	application 	of the 	doctrine 	of
equivalents .... "). Indeed, the Supreme Court specifically recognized that "[o]ne
who seeks to pirate an invention ... may be expected to introduce minor variations
to conceal and shelter the piracy" such that "[o]utright and forthright duplication is
a dull and very rare type of infringement." Id. at 607.
For these reason s, the MacRocker has the equivalent of the claimed
"fulcrum point."
Comp l. Br. at 102-08.
MacSports argues:
The '611 patent discloses a rocking chair comprising a frame that pivots
forward and backward around a particular point on each side of the frame. 	JX-
0002, Fig. 2; RX-0392C, Q&A 34. The MacRocker is so far removed from having
the "fulcrum point" disclosed by the '6 11 patent that GCI no lo nger even alleges
literal infringement of this claim element, as it did earlier in this Investigation, and
retains only a doctrine of equivalents analysis with respect to "fulcrum point." Hrg.
Tr. (Smith) 199:1-13; CX-0002C, Q&A4 28-33. But the purported "fulcrum point"
in the MacRocker has 	a substantially different function and operates 	in a
substantially different way than the '611 patent. Specifically, the clain1s require a
fixed fulcrum point around which the chair rotates- 	a piv ot point or axle. 	In
contrast, the MacRocker uses a flexible compliant member ( called a compliant
mechanism by GCI) that bends and rolls more like a traditional rocking cha ir.
Mr. Smith's opinion does not rely on any tests of the MacRocker because
he did not conduct any tests. He simply sat in the chairs and watched them move.
RX-0392, Q&A 65 -66. He admitted that the MacRocker chair "moved differently"
from the GCI chair. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 193: 25 -1 94:7. 	He did take a variety of
measurements of the MacRocker, though. Specifi call y, he used a tape measure to
measure the length of the compliant member, the width of the chair, and the height
of the armrest; an angle gauge to measure angles in different positions; and a
thickness gauge to determine where the flexible member contacted the ground
during different points of the rocking motio n. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 196:19-197:7. But
he 	admitted at the hearing that he did 	not retain or record any 	of these
measurements. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 197:8-15. The ALJ can and should infer from the
absence of these measurements that they did not support Mr. Smith's opinions. See
Mali v. Federal Ins. Co., 720 F.3d 38 7, 392-94 (2d Ci r. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(c)(l) 2015 Advisory Committee Notes ("Adverse-inference instructions were
developed on the premise that a party 's intentional loss or destruction of evidence
to prevent its use in litigation gives rise to a reasonable inference that th e evidence
was unfavorable to the party responsible for lo ss or destruction of the evidence.").
While Mr. Smith testified on redirect that the missing measurements we re not
necessary, Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 279:24-280:5, that begs th e question of why he would
184

PUBLIC VERSION
take such extensi ve measurements if they were indeed unnecessary.
In contrast, Dr. 	Howle conducted two primary sets of tests on the
MacRocker chairs to assess whether they infringe the '611 patent. 	First, he
recorded a video of the lower elastic beam as the chairs rocked backward and
extracted images showing the initial and final contact pressure areas. 	RX-0392,
Q&A 65-70 and RX-0382 and RX-0391. 	This test showed that the MacRocker
chairs do not have a fulcrum point about which the chairs rotate and, instead, rolls
along the ground like a traditional rocking chair. RX-0392, Q &A 71-73.
As explained in detail in his witness statement, Dr. Howie 's second set of
tests involved the use of pressure sensitive film to document the contact stress, or
pressure, between the MacRocker chairs and a rigid surface on which he placed
them. RX-0392, Q&A 74-83. This test showed that the two MacRocker chairs roll
along the ground as they are rocked. Id., Q &A 84-86. Dr. Howle then explained
that these tests led him to conclude that the MacRocker chairs lack a fulcrum po int
and do not infringe the '611 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
He testified that the MacRockers do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents
"because they do not function in the same way (pivoting vs. rolling) to produce the
same result (pivoting rocking vs. rolling rocking)." Id., Q&A 87-88. GCI did not
ask Dr. Howle a single question about this test. Hrg. Tr. (Howle) at 433-48. Mr.
Smith admitted that pressure sensitive film is used by engineers, commonly used
by POSAs, and that he has used it before, but did not use it here. Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
197:16-198:21.
Mr. Smith attempts to camouflage the weakness of his analysis by including
in his witness statement lengthy, repetitive "analysis" of points not in dispute.
MacSports does not dispute the facts that the MacRocker chairs are portable,
collapsible rocking chairs with side assemblies, front legs, rear legs, a seat and that
they open and close. 	Yet Mr. Smith spends considerable time in his witness
statement on these non-issues. E.g, CX-0002, Q &A 390-427, 445, 448, 452-469,
484-494, 519,525.
When he finally arrives at the disputed issues, Mr. Smith argues that
bending and rolling are just like pivoting and rotating has two parts. He first creates
a hypothetical model supposedly based on the MacRocker using the PRBM and,
second, 	argues that the model satisfies 	infringement under the doctrine of
equivalents. CX-0002, Q&A 432. But a doct1ine of equivalents analysis is already
one step removed from literal infringement, and Mr. Smith takes another step
further away by arguing that an expert-created model, rather than the actual
MacRocker, has an equivalent "fulcrum point." 	In other words, Mr. Smith first
argues that bending and rolling are just like a hypothetical model that pivots and
rotates without any proof, measurements, or calculations, and then compares that
hypothetical model to the asserted claims and concludes there is infringement. Mr.
Smith's two-step equivalence analysis concedes the very differences that it intends
to circumvent. His doctrine of equivalents argument shows that the MacRocker's
185

PUBLIC VERSION
bending and rolling is substantially different from the purported invention of the
'611 patent. When there are such significant differences, a doctrine of equivalents
analysis fails. London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 (Fed. Cir.
1991 ) ("Application of the doctrine of equivalents is the exception, however, not
the rule, for if the public comes to believe (or fear) that the language of patent
claims can never be relied on, and that the doctrine of equivalents is simply the
second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection
beyond the scope of the claims, then clain1s will cease to serve their intended
purpose. 	Competitors will never know whether their actions infringe a granted
patent.").
Mr. Smith's use of a hypothetical model shows that the MacRocker is so
different from the invention of the ' 611 patent that there cannot be a direct
comparison. 	The MacRocker does not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents
because significant structural differences exist between it and the patent. 	See
Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2005) ("Freedman").
In Freedman, a patent covered stowable bus seats, and the district court
awarded the patent owner summary judgment of infringement based on a doctrine
of equivalents analysis. The claims included a limitation of a seat-base having a
slidably mounted movable end. 	On appeal, defendant argued that its rotatably
mounted elements were not equivalent. 	Agreeing with defendant, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that allowing doctrine of
equivalents coverage of a rotatably mounted element would vitiate the claim
language that required the element be slidably mounted. "[A]n element of an
accused product or process is not, as a matter of law, equivalent to a linlitation of
the clain1ed invention if such a finding would entirely vitiate the limitation."
Freedman, 420 F.3d at 1358. The Court ruled that determining vitiation is done by
considering the totality of the circumstances and determining whether the alleged
equivale nt can be fairly characterized as an insubstantial change from the claimed
subject matter without rendering the pertinent limitation meaningless. Id. at 1359.
The Court then determined that the "slidably mounted" limitation excluded the
possibility of doctrine of equivalents coverage of a "rotatably mounted" element.
Specifically, the Court found:
Therefore, while the moveable end of the EZ Fold's support member
has the ability to rotate, it cannot slide or otherwise move along the
seatbase. It is confined to a fixed location. We think that this
structural difference in the mounting of the moveable end to the
seatbase is not a 'subtle difference in degree,' but rather, 'a clear,
substantial difference or difference in kind.'
Freedman, 420 F.3d at 1361.
Freedman is on point. The MacRocker has a compliant member that partly
186

PUBLIC VERSION
rests on the ground, and a portion of that compliant member bends, and rolls up off
the ground, during a normal rocking motion, as shown by Dr. Howie's direct testing
of the MacRocker. RX-0392C, Q&A 67-70; RPX-0004 (Video C2161A Rolling);
RPX-0005 (Video C2163A Rolling). \Vhere and how the MacRocker touches the
ground changes as the MacRocker rocks, as can also be seen in the videos created
by D r. Howle. Id. Dr. Howle also directly shows that the contact area touching the
ground moves between 4 and 5 inches during operation of the MacRocker. 	RX-
0392, Q&A 80-85. 	This motion is like the rolling and rocking motion of a
traditional prior art rocking chair. RX-0392C, Q&A 71. 	In deed, the MacRocker
moves just like the p1ior art rocking chair shown in Figure 1 of th e '61 1 patent,
which Mr. Smith has admitted does not have a fulcrum. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 215:8-
15; JX-0002, Figure 1; RX-0392C (Howle WS), Q&A 67-73, 87.
In stark contrast, the claimed "fulcrum point" in the '61 1 patent pivots the
chair around a fixed point, pushing against a spring, and the "fulcrum point" does
not move along the ground, as admitted by Mr. Smith. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 210:2-7.
Mr. Smith explained that the fulcrum point does not move as the chair rocks
forward and backward in his model. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 210:8-211:6. 	B ut in an
admission that destroys his infringement argument, Mr. Smith testified that a large
po1tion of the bottom rail of the MacRocker bends as th e chair rocks and comes off
the ground:
Q. 	Now, when you examined the MacRocker and sat in it, the
bottom rail bent during the rocking motion, didn't it?
A. 	It does bend, yes.
Q. 	And the bottom rail bent throughout the length of the fl ex ible
member, didn't it?
A. 	It---a large portion of it bends, yes.
Q. 	As the bottom rail b ent, part of the chair came off the ground,
correct?
A. 	That's correct.
Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 211:7-16. He also testified that a rolling motion does not require
a fulcrum. 	Id. 21 5: 1- 5. 	Like Freedman's slidable versus rotatable scenario, the
contrast here is the bending and rolling along the ground of the MacRocker versus
the claimed fixed point that allows rotation but does not move along the ground of
the '6 11 patent. 	Extending GCI's claim scope from a fix ed point that allows
rotation to capture the bending and rolling of the MacSports chair does therefore
vitiate the claim, just as in Freedman.
This is not a case where GCI can show infringement by simply substituting
one component fo r the other. Here, GCI creates a hypothetical model by replacing
the fl exible compliant memb er of the MacRocker with two rigid arms and a pivot
poin t without accounting for the design and operational tradeoffs necessary to make
such a substitution. GCl's model does not take into account significant differences
between the MacRocker and the '61 1 patent, like the bending and rolling motion of
187

PUBLIC VERSION
the MacRocker 's compliant member that is not replicated by the hypothetical model
with a fixed point that rotates. Removing the differences through a "sin1plifying"
model is not enough to show infringement.
Further, Mr. Smith admitted that there are known differences in using a
compliant member as compared to using a "r igid body" fulcrum and lever
apparatus. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 211:24-212: 12. For example, as he testified, comp li ant
members have fewer parts and are easier to manufacture. 	Id. 	As Dr. Howle
explained, there are too many differences between the MacRocker and the
disclosure of the ' 611 patent for them to be equivalent. RX-0392C, Q&A 87-88,
105-110, 117, 132- 13 7.
Put sin1ply, the '611 patent requires a fulcrum point and the MacRocker
does not have one. 	RX-0392C, Q&A 91 -110. 	That is why GCI relies on a
hypotheti cal model in the fir st place. By using this model, GCI inappropriate reads
an element entirely out of th e claim. 	Freedman, 420 F.3d at 1362; Tip Systems,
LLC v. 	Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, 529 F.3d 1364, 	1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(infringement under doctrine of equivalents fails when such a finding would read a
clain1 phrase out of the claim).
Finally, Mr. 	Smith ignores the possibility that the ALJ might adopt
Westfield's claim construction of "fulcrum point." MacSports construes "fulcrum
point" as "an independent pivot, pin, axel or other structure" and GCI construes this
phrase as "a point on which a chair frame is supported and about which the chair
frame pivots." 	Mr. Smith cl ain1s that his analysis shows infringement of the
"fulcrum point" limitation under both GCI and MacSports' constructions. 	CX-
0002C, Q&A 433. 	But Mr. Smith did not provide an analysis under any other
Respondents' constructions and there is no evidence to support an infringement
finding should the ALJ adopt Westfield 's or Denovo 's construction. Id. (arguments
only show MacSports and GCI constructions); RX-0392 Q&A 51-55. The fact that
Mr. Smith's hypothetical model is generic enough to encompass such disparate
claim constructions is another reason it should not be accepted.
To 	conclude, 	GCl' s 	doctrine of equivalents 	analysis 	inappropriately
compares a hypothetical model to the claims instead of the actual accused product.
In addition, significant differences between the MacRocker and the claims are not
represented by Mr. Smith 's hypothetical mode l. 	Thus, GCI has not caIT ied its
burden of proving infringement of claims 1 and 14 by the MacRocker.
Resps. Br. at 94-100.
The administrative law jud ge finds that the MacRocker does not include the claimed
fulcrum point.
GCI concedes that the MacRocker chair does not literally infringe but contends that it
188

PUBLIC VERSION
infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. See, e.g., Smith Tr. 199. GCI bases that contention
solely on Mr. Smith' s testimony, where Mr. Smith relies on the pseudo-rigid-body model
("PRBM"). Id. at 16-18. GCI relies on the following analysis from Mr. Smith:
The MacRocker meets this limitation under the doctrine of equivalents as
the flexible member perfom1s substantially the same function in substantially the
same way producing substantially the same result as the claimed fulcrum point. It
is well known in designing compliant mechanisms that " [fJ or each 	flexible
segment. .. the motion is modeled by rigid links attached at pin joints." Compliant
Mechanisms at p. 135 (CX-0018). The pin joint is referred to as the characteristic
pivot and is equivalent to a fulcrum point as the differences are insubstantial. The
function of the fulcrum point is to allow movement between forward and backward
positions, the way is by providing a pivot (real or characteristic/theoretical), and
the result is rocking motion of the chair frame. It is this configuration that allows
the chair to move between forward and rea1ward positions.
CX-0002 at Q/A 432.
GCI additionally re lies on the follow ing testimony of Mr. Smith:
The compliant member in the MacRocker is equivalent to a pair of rigid
links with a fu lcmm point, as I've illustrated in CDX-0008. The comp li ant
member's fulcrum point performs substantially the same function of supporting the
chair and allowing motion about it, in substantially the same way, by providing a
pivot either real or characteristic, and having substantially the same result: rocking
motion of the frame.
189

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX -0008
Id. at Q/A 663.
The administrative law judge finds that Mr. Smith 's qualitative analysis incorrectly
applied the pseudo-rigid-body model ("PRBM") to the accused products. Mr. Smith relies on a
reference book, Compliant Afechanisms, by Professor Howell, thro ughout his PRBM analysis.
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 647 (citing CX-0018 (Compliant Mechanisms), p. 135).
Professor Howell's book recites: "The key for each pseudo-rigid-body model is to decide where
to pl ace the pin joints and what value to assign the spring constants." CX-0018, p. 134. Mr.
Smith testified that he never calculated a single spring constant. Smith Tr. 207 -2 09. In failing to
perform any calculations, Mr. Smith never quantified the actual operation of the MacRocker.
This analysis both contravened the instructions in the quoted reference, and lacked quantitative
analysis which could be tested and verified to ensure that the infri ngement anal ys is properly
190

PUBLIC VERSION
compares the construed claim to the accused product. See, e.g., Board ofRegents of the Univ. of
Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. C01p., 533 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
As noted above, "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair
frame can move b etween forward and rearward positions" means "a point on which a chair frame
is suppo1ted and about which the chair frame pivots." In contrast, th e MacRocker uses a flex ible
compliant member (called a compliant mechanism by GCI) that b ends and rolls more like a
traditional rocking chair.
Mr. Smith's opinion does not rely on any tests of the MacRocker, and Mr. Smith testified
that the MacRocker "moved differently" from the GCI chair. Smith Tr. 193-194.
Dr. Howle conducted two primary sets of tests on the MacRocker to assess whether it
infringes the '6 11 patent. First, he recorded a video of the lower elastic beam as the MacRocker
rocked backward and extracted images showing the initial and final contact pressure areas.
RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 65-70; RX-0 391. This test showed that the MacRocker does
not have a fulcrum point about which th e chair rotates and, instead, rolls along the ground like a
traditional rocking chair. RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 71-73.
As explained in detail in his witness statement, D r. Howie's second set of tests involved
the use of pressure sensitive film to document the contact stress, or pressure, between the
MacRockers and a rigid s urface on which he placed them . See id. at Q/A 74-83. This test
showed that the two MacRockers roll along the ground as they are rocked. See id. at Q/A 84-86.
Dr. Howle then explained that these tests led him to conclude that the MacRockers lack a
fulcrum point and do not infringe the '6 11 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
He testified that the MacRockers do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents "because they
do not function in the same way (pivoting vs. rolling) to produce the same result (pivoting
191

PUBLIC VERSION
rocking vs. rolling rocking)." Id. at Q/A 88. Mr. Smith testified that pressure sensitive fi lm is
used by engineers, commonly used by those of skill in the art, and that he has used it before, but
did not use it here. Smith Tr. 197-198.
The administrative law jud ge finds that the MacRocker 's flexible compli ant member
bends and rolls in a manner that is substantially different fr om that of th e invention of the ' 611
patent. When there a re such signi fi cant differences, a doctrine of equivalents analysis fails. See
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor I nt 'l, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1344-45 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("A finding to the contrary would render the requirement that the feedback signals be
'd ist inct '- 	the feature described by the inventor as critical to the invention's novelty-
meaningless. "); Wallace London & Clemco Prods. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534,
15 38 (Fed. Cir. 199 1) ("Application of the doctrine of equivalents is the exception ... not the rule,
for if the public comes to believe (or fear) that the language of patent claims can never be relied
on, and that the doctrine of equivalents is sin1p ly the second prong of every infringement charge,
regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims, then claims will cease to
serve their intended purpose.").
The MacR ocker has greater similarity to the prior art rocking chair shown in Figure 1 of
the '611 patent, as opposed to the chair including the clain1ed fulcrnm point. Smith Tr. 215;
JX-0002 ('611 patent) at Figure 1; RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 67-73, 87. The claimed
"fulcrnm point" of the '6 11 patent pivots the chair around a fixed point, pushing against a spring,
and Mr. Smith testified that the "fulcrum point" of the ' 611 patent does not move along the
ground. Smith Tr. 210. Mr. Smith further explained that, in the model he constructed, the
clain1ed fulcrum point does not move as the chair rocks forward and backward. See id. at 210-
21 1.
192

PUBLIC VERSION
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not include the claimed "fulcrum
point."
ii. 	Westfield
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that th e Mulben-y Bounce Chair does
not include a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair frame can
move between forward and rearward positions. See RX-0451C (Cameron RWS) at Q/A 53-61.
GCI argues:
The 	Westfield 	chair 	satisfies 	the 	claim element "a 	fulcrum 	point
supporting the chair frame and about which said chair frame can move
between forward and reanvard positions" as recited by claim 1 of the '611
Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 578-81.
As Mr. Smith explained, the leaf spring in the Mulberry Bounce Chair is equivalent
to a pair of 1ig id links joined together at a pin or pivot point (e.g., via a torsion
spring); which serves as an equivalent or characteristic fulcrum point. Id. at Q/A
636-59, 665-72.
Analyzing the Mulberry Bounce Chair using compliant mechanism theory
and PRBM, Mr. Smith determined that the chair's l eaf spring would be subject to
loading condition Case 2 ( fo rce and moment in opposite directions with no
inflection point) during the most common rocking condition based on his inspection
and testing of the Mulberry Bounce Chair. See id. at Q/A 667-668; CX-01 51
(video); CX-0159 (video); see also Tr. (Smith) at 162:5-163 :1 7 (confirming only
Case 2 loading condition applies in the rocking condition tested), 259:18-260:21
(confirming the video in CX-0151 is th e Case 2 loading condition analyzed that
does not have an inflection point).
Even if there were other possible operating conditions for the Westfield
chair (and even if some of those conditions are not suitable for modeling with Case
2), Mr. Smith has plainly shown at least when used by a user in its normal rocking
condition the Mulberry Bounce Chair infringes under Case 2 loading condition.
This is a ll that is required under the law. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
Apple Inc., 899 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[I]nfringement is not avoided
merely because a non-infringing mode of operation is possible.") (quoting z4
Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); Hilgraeve
Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Ci r. 2001) ("[I]n determining
whether a product claim is infringed, we have held that an accused device may be
found to infringe if it is reasonably capable of satisfying the clain1 limitations, even
though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation.").
193

PUBLIC VERSION
Mr. Smith created CDX-0005 (below) to illustrate the Case 2 loading
condition he tested on the Mulberry Bounce Chair. See Tr. (Smith) at 253: 12-
255:24; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 654-58. During the rocking condition
tested by Mr. Smith, the moment is much larger than the force, and there is no
inflection point on the l eaf spring. See CX -0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 668; Tr.
(Smith) at 255:16-24; CX-015 1 (video); CX-0159 (video). In other words, when a
user of the \Vestfield chair rocks backwards in the normal rock ing condition as
shown in CX -0 151, the leaf spring only bends upward. See Tr. (Smith) at 144:12-
17.
CDX-0005 (PRBM Concept for Westfield Leaf Spring)
C DX-00IO
The applicability of the Case 2 loading condition is further confirmed by
Mr. Smith 's conservative Finite Element Analysis ("FEA''). Specifically, the FEA
"shows that when you apply the fo rce, as [Mr. Smith] did in a sitting pos ition in the
[Westfie ld] chair, that the deflection is only upwards at that point and there is no
inflection point." Tr. (Smith) at 144:5-17; see also CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A
669; CDX-001 1, CDX-0012; Tr. (Smith) at 250:11-251:6 (explaining use of FEA
to verify the applicability of Case 2 type loading), 258:6-259: 17 ( explaining why
the FEA, which was "ultra conservative," was used).
In this Case 2 loading condition, a POSITA would understand that the l eaf
spring on the Mulb eny Bounce Chair is equivalent to and interchangeable with a
rigid linkage of two links with a torsion spring at the pin joint between the links.
Tr. (Smith) at 138:11-18; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 579, 654, 668; CX-
0018.0001. The p in joint is refeITed to as the characteristic pivot and is equivalent
to the claimed fulcrum point because the differences are insubstantial. CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 579. In other words, the leaf spring in the Mulberry Bounce
Chair Chairs would be seen as being functionally and mathematically equivalent to
the rigid linkages with a fulcrum point shown in CDX-0005. id. at Q/A 654.
194

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX-0005 (PRBM Concept for Westfield Leaf Spring) 	CDX-00 10
CDX-0014 	CDX -0 142
As shown in CDX-0005, CDX-0010, CDX-0014, and CDX-0142, the
Mulberry Bounce Chair 's leaf spring has an equivalent fulcrum point located at the
pin jo int in the figures. Id. at Q/A 579,654 , 668, 670-71. The equivalent fulcrum
point performs substantially the same function of supporting the chair and allowing
movement 	betwee 	forward 	and 	rearward 	positions 	around 	that 	point, 	in
substantially the same way (by providing a pivot either real or characteristic), and
substantially the same result (rocking motion of the chair and its frame). Id. at Q/A
671, 579.
The overall rocking motion of the Mulberry Bounce Chair is a pivotal,
generally circular motion about the equivalent fulcrum point. Id. at Q/A 653, 672;
see also CDX-0003; CX-0151 (Video); CX-0153 (Video).
195

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX-001 5
CDX-0015 shows the Mulberry Bounce Chair in its forward and rearward
positions, with the green concentric circles centered at the equivalent fulcrum point.
Id. at Q/A 672. As can be seen from the following annotated images of the Mulberry
Bounce Chair in CDX-0015, the motion of the chair closely follows the concentric
circles, thereby showing that the chair frame rotates (pivots) about and is supported
by an equivalent fulcrum point. Id.
Under any party's proposed construction for "fulcrum point," the above-
described configurations satisfy the requirements of this limitation. Id. at Q/A 581 .
For example, the characteric pivot 	point (i.e., equivalent fulcrum 	point) 	is
equivalent to "a point on which a chair frame is supported and about which the
chair frame pivots," as proposed by GCI. Id. Similarly, the characteric pivot point
also shows "a point (i.e. axis of rotation) about which the chair frame rotates and is
supported," as proposed by Westfield. Id. In addition, the characteric pivot point
takes the form of a pin joint and thus is "an independent pivot, pin, axel or other
structure," as proposed by MacSports. Tr. (Smith) at 135:24-136:9.
Therefore, Mr. Smith properly applied the PRBM as an analytical tool to
analyze and compare the Mulberry Bounce Chair with the Asserted Claims. It is
not the model that infringes, of course; it is the model that shows how the product
infringes.
Dr. Cameron's modification of Mr. Smith's FEA model is irrelevant. See
Tr. (Smith) at 257:7-23 ("[S]o just because the Westfield Mulberry Bounce Chair
can be used in a way that creates an inflection point, that doesn't mean that it can't
also be used in the way that I have shown where there is no inflection points.").
Regardless of whether her modifications were realistic, they at best simply show
that a single loading condition has an inflection po int, not that all loading conditions
have an inflection point. Put differently, so long as just one arrangement of the
Westfield chair is subject to Case 2 loading, Mr. Smith's model is accurate for
196

PUBLIC VERSION
purposes of showing infringement. See Core Wireless, 899 F.3d at 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2018) ("[I]nfringement is not avoided merely because a non-inflinging mode of
operation is possible.").
Unlike Mr. Smith's FEA model, which analyzed a real use case as shown
in CDX-0011 and CX-0151, Dr. Cameron's revisions to Mr. Smith's model merely
move the load used by Mr. Smith to a different location- 	an attempt to artificially
create a condition where "a seated user leans forward or is seated on a forward
portion of the chair." RX-0451C (Cameron RWS) at Q/A 49. However, Dr.
Cameron's characterization of this loading condition as being "more representative
of the loads seen by the Mulberry Bounce Chair" is contradicted by the testimony
of Westfield's own corporate re presentative and marketing materials. See CX-
0329C (Webb Dep.) at 77:10- 15 (explaining that when a user lean forward in the
Mulberry Bounce Chair the user's weight "would have to be very close to the front"
which "wouldn't be a traditional way you would sit in a chair"); CX-0469
(Westfield marketing video showing that users in normal rocking condition do not
lean forward or sit on the front portion of the chair); Tr. (Webb) at 325:15-24
(confirming that CX-0469 accurately shows the motion of the Mulben-y Bounce
Chair); see also CX -01 51 (video showing regular rocking motion without user
leaning forward).
Thus, the "front" loading condition observed by Dr. Cameron in no way
re presents many of the normal rocking conditions in which the Mulberry Bounce
Chair would be used (such as a user "leaning all the way back against the backrest,"
as shown in the videos CX-0151 and CX-0469).
Accordingly, the Westfield chair has a "fulcrum point" under the doctrine
of equivalents.
Compl. Br. at 122-28.
Westfield argues, in part:
The WBC does not have a "fulcrum point" under the doctrine of equivalents
because it does not have a component that performs substantially the same function,
in substantially the same way, to achieve the same result as a "fulcrum point" under
any party's proposed construction of the term. See Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v.
Re.xam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Ci r. 2009). Consistent with
the definitions of "fulcrum point" proposed by GCI and Respondents, the function
of a fulcrum point is to support the lever (chair frame) while allowing rotation of
the lever (chair frame) about that poi nt. RX-045 1C at 6, 15-16; Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
134:5-8, 160:17-20. 	The way a fulcrum point accomplishes this is by using a
sliding or rolling bearing surface between the lever ( chair frame) and the support
structure, where the lever pivots about the point of support. RX-0451C at 15-16;
Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 132:11-133:1. The "result" is rotation of the lever (chair frame)
in a circular arc about the point as the chair moves between forward and rearward
197

PUBLIC VERSION
positions to provide a rocking motion. RX-0451C at 15-16; Hrg.Tr. (Smith) 133:2-
6. GCI has not established any of these as to the WBC.
GCI relies upon only one witness - Mr. Smith - to try to establish that the
unique sp ring steel in th e WBC is equivalent to the fixed pivot point claimed in the
' 611 patent. But his testimony fails and, in fact, shows th at there is no doctrine of
equivalents. Mr. Smith's doctrine of equivalents testimony relies upon his assertion
that Westfield 's steel plate spring is interchangeable with a mechanism consisting
of 2 links, 1 pin, and 1 torsion spring at the pin joint between the links. 	Hrg. Tr.
(Smith) 802:7-12. Mr. Smith's interchangeability assertion, and thus his DOE
assertion. depends on his pseudo-rigid-body-model argument. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
801: 16-18; see also 138: 1-139: 1. But a correct analysis of the pseudo-rigid-body-
model theory confams Westfield's steel plate spring cannot be replaced with a
mechanism consisting of 2 links, l pin, and 1 torsion spring.
* 	* 	*
GCI also produced no evidence that a single 2 link, 1 pin, 1 spring
mechanism could be used to model the steel plate spring of the WBC f.or even a
small range of motion of the WBC. Mr. Smith performed a FEA analysis only of
one position of the WBC and only loaded with one loading. CX-0002C, Q&A 668-
69. He admitted that he could not tell whether the WBC steel plate spring was a
Case II loading or a Case III loading without running this FEA analysis. Hrg. Tr.
(Smith) 258:21-259:7. But once he determined his one very specific loading was
Case II, Smith simply stopped. He did not calculate the length of the links, or the
spring constant for the 2 link, l pin, 1 torsion spring. See id.
Nor did Mr. Smith submit any evidence that the pivot point would be in the
same place, or that the link lengths, and/or spring constant would be the same for
the movement of the WBC as the one loading condition he analyzed. Mr. Smith
and GCI provided no evidence that a 2 link, 1 pin, 1 spring model would be the
equivalent for even a small range of motion. Again, Mr. Smith performed an FEA
analysis at only a single position of the WBC and only with a single loading (i.e,
person weighing 200 lbs) - a Case II loading with a static load. But the equations
in the Complaint Mechanism textbook establish that the location of the pivot point,
the lengths of the links, and the spring constant depend upon loading conditions,
i.e. they all depend on the specific forces and moments. CX-0019. Indeed, the
equations for the most simple version of a PRBM - modelling a cantilevered beam
with only an end force (no moment) - specifically show that the length of the links
(and thus the location of the pivot/pin) vary depending on this equation:
r =y l,
where r is the characteristic radius, I is 01iginal length of the beam, and Y is the
characteristic radius factor. Moreover Y can be identified with these equations:
198

PUBLIC VERSION
Q - 	{0.84 ~6j .:i- 0.006780711 +0 .0004-3 8n2 	(0 .5< 11 < 10.0)
"f - 	( 0. 8~2 I4+- 0.0 182867 11) 	(- l. 8316 < n < 0.5)
. ( 0.9 12364+ O .0l ➔59 28n } 	(-5 <n<- 1.83 16 )
where n varies with direction of the applied force. The spring constant can be
identified with this equation:
Ke:. :l024112.+ 0. ll l290ri+ 0.003169n, 	(=.:i< 11 :S - 2_s, 	~S.60)
K0 - 	l.967(Hi'- 2.fll(fil I 11 - 3.738166,,1
- 2.,6-f9413'7 tf\ 	0.891906114 ·- 0. 113 06~11~ 	(.:'i .(ll)
(-'2.S < I J' < - 1)
K8 = 2.6:5485~ - 0.509896 X t o,•I ll + ,Q. 126149 X ]0- 1,/?
- O. l-'2039 x: I □-~ ,,)+ 0.584525 :x to- 1,t'
(- l <:,iS. 10)
As the specifics of the applied load change, the lengths of the Links (and
thus the location of the pivot/pin) and the spring constant for the torsion spring at
the pin change. And again, this is for a simple, force-only, model. The equations
and considerations for calculating force-moment combinations are much more
complicated and vary even more with difference loadings. See CX-0019 at 11-1 7
(adding more complexity with each additional load variant, culminating in
combined force-moment loading which is "more complex" than the above loading
condition).
Mr. Smith never accounted for any of this in his analysis, even though he
testified the Compliant Mechanism textbook is the basis for his analysis. Hrg. T r.
(Smith) at 141:15-22. 	Dr. Cameron identified the inadequacies of Mr. Smith's
narrow analysis:
So one of the extremely shocking things that I heard in his
testimony was that the -- his pivot point that he claims is equivalent
remains stationary. And that is just incorrect
Even you can see from his textbook references that he
provided, and even from the physical evidence of his picture of the
chair, this is not correct.
And the reason this is not correct is that for that model that
he chose, again, he -- he decided to look at the Mode 2 part of that
model, that spring stiffness and position, so, in other words, where
199

PUBLIC VERSION
that pivot point is, depend both on the moment and on the force
that's applied.
And so that -- and this is really why this is such a ridiculous
claim that they can be physical equivalent, because for that model,
essentially, as soon as you move at all, even a little bit in the chair,
you're changing the loading condition on the chair.
And for that model, yes, you can have a pivot point and a
fulcrum, but that changes in position and in stiffness over time. So
what th at means is that, unl ike what he said, which is that it remains
s tationary, it does not remain stationary. It -- it has to move.
And that's why you can't just put a physical -- the re is no
physical equivalent in that chair because you would need a spring
that's changing stiffness over time and you also need to be changing
the location of that pivot point over time.
* * *
So, anyway, what I was saying is that this is -- this is -- the
first thing that he said is incorrect because the -- pivot, of course, is
moving. You can look even at just his textbook reference.
In that book, textbook that he cites to for Mode 2, which is
in Section 5.7, it describes where you can look up the math, and
that's in section 5.5 of that same book, and you can look at the
equations. The location of the pivot point and the spring stiffness,
they both depend on the moment.
And so what that means is that, as you're moving or rocking
in the chair and the moment is changing, that means that the stiffness
of the spring is changing and the location of the spring is change.
And that 's why you cannot have a physical equivalent in the
chair because we don ' t -- we don' t know how to make springs that
do that.
Hrg. Tr. (Cameron) 371 :3-372:5, 372:22-373: 13 .
Assuming Case II is appropriate for a specific static loading condition with
just one force and one moment, the model outputs (link lengths, pin location, spring
constant) might be calculable. But th e equations show that changing inputs changes
outputs. 	Smith did not show an equivalent mechanism would have an equivalent
movement for even a short length of motion. Nor did he show that the movement
of the chair by a person weighting 200 pounds would be equivalent to movement
of the chair by a person weighing 100 pounds. See Hrg. Tr. (Cameron) at 372:22-
373: 13 , 380:9-21; CX-0019.
Dr . Cameron, Westfield's expert, confim1s Smith's own admissions and
failure to extend his single point analysis to any other loading conditions of the
WBC. 	Dr. Cameron showed how a specific link, pin, and spring mechanism
combination, modeled under the pseudo-rigid-body model, is not interchangeable
with th e spring steel in th e WBC. Hrg. Tr. (Cameron) at 374:3-6. As e xp lained by
200

PUBLIC VERSION
Dr. Cameron, this means that the supposed pi vot point would move during motion
and would change with loading. 	Hrg. Tr. (Cameron) at 370:21-372:8; 375:5-25.
Any particular pseudo-rigid-body model combination is not true for even a small
range of motion, and even within the same case type (Case I, II, and 111 ). Hrg. Tr.
(Cameron) at 378:23-379: 10, 379: 19-380:4.
Resps. Br. at 74-81.
The administrative law judge finds that the Mulberry Bounce Chair does not include the
claimed fulcrum point. Westfield 's steel plate spring cannot be replaced with the proposed
equivalent of a me chanism consisting of 2 links, 1 pin, and 1 torsion spring.
As noted above, "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair
frame can move between forward and rearward positions" means "a point on which a chair frame
is supported and about which the chair frame pivots."
GCI concedes that the Mu lb erry Bounce Chair does not li tera lly infr inge but contends
that it infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. See Compl. Br. at 122. GCI argues that "the
leaf spring in the Mulberry Bounce Chair is equivalent to a pair of rigid links jo ined together at a
pin or pivot point (e.g., via a torsion spring), which serves as an equivalent or characteristic
fulcrum p oint." Id. 	GCI' s doctrine of equivalents testimony relies upon Mr. Sm ith 's assertion
that Westfield's steel plate spring is interchangeable with a mechanism consisting of 2 links, 1
pin, and 1 torsion spring at the pin joint between the links. Smith Tr. 802.
As an initial matter, when analyzing compliant mecha ni sms, Mr. Smith testified that it is
in1portant to choose the correct pseudo-rigid-body mode l. See id. at 253, 255. Mr. Smith
testified that there are at least three potential pseudo rigid body models from which to choose,
and the choice depends upon the direction and magnitude of: (1) force, and (2) moment. These
three cases can be identified as Case I, Case II, and Case III. See id. at 250; see CX-0019
(Compliant Mechanisms). The three cases are summarized below:
201

PUBLIC VERSION
As Applied to
Case 	Loading 	Mulberry Bounce
Chair
Leaning forward in the
I 	Force and moment in the same direction chair, perhaps to cook
a hot dog or warm by a
campfire
II Force and moment in opposite directions, 	Leaning back in th e
with no inflection point in the steel spring 	chair
Force and moment in opposite direction s, Region between
III with an inflection point in th e steel spring forward and back
Mr. Smith testified that a compliant mechanism with a Case III loading cannot be
model ed with 2 links, 1 pin, and 1 torsion spring. Smith Tr. 143; 149-150. As Mr. Smith
testified, Case III loading requires a 4 link, 3 pin, and 2 spring model, and applies whenever
there is an inflection point in the steel plate spring. See id. at 143; CX-0019 (Compliant
Mechanisms) at 15-16. Mr. Smith testified that an inflection po int will occur in the steel plate
spring during the ordinary use of the Mulberry Bounce Chair. Smith Tr. 148-149; 162-164.
Thus, whenever a user rocks in the Mulberry Bounce Chair from the back position to the forward
position and vice versa, the steel plate spring must pass through a Case III loading with an
inflection point. See id. at 163 -164; RX-0451C (Cameron RWS) at Q/ A47 -50. Case II, Case
III, and Case I loading of the Mu lberry Bounce Chair are shown in the follow ing images.
202

PUBLIC VERSION
Ca se ll 	Case III 	Case I
@rg. TL (Smith) at 162:19-25) 	(!kg_. Tr. (Smith) 148:22-149:24) 	®it. Tr_(Smith) at Hi3:1-5)
CX- 0151 at0:15 	CX-0151 at0:1 6 	CX-0151 at 0:16
GCI argues, "Even if there were other possible operating conditions for the Westfield
chair (and even if some of those conditions are not suitable for modeling with Case 2), Mr. Smith
has plainly shown at least when used by a user in its normal rocking condition the Mulberry
Bounce Chair infringes under Case 2 loading condition." Compl. Br. at 123. However, as Mr.
Smith testified, in a normal rocking condition, the steel plate spring passes through a Case III
loading condition. Smith Tr. 163 -164. The steel plate spring of the Mulberry Bounce Chair is
not interchangeable with 2 links, 1 pin, and 1 torsion spring.
Moreover, Mr. Smith performed a finite element analysis of only one position of the
Mulberry Bounce Chair and only loaded with one loading. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at QI A
668-69. However, the equations in the Compliant Mechanism textbook establish that the
location of the pivot point, the lengths of the links, and the spring constant depend upon loading
conditions, i.e. they all depend on the specific forces and moments. CX-0019 (Compliant
Mechanisms). As the specifics of the applied load change, the lengths of the links (and thus the
location of the pivot/pin) and the spring constant for the torsion spring at the pin change. The
equations and considerations for calculating force-moment combinations are more complicated
203

PUBLIC VERSION
and vary even more with difference loadings. See CX-0019 at 11-17 (adding more complexity
with each additional load variant, culminating in combined force-moment loading whi ch is
"more complex" than the above loading condition). Dr. Cameron testified that it was "extremely
shocking" to hear Mr. Smith testify that the pivot point would remain stationary. Cameron T r.
371.
Dr. Cameron showed how a specific link, pin, and spring mechanism com bination,
modeled under the pseudo-rigid-body model, is not interchangeable with the spring steel in the
Mulberry Bounce Chair. See id. at 374. As explained by Dr. Cameron, this means that the
supposed pivot point would move during motion and would change with loading. See id. at
370-372; 375.
It is therefore determined that the Mulberry Bounce Chair does no t satis fy thi s claim
limitation.
j. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair
frame for supporting the chair during movement of the
chair frame between said forward and rearward
positions;
i. 	MacSports
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that the MacRocker does not include a
rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the
chair frame between said forward and rearward positions. See RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A
89.
GCI argues:
The 	MacRocker 	satisfies 	the 	claim 	element 	"at 	least 	one 	rocker
mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair during
movement of the chair frame between said forward and reanvard positions,"
as recited by claim 1 of the ' 61 1 Patent. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 434-38,
204

PUBLIC VERSION
677-85.
CDX-0082 	CDX-0018
As shown in CDX-0082, the MacRocker has a rocker mechanism in the
form of a spring member that runs the length of the bottom of the chair and supports
the chair frame during movement between forward and rearward rocking positions.
Id. at Q/A 435-36; see also CX-0372C (MacRocker Product Info Sheet) (showing
fiberglass material); CX-0029C (Spec Sheet); CX-0031 C (MacSports Provisional
Application) at MAC_000I 78, MAC_000171-72; CX-0352C (Wei Dep.) at 79:15-
20, 80:11-82:8, CX-0416 (Customer Reviews) at TOFASCO000002. Even the
name of the product (the "MacRocker") evidences the chair 's ability to rock.
A POSITA would understand that the MacRocker's flexible member is
equivalent to and interchangeable with a rigid linkage of two links with a torsion
spring at a pin joint (i.e., the fulcrum point) between the links. CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 654,663; see also CX-0018.0001; CDX-0018.
One of the corresponding structures for the "rocker mechanism" set forth in
the specification is a "torsion spring." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 4:9-11, 11:21-25.
Thus, as rigid links with a torsion spring are used to model the MacRocker 's spring
members, a POSITA would recognize that the spring member is an equivalent of a
torsion spring. Tr. (Smith) at 276:19-277:16; CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 438.
The MacRocker's spring member deflects and stores energy as the chair rocks,
thereby achiev ing the same effects as the torsion springs desc1ibed in the '61 1
Patent. id. at Q/A 682. Indeed, just like a torsion spring, the MacRocker's spring
member stores energy in order to create a rocking motion. Tr. (Smith) at 275:21-
277:6; see also Tr. (Cameron) at 337:24-338:6 (agreeing that a spring storing
energy can aid a user in rocking).
205

PUBLIC VERSION
In addition, the MacRocker's spring member performs the function of
"supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward
and rearward positions," as recited by the means-plus-function construction for
"rocker mechanis m. " Id. at Q/A 438. Thus, the MacRocker has a literal "rocker
mechanism." Id. at Q/A 685.
Indeed, th e '611 Patent teaches that a torsion spring, by itself, is one
example of a corresponding structure for the rocker mechanism. See, e.g., JX-0002
('611 Patent) at 11:21-25. MacSport's invalidity expert Dr. Lee agreed. Tr. (Lee)
at 467:21-468 (confirming that a torsion spring alone constitutes the alternative
structure of the rocker mechanism).
Thus, the MacRocker satisfies the "rocker mechanism" limitation literally
because its flexible spring member is equivalent to one of the corresponding
structures (a torsion spring) explicitly disclosed in the '611 Patent, and because this
spring member performs th e recited function of supporting th e chair during
movement of the chair frame between forward and rearward positions. CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 434-38, 677-85.
Compl. Br. at 108-10.
MacSports argues, in pa rt:
GCI also failed to show that the MacRocker has a "rocker mechanism"
under either GCI's or MacSports' construction of that tem1. 	Here again, the
MacRocker has many obvious differences from the claimed "rocker mechanis m"
of the '611 patent. RX-0392C, Q&A 112. For example, "rocker mechanism 32"
of the '611 patent is shown in Figure 2 of the '611 patent as a rather large structure
extending from the back of the chair to the ground, and then forward along the
ground to the middle of the chair frame. 	RX-0392C, Q&A 112; JX-0002, 7:25,
Fig. 3. 	The rocker mechanism, as disclosed, comprises many components,
including a spring 46, a tubular member 38, and a sleeve 44, as well as a support
runner 34. RX-0392C, Q&A 112, JX-0002, 7:42-64; Fig. 6. Mr. Smith confirmed
this at the hearing. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 271 :3-17. It also has a fulcrum point Mr. Smith
described as a "connector that, you know, a pin or a bolt or something that connects
them ." Id. 217:20 -2 18: 6. In contrast, the MacRocker lacks these components and
instead uses a flat elastic member laying on the ground that bends. 	RX-0392C,
Q&A 113; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 2 18: 11-24.
Despite these differences, Mr. Smith relies on the purported compliant
mechanism 	in 	th e 	MacRocker 	to 	show 	literal 	infringement 	under 	GCI's
construction of "rocker mechanism," which is "a mechanism to aid the rocking
movement of a chair frame." 	CX-0002C, Q&A 438. 	But th e elastic beams (or
flexib le members) of the MacRocker are very different than th e rock er mechanisms
clain1ed in the '6 11 patent. The elastic beams are single components, and therefore
fail to mee t the definition of a mechanism as would be understood by a POSA. RX-
206

PUBLIC VERSION
0392C, Q&A 114 . In particular, a POSA would understand the term mechanism to
be defined as "[t]hat part of a machine which contains two or more pieces so
arranged that the motion of one compels the motion of the others." 	RX-0389,
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Engineering, 1984. A single component
- the MacRocker elastic beam - cannot meet the definition of a mechanism. RX-
0392C, Q&A 114.
Notably, Mr. Smith relies on exactly the same component of the MacRocker
to be both the "rocker mechanism" and the "fulcrum point." 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
219:11-16. 	Using the same component to show infringement of more than one
element is contrary to the explicit claim language here. Becton, Dickinson & Co .
v. Tyco Healthcare G,p. LP, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Where a claim lists
elements separately, 'the clear in1plication of the clain1 language' is that those
elements 	are 	'distinct component[s]' 	of the 	patented 	invention.") 	(citations
omitted).
Further, the '611 patent shows a fulcrum point and a rocker mechanism as
separate components. 	Mr. Smith testified at the hearing that the same component
of the MacRocker is equivalent to both the fulcrum point and the rocker
mechanism. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 219: 11 - 16. 	This interpretation would implicate
almost every component of any chair that pe1form s a "rocking mechanism." For
GCI's construction of "rocker mechanism" to have any limits at all, it cannot be
interpreted to mean the component that is performing the rocking mechanism is the
same component that also "aids" it.
Doubling down on his hypothetical model, Mr. Smith argues that the
hypotheti cal model he created somehow shows literal infringement of "rocker
mechanism" under Respondents' construction of this phrase. MacSports contends
this is a means plus function clain1, with the function "for supporting the chair
during movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward positions"
and the means as described in the specification at column 11 , lines 17 through 32 .
RX-0392C, Q&A 48; JX-0002 ('6 11 patent), 11 : 16-32. Mr. Smith 's argument fails
for several reasons.
For literal infringement of a means plus function claim, both the function
and at least an equivalent structure to those shown in the '611 patent must exist in
the MacRocker. 	Nowhere does Mr. Smith argue that such a structure literally
exists. CX-0002C, Q&A 438. Instead, Mr. Smith argues that the ' 611 patent shows
torsion springs as a possible alternative to the disclosed rocker mechanism, and then
points to the torsion springs in his hypothetical model as an equivalent structure of
a "rocker mechanism." CX-0002C, Q&A 438. However, the MacRocker has no
torsion springs; indeed, Mr. Smith had to draw them onto a picture of the
MacRocker. RX-0392C, Q&A 94-95. Here again, Mr. Smith is relying on a two-
step analysis that is one step too far.
* 	* 	*
207

PUBLIC VERSION
A POSA would not conclude that the MacRocker infringes the claim
element "rocker mechanism" of claim 1 of the '611 patent. As a result, GCI has
failed to carry its burden of proving that the MacRocker chairs infringe claim 1 of
the '611 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Resps. Br. at 100-04.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "rocker mechanism" is
construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1 12(£), and the function is identified in claim one as "for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward and reaiward
positions." As propo se d by GCI, it is determined that the structure corresponding to the claimed
"rocker mechanism" includes the following portions of the specification: col. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4,
ln. 11, col 6, lns. 56-64, col. 7, lns. 42-64, col. 11 , lns. 17-32, col. 11 , ln. 55 - col. 12 , ln. 27, and
FIGS. 2, 6, and 9.
GCI argues that the MacRocker uses an equivalent of a torsion spring, which th e ' 611
patent teaches as a corresponding structure for the rocker mechanism. See Compl. Br. at 110.
The '611 patent recites, in pertinent part, "In still another alternate embodiment, the rocker
mechanism comprises a torsion spring operatively associated with the fulcrum point of each
frame side assembly." JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 4, Ins. 8-11. The ' 611 patent further recites,
in pertinent part, "In alternate designs, this rocker mechanism 32 can be replaced by torsion
springs provided on the lower portion of each frame side member assembly- 	for example, at the
fulcrum point of each frame assemb ly on a support runne r. " Id. at co l. 11, lines 21-25.
GCI contends that the MacRocker's flat elastic member is an equivalent of the torsion
spring disclosed in the ' 611 patent. See Comp!. Br. at 109-10. GCI argues, "[T]he MacRocker
has a rocker mechanism in the fo rm of a spring member that runs the length of the bottom of the
chair and supports the chair frame during movement between forward and reaiward rocking
208

PUBLIC VERSION
positions." Compl. Br. at 109.
The administrative law judge finds that the MacRocker does not include a torsion spring,
or the equivalent of a torsion spring, as GCI contends. Mr. Smith testified:
A compliant member is most certainly an equivalent of a torsion spring provided
on the lower member. For example, compliant mechanisms are equivalent to and
typically 	analyzed 	and 	designed using the 	pseudo-rigid-body model 	which
"predicts 	the deflection path and force-deflection 	relationships of a flexible
segment. The motion is modeled by rigid links attached at pin joints. Springs are
added to the model to accurately predict the force-deflection relationships of the
compliant segments." Compliant Mechanisms at p. 135 (CX-0018). As rigid links
with a torsion spring are used to model flexible members, they are clearly
equivalent structures. An example of a compliant member and its pseudo-rigid-
body model are shown above. This concept is also discussed further in the body of
the repo1t.
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 524. Dr. Howle testified:
Additionally; at Mr. Smith argues that "[a] compliant member is most
certainly an equivalent of a torsion spring provided on the lower member." CX-
0002C (Smith Witness Statement), Q7A 524. I disagree with this statement as a
POSITA would understand that Mr. Smith 's purported compliant memb er is
actuated by and returns a linear force transverse to the long axis of the purported
compliant member. Conversely, a torsion spring is actuated by and returns a torque
applied to the end of the spring. Therefore, a purported compliant member and a
torsion spring operate in a different way to produce a different result.
RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 117.
The administrative law judge finds that the compliant member is actuated by and returns
a linear force transverse to the long axis of the purported compliant member, rather than a torque
applied to the end of the spring. A torsion spring requires a torque to be applied to the spring,
rather than a linear force on an elastic member.
Moreover, the MacRocker's compliant member functions in a substantially different way
from the torsion spring disclosed in the '6 11 patent. Dr. Howle testified that the contact point
between the MacRocker and the ground moves as the chair rocks backwards and forwards. See
209

PUBLIC VERSION
id. at Q/A 116. In contrast to the static support runner of the '61 1 patent, while the MacRocker's
compliant member flexes and moves. Id. Thus, the MacRocker does not have an equival ent
structure to the "rocker mechanism" disclosed by the '6 11 patent.
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not satisfy this claim limitatio n.
ii. 	Westfield
The Mulberry Bounce Chair does not include "at least one rocker mechanism attached to
the chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said
forward and rearward positions." RX-0451C (Cameron RWS) at Q/A 115-20.
GCI argues, in part:
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies the clain1 element "at least one
rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair during
movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward positions"
as recited by claim 1 of the '611 Patent. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 582-98,
677-85.
Us ing the PRBM, a POSITA would understand that the leaf spring in the
Westfield chair is equivalent to and interchangeable with a rigid linkage of two
links with a torsion spring at a pin joint (i.e., the equivalent fulcrnm point) between
the links. CX-0002C (SmithDWS) atQ/A 654, 668;seealso CX-0018.0001; CDX-
0019. As set forth in column 11 lines 17-32 of the '61 1 Patent, one of the alternative
corresponding strncture for the "rocker mechanism" is a torsion spring. JX-0002
('611 Patent) at 11 :21-25 . Thus, as rig id links with a torsion spring are used to
model the l eaf spring, a POSITA would furiher recognize the leaf spring in the
Westfield chair is an equivalent of a torsion spring as expressly recited in the '611
Patent. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 597,682,684; Tr. (Smith) at 275:21-277:6
(explaining why a POSITA would view a leaf spring as equivalent to a torsion
spring). In addition, the leaf spring in Westfield's chair performs the function of
"supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward
and rearward positions," as recited by the clain1. Id. at Q/A 598. Thus, the Westfield
chair has a literal "rocker mechanism." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 685.
Compl. Br. at 128.
Westfie ld argues, in pari:
GCI, Westfield, and MacSports now agree that the rocker mechanism
limitation should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(f). 	The WBC does not
210

PUBLIC VERSION
contain any equivalent to 	the "rocker mechanism" means disclosed in the
specification of the '611 patent. To detemune whether a§ 112(f) claim limitation
is met, the court must compare the accused structure with the disclosed structure,
and must find both equivalent structure, and identity of claimed function for that
structure. See Lockheed Martin Corp v. Space Sys/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1319
(Fed Cir. 2003); Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovasculare Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d
1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
* 	* 	*
Mr. Smith relies on the "torsion spring" rocker mechanism embodiment
disclosed in the '611 patent for the basis for his conclusion that the WBC's steel
plate satisfies this limitation. See CX-0002C, Q&A 678; Hrg. Tr. (Snuth) at 161: 16-
162:4. 	He acknowledges, however, that the WBC does not actually contain a
torsion spring that satisfies the rocker mechanism's function. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at
161:16-162:4, 275:25-276:4. Rather, he asserts that the WBC steel plate spring is
equivalent to the torsion spring embodiment, based entirely on his flawed Pseudo-
Rigid-Body-Model theo1y that forms the basis of his "fulcrum point" limitation
opinions. 	Id.; compare CX-0002C, Q&A 678-85, with id. Q&A 665-72. For the
reasons identified above at Section Ill.B.2.b, Mr. Smith 's Pseudo-Rigid-Body
Model is inapplicable to the steel plate spring of the WBC. See RX-0451C; Q&A
117-20. As such, his Pseudo-Rigid-Body-Model theory does not support the notion
that the WBC steel plate spring is equivalent to a torsion spring.
Moreover, GCI's § l 12(f) analysis fails because it has not shown that the
steel plate spring of the WBC meets the FWR test. In order for an accused structure
to be equivalent to a structure disclosed in the '611 patent specification under
§ 112(f), the accused structure must perform the clain1ed function in substantially
the same way to achieve substantially the same result. See EMD Millipore Corp. v.
AllPure Techs., Inc., 768 F.3d 1196, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Smith completely failed
to conduct this FWR analysis. 	See generally CX-0002C. 	Indeed, Mr. Smith's
description of the torsion spring "twist[ing] to store energy," is inapplicable to the
Westfield WBC's spring steel. Hrg. Tr. (Snuth) at 275:21-24; see also Hrg. Tr.
(Lee) at 490:22-491:21. Because Mr. Snuth failed to conduct the necessary
Function-Way-Result analysis, and GCI has no other expert witness testimony, GCI
has failed to meet its evidentiary burden of whether the rocker mechanism
linutation of the asserted claims of the '611 patent is present under§ 112(f).
* 	* 	*
Dr. Cameron conducted a correct§ 112(f) analysis and concluded that the
WBC did not have the required equivalence. RX-045 1C at 41 -43; RDX-0051 at 5.
As she testified, to faithfully replicate the "rocker mechanism" functionality of the
steel spring of the WBC with a torsion spring - as Mr. Smith suggests - the spring
constant of the torsion spring would have to vary depending on each particular user
and other loading variables. Hrg. Tr. (Cameron) at 380:6-8. But there is no real-
211

PUBLIC VERSION
world torsion spring that can change its spring constant in re sponse to a u ser rocking
in the chair, or between different chair users, and clearly no such spring was
disclosed in the specification of the '611 patent. Mr. Smith's suggestion that the
spring steel of the WBC is thus interchangeable or equivalent with the torsion
spring embodiment briefly described in column 11, lines 17 through 25 of the '611
patent ("rocker mechanism 32 can be replaced by torsion springs provided on the
lower portion of each frame side assembly member - for example, at the fulcrum
point of each frame assembly on a support runner") necessarily fails.
Resps. Br. at 89-91 (footnote omitted).
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "rocker mechanism" is
construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § l 12(f), and the function is identified in claim one as "for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward
positions." As proposed by GCI, it is dete1mined that the structure corresponding to the claimed
"rocker mechani sm" includes the fo llowing portions of the specification: co l. 3, In. 55 - col. 4,
ln. 11, col 6, lns. 56-64, co l. 7, lns. 42-64, col. 11, lns. 17-32, col. 11, ln. 55 - col. 12 , ln. 27, and
FIGS. 2, 6, and 9.
GCI argues that the Mulberry Bounce Chair uses an equivalent of a torsion spring, which
the '6 11 patent teaches as a corresponding structure for the rocker mechanism. See Compl. Br.
at 128. The '611 patent recites, in pertinent part, "In still another alternate emb od iment, the
rocker mechani sm comprises a torsion spring operatively associated with the fulcrum point of
each frame side assembly." JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 4, lns. 8-11. The '61 1 patent further
recites, in pertinent part, "In alternate designs, this rocker mechanism 32 can be replaced by
torsion springs provided on the lower portion of each frame si de member assembly- 	for
example, at the fulcrum point of each frame assembly on a support runner." Id. at col. 11, lines
21 -25.
GCI argues, "[A] POSITA would understand that the leaf spring in the Westfield chair is
212

PUBLIC VERSION
equivalent to and interchangeable with a rigid linkage of two links with a torsion spring at a pin
joint (i.e., the equivalent fulcrum point) between the links." Compl. Br. at 128. However, at the
hearing, M r. Smith testified, "A torsion spring is a spring that -- instead of compressing linearly
to store energy, a torsion spring twists to store energy." Smith T r. 2 75 .
The administrative law judge finds that the Mulberry Bounce Chair does not include a
torsion spring, or the equivalent of a torsion sprin g. Mr. Smith testified:
[A] PRBM for the compliant member of the Mulben-y Bounce Chair is shown in
CDX-0019, with the equivalent rigid links drawn in blue, and the torsion spring
re presented 	in 	green. 	This 	rigid 	body 	mechanism 	is 	equivale nt 	to 	and
interchangeable with the compliant memb er of the Mulberry Bounce Chair. Thus,
under either party's construction of "rocker mechanism," the Mulberry Bounce
Chair still has this element and infringes.
CDX-0019
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 684. Dr. Cameron testified:
213

PUBLIC VERSION
The structure of a torsion spring at a fulcrum point forces the chair frame to move
in a circle about the fulcrum point. The Mulberry Bounce Chair, on the other hand,
is not constrained to rotate about any particular point. Without the presence of an
actual fulcrum point, different and dynamic loads will not be absorbed (hence the
support part of the construction of fulcrum) to force the motion to be circular about
the fulcrum point. The trajectory of the motion will depend on the input force,
leading to a much different feel of the Mulberry Bounce Chair compared to a chair
with a fulcrum. Mr. Smith does not appear to have considered the different effects
of dynamic loading or even different static l oadings (e.g., whether th e motion of
the chair changes depending on the seated position of th e user or the weight of the
user) on the Mulberry Bounce Chair as opposed to a chair with a torsion spring at
an actual fulcrum point.
RX-0451C (Cameron RWS) at Q/A 117.
The administrative law judge finds that the Mulberry Bounce Chair does not include a
torsion sp1ing, or the equivalent of a torsion spring, for the following reasons. First, as discussed
above with regard to the "fulcrum point" limitation, Westfield 's steel plate cannot be replaced
with the proposed equivalent of a mechanism consisting of 2 links, 1 pin, and 1 torsion spring.
Mr. Smith misapplies the PRBM in the conte xt of th e Mulberry Bounce Chair because, under
nom1al rocking condition, the steel plate spring must pa ss through a Case III loading with an
inflection point. Second, Westfield 's steel plate does not function in the same way as a torsion
spring to achieve the same result. Mr. Smith 's description of the torsion spring ("twist[ing] to
store energy") is inapplicable to the Westfield steel plate. Smith Tr. 275.
It is therefore determined that the Mu lberry Bounce Chair does not satisfy this claim
lintitatio n.
k. 	wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross
members generally correspond to the set-up and
collapsed conditions of the chair.
The MacRocker satisfies "wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross members
generally correspond to the set-up and collapsed conditions of the chair." CX-0002C (Smith
214

PUBLIC VERSION
DWS) at Q/A 439-43. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker satisfies this limitation.
See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
The Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies "wherein the open and closed conditions of the
cross members generally co 1Tespond to the set-up and collapsed conditions of the chair."
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 599-602. Westfield does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce
Chair satisfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused MacSpo1ts and Westfield products do not
infringe asserted independent claim 1 of the ' 611 patent.
2. 	Claim 2
The MacSpoiis and Westfield products are accused of infringing dependent claim 2 of
the '611 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1
As discussed above, the accused MacSports and Westfield products do not satisfy all
limitations of independent claim 1.
b. 	wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least
two contact points with the support surface on which
said frame side assembly is set up.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused MacRocker satisfies the
additional clain1 2 limitation "wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least two contact
points with the support surface on which said frame side assembly is set up." See CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 445. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker satisfies this claim
lintitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
215

PUBLIC VERSION
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Mulberry Bounce Chair
satisfies the additional claim 2 limitation "wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least
two contact points with the support surface on which said frame side assembly is set up." See
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 604-06. Westfield does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce
Chair satisfies this claim limitation. See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the accused MacSports and Westfield products do not
infringe asserted dependent claim 2 of the '611 patent.
3. 	Claim 8
The MacRocker is accused of infringing dependent claim 8 of the '611 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1
As discussed above, the accused MacRocker does not satisfy all limitations of
independent claim I.
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least
one of the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of
each side frame assembly.
As noted above, "rocker mechanism" is construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § l 12(f), and the
function is identified in claim one as "for supporting the chair during movement of the chair
frame betv..,een said forward and rearward positions." None of the disclosed structures in the
'611 patent corresponds to the flat elastic member of the MacRocker.
As there is no rocker mechanism on the MacRocker, the MacRocker does not satisfy this
claim limitation.
* 	* 	*
216

PUBLIC VERSION
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not infringe asserted dependent claim
8 of the '611 patent.
4. 	Claim 10
The Mulberry Bounce Chair is accused of infringing dependent claim 10 of the '611
patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1
As discussed above, the accused Mulberry Bounce Chair does not satisfy all limitations
of independent claim 1.
b. 	wherein each cross member includes a front portion, a
central front-back portion, and a rear portion, such that
the front portions of the pair of cross members are
pivotally connected at a front pivot point, the rear
portions of the pair of cross members are pivotally
connected at a rear pivot point, and the central front-
back portions collectively define the seat support of the
chair and receive the flexible seat panel therebetween
for supported a seated user.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused Mulberry Bounce Chair
satisfies the additional claim 10 limitation "wherein each cross member includes a front portion,
a central front-back portion, and a rear portion, such that the front portions of the pair of cross
members are pivotally connected at a front pivot point, the rear portions of the pair of cross
members are pivotally connected at a rear pivot point, and the central front-back portions
collectively define the seat support of the chair and receive the flexible seat panel therebetween
for supported a seated user." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 608-20.
Westfield does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies this claim limitation.
See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
* 	* 	*
217

PUBLIC VERSION
It is therefore determined that the Mulberry Bounce Chair does not infr inge asserted
dependent claim 10 of the ' 611 patent.
5. 	Claim 11
The Mulberry Bounce Chair is accused of infringing dependent claim 11 of the '611
patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 10, further comprising:
As discussed above, the accused Mulberry Bounce Chair does not satisfy all limitations
of independent claim 1, upon wh ich claim 10 depends.
b. 	a forward support brace connected between the front
portion of each cross member and the front leg portion
of the frame side assembly to which the cross member is
not pivotally connected at the terminal end thereof; and
a rear support brace connected between the rear
portion of each cross member and the rear leg portion
of said frame side assembly.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the Mulberry Bounce Chair includes the
additional claim 11 limitations: "a forward support brace connected between the front portion of
each cross member and the front leg portion of the frame side assembly to which the cross
member is not pivotally connected at the terminal end th ereof; and a rear support brace
connected between the rear portion of each cross member and the rear leg portion of said frame
side assembly." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 622-27.
Westfie ld does not contest that the Mulberry Bounce Chair satisfies this claim limitation.
See Resps. Br. at 72-92.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the Mulberry Bounce Chair does not infringe asserted
dependent claim 11 of th e ' 611 patent.
218

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION
d. 	a fulcrum point supporting each frame side assembly
and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions
The administrative law judge finds that the MacRocker does not include the claimed
fulcrum point.
GCI concedes that the MacRocker does not literally infringe but contends that it infringes
under the doctrine of equivalents. See, e.g., Smith Tr. 199. GCI bases that contention solely on
Mr. Smith's testimony, where Mr. Smith relies on the PRBM. Id. at 16-18. GCI relies on the
following analysis from Mr. Smith:
The MacRocker meets this lintitation under the doctrine of equivalents as
the flexible member perfom1s substantially the same function in substantially the
same way producing substantially the same result as the claimed fulcrum point. It
is well known in designing compliant mechanisms that "[f]or each 	flexible
segment. .. the motion is modeled by rigid links attached at pin joints." Compliant
Mechanisms at p. 135 (CX-0018). The pin joint is referred to as the characteristic
pivot and is equivalent to a fulcrum point as the differences are insubstantia l. The
function of the fulcrum point is to allow movement between forward and backward
positions, the way is by providing a pivot (real or characteristic/theoretical), and
the result is rocking motion of the chair frame. It is this configuration that allows
the chair to move between forward and rearward positions.
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 432.
GCI additionally relies on the following testimony of Mr. Smith:
The compliant member in the MacRocker is equivalent to a pair of rigid
links with a fulcrum point, as I've illustrated in CDX-0008. The compliant
member's fulcrum point performs substantially the same function of supporting the
chair and allowing motion about it, in substantially the same way, by providing a
pivot either real or characteristic, and having substantially the same result: rocking
motion of the frame.
220

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX -0008
Id. at Q/A 663.
The administrative law judge finds that Mr. Smith's qualitative analysis incorrectly
applied the PRBM to the accused products. Mr. Smith relies on a reference book, Compliant
Mechanisms, by Professor Howell, throughout his PRBM analysis. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at
Q/A 647 (citing CX-0018 (Compliant Mechanisms), p. 135). Professor Howell's book recites:
"The key for each pseudo-1igid-body model is to decide where to place the pin joints and what
value to assign the spring constants." CX-0018, p. 134. Mr. Smith testified that he never
calculated a single spring constant. Smith Tr. 207-209. In failing to perform any calculations,
Mr. Smith never quantified the actual operation of the MacRocker. This analysis both
contravened the instrnctions in the quoted reference, and lacked quantitative analysis which
could be tested and verified to ensure that the infringement analysis properly compares the
221

PUBLIC VERSION
construed claim to the accused product. See, e.g., Bd. of Regents of the Un iv. of Tex. Sys. v.
BENQ Am. C01p., 533 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
As noted above, "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said chair
frame can move b etween forward and rearward positions" means "a point on which a chair frame
is supported and about which the chair frame pivots." In contrast, th e MacRocker uses a flex ible
compliant member (called a compliant mechanism by GCI) that b ends and rolls more like a
traditional rocking chair.
Mr. Smith's opinion does not rely on any tests of the MacRocker, and Mr. Smith testified
that the MacRocker chair "moved differently" from the GCI chair. Smith Tr. 193-194.
Dr. Howle conducted two primary sets of tests on the MacRocker chairs to assess
whether they infringe the '611 patent. First, he recorded a v ideo of the lower elastic beam as the
chairs rocked backward and extracted images showing the initial and final contact pressure areas.
RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 65-70; RX-0 391. This test showed that the MacRocker does
not have a fulcrum point about which th e chair rotates and, instead, rolls along the ground like a
traditional rocking chair. RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 71-73.
As explained in detail in his witness statement, D r. Howie's second set of tests involved
the use of pressure sensitive film to document the contact stress, or pressure, between the
MacRockers and a rigid s urface on which he placed them . See id. at Q/A 74-83. This test
showed that the two MacRocker chairs roll along the ground as they are rocked. See id. at QIA
84-86. Dr. Howle then explained that th ese tests led him to conclude that th e MacRocker chairs
lack a fulcrum point and do not infringe the '6 11 patent literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents. He testified that the MacRockers do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents
"because they do not function in the same way (pivoting vs. ro lling) to produce the same result
222

PUBLIC VERSION
(pivoting rocking vs. rolling rocking)." See id. at Q/A 87-88. Mr. Smith testified that pressure
sensitive film is used by engineers, commonly used by those of skill in the art, and that he has
used it before, but did not use it here. Smith Tr. 197-198.
The administrative law judge finds that the MacRocker 's flexible compli ant member
bends and rolls in a manner that is substantially different from that of th e invention of the '61 1
patent. When there are such significant differences, a doctri ne of equivalents analysis fail s. See
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int 'l, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1344-45 (Fed.
Ci r. 2016) ("A finding to the contrary would render the requirement that the feedback signals be
'd ist inct '- 	the feature described by the inventor as critical to the invention's novelty-
meaningless. "); Wallace London & Clemco Prods. v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534,
1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("Application of the docttine of equivalents is the exception .. . not the rule,
for if the public comes to believe (or fear) that the language of patent claims can never be relied
o n, and that the doctrine of equivalents is simply the second prong of every infringement charge,
regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims, then claims will cease to
serve their intended purpose.").
The MacRocker is more like the prior art rocking chair shown in Figure 1 of the '6 11
patent than the chair including the clain1ed fulcrum point. Smith Tr. 215; JX-0002 ('611 patent)
at Figure l; RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 67-73, 87. The claimed "fulcrum point" of the
'611 patent pivots the chair around a fixed point, pushing against a spring, and Mr. Smith
testified that the "fulcrum point" of the '611 patent does not move along the ground. Smith Tr.
210. Mr. Smith further explained that, in the model he constructed, the claimed fulcrum point
does not move as the chair rocks forward and backward. See id. at 210-211. However, as Dr.
Howle testified to in his witness statement, the fulcrum point of the MacRocker does move as the
223

PUBLIC VERSION
chair rocks back and fo1th. See RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 71-73.
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not satisfy this claim limitation.
e. 	whereby the front and rear leg portions move relative to
the support surface on which the chair is set up with
movement of the chair frame about the fulcrum points;
The MacRocker satisfies "whereby the front and rear leg portions move relative to the
support surface on which the chair is set up with movement of the chair frame about the fulcrum
points." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 473-75. MacSports does not contest that the
MacRocker satisfies th is limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
f. 	a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally
connected to one another for pivotal movement between
The MacRocker includes "a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally
connected to one another for pivotal movement between." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 476-
79. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker includes this limitation. See Resp s. Br. at
92-107.
g. 	an open condition wherein said cross members are
disposed to generally resemble an X-shaped
configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross
members are disposed in generally parallel relationship
with one another,
The MacRocker satisfies "an open condition wherein said cross m embers are disposed to
generally resemb le an X-shaped configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross
members are dispo sed in generally parallel relationship with one another." CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 480-83. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker satisfies this limitation.
See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
224

PUBLIC VERSION
h. 	said cross members collectively defining a seat support
when in the open condition,
The MacRocker satisfies "said cross members collectively defining a seat support when
in the open condition." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 484-86. MacSports does not contest
that the MacRocker sati sfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
i. 	each cross member having terminal ends thereof
pivotally secured to the front leg portion and the rear
leg portion of one of the frame side assemblies;
The MacRocker satisfies "each cross member having terminal ends thereof pivotally
secured to the front leg portion and the rear leg poiiion of one of th e frame side assemblies."
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 487-90. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker
satisfies this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
j. 	a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross
members and defining a generally taut seat when the
cross members are in the open condition;
The MacRocker includes "a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross members and
defining a generally taut seat when the cross members are in the open condition." CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 491 -94. MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker includes this
limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
k. 	a first foot associated with the front leg portion of each
frame side assembly;
The MacRocker includes "a first foot associated with the front leg portion of each frame
side assembly." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 495-99. MacSports does not contest that the
MacRocker includes this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
225

PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	a second foot associated with the rear leg portion of
each frame side assembly;
The MacRocker includes "a second foot associated with the rear leg portion of each
frame side assembly." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at QI A 500-04. MacSports does not contest
that the MacRocker in cludes this limitation. See Resps. Br. at 92-107.
m. 	a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each
frame side assembly;
The MacRocker does not include "a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each
frame side assembly." See RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 130.
GCI argues, in part:
The MacRocker also satisfies the claim element "a third foot associated
with the fulcrum point of each frame side assembly," as recited by claim 14 of
the ' 611 Patent. CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 505-11. As shown in CDX-0007
through CDX-0009, CDX-0080, and CDX-0081, the MacRocker has an equivalent
fulcrum point. As shown in CDX-0117, the MacRocker has a third foot associated
with the general location of the equivalent fulcrum point of each frame side
assembly (i.e., at the point where the spring member contacts the ground). CX-
0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 506. Further, as shown in CDX-0117, when a user is
seated in the chair, a portion of the spring member contacts the ground/support
surface ("protruding" toward the ground, under MacSport's construction) near the
fulcrum point, thereby providing support for the chair frame. Id. at Q/A 507.
This contact area with the ground surface is further evidenced by Dr.
Howie's pressure-sensitive film test and Mr. Smith's paper thickness gauge tes t.
See RDX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 80-85; Tr. (Smith) at 281:13-283:7; RX-
0064 (illustrating the position relationship between the equivalent fulcrum point
and the portion of the flexible member contacting the ground); T r. (Howle) at
446:5-448: 17 (confoming that, besides the front and back end caps, there is also a
po1tion near the middle of the spring member that contacts the ground during
rocking).
This linlitation is satisfied under either party's proposed construction. CX-
0002C (Snlith DWS) at Q/A 510. The structures identified here are plainly each "a
contact at the lower portion of each side of a chair frame, each corresponding to a
point on which the chair frame is supported and about which the chair frame
pivots," as proposed by GCI. Id. at Q/A 511. The contact area is also associated
with the equivalent fulcrum point, as shown in RX-0064. Tr. (Snlith) at 282: 10-
283: 1.
226

PUBLIC VERSION
In addition, the MacRocker also meets MacSports's proposed constrnction
of the "third foot" (i.e., "a protrnsion toward the ground or other support surface
from the frame side assembly near the fulcrnm point,") at least under the doctrine
of equivalents. CX-0002C ( Smith DWS) at Q/A 509. For example, the portion of
the spring member that remains in contact with the support surface on which the
chair rests while rocking is equivalent to the claimed "third foot," at least because
it performs the same function (acting as a contact to support a portion of the chair
frame), in the same way (by directly engaging and contacting the support surface),
to achieve the same result (supporting the chair frame while rocking and stationary).
Id. Again, that contact area is associated with the equivalent fulcrnm point as shown
in RX-0064. Tr. (Smith) at 282:10-283:1.
In short, this limitation is met literally under GCl's proposed constrnction
of the "third foot." Fmther, the re are insubstantial differences between the claimed
"third foot" and the equival ent structure on the MacRocker on which the chair
frame rests under MacSport's proposed construction. CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at
Q/A 509.
Compl. Br. at 115-16.
MacSports argues, in part:
This claim phrase appears in clain1 14, and is not practiced by the
MacRocker. Under GCl's construction, this claim element reads "a contact at the
lower portion of each side of a chair frame, each corresponding to a point on which
the chair frame is supported and about which the chair frame pivots'' but the
MacRocker does not have a fulcrnm point, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents. Thus, under GCl's construction, the MacRocker does not have a third
foot. RX-0392C, Q&A 130.
Likewise, under MacSports' construction "a protrusion toward the ground
or other support surface from the frame side assembly near the fu lcrum point," this
claim l imitation is absent from the MacRocker. F irst, there is no fulcrum point on
the MacRocker under MacSports' construction of "fulcrum point," literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents. 	RX-0392C, Q&A 131. 	Second, there is no
"protrusion toward the ground or other support surface from the frame side
assembly near the fulcrnm point." Id.
The elastic beam of the MacRocker is in direct contact with the ground
during portions of normal operation, so there is no component protruding from the
frame side assembly that acts as a foot. Mr. Smith's purported first foot and second
foot are separate components that hold or contain a portion of the elastic member.
Yet, despite the obvious differences, Mr. Smith does not explain why or how one
part of a long elastic member should be understood as literall y showing a foo t. RX-
0392C, Q&A 132.
227

PUBLIC VERSION
The MacRocker elastic member does not comprise a "third foot" under the
doctrine of equivalents. RX-0392C, Q&A 133. The elastic member flexes as the
chair rocks back and forth, and the contact area between the elastic member and the
ground surface does not remain stationary but rath er travels toward the rear of the
chair. Id . Thus, it does not support the chair frame in the same way as a literal foot
woul d.
Resps. Br. at 92- 107.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "a third foot associated with the
fulcrum point of each frame side assem bly" means "a contact at the lower portion of each side of
a chair frame, each corresponding to a point on which the chair frame is supported and about
which the chair frame pivots."
As noted above, the MacRocker uses a flexible compliant member (called a compliant
mechanism by GCI) that bends and ro ll s more like a traditional rocking chair. Hence, the
MacRocker does not include "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which said
chair frame c an move between forward and rearward positions."
As there is no fulcrum point on the MacRocker, there is no third foot associated with the
fulcrum point of each frame side assembly.
n. 	wherein each frame side assembly contacts the support
surface on which said frame side assembly is s et up with
at least hvo of the first, second and third feet at all
positions between the fonvard and reanvard positions
of the chair frame.
The MacRocker does not satisfy "w herein each frame side assembly contacts th e support
surface on which said frame side assembly is set up with at least two of the first, second and third
feet at all positions between the forward and rearward positions of the chair frame." RX-0392C
(Howle RWS) at Q/A 134-35.
GCI argues, in part:
228

PUBLIC VERSION
For the same rea so ns described already, the MacRocker has the required
"third foot." CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 505-11: see also id. at Q/A 516-17.
CDX-0117 	CDX-0118
... When the chair is rocked backward, at least t he second and third feet remain in
contact with th e support surface and the rocking backward of the chair causes the
chair to rest also on the third foot located at or near the fulcrum point. CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 514; Tr. (Howle) at 447:22-25, 448:9-17. Similarly, Mr.
Smith paper thickness gauge test shows at least two feet contacting the ground at
all times. See Tr. (Smith) at 281: 13-283:7; RX-0064 (illustrating the position
relationship between the equivalent fulcrum point and the portion of the flexible
member contacting the ground).
Compl. Br. at 116-17.
MacSpoiis argues, in part:
The MacRocker does not practice this claim limitation of claim 14 under
either GCI' s construction "of three contact surfaces at the lower portion of each
side of the chair frame, at least two of said contact surfaces touch the surface on
which the chair frame sits in a set up condition at any position of the chair frame
during rocking motion of the chair frame" or MacSports' construction " at least 2
feet must always be in contact with the ground or support surface." This is because,
in part, the accused MacRocker does not have a third foot. RX-0392C, Q&A 134-
35.
Therefore, under either GCI's or MacSports' construction for this claim
element, the accused MacRocker does not maintain contact with the support surface
with at least two of the first, second, and third feet at all positions between the
forward and rearward positions of the chair frame. Id. Thus, th e MacRocker does
not literally practice this claim element. 	This element is also not practiced under
the doctrine of equivalents, as two contacts being on the ground at all times is
substantially different than having one contact on the ground. 	RX-0392C, Q&A
136.
Resps. Br. at 92-107.
229

PUBLIC VERSION
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "wherein each frame side
assembly contacts the support surface on which said frame side assembly is set up with at least
two of the first, second and third feet at all positions between the forward and rearward positions
of the chair frame" means "at least two of the first, second and third feet must always be in
contact with the ground or other support surface."
As noted above, the MacRocker does not incl ude "a fulcrum po int supporting the chair
frame and about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions," and
hence does not include "a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of each frame side
assembly."
Mr. Smith testified that, during normal operation, the elastic beams of the MacRocker
lifts completely off the ground. Smith Tr. 21 1. This leaves the only contact between the chair
and ground at t he end-cap of the elastic beam. RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 134-35. Also,
dming most normal operation, the front poition of the MacRocker elastic beam would leave the
ground and, as the MacRocker does not have a third foot, that leaves only the second foot still in
contact with a support surface. See id.
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not satisfy this claim limitation.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not infringe asserted i ndependent
claim 14 of the '611 patent.
7. 	Claim 15
The MacRocker is accused of infringing dependent claim 15 of the '611 patent.
230

PUBLIC VERSION
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 14
As discussed above, the accused MacRocker does not satisfy all limitations of
independent claim 14.
b. 	further comprising at least one rocker mechanism
attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair
during movement of the chair frame between the
forward and rearward positions.
The construction of this claim term was discussed above; "rocker mechanism" is
construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § l 12(f), and the function is identified in claim one as "for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between said forward and rearward
positions." As proposed by GCI, it is detem1ined that the structure corresponding to the claimed
"rocker mechani sm" includes the following portions of the specification: co l. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4,
ln. 11, col 6, lns. 56-64, col. 7, lns. 42-64, col. 11, lns. 17-32, col. 11, ln. 55 - col. 12, ln. 27, and
FIGS. 2, 6, and 9.
GCI argues that the MacRocker uses an equivalent of a torsion spring, which the '6 11
patent teaches as a co ITesponding structure for the rocker mechanism. See Compl. Br. at 110.
The ' 611 patent recites, in pertinent part, "In still another alternate embodiment, the rocker
mechanism comprises a torsion spring operatively associated with the fulcrum point of each
frame side assembly." JX-0002 ('611 patent) at co l. 4, lns. 8-11. The '611 patent further recites,
in pertinent part, "In alternate designs, this rocker mechanism 32 can be replaced by torsion
springs provided on the lower portion of each frame side member assembly- 	for example, at the
fulcrum point of each frame assembly on a support runner." Id. at col. 11 , lines 21-25.
GCI contends that the MacRocker's flat elastic member is an equivalent of the torsion
spring disclosed in the ' 611 patent. See Compl. Br. at 109-10. GCI argues, "[T]he MacRocker
23 1

PUBLIC VERSION
has a rocker mechanism in the form of a spring member that runs the length of the bottom of the
chair and supports the chair frame during movement between forward and reaiward rocking
positions." Compl. Br. at 109.
The administrative law judge finds that the MacRocker chair does not include a torsion
spring, or the equivalent of a torsion spring, as GCI contends. Mr. Smith testified:
A compliant member is most certainly an equivalent of a torsion spring provided
on the lower member. For example, compliant mechanisms are equivalent to and
typically 	analyzed 	and 	designed using the 	pseudo-rigid-body 	model 	which
"predicts 	the deflection path and force-deflection relationships of a flexible
segment. The motion is modeled by rigid links attached at pin joints. Springs are
added to the model to accurately predict the force-deflection relationships of the
compliant segments." Compliant Mechanisms at p. 135 (CX-0018). As rigid links
with a torsion spring are used to model fl exible members, they are clearly
equival ent structures. An examp le of a compliant member and its pseudo-rigid-
body model are shown above. This concept is also discussed further in the body of
the repo1t.
CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 524. Dr. Howle testified:
Additionally, at Mr. Smith argues that "[a] compliant member is most
certainly an equivalent of a torsion spring provided on the lower member." CX-
0002C (Smith Witness Statement), Q7A 524. I disagree with this statement as a
POSITA would understand that Mr. Smith 's purported compliant member is
actuated by and returns a linear force transverse to the long axis of the purported
compliant membe r. Conversely, a torsion spring is actuated by and returns a torque
applied to the end of the spring. Therefore, a purported compliant member and a
torsion spring operate in a different way to produce a different resul t.
RX-0392C (Howle RWS) at Q/A 117.
The administrative law judge fi nds that the compliant member is actuated by and returns
a linear force transverse to the long axis of the purported compliant member, rather than a torque
applied to the end of the spring. A torsion spring requires a torque to be applied to the spring,
rather than a linear fo rce on an elastic member.
Moreover, the MacRocker's compliant member functions in a substantia lly different way
232

PUBLIC VERSION
from the torsion spring disclosed in the ' 611 patent. Dr. Howle testified that the location where
the MacRocker contacts the ground moves along the ground as the chair rocks backwards and
forwards. See id. at Q/ A 116. In contrast to the static support runner of the '6 11 patent, while
the MacRocker 's compliant member flexes and moves. See id. Thus, the MacRocker does not
have an equivalent structure to the "rocker mechanism" disclosed by the '6 11 patent.
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not satisfy this claim linlitation.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not infringe asserted dependent claim
15 of the '6 11 patent.
8. 	Claim 19
The MacRo cker is accused of infrin gi ng depe nde nt claim 19 of the '6 11 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 15
As discussed above, the accused MacRocker does not satisfy all limitations of
independent claim 14, upon which clain115 depend s. The accused MacRocker does not satisfy
the additional limitations of dependent claim 15 either.
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least
one of the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of
each side frame assembly.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the accused MacRock er satisfies the
additional clain1 19 linlitation "wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the
front leg portion and the rear leg portion of each side frame assembly." See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 526-29.
MacSports does not contest that the MacRocker satisfies this claim limitation. See Resp s.
Br. at 92-107.
233

PUBLIC VERSION
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the MacRocker does not infringe asserted dependent claim
19 of the '6 11 patent.
D. 	Technical Prong
1. 	Claim 1
GCI alleges that the Freestyle Rocker / Me sh Freestyle Rocker, FirePit Rocker, and
Beach Rocker products ("'611 GCI products") satisfy all limitations of independent claim 1 of
the ' 611 patent.
a. 	A coUapsible and portable rocking chair comprising:
The ' 61 1 GCI products all satisfy the claim 1 limitation "[a] collapsible and portable
rocking chair." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 844-46. Respondents do not contest that
this claim limitation is satisfi ed . See Resps. Br. at 168-70.
b. 	a chair frame comprising a pair of frame side
assemblies having substantiaHy mirrored construction
GCI adduced evidence showing that each of the ' 6 11 GCI products satisfies this
limitation of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 847-50. Respondents do not contest
that this claim limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 168-70.
c. 	being relatively movable with respect to one another
between a set-up condition of said chair where said
frame side assemblies are transversely spaced apart
from one another and a colJapsed condition of said
chair where said frame side assemblies are generalJy
adjacent to one another,
Each of the '611 GCI products includes this feature of clain1 1. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 851-54. Respondents do not contest that this clain1 limitation is satisfied. See
Resps. Br. at 168-70.
234

PUBLIC VERSION
d. 	each frame side assembly including a front leg portion
and a rear leg portion;
The record evidence demonstrates that the '611 GCI products satisfy the claim 1
limitation "each frame side assembly including a front leg portion and a rear leg portion." See
CX-0002C (Smith D\VS) at Q/A 855-62. Respondents do not contest that this limitation is
satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 168-70.
e. 	a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally
connected to one another for pivotal movement
Each of the '611 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at 863-66. Respondents do not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
168-70.
f. 	between an open condition wherein said cross members
are disposed to generally resemble an X-shaped
configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross
members are disposed in generally parallel relationship
with one another,
The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrates that each of the ' 611 GCI products
satisfies this limitation of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at QIA 867-72.
GCI argues, in part:
Given that Westfield never sought to construe this term, \Vestfield's
contention that "[t]he term 'generally' modifies 'parallel' to allow for only slight
deviations from parallel" is a belated claim construction argument that has been
waived. See Printing & Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Order No. 29, at
21. Regardless, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in view of
the specification. See Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1315-17.
Without explaining why the purported "noticeable angle" could not be
considered as merely a "s light deviation" in view of the teachings in the
specification, Westfield now attempts to limit the scope of the claim based on an
argument it never advanced until its motion for summary determination. ED IS Doc.
ID 706763 (GCI's Opposition to Westfield 's Motion for Summary Determination)
at 5. Westfield further seeks to construe this term in a vacuum without consulting
the explicit teachings in the specification and against the fundamental rules of clain1
235

PUBLIC VERSION
construction. See Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F .3 d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) ("We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of the term ... in a vacuum.
Rather, we must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written
description and the prosecution history.").
Essentially, Westfield ignores th e qualifier "generally" and attempts to
construe the te1m "generally parallel" devoid from the teachings in the specification
such that it would exclude the preferred embodiment disclosed in Figure 7 of the
'611 Patent. See RPreHB at 138-40. "Such an interpretation is rarely, if ever, correct
and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in
this case." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
see also CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 917- 18 ("Westfield's interpretation
ignores Figure 7 of the patent s, which clearly ties the 'generally parallel' feature to
the image shown in the Figure").
A POSITA, reading the '6 11 Patent, would have understood that "generally
parallel" does not require the cross members to be perfectly parallel. CX -0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 869-70; Tr. (Cameron) at 335:18-336:24 (confim1i.ng that
intersecting lines in CDX-0390 are "generally parallel" "with the understanding
that Figure 7 describes generally parallel"). For example, the specification teaches
that "cross members 56 are generally parallelly disposed relative to each other, as
shown in FIG. 7." JX-0002 (' 611 Patent) at 12:34-36; see also JX-0002 at 10:25-
27 (describing the cross members being "disposed adjacent to one another (Fig.
7)"). Thus, a POSITA would recognize that cross members of the '611 Patent
Covered Rockers are in a nearly identical "generally parallel relationship" to one
another, as shown in FIG. 7 (reproduced below with annotations), when they are in
the collapsed condition. This is also shown in videos CX-0173, CX-0168, and CX-
0165. Thus, Westfield has failed to prove that the '611 Patent Covered Rockers do
not satisfy the "generally parallel" limitation. When the claim language is properly
viewed in light of the specification, GCI's rockers clearly meet this limitation.
Comp!. Br. at 137-39.
Respondents argue, in part:
None of GCI's chairs practice the claims of the '611 Patent because none
contain cross members that can be "disposed in generally parallel relationship with
one another." Claim 1 of the '611 Patent contains the following limitation:
a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally connected to
one another for pivotal movement between an open condition .. . and
a closed condition wherein said cross members are disposed in
generally parallel relationship with one another,
JX-0002 at 13 :62-14:1 (emphasis added).
236

PUBLIC VERSION
Because terms are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless there
is a clear redefinition of the term in the specification or prosecution history, the
"generally paralle l" requirement of the claims of the '611 patent is not met by cross
members that cross one another when the chair is in a collapsed position. See
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; RX-0451C at 43; see also Section III.C.l. The ordinary
meaning of "parallel" is extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points,
and never converging or diverging. Mr. Smith 's definition of the term, "two lines
or planes that never cross," is in accordance with this definition. 	See Hrg. Tr.
(Smith) at 150: 13-19. The adjective "generally" in this context means mostly. The
term "generally" modifies "parallel" to allow for only sl ight deviations from
parallel. GCI proposes that the term "generally parallel" be so broad as to
encompass crossing lines - the opposite of parallel - an absurd notion.
Thus none of the GCI chairs possess the "generally parallel" requirement of
claim 1 of the '611 patent, and GCI cannot meet the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement. None of the Freestyle Rocker, Mesh Freestyle Rocker, Beach
Rocker, and FirePit Rocker collapses in a manner that the cross members are in a
parallel (or even near parallel) relationship with one another. Instead, the members
collapse into a configuration where the cross members still cross one another to
form a noticeable angle. See CPX-0004; CPX-0005; CPX-0006. This can be seen
in the images below.
* 	* 	*
Each of the Freestyle Rocker, Firepit Rocker, and Beach Rocker maintain
an X-shaped configuration when in the "closed" condition. See, e.g., CX-0002C at
Q&A 871- 73 . This X-shaped configuration is not "generally parallel" and therefore
none of these chairs practice any of the claims of the '611 patent, as both
independent clain1s require "a closed condition wherein said cross members are
disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another." 	See JX-0002 at
Claims 1 & 14. Mr. Smith identifies one of the embodin1ents of the '611 Patent,
shown in Figure 7 of the ' 611 Patent as illustrating the meaning of "generally
parallel." CX-0002C at Q&A 546. The cross members in Figure 7 are not in any
way parallel, and therefore those cross members are not "generally parallel." RX-
0451C at 45; JX-0002 at fig. 7.
The only way the cross members in Figure 7 of the ' 611 Patent are
"generally parallel" would be if it is found that the specification of the '611 Patent
redefined the meaning of"generally parallel." GCI did not make such a contention
in the claim construction disclosures in this case, and there is no definition of
"generally parallel" in the specification of the '611 Patent. Using the ordinary
meaning of "generally parallel ," none of the Westfield Bounce Chair, Freestyle
Rocker, Firepit Rocker, or Beach Rocker have "a closed condition wherein said
cross members are disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another."
RX-0451C at 45-46. Therefore, none of these chairs practice any of the claims of
the '611 Patent and GCI cannot satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry
237

PUBLIC VERSION
requirement.
Resps. Br. at 168-70.
The evidence adduced by GCI shows that each of the ' 611 GCI products satis fi es "for
pivotal movement between an open condition wherein said cross members are disposed to
generally resemble an X-shaped configuration and a closed condition wherein said cross
members are disposed in generally parallel relationship with one another." See CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 867-72. The intrinsic evidence demonstrates that "generally parallel"
describes the relative relationship of the cross members between the set-up and collapsed
conditions - the two main conditions for the chair. See at JX-0002 ('61 1 patent) at col. 9, ln s.
6-11; id. at col. 10, lns. 25-28 ("[T]he cross members 56 are moved from a relaxed state - where
they are disposed adjacent to one another (FIG. 7) - to a set-up state - where they generally fo rm
an X-shape with one another (FIG. 2)"). Contrary to Westfield 's argument, the claim language
does not preclude members that cross one another.
Accordingly, it is determined that each of the '611 GCI products satisfies this claim
limitation.
g. 	said cross members collectively defining a seat support
when in the open condition,
Each of the '611 GCI products includes this feature of clain1 1. CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 873-76. Respondents do not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
168-70.
238

PUBLIC VERSION
h. 	each cross member having terminal ends thereof
pivotally secured to the front leg portion and the rear
leg portion of one of the frame side assemblies;
Each of the '61 1 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 877-80. Respondents do not contest that t hi s claim limitation is sati sfied. See
Resps. Br. at 168-70.
i. 	a flexible seat panel mounted between the cross
members and defining a generally taut seat when the
cross members are in the open condition;
Each of the '61 1 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 881-84. Respondents do not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
168-70.
j. 	a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about
which said chair frame can move between forward and
rearward positions;
GCI adduced evidence showing that the '611 GCI products satisfy the claim 1 limitation
"a fulcrum point suppo1iing the chair frame and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 885-94. Respondents do
not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 168-70.
k. 	at least one rocker mechanism attached to the chair
frame for supporting the chair during movement of the
chair frame between said forward and rearward
positions;
Each of the ' 611 GCI products includes this feature of claim 1. CX-0002C (Smith DWS)
at Q/A 895-900. Respondents do not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at
168-7 0.
239

PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross
members generally correspond to the set-up and
collapsed conditions of the chair.
GCI adduced evidence showing that the '611 GCJ products satisfy the claim 1 limitation
"wherein the open and closed conditions of the cross members generally correspond to the set-up
and collapsed conditions of the chair." See CX-0002C (Smith DWS) at Q/A 901-04.
Respondents do not contest that this limitation is satisfied. See Resps. Br. at 168-70.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the '61 1 GCI products practice independent claim 1 of the
'611 patent.
2. 	Claim 2
GCI alleges that its '611 GCI products satisfy all limitations of dependent claim 2 of the
'611 patent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1,
As discussed above, the '611 GCI products satisfy all limitations of independent claim 1.
b. 	wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least
two contact points with the support surface on which
said frame side assembly is set up.
The evidence adduced by GCJ demonstrates that the '6 11 GCI products satisfy the
additional clain1 2 limitation "wherein each frame side assembly maintains at least two contact
points with the support surface on which said frame side assembly is set up." See CX-0002C
(Smith DWS) at Q/A 906-10.
Respondents do not contest that the '611 GCI products satisfy this claim limitatio n. See
Resps. Br. at 168-70.
* 	* 	*
240

PUBLIC VERSION
It is therefore determined that the '61 1 GCI products practice dependent claim 2 of the
'6 11 pa tent.
3. 	Claim 8
GCI alleges that its '611 GCI products satisfy the limitations of dependent claim 8 of the
'611 pa tent.
a. 	The collapsible and portable rocking chair according to
claim 1,
As discussed above, the '611 GCI products satisfy all limitations of independent claim 1.
b. 	wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least
one of the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of
each side frame assembly.
The evidence adduced by GCI demonstrates that the '611 GCI products satisfy the
additional claim 8 limitation "wherein the rocker mechanism is attached to at least one of the
front leg portion and the rear leg portion of each side frame assembly." See CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at Q/A 91 1-14.
Resp ondents do not contest that the '6 11 GCI products satisfy this claim limitation. See
Resps. Br. at 168-70.
* 	* 	*
It is therefore determined that the '611 GCI products practice depend ent claim 8 of the
'611 patent.
E. 	On-Sale Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Respondents argue, in part:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an offer for sale of a product within the scope of a
claim more than one year prior to the priority date of th e claim in validates the claim.
See, e.g., Helsinn Healthcare SA. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628, 631 -
32(2 019). Whether a patent is invalid because of an early offer for sale is a question
of law. E.g., The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 881 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
241

PUBLIC VERSION
2018). To be an offer for sale under § 102, two conditions must be satisfied: (1)
"the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale"; and (2) "the
invention must be ready for patenting," which can be satisfied by an actual or
constructive reduction to practice. Helsinn, 139 S. Ct. at 633.
* 	* 	*
Under 35 U.S.C. § 119, the priority date fo r claims of a patent can be the
filing date of a provisional application only if the provisional application discloses
the clain1ed invention "in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the
requirement to disclose the best mode)." See 35 U.S.C. § l 19(e); New Railhead
J,,ffg ., LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002). A claim can
have the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application only if the content of
the provisional application provides sufficient written description for that clain1. Id.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure at issue "must
clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor]
invented what is claimed." Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
13 51 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (quotation marks omitted). This test is based on the
disclosure in the document in question - whether the inventor actually possessed
the invention based on evidence outside the document is irrelevant to this issue. Id.
at 1352; see also id. at 135 1.
Despite the statutory presumption of validity, there is no presumption that
any clain1 can properly clain1 priority to a provisional application's priority date.
Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'! Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Therefore it is the burden of th e party asserting the benefit of earlier priority
to provide sufficient evidence to justi fy a finding that th e earlier application
contained all of the information needed to meet the requirements of § 112(a). E.g.,
Speed/it LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d. 183, 205 (E.D.N.Y. 2020);
Certain Light-Emitting Diode Prod., Initial Determination, USITC Inv. No. 337-
TA-116 8, 2020 WL 5798112, at *5 4-55 (June 26, 2020).
* 	* 	*
Under GCI and Smith 's interpretation of "generally parallel," th e Freestyle
Rocker undisputedly practices clain1s 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the ' 611 Patent. GCI
consisten tly admitted that the Freestyle Rocker practices at least clain1s 1, 2, 10,
and 11 of the '611 Patent in order to demonstrate that it satisfies the technical prong
of the domestic industry requirement. See, e.g., Am . Compl. at 26; RX-0139C at
22. Indeed, Mr. Smith provided his opinion that the Freestyle Rocker practices at
least claims 1 and 2. CX -0002C, Q&A 844-911. Although GCI's expert did not
testify regarding the additional elements of claims 10 and 11, no party contested
the fact that the Freestyle Rocker practices each of these element s. See RX-0I39C
at 22; RX-0143C at 28; Respondents' Pre. Br . at 138-41.
242

PUBLIC VERSION
It is also undisputed that GCI's Freestyle Rocker was sold and/or offered
for sale in August 2012. See RX-0127; RX-0143C at 11. GCI's own documents
demonstrate that it had tem1s and pricing for different types of customers for the
various shipping options it offered as of August 1, 2012. See RX-0127; Hrg. Tr.
(Grace) at 91:3-93:6 (discussing meaning of terminology on GCI's Price Lists).
Further, in its interrogatory responses, GCI admits that the first offer for sale was
in August 2012. RX-0143C at 11. The Freestyle Rocker was also ready for
patenting in August 2012 because it was already reduced to practice and it was
presented for sale at the August 2012 Outdoor Retailers Show. See RX-0036C at
15 :17 -21 ; RX-0143C at 10 .
The '611 patent's application was filed October 7, 2013 (JX-0002 at 2),
more than one year after the Freestyle Rocker 's August 2012 first offer for sale.
Therefore, if it is determined that the Freestyle Rocker practices any of the claims
of the '611 patent, each of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are invalid under§ 102 because,
as set forth below, GCI cannot demonstrate that the clain1s properly benefit from
the filing date of the '238 Provisional Application.
* 	* 	*
To establish priority to the ' 238 Provisional Application, GCI cannot rely
on "attorney ipse dixit and conclusory arguments," but instead must come forv..,ard
with "adequate and admissible material evidence" that each of claims 1, 2, I 0, and
11 of the '611 patent are supported by the '238 Provisional Application. See
Speedfit, 432 F. Supp. 3d at 209. The facts of this case are almost identical to those
in PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 	In
PowerOasis, defendant I-Mobile conclusively demonstrated that a system that
practiced the asserted clain1s was for sale more than a year before the filing date of
the asserted patent. 	Id. at 1305-06. Plaintiff argued defendant was required to
disprove the priority claim to an earlier application. 	Id. 	The Federal Circuit,
however, held that "[o]nce I-Mobile established by clear and convincing evidence
that the MobileStar Network was § 102(b) prior art to the asserted claims of the
'658 and '400 patents, the burden was on PowerOasis to come forward with
evidence to the contrary." Id. In other words, the burden was correctly placed on
PowerOasis "to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to claim priority
to an earlier filing date." Id.; see also Speedfit, 432 F. Supp. 3d at 208. (" [O]nce an
accused infringer 'has established a prima facie case of invalidity and its burden is
met,' the patentee bears the burden of coming forward with evidence to prove
entitlement to clain1 priority to an earlier filing date."). Because, under GCI's own
constructions, the scope of each of these claims is dependent on information
missing from the '238 Provisional Application, the claims are not supported by and
are not entitled to priority to the '238 Provisional Application.
* 	* 	*
243

PUBLIC VERSION
The ordinary meaning of the term parallel is extending in the same direction,
equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging. GCI asserts that the
inclusion of the adjective "generally" and the specification of the '611 Patent
radically expanded the meaning of "generally parallel." In particula r, GCI asserts
that Figure 7 of the '611 Patent informs a POSA as to the scope of the tem1
"generally parallel." Claim 1 (and therefore all asserted claims against Westfield)
contains the linlitation:
a pair of generally U-shaped cross members pivotally connected to
one another for pivotal movement between an open condition . .. and
a closed condition wherein said cross members are disposed m
generally parallel relationship with one another
JX-0002 at 13 :62-14:1. In order to include either GCI's or Westfield's
chairs in the scope of this clai m, GCI and its expe1t re ly on Figure 7 of the '61 1
Patent and the text located in column 12, lines 28-36 to expand the meaning of
"generally parallel." See GCI Pre. Br. at 97-98, 113; CX-0002C, Q&A 414, 482,
562, 916-18; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 151: 11 -152:08; see also JX-0002 at 12:28-36 (" . ..
positions whereby the cross-members 56 are generally parallelly disposed re lative
to each other, as shown in FIG. 7.").
* 	* 	*
Figure 7 does not appear in th e ' 238 Provisional Application. Rather, the
'238 Provisional Application has similar language regarding "cross-members
[being] generally parallelly disposed," but referring to "FIG. 6" instead of Figure
7. CX-0391 ,r [0045]. But the angle of the cross members in Figure 6 of th e ' 238
Provisional Application is much smaller than th e angle of the cross members in
Figure 7 of the '6 11 Patent. Annotated versions of"FIG. 6" of the '238 Provisional
Application and Figure 7 of the '6 11 Patent are shown below. Compare RX-0061 ,
andRX-0154, with CX-0 391 at fig. 6, and JX-0002.
RX-0061 (hlghlighted here for emphasis); RX-0154 at Fig. 7 (highlighted
for emphasis). Mr. Smith measured and identified the angles of the figures in RX-
0061 and RX-0154, included above. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 156:25 -1 57:20. He testified
that the angle of the cross members in Figure 6 of the earlier-filed '238 Provisional
Application is about 11 degrees (id. at 158: 12-24) and the angle of the cross
members in Figure 7 of later-filed application of the '6 11 patent is "about 15
degrees" (id. at 15 7:2 1-158:11)). In other words, th e measurements of GCl's own
expert shows the angle of Figure 7 of the '611 Patent is over 36% larger than the
angle of Figure 6 of the earlier '238 Provisional Application. GCI has no contrary
evidence on thls point.
As such, if, as repeatedly emphasized by GCI and its expert, Figure 7 of the
'61 1 Patent informs a POSA as to the scope of the meaning of the "generally
parallel" limitation of claim 1, nothing in the specification of the '238 Provisional
244

PUBLIC VERSION
would have informed a POSA of that same scope. Indeed, Figure 6 of the ' 238
Provisional would have infom1ed a POSA of a narrower scope of what is "generally
parallel" as of the filing date of the '238 Provisional because the angle in the ' 611
Patent figure is more than 36% larger than that in the '238 Provisional figure. This
is true even though patent figures are not typically understood as being drawn to
scale. Cf GCI's Pre. Br. at 141. GCI and Mr. Smith repeatedly emphasized that the
proportions of Figure 7 info rm a POSA of th e meaning of "generally parallel." Id.
at 97-98, 113; CX-0002C at Q&A 414, 482, 562, 916-1 8; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at
151 : 11-152:08. GCI cannot th en abandon the signifi cance of th e propo1tions in the
figures to use the general "not-to-scale" principle to avoid the consequences of th e
differences in the '238 Provisional and the '6 11 patent. And regardless of whether
these figures are to-scale, if they inform a PO SA as to the scope of the term
"generally parallel," the scope established by Figure 7 of the application of the ' 611
patent is broader than and not establish ed by Figure 6 of the provisional application.
For these reasons, if the figures inform the scope, the narrower scope of the
'238 Provisional does not support the broader scope of the "generally parallel"
limitation of the clain1s of the '611 patent. This is similar to other cases where the
written description was found lacking. See, e.g., Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F .3d 1035,
1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, the claims of th e '6 11 patent are not entitled
to claim priority to the filing date of the '2 38 Provisional.
Importantly, it is GCl's burden- not Respondents' - to demonstrate that the
'238 Provisional Application provides sufficient support of its asserted ' 6 11 Patent
claims. GCI has failed to satisfy this burden. As such, if the scope of the "generally
parallel" limitation is understood to include any of domestic industry chairs in this
Investigation, the Freestyle Rocker's August 2012 offer for sale invalidates at least
claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the ' 61 1 Patent.
Resps. Br. at 107- 13.
GCI argues, in paii:
Recycling many of the same arguments almost verbatim from its now-
denied summary determination motion, Westfield again asse rt s that the '6 11 Patent
is not entitled to claim p ri ority to a provisional application that contains a near-
identical specification. Compare RPreHB at 84-89 with Mot. No. 1178-015 at 18-
25. 	Westfield presents the same attorney arguments without any suppo1ting
testimony from either its own expert Dr. Cameron, or MacSports's experts Dr.
Howle and Dr. Lee. See generally RPreHB at 84-89.
This invalidity argument boils down to a single issue-whether th e
"generally parallel" limitation in claim 1 of the ' 61 1 Patent has sufficient written
descripti on support in the 	'238 Provisional Application. See 	id. 	To accept
Westfie ld' s argument, the ALJ would have to find (1) that the figures in both the
provisional application and the '6 11 Patent are drawn to scale and at the same
245

PUBLIC VERSION
perspective, such than an accurate angle may be measured; (2) that the slight
angular difference between Figure 7 of the '611 Patent and the corresponding
Figure 6 in the provisional application is somehow meaningful; and (3) that a
POSITA would have assigned a different meaning to "generally parallel" in the
clain1s of the '611 Patent than based on the description of that term in the
provisional application. Westfield cannot show any of thi s, let alone clearly or
convincingly.
Contrary to Westfield 's assertion that GCI provided no explanation of
priority, see RPreHB at 87, GCI's January 7, 2020 response to Westfield 's
Interrogatory No. 49 explicitly states that the Asserted Claims of the ' 61 1 Patent
are entitled to clain1 priority to the October 5, 2012 filing date of the '238
Provisional Application because (1) the subject matter of each of the Asserted
Claims was set fo rth in the ' 238 Provisional Application; and (2) at least paragraphs
[002 7] through [0048] and Figures 2 through 8 in the ' 238 Provisional Application
provide support for the Asserted Clain1s. EDIS Doc. ID 706763 (GC I's Oppo si tion
to Westfield 's Summary Determination Motion) at 7. Despite having GCI's
position for over two months, Westfield did not dispute the sufficiency of the
written description in the '2 38 Provisional Application in its invalidity contentions
or provide any explanation as to why the "generally parallel" limitation lacks
written support in th e '238 Provisional Application until the filing of its motion for
summary determination. See generally CX-0255C (Westfield's 5th Supp. Rog
Resps.) at .0019-.0022. Indeed, Dr. Cameron, Westfield's own expert, who is also
a registered patent agent knowledgeable about the written description re 9..uirement,
submitted two expert reports that never mention any purported lack of written
description support. 	See generally RX-01 21C 	(Cameron DWS); RX-0451C
(Cameron RWS).
Westfield has no expe rt testimony supporting this argument. Rather, D r.
Cameron adopted and relied on the priority date of the '238 Provisional Application
in formin.g all of her opinions in this case. See RX-012 1C (Cameron DWS) at Q/A
9-10; RX-0451C (Cameron RWS) at Q/A 5. On the other hand, GCI's expert Mr.
Smith opined that column 12, lines 28 through 36 of the '6 11 Patent, including
Figure 7. provide support for the term "generally parallel," CX-0002C (Smith
DWS) at QIA 562, 870; see also id. at Q/A 4 14 , and the ' 238 Provisional
Application contains a 	nearly verbatim written description. CX-0391 ('238
Provisional Application). Indeed, as shown below, the relevant text of the '238
Provisional Application is more than merely "similar" as suggested by Westfield
but almost verbatim the same as the written disclosure in the '6 11 Patent. Compare
CX-0391 ('238 Provisional Application) at ,r [0045] with JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at
12:28-36.
* 	* 	*
This is more than enough to provide support for GCI's priority claim. As
recognized in cases cited by Westfield, "[i]dentity of description is not necessary,"
246

PUBLIC VERSION
"[i]dentity of that which is described, however, is necessary: 'What is claimed by
the pa tent application must be the same as what is disclosed in the specification."'
New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir.
2002) ( emphasis added); see also Speed.fit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., No. l 3-CV-
1276, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4843, at *32-33 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020) (same). None
of the cases cited by Westfield supports a finding that a nearly verbatim disclosure
in a provisional disclosure is insufficient to support a priority clain1.
Compl. Br. at 142-46 (footnote omitted).
Westfield argues that the asserted claims of the '611 patent are not entitled to the priority
date of U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/710,238 ("the '238 provisional application") because the
"generally parallel" limitation lacks sufficient written description in the '238 provisional
application. See Resps. Br. at 107-13. The '238 provisional application was filed on October 5,
2012, see CX -0391 ('238 provisional application), while the '6 11 patent was filed on October 7,
2013; see JX-0002 ('611 patent). Inasmuch as GCI's Freestyle Rocker was sold and/or offered
for sale in August 2012, Westfield argues the on-sale bar renders the asserted claims of the '6 11
patent invalid. See Resps. Br. at 107- 13.
Westfield argues that the angles between cross-members shown in Figure 6 of the '238
provisional application differ from those shown between cross-members in Figure 7 of the '6 11
Patent. See id. However, "it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification
is completely silent on the issue." Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, 222 F.3d
951,956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing in re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (C.C.P.A. 1977); in re
Olson, 212 F .2 d 590,592 (C.C.P.A. 1954) ("Ordinarily drawings which accompany an
application for a patent are merely illustrative of the principles embodied in the alleged invention
clain1ed therein and do not define the precise proportions of elements relied upon to endow the
247

PUBLIC VERSION
claims with patentability.''). Dr. Cameron agreed at the hearing that patent figures are generally
not drawn to scale. See Cameron Tr. 350.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the written description in a provisional
application for p1iority purposes is "whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the fi ling date." Ariad ?harms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
Westfield argues: "B ut the angle of the cross members in Figure 6 of the '238 Provisional
Application is much smaller than the angle of the cross members in Figure 7 of the '611 Patent."
Resps. Br. at 111. However, Westfield's argument implicitly acknowledges that the difference
between the two angles is literally a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
RX -0061 (highlighted); RX -0154 at Fig. 7 (highlighted).
The administrative law judge finds that GCI possessed the subject matter of the '611
patent's claims at the time the '238 provisional application was filed . The provisional
application demonstrated that "generally parallel" cross members need not be perfectly parallel,
and that the cross members may indeed overlap.
248

PUBLIC VERSION
As the admin is trative law judge finds that the asserted claims of the '61 1 patent are
entitled to the priority date of the '238 provisional application, October 5, 2012, it is detemlined
that the asserted claims of the '611 patent cannot be invalid in view of the Freestyle Rocker 's
August 2012 offer fo r sale.
F. 	Obviousness
1. 	Simpson and Colbridge
U.S. Patent No. 5,873,624 ("Simpson"), issued February 23, 1999, and is therefore prior
ait to the '61 1 patent. See RX-0058. U.S. Patent No. 2,056,957 to Colb1idge issued on October
13 , 1936, and is therefore prior art to the '611 patent. See RX-0057.
Respondents argue, in part:
U.S. Patent No. 2,056,957 ("Colbridge"), issued October 13 , 1936, teaches
"chair attachments" for adding rocking functionality "to feet of legs of articles of
furniture, such for example, as chairs, davenports, benches, sofas, and the like, so
that such articles of furniture may be rocked or tilted thus affo rding more comfort
for sitting purposes." RX-012 1C at 14; RX-0057 at 1: 1-7. An exemplary setup of a
chair that has been equipped with the "chair attachments" is shown in Co lbridge
Figure 1. RDX-0008 at 2 (RX-0057); RX-0121C at 14-15. U.S. Patent No.
5,873,624 	("Simpson"), 	issued 	February 23, 	1999, 	discloses 	a 	side-to-side
collapsing chair with a tray. RX-0121 C at 13 . Figure 1 of Simpson, as shown in
RDX-0008 at slide 1, depicts the disclosed chair. See RX-0058 at fig. l; RX-01 21C
at 13 -14.
Colbridge's "chair attachment" comprises a compression spring (C), a
flexible rnbber cover (7), and a screw or other fastener for attaching the spring to
the chair (5). RX-01 21C at 15; RX-0057 at 2:34-48 & fig. 2. These components are
shown in Colbridge Figure 2. RX-0121 C at 15; RDX-0008 at 3 (RX-0057). Once
the chair attachment is affixed to the chai r, the user may then rock in the chair by
tilting the chair and shlfting the user 's weight. RX-0121C at 15. This would then
cause the spring to elastically defom1 (as shown in Colbridge Figure 3) and provide
a spring-back force to urge rocking. See id.; RX-0057 at 3:20-25 & figs. 2-3.
A POSA would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Simpson
and Colbridge, by attaching Colbridge's "chair attachment" to the front portion of
each of the right and left peripheral support members of the Simpson chair to create
a portable, collapsible, rocking chair (the "Modified Simpson Chair"). RX-0121C
at 16-17. In particular, a POSA, understanding the teachings of Colbridge and
249

PUBLIC VERSION
Simpson, would be motivated to add Colbridge's chair attachments to the front
supports of Simpson to enjoy the benefits of Simpson's collapsible chair as well as
the rocking and tilting motion afforded by the Colbridge attachment. Id. at 16.
Colbridge explicitly teaches combining the Colbridge chair attachments with a
wide variety of furniture, a category into which the chair of Simpson clearly fits.
Id.; RX-0057 at 1:1 -25. Th is motivation to combine would have been bolstered by
many other prior art references that teach adding compression springs to the front
legs of chairs to form rocking chairs. E.g., RX-01 22 at 2; RX-0123 at 2; RX-0124
at 2. From th e teachings of Colbridge, as well as th e teachings of these other
references, a POSA would have been moti vated to apply th e Colbridge springs to
the front or rear of most any type of chair, including folding chairs generally and
the folding chair of Sin1pson specifically. RX-0121C at 17. A PO SA w ould have
had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the disclosures of Colbridge
and Simpson to create the Modified Simpson Chair as Colbridge explicitly teaches
such a combination of its chair attachments to a piece of furniture. RX-0057 at 2:35-
40; RX-01 21C at 20-2 1.
* 	* 	*
The Modified Sin1pson Chair has the chair frame of Simpson, and
Simpson' s chair frame meets [the] limitation ["each cross member having terminal
ends thereof pivotally secured to the front l eg portion and the rear leg portion of
one of the frame side assemblies"]. RX-0121C at 29. Each front l eg of the Sin1pson
chair has a straight portion and a lower curved portion. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 757:5-8.
Simpson refers to the portion of the front leg portion and rear leg portion where the
cross members are pivotally secured as a front lower bend and a rear lower bend
respectively. RX-0121C at 29. The cross members are each pivotally connected to
the left support member 14 and right support member 16, respectively, vi a bracket
(90). Id.; RX-0058 at 2:32-41, 5:60-6:7 & fig. 5. This can be seen in the modified
Figures 1 and 2, included below. RDX-0008 at 15-16 (RX-0058); RX -01 21C at 30.
To the extent th is connection is not understood as being "secured to the [front/rear]
leg portion," it would have been obvious to a POSA, in light of the prior art
generally, to adjust the point of connection up the bend by a few inches to, for
example, avoid any damage or interference from the resting surface. RX-0121C at
29.
* 	* 	*
The Modified Sin1pson Chair, which is a combination of Simpson with
Colbridge, meets [the] limitation [ ''a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and
about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward po sition s"].
RX-01 21Cat 35. Colbridge describes an improved configuration of a spring that
can be used at the front legs of a chair to pivot the chair about the rear legs. Id.; RX-
0057 at 2:8-25. If Colbridge's compression-spring "chair attachments" were placed
on the front most portions of the Simpson chair, the chair would be capable of
rocking. RX-0121C at 36. Furthem1o re, a PO SA attempting to apply the rocking
250

PUBLIC VERSION
functionality of Colbridge to Simpson would also be motivated to provide an edge
(e.g., a squared edge) at the rear legs-like that shown in Fig. 1 ofColbridge, here-
about which the chair can rock. Id.; RDX-0008 at 20 (RX-0057). 	This would be
easily accomplished by either adding squared-off feet at the bottom of the rear
section of Simpson or by squaring-off the lower-back portion of Simpson. RX-
0121C at 36. This would allow the chair to rotate about a fixed point- 	which would
constitute the pivot point- 	in a stable manner, and that rear-edge poriion of the
chair would support the chair frame as it rocks between forward and rearward
positions. Id.; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 757:9-758:6 (agreeing that the rear edge of the
chair described in Colbridge is a "fulcrum point"); Hrg. Tr. (Grace) at 723:7-23
(agreeing that tipping back in a non-rocking chair makes edge of the back legs of
the chair a "fulcrum point"). 	Thus, Colbridge, when applied to the chair in
Simpson, teaches a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about which the
frame can move between forward and rearward positions. RX-0121C at 36.
* 	* 	*
Because the obvious combination of Simpson and Colbridge - the Modified
Sin1pson Chair - includes each of the linutations of clain1 s 1, 2, 10, and 11, those
clain1S are invalid because they are obvious in light of Simpson and Colbridge.
Resps. Br. at 113-23.
GCI argues, in part:
Simpson is one of just a few references already considered by the USPTO
examiner during prosecution of the '611 Patent. See JX-0002 ('6 11 Patent) at p. 2
("References Cited"). Despite being aware of tlus reference, the examiner allowed
the claims of the '611 Patent to issue. Neither Westfield nor Dr. Cameron have
identified any supposed effor or onussion by the USPTO examiner regarding
Sin1pson, and Westfield cannot meet its clear-and-convincing burden to show
obviousness for at least this reason.
In addition, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Simpson
with Colbridge to a1Tive at a collapsible and portable rocking chair as claimed in
the '611 Patent, as argued by Westfield. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 372. A
POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Simpson with Colbridge in
the manner proposed by Dr. Cameron at least because this combination would have
defeated the purpose of and destroyed the principle of operability of Simpson. Id.
at Q/A 375.
* 	* 	*
Adding the chair attachments from Colbridge to Sin1pson's front, as
proposed by Dr. Cameron, would cause Simpson's linear portion 46 to be tilted
from the suppori surface and defeat Simpson's original purpose by greatly reducing
25 1

PUBLIC VERSION
its stability. Id. Indeed, none of the references cited by Dr. Cameron (i.e., Colbridge,
Blake (RX-0122), Ober (RX-0123), and Smith (RX-0124)) teaches adding a chair
attachments similar to Colbridge to a collapsible chair, much less a chair with a
collapsible frame similar to that in Simpson. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 375.
A POSITA would not have done this at least because, even in 1936 when Colbridge
issued, the inventor was aware of the inherent danger in a device with reduced
stability. Id.; RX-0057 (Colbridge) at 1:11-15; Tr. (Smith) at 795:11-797:17
(explaining that a POSITA would not be motivated to put Colbridge under the front
of another chair due to safety concerns about tipping over and unexpected or
unintended buckle or deformation of the spring and the associated housing).
Further, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Simpson
with Colbridge to arrive at a collapsible and portable rocking chair for various
additional reasons as explained in Section V.D.2(ii), supra. In addition, Colbridge
does not teach how to apply a rocking capability to a foldable chair like that in
Sin1pson. Nor does it teach how to solve the numerous engineering problems
associated with adding a rocking capability to a collapsible and portable rocking
chair, including changing loading conditions, dynamic loads, maintaining stability
and safety. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 375.
This combination would also not satisfy each linutation of the asserted
claims. Fo r instance, claim 1 re cites that "each cross member having terminal
ends therefore pivotally secured to the front leg portion and the rear leg
portion of one of the frame side assemblies." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 14:3-5.
But Simpson makes clear that the terminal ends of the alleged cross members are
directly connected to brackets 90 rather than the frame of the Simpson chair. See
RX-0058 (Simpson) at Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6 (reproduced below); CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 379.
* 	* 	*
Dr. Cameron also fails to explain why the resting surface would cause
"damage or interference.'' See id. at QIA 71. Indeed, Figures 2 and 5 of Simpson
illustrates that the brackets 90 are not even in contact with the supporting surface.
RX-0058 (Sin1pson) at Figs. 2, 5. Further, the side profile of frame portions 42 and
44 (as shown in Figure 2 of Simpson) are not perpendicular to the ground surface.
Id. at Fig. 2; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 382.
A POSITA would not have been motivated to move th e points of connection
to the alleged front and rear l eg portions as suggested by Dr. Cameron. CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 382. This would cause an interference between the cross
member and the leg portions when the chair is folded. Id. Thus, moving the points
of connection as proposed by Dr. Cameron would result in interference and an
inability to fo ld the chair flat. Id.
Claim 1 further requires "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame
252

PUBLIC VERSION
and about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward
positions ." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 14:9-11. In contrast, Simpson teaches that
"[t]he support members are formed of tubular aluminum" and that "[t]he small bend
radius of the front bend of the left and right suppo1t member provides stability to
the support members when positioned on a receiving surface." RX-0058 (Sin1pson)
at 4:33-35, 4:38-40. Dr. Cameron's modifications "to provide an edge (e.g., a
squared 	edge)," 	RX-01 21C 	(Cameron 	DWS) 	at 	Q/A 	78, 	would 	increase
manufacturing difficulty and reduce stability of the Sin1pson chair. CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 384. A POSITA would have found this undesirable and would
not have pursued this modification. Id.
Dr. Cameron also fails to explain why it would be necessary for the chair to
"rotate about a fixed point." Id. For example, Figure 1 of the '611 Patent utilizes
arched rocker rails on the bottom were able to rock in a stable manner w ithout a
fixed edge point. JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at Fig. 1.
Compl. Br. at 156-59.
The evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Simpson with
Colbridge in the manner proposed by Westfield. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 372.
Sin1pson states that "[t]he small bend radius of the front bend of the l eft and right support
member provides stability to the support members when positioned on a receiving surface" and
that "[ t]he front lower bend and the rear bend of each support member has a linear portion 46
therebetween for resting on a receiving surface." RX-0058 (Simpson) at col. 4, lns. 36-40, col.
4, Ins. 59-62. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Simpson's extended linear
portion 46 maintain extended contact with the ground to provide in1proved stability for the user.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 375. Combining Simpson with Colbridge would directly
contravene Simpson's stated goal of providing increased stability by maintaining contact
between the support members and the receiving surface .
Furthe1more, the Simpson-Colbridge combination does not render obvious "each cross
member having terminal ends therefore pivotally secured to the front l eg portion and the rear leg
portion of one of the frame side assemblies." See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 380. Figures
253

PUBLIC VERSION
I, 2, and 5 of Simpson show that the bracket members 90 are pivotally secured to the linear
portion 46 of the frame. See RX-0058 (Simpson) at col. 5, lns. 60-67, col. 4, lns. 55-62, Figs. 1,
2, 5; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 380. Dr. Cameron's own annotated figure (RDX-0008 at
8) does not point to any portion of linear portion 46 in Simpson as be ing part of the front leg
po1tion or rear leg portion. See RX-012 l C (Cameron DWS) at Q/A 66.
As discussed above, the evidence shows that the front feet of a stationary chair exhibited
translational movement when straight springs were added to the back legs. See Penn Tr.
554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at 4.
The administrative law j udge finds that respondents have not shown by clear and
convincing evidence that the combination of Simpson and Colbridge would not result in a chair
with a working "fulcrum point." In particular, the straight springs experienced friction/binding
dming rocking motion and the stationary front foot created a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 375; Penn Tr. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn't work"). The
spring mechanism of Colbridge would experience similar issues when added to the Simpson
chai r. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 234. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of
Colbridge to the Simpson chair would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking
chair.
2. 	Glass a nd Maclaren
U.S. Patent No. 2,675,057 ("Glass"), issued April 13, 1954, and is therefore prior art to
the ' 611 patent. See RX-0059. U.S. Patent No. 3,698,991 ("Maclaren"), issued July 13, 1976,
and is therefore prior art to the '611 patent. See RX-00125.
Respondents argue, in part:
254

PUBLIC VERSION
U.S. Patent No. 2,675,057 ("Glass''), issued April 13, 1954, discloses a
wheelchair that collapses side to side. RX-0121C at 48-49. Figure 1 of Glass depicts
the disclosed embodiment. Id.; see RX-0059 at 4:62-5:3 & fig. 1; RDX-0009 at 1
(RX-0059). 	U.S. Patent No. 3,698,991 ("Maclaren"), issued July 13, 1976,
discloses a foldable wheelchair having a rocking element. RX-0121C at 48-49.
Figure 15 shows an embodiment of the disclosed wheelchair. Id. at 49-50.; RX-
0125 at fig. 15; RDX-0009 at 2 (RX-0125). Figure 10 of Maclaren "illustrates the
resilient suspension of a front, castoring, wheel pair." RX-0121C at 50; RX-0125
at 5:34-35, 9:34-63 & fig 10; RDX-0009 at 3 (RX-0125).
Glass and Maclaren are analogous art to the ' 61 1 patent becau se they are
part of the same field of endeavor as the asserted ' 611 claims. The field of endeavor
is determined "by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the
patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the
claimed invention." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Prior art is
in the same field of endeavor of the patent and claims if it is within categories of
items that fall within the scope of the clain1s of the patent. S ee, e.g., id. at 1323-27
(affirming a finding that prior art references related to toothbrushes were analogous
art for a patent describing improvements in hairbrushes because the claims were
not limited to hairbrushes). Glass and Maclaren both teach types of wheelchairs.
See generally RX-0059; RX-0125. Wheelchairs are types of chairs; wh_ich is the
general field of endeavor for the patent. RX-0137; Hrg. Tr. (Babcock) at 662:20-
663:6. 	Nothing 	in 	the 	asserted 	'6 11 claims 	prevents 	such 	claims 	from
encompassing wheelchairs. See In re Singha/, 602 F. App 'x 826, 831 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (rejecting a proposed narrow definition of "field of endeavor" because the
"specification and claims are not so limiting"); Application ofSebald, 268 F .2d 430,
432 (C.C.P.A. 1959). Furthermore, the "Field of Invention" section of the '611
patent does not exclude wheelchairs from the field of the endeavor, describing the
invention as "generally relat[ ing] to folding chairs." JX-0002 at I :9-17. Thus, prior
a1t related to wheelchairs, including Glass and Maclaren, is analogous art to the
asserted ' 611 claims.
A POSA would have been motivated to combine the disclosures of Glass
and Maclaren to create a portable, side-to-side-collapsible, wheelchair with an
improved set ofresiliently-suspended castor wheels. RX-0121 Cat 51-52. A POSA
would have realized that with all four wheels of the Maclaren chair being small, a
user would not be able to readily propel hin1self or herself. Id. at 51. A POSA would
have understood that to take advantage of the resiliently suspended castor wheels
in a user-propelled wheelchair, such wheelchair would need two large wheels. Id.
Glass teaches a collapsible wheelchair with castoring wheels but also with large
wheels that a user can reach in order to self-propel. Id. at 51-52. A POSA would
have understood that in order to fit into a trunk of a typical car, a wheelchair with
the large wheels needs to fold side-by-side such as disclosed in Glass as opposed
to the front-to-back fold of Maclaren. Id. at 51. 	As such, a POSA would have
255

PUBLIC VERSION
looked to combine the teachings concerning Maclaren's resiliently suspended
castor wheels with the folding wheelchair of Glass. Id. at 51-52.
This modification allows the user of the Modified Glass Chair to enjoy the
benefits of the resiliently-suspended castor wheels desc1ibed in Maclaren. 	RX-
0121C at 51-52; RX-0125 at 9:19-23. 	Therefore, a POSA would have been
motivated to replace Glass's non-resilient castor wheels with Maclaren 's resiliently
suspended castor wheels to improve upon Glass by, for example, increasing the
user's comfort. RX-0121C at 52; RX-0125 at 9:19-23. Maclaren's rocker-element
castor wheels also allow for the user to experience a rocking motion as the user
shifts weight or applies varying forces to the Modified Glass Chair that would not
have occurred in the chair taught by Glass alone. RX-0121C at 52. Thus, it would
have been desirable to create a collapsible wheelchair with an in1proved suspension
by combining the disclosures of Glass and Maclaren. Id.
Thus, a POSA would have been motivated to replace th e casto1ing wheels
of the wheelchair disclosed in Glass with the resiliently suspended castor wheels of
Maclaren. (the "Modified Glass Chair") to provide the benefit of such resiliently
suspended castor wheels along with the large wheel and side-to-side collapsibility
of the Glass wheelchair. Id. A POSA would also have had a reasonable expectation.
of success in combining the disclosures of Glass and Maclaren to form the Modified
Glass Chair because the combination would have been routine to a POSA - merely
employing the castor wheel assemblies of Maclaren. instead of the castor wheel
assemblies of Glass. Id.
As shown in the sections below, because the obvious Modified Glass Chair
contains each of the limitations of Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, each of those claims are
obvious.
* 	* 	*
The Modified 	Glass Chair meets 	[the] 	lintitation 	["a fulcrum point
supporting the chair frame and about which said chair frame can move between
forward and rearward positions"]. RX-0121C at 61. 	The Modified Glass Chair
includes the castor wheels 100 of Maclaren instead of the castor wheels 11 of Glass.
Id.; see RX-0125 at 9:34-59. 	By replacing the castor wheel assemblies of the
wheelchair disclosed in Glass with the resilient castor wheel assemblies depicted in
Figure 10 of Maclaren, th e position of maximum compression of the rocker
mechanism corresponds to the rearward position and the position of minimum
compression of the rocker mechanism corresponds to the forward position. RX-
0121C at 62; RDX-0009 at 1, 3, 11 (RX-0059; RX-0125). In the Modified Glass
Chair with the castor wheels of Maclaren, the chair rotates or pivots about the axles
of the large front wheels, and the axles of the front whee ls support the body of the
chair frame as the chair frame moves between the forward and rearv..,ard positions.
RX-0121 C at 62-63. 	This is tme even if the amount of the rocking (the distance
between the forward and rearward positions) is minimal. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 279:6-
256

PUBLIC VERSION
11. The axle of each large front wheel therefore constitutes a "fulcrum point" under
each party's proposed construction. RX-01 21C at 63.
* 	* 	*
The Modified Glass Chair meets [the] limitation ["at least one rocker
mechanism attached to the chair frame for supporting the chair during movement
of the chair frame between said forward and rearv..1 ard positions"] because it
includes the castor wheel assemblies 100 of Maclaren instead of the castor wheel
assemblies 11 of Glass. RX-0 121C at 63. As explained above, by replacing the
castor wheel assemblies of the wheelchair disclosed in Glass with the castor wheel
assemblies 	depicted 	in Figure 	10 	of Maclaren, 	the 	position 	of maximum
compression of the rocker mechanism corresponds to the rearward position and the
position of minimum compression of the rocker mechanism corresponds to the
forward po sition. Id. at 63-64; see RX-0125 at 9 :3 4-59. The Maclaren castor wheel
connections that are pa1t of th e Modified Glass Chair have rubber components that
act as a compression spring attached to the castor wheel. RX-01 21C at 64. 	This
supports 	th e chair as 	it moves between relaxed (forward) and compressed
(rearward) positions. Id.
Construing this element pursuant to § 11 2(f), as agreed by the parties, the
Maclaren castor wheel connections of Modified Glass Chair meet this limitation.
RX-0121C at 64. 	Each of the Maclaren castor wheel connections have rubber
components such that each act as a compression spring attached to the castor wheel.
Id. 	Indeed, 	GCI' s 	expert 	agreed 	that 	these 	components 	are 	equivalent 	to
compression springs. Hrg. Tr. (Smith) at 755:13-24; 756 :3 -15. 	This satisfies the
function of "suppo1ting the chair dming movement of the chair frame between said
forward and rearward positions" and is at least equivalent to the compression springs
disclosed in the '611 Patent at 11 :18-21 for perfomling the function. RX-01 21 C at
64.
GCI and Mr. Smith take an overly restrictive view of the disclosed "rocker
mechanisms" in the '6 11 Patent in arguing that Maclaren 's suspension cannot
satisfy this limitation. The specification of the ' 611 Patent describes a rocker
mechanism "compris[ing] a compression spring" as the structure that performs the
clain1ed 	function. 	JX-0002 	at 	11: 18-21. 	The 	"tubular 	member" 	and 	other
descriptions of the connections to the chair frame are not part of what is required to
be the claimed "rocker mechanism" because those members do not perform the
clain1ed function. See id.; Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2010) ("In construing a means-plus-function claim, the district court must
first determine th e claimed function and then identify the corresponding structure
in the written description of the patent that performs that function."). Furthermore,
GCI and Mr. Smith 's argument that Maclaren's suspension is a dampening system
is irrelevant as even the '6 11 patent explains that th e compression spring rocker
mechanism in Figure 6 "dampens." JX-0002 at 8:9-1 2.
257

PUBLIC VERSION
* 	* 	*
Because the obvious combination of Glass and Maclaren - the Modified
Glass Chair - includes each of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, those
claims are invalid because they are obvious in light of Glass and Maclaren.
Resps. Br. at 123-34.
GCI argues, in pati:
A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Glass and Maclaren
to arrive at a rocking chair as claimed in the '61 1 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 386.
For the same reasons as discussed in Section VI.B.4, supra, wheelchairs
(including Glass and Maclaren) are not in the same field of endeavor as the '61 1
Patent (for example, improvements to portable and collapsible rocking chairs) and
are also not reasonably pertinent to the problems Mr. Grace sought to solve with
the inventions of the '611 Patent (for example, use on all types of surfaces,
including soft ground and sand). See, e.g., id. at Q/A 388-95. Accordingly, Glass
and Maclaren are not analogous art to the '611 Patent, and their use in an
obviousness combination is improper. Id.
Specifically, the titles and re lated fields listed in Glass and Maclaren are
vastly different from the '6 11 	Patent. RX-0059 (Glass) at 1:1 -14; RX-0125
(Maclaren) at 1:1-12; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 390-91. In stark contrast to
the wheelchairs described in Glass and Maclaren, the '61 1 Patent "generally relates
to folding chairs, and more particularly relates to improvements in rocking chairs
that are foldable and unfoldable between a set-up condition for use and a
substantially collapsed condition for transportation and storage." JX-0002 ('611
Patent) at 1:13-17. Indeed, the title of the '6 11 Patent is "Collapsible and Portable
Rocking Chair" with "portable" being understood by a POSITA and supported by
the etymology to mean easy to carry. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 392. In th is
sense, "portable" is distinguishable from "mobile." As explained in Section VI.B.4,
supra, even the other prior art that Westfield relies on (such as Ayers) distinguishes
the rocking furniture from wheelchairs. See RX-0126 (Ayers) at 2:24-28.
In addition, Maclaren 's focus is on the collapsible frame structure that "is
not only intended to be applied to a wheeled chair, but also to a folding seat or chair
without wheels or some form of runner other than wheels, might be applied to it."
RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 2:12-16; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 393. Indeed, the
wheel system described in Maclaren's Figure 10 used by Dr. Cameron "is not an
essential part of the invention and ... 	may be entirely omitted." RX-0125
(Maclaren) at 10:25-29; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A.
* 	* 	*
258

PUBLIC VERSION
Claim 1 requires "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and about
which said chair frame can move between fonvard and rearward positions."
JX-0002 ('61 1 Patent) at 14:9-1 1. While Glass does teach an axle where the wheels
are attached, it is not a fulcmm point because Glass teaches a rigid frame, not one
that can rock or has fo rward and backward movement about a fulcmm po int. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 399. Further, as discussed above, "[t]he resilient
mountings of wheels .. . reduces stresses which tend to overload the stmcture by
yielding to inequalities of the ground." RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 1:36-38. Thus, a
POSITA would understand that the alleged chair frame of the Glass-Maclaren
combination would not move between forward and rearward positions or rock,
rather, it is the castoring wheel being "urged upwards" or "mov[ing] downwards,"
RX-0125 at 9:48-59, without transferring the motion of the wheels to the frame (the
purpose of suspension). CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 399.
Indeed, the dist inction between upward-downward movement ( as in the
Glass-Maclaren) and the "rocking" described the '611 Patent was used by Westfield
to argue that its Bounce Chair supposedly does not infringe. But unlike the
Mulberry Bounce Chair- 	which has forward-rearward movement (see, e.g., CX-
0151, CX-0469)-the Modified Glass Chair has not been shown to have forward-
rearward motion, and indeed the frame has not been shown to have any motion at
all. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 399.
Claim 1 further requires "at least one rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame
between said forward and rearward positions." JX-0002 ('61 1 Patent) at 14: 12-
14. Neither Glass, nor Maclaren, nor the two in combination, teach a "rocker
mechanism." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at QIA 401. Maclaren clearly states that
"[t]he axle 101 is fixed in two side plates 102 of a rocking element which has a
pivotal support at 102A attaching it (through a lug not shown) to a vertical square-
sectioned tube 103 which is rotatable (for castoring movement) on a vertical hollow
pin 105." RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 9:37-41 (emphasis added); CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at QI A 403. Thus, a plain reading of th e disclosure in Maclaren is that side
plates 102 and pivot support 102A are part of the ''rocking element," whereas tube
103 and ho llow pin 105 as well as other structures connecting to them are not part
of th e "rocking element." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 403.
Nevertheless, a POSITA would not consider the castoring wheel assembly
in Maclaren to be the claimed "rocker mechanism." Id. This is in part because this
structure is a "resilient suspension," RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 5:34-35, 9:54, which
is not intended for rocking and does not rock the wheelchair. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 403; T r. (Cameron) at 351:24-352:21 (confirming that Figure 10 of
Maclaren is a "suspension" "s imilar to a shock absorber"). A suspension is distinct
from the "rocker mechani sm" recited by claim 1 of the '611 Patent. CX-0464C
(Smith R WS) at QI A 403. Suspensions are designed to minimize up-and-down
movement of a chassis, not to allow for forward-and-rearward/rocking movement
in a stationary chair. Id.; see also CDX-0376 (Oxford Dictiona1y of Mechanical
259

PUBLIC VERSION
Engineering). Maclaren itself confirms this. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 404;
see also RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 9:19-23; 1:36-38.
Indeed, consistent with the differences between suspensions and the
claimed rocker mechanisms, Maclaren, by providing "a collapsible volume frame
which when extended is in a high degree resistant to defo1mation while being very
light in weight," addresses the concern that the loads caused by the occupant and
the uneven ground may "give rise to considerable forces" that may '"wreck or
deform the vo lume frame structure." RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 1:16-30; CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 405. Thus, a POSITA would recognize that the resilient
suspension in Maclaren exists to eliminate (or at least minimize) rocking motion
that could disturb the user and frame, rather than to allow the user to rock. CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 405; see also RX-0121C (Cameron DWS) at Q/A 109
("Maclaren discloses that the in1proved castor wheel design acts as a form of
suspension and improves the wheelchair's performance, including, for example, on
uneven terrain.").
In this manner, the Maclaren assembly is a "suspension" system that is
"similar to a shock absorber," which is plainly distinct from the rocker mechanisms
taught by the '611 Patent. See Tr. (Cameron) at 351:24-352:21 (confirming that
Figure 10 of Maclaren is a "suspension" "s imilar to a shock absorber"). Indeed, Dr.
Howle (MacSports 's expert) recognized that a POSITA would not consider rubber
pads (like those in Maclaren) to be equivalent to the rocker mechanism of the '611
Patent. Tr. (Howle) at 442:10-443:14.
On this point, Dr. Howle and Mr. Smith agree: the structure Dr. Cameron
points to in Maclaren is not equivalent to the con-esponding structure for the
clain1ed "rocker mechanism." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 407. For example,
when a force is applied to the Maclaren castor wheel as shown on the left, it will
cause the two side plates 102 to rotate about their pivotal connection to the vertical
post 102A. Id. This motion will cause the channel sectioned fitting 109 to move
forward co mpressing the rubber blo ck 109A. Id. Thus, the majority of the upward
motion of the wheel is absorbed, and is not transferred to the chair frame. Id. The
Maclaren suspension assembly also does not receive a tubular member extending
from the rear of each side frame and fails to disclose the rocker mechanism as
construed by Westfield. Id.
The "suspension" used in McLaren is designed to keep the chair frame
stabilized when moving over rough or uneven surfaces. It is designed to reduce
movement, not create it. Id. Rather than allow a user to rock, the Maclaren
suspension system attempts to minimize any motion, for example, when an
individual pushes a wheelchair and wants a safe, stable rolling movement. Id. Thus,
McLaren does not teach th e claimed "rocker mechanism." Id.
Further, Dr. Cameron 's reliance on the Maclaren suspension should have
included all of the components in this assembly. Id. at Q/A 408. Yet Dr. Cameron
260

PUBLIC VERSION
arbitrarily selected only the "rubb er components," 	ignoring the other structures
(e.g., resiliently tired wheels 100) that contribute to the safe operation of the wheels.
See RX-0121C (Cameron DWS) at Q/A 132; RX-0125 (Maclaren) at 9:34-36; CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 408.
Co mp !. Br. at 159-65.
As an initial matter, the administrative law judge finds that wheelchair s, including those
of Glass and Maclaren, are not analogous art to the ' 611 patent. A wheelchair is a transpo rtation
device, as opposed to a piece of portable furniture. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 393.
Further, wheelchairs are built to withstand dynamic forces sustained while transporting a user
safely over diverse terrain. See id.; Howle Tr. 438. Often additional components are necessary
to safely maintain and transport a pa ssenger. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/ A 393.
The administrative law jud ge finds that one of ordinary ski ll in th e art would have been
motivated to combine the disclosures of Glass and Maclaren. See RX-01 21C (Cameron DWS) at
Q/A 109-11. Such a combination of Glass' s collapsible wheelchair with Maclaren's resiliently
suspended castor wheels would result in a portable, side-to-side-collapsible, wheelchair with an
improved set of resiliently-suspended castor wheels. See id.
However, the administrative law judge finds that this combination would not provide the
clain1ed "rocker mechanism." As noted above, the clain1 term "rocker mechani sm" is construed
pursuant to 35 U .S.C. § 112( f), and the function is identified in claim one as "for suppori ing the
chair during movement of the chair fr ame between said forward and rearward po sitions."
Fmiherrnore, the structure corresponding to th e claimed "rocker mecha ni sm" includes th e
following portions of the specification: col. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4, ln. 11 , col 6, Ins. 56-64, col. 7, Ins.
42-64, co l. 11 , lns. 17-32, col. 11, ln . 55 - col. 12, ln. 27, and FIGS. 2, 6, and 9.
The castor wheel assembly in the Glass-Maclaren combination is not one of the
261

PUBLIC VERSION
corresponding structures of"rocker mechanism" under§ l 12(f). See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 408. Dr. Cameron testified that the Maclaren castor wheel connections have rubb er
components that act as a compression spring attached to the castor whee l. See RX-0121C
(Cameron DWS) at Q/A 132. However, Maclaren 's rubber components are designed to keep the
chair frame stabilized when moving over rough surfaces. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A
407. Inasmuch as this structure serves to provide a stable, rolling movement when an individual
is using the wheelchair, the administrative law judge finds that the Glass-Maclaren combination
does not include the claimed "rocker mechanism."
Moreover, Maclaren's suspension functions in a different way to obtain a different result
from that of the "rocker mechanism" recited in claim 1 of the '611 patent. See id. at QIA 403.
Suspensions are designed to minimize up-and-down movement of a chassis, not to allow for
forward-and-rearward/rocking movement in a stationary chair. See RX-0125 (Maclaren) at co l.
9, lns. 19-23; col. 1, lns. 36-38.
The administrative law jud ge finds that respondents have not shown by clear and
convincing evidence that the Glass-Maclaren combination renders the asserted clain1s obvious.
3. 	Kundtz and Seng
U.S. Patent No. 3,026,143 ("Kundtz"), issued March 20, 1962, and is therefore prior art
to the '61 1 patent. See RX-0087. U.S. Patent No. 490,366 ("Seng") issued January 24, 1893,
and is therefore prior art to the '6 11 patent. See RX-0088.
Respondents argue, in part:
Dr. Lee's testin1ony explained this combination in detail in his witness
statement. RX-0119C Q&A 79-156. He began by pointing out that Seng, Kundtz,
and the '611 patent are all analogous art. RX-l 19C, Q&A 79. He then explained
that Seng provides advantages of stability and enhancement to the rocking motion
itself that a POSA could combine with Kundtz to improve its function. Id. 	Q&A
262

PUBLIC VERSION
80. It would have been obvious to a POSA that the spring D of the supplementary
leg of Seng would prevent an occupant from rocking a chair backward to the point
of tipping. RX-0088, 1:79-82. This is an obvious in1provement of Kundtz-Seng in
view of Kundtz alone. Id., Q&A 80.
Dr. Lee also explained that Seng's supplementary leg comprises "'branches
G" with "rubber buffers g" at their ends for the purpose of preventing excessive
motion to the right or left. RX-0119C Q&A 81-83; RX-0088, 1:51 -63; Fig. 2.
These supporting branches and buffers would also provide additional stability when
the chair is used on soft ground or sand- 	a specific goal of the '611 patent. 	JX-
0002, 2:34-37; RX-0l 19C, Q&A 82. Further, the front leg (with or without spring
J) and the rocker mechanism installed behind the rear leg operate together to
facilitate the rocking motion. RX-0088, 1:89-2:3. That is, their tandem operation
requires "little exertion on the part of the occupant to move it either way." Id., 2:2-
4. 	Thus, a POSA would be motivated to combine Kundtz with Seng in order to
in1prove the functions provided by Kundtz. RX-0119C, Q&A 83.
In Dr. Lee's opinion, it would be obvious to a POSA to combine Kundtz
and Seng. RX-01 l 9C, Q&A 84. 	Kundtz itself is a collapsible rocking chair, and
there are others in the prior art; a combination of a collapsible rocking chair with
any other known rocking mechanism would have been obvious to try. Id. Indeed,
one goal of the '6 11 patent's purported invention is to "optimize the collapsibility
and portability of the full-sized article without compromising comfort," which is
easily accomplished by sin1ply adding a rocking mechanism to any existing chair,
such as shown by Seng. Id.
The combined Kundtz-Seng device would show the supplementary leg of
Seng attached to each of the rear leg portions of Kundtz, with the rear leg portions
of Kundtz being modified sufficiently to allow the respective attachment. 	RX-
0 l 19C, Q&A 85; Hrg. Tr. (Lee) 474:14-47 5: 1. Spring J, or a similar such device,
could also be added to the front leg portions, but is not needed. Id. It would have
been obvious to POSA that each side frame 10 of Kundtz, made from a single tube,
has sufficient structural strength to support the supplementary legs of Seng. Id. The
Kundtz-Seng device would also modify each side frame member 10 such that the
rear leg portion of the frame is substantially vertical from just aft of pivot point 25
to upstanding portion 15 in order to attach a supplementary leg to each side frame.
RX-0l 19C, Q&A 86. A POSA would find such a combination obvious and easy
to implement. id.; Hrg. Tr. (Smith) 765:16-766:1 (agreeing that he could add the
supplemental leg of Seng to a chair in about a day). 	Indeed, improving a known
rocking mechanism by combining with other prior art would predictably result in a
collapsible rocking chair with improved functions, such as stability, without
sacrificing easy collapsibility. 	Id . 	Further, the combined Kundtz-Seng device
would have multiple contacts with the ground, rather than a single rocker, which
would further improve stability on soft ground or sand, a stated goal of the '611
patent. Id.; JX-0002, 2:34-37.
263

PUBLIC VERSION
As shown below, the combination of Kundtz in view of Seng discloses each
element of the ass erted claims. RX-0119C, Q&A 59, 92-156.
* 	* 	*
This combination also discloses a fulcrum point. Seng discloses converting
a chair into a rocking chair by adding either a "s upplementary leg" to the back rear
of a chair or two supplementary legs, one each on either side of the rear of the chair
(behind the rear legs of the chair). RX-0088, 1:7-9; 1:26-29. RX-0088, Fig. 1; Hrg.
Tr. (Lee) 493:4-13, 493:23 -494:7. 	Seng does not specify the attachment method
for the supplementary leg, except by using a Plate A. RX-0088, 1:20-24. It would
have been obvious to a POSA how to attach Plate A to each rear leg immediately
within the legs and under the seat. The converted chair is meant to move between
forward and rearward positions by pivoting on the rear leg. RX-0088, 1:77-86. Fig.
1. Spring D facilitates the rocking motion; spring J is not required. RX-0088, Fig ..
1, 1:71-75, 1:89-2 :3 ; claim 1. 	Thus, th e rear leg of the chair is th e fulcrum point.
Moreover, the rear leg supports the chair frame. RX-0088, Fig. 1. This pivot point
meets the definition of a fulcrum point under both MacSports' and GCI's claim
constructions. 	RX-0119C, Q&A 11 5. 	Mr. Smith agreed that Seng discloses a
fulcrum point, at least under GCI's construction. CX-0420C, Q&A 309; Hrg. Tr.
(Smith) 763:24-765:1.
Kundtz / Seng discloses the sixth element of claim 1. RX-0l 19C, Q&A 116-
120. 	Kundtz discloses a rocker mechanism attached to the chair frame for
supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between forward and rear
positions. 	Kundtz shows that "fourth portion 14" is curved and "provides the
rocker," and that fourth portion 14 is part of side frame member 10. RX-0ll 9C
Q&A 116-1 20; RX-0087, 2:13 -1 5. As the rocker is part of the frame m ember, it
must be attached to the chair frame. 	But if Kundtz is not found to disclose this
element, then the combination of Kundtz and Seng discloses this element; indeed,
the Seng apparatus is designed to be attached to the rear of a chair specifically for
the purpose of supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame between a
forward and rear position. RX-0119C Q&A 117-120. As discussed with the fifth
element of claim 1, Seng discloses converting a chair into a rocking chair. 	RX-
0088, Fig. 1, 1:7-9; 1:26-29; Hrg. T r. (Smith) 765:16-766: 1. The converted chair
is meant to move between fo 1ward and rearward positions by pivoting on the rear
leg. 	RX-0088, 1:77-86. Spring D facilitates the rocking motion; spring J is not
required. Id ., Fig. 1; RX-0088, 1:71-75, 1: 89-2:3; claim 1; RX-01 19C Q&A 119-
120. 	Moreover, the supplementary leg is attached to the chair frame. 	RX-0088,
Fig. 1, 1: 19-26. A POSA would have understood the compression spring of Seng
would have a protective covering. Hrg. T r. (Lee) 480:25-481:6, 489:22-490: 17.
Mr. Smith agreed that Kundtz discloses a rocker mechanism. 	Hrg. Tr. (Smith)
762:14-16.
Resps. Br. at 136-44.
264

PUBLIC VERSION
GCI argues, in pati :
A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Kundtz wi th Seng
to arrive at a collapsible and portable rocking chair as claimed in the '61 1 Patent.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 333. As acknowledged by Dr. Lee, Seng discloses
"an apparatus that can convert a [non-rocking] chair into a rocking chair." RX-
0 l l 9C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 	111. However, Kundtz is already a functioning
collapsible rocking chair in and of itself, so a POSITA would have no reason to
tum to Seng for any additional converting apparatus. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at
Q/A 336.
Further, Dr. Lee proposes adding two "supplementary legs" of Seng, each
containing two "branches G" with "rubber buffers g." Tr. (Lee) at 480:9-24,
488:25-489:5. However, such additions would affect the collapsibility of the
modified chair (as there would be two supplemental legs, one on each side, two
branches G, and four rubb er buffers g) and also defeat Kundtz 's goal of having "no
raw or sharp edges on the completed article." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 336.
Dr. Lee asserts that Spring D of Seng would provide a means of averting
tipping without any explanation as to why the original Kundtz frame could not
provide a similar function. Id.; see generally RX-0087 (Kundtz) (no discussion of
any concern about tipping). Dr. Lee also opines that his proposed combination
would 	improve 	the 	functions 	provided by 	Kundtz without identifying any
deficiencies in Kundtz that require in1provement. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A
336.
Dr. Lee also states that his proposed combination would have been obvious
to try but provides no analysis as to what we re the finite number of identified,
predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. id. D r. Lee further
states that the ' 611 Patent's goal to "optimize the collapsibility and portability of
the full-sized article without compromising comfort" "can be easily accomplished
by simply adding a rocking mechanism to any existing chair, such as shown by
Seng" without explaining how any of the problems identified in the '611 Patent
would be solved. Id. Yet Dr. Lee proposes a combination that requires substantial
modifications to Kundtz, including removing almost the entire rear section of frame
10 and adding additional complex sttuctures. Id.; T r. (Lee) at 474: 14-475: l ;
488:25-489:5.
Dr. Lee's proposed combination would also defeat Kundtz's purpose by
substantially reducing its range of rocking. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 336;
compare RX-0087 (Kundtz) (teaching a curve po1i ion 14 th at spans the entire
bottom of the chair as the rocker portion) with Tr. (Lee) at 474:14-4 75 :1 (proposing
removing the rear po1i ion of the bottom curvature 14). Moreover, th e "supplemental
leg" in Seng is connected to a rigid seat whereas Kundtz uses a flexible seat panel
supported by the frame. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 336. Thus, a POSITA
would further understand that substantial structure modifications are needed to
265

PUBLIC VERSION
connect the "supplemental leg'' as taught by Seng with the seat panel and frame
structure from Kundtz. Id.
Accordingly, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine Kundtz
and Seng. There are va1ious additional reasons why such a combination would not
have been obvious and why a POSIT A would not have been motivated to combine
these references as discussed in Section V.D.2(ii), supra.
Compl. Br. at 146-50.
The administrative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined Seng and Kundtz because Kundtz is already a functioning collapsible rocking chair in
and of itself, and Seng does not provide any obvious improvement to a functioning rocking chair.
See CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 336. As acknowledged by Dr. Lee, Seng discloses "an
apparatus that can convert a [non-rocking] chair into a rocking chair." See RX-0119C (Lee
DWS) at Q/A 111 .
Westfield argues, "It would have been obvious to a POSA that the spring D of the
supplementary leg of Seng would prevent an occupant from rocking a chair backward to the
point of tipping. RX-0088, 1:79-82." Resps. Br. at 136. However, the stated goal of Seng is to
provide a rocking motion for a non-rocking chair, not to provide a tipping prevention system.
See generally RX-0088.
Moreover, the proposed Kundtz-Seng combination would not result in a rocking chair
with the claimed "fu lcrum point." Dr . Lee relies entirely on the disclosure of Seng but fails to
identify any specific point as the alleged fulcrum point in his annotated Figure 1 of Seng. See
RX-0l 19C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 111 , 133 . Dr . Lee fails to explain how this limitation is met in the
Kundtz-Seng combination given the substantial modifications proposed by him. See CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 339.
266

PUBLIC VERSION
Dr. Lee emphasized that the modified side frame "would st ill be a single piece of tubing."
RX-0119C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 91. Dr. Lee proposes modifying the Kundtz side frame 10 to
remain a single-piece closed loop with a curved bottom portion 14, but, in this proposed Kundtz-
Seng combination, there is no structure that resembles Seng 's rear leg. One of ordinary skill in
the art would not understand the proposed combination's "rear leg" as a whole to function as the
claimed "fulcrum point." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 339.
Inasmuch as the proposed Kundtz-Seng combination lacks the required "fu lcrum point",
the administrative law judge finds that respondents have not shown by clear and convincing
evidence that the proposed combination renders the asserted claims obvious.
4. 	MacSports Directors Chair in View of Seng
Respondents argue, in part:
Dr. Lee also explained in detail the combination of the MacSports Directors
Chair in view of Seng. RX-0119C Q&A 157-209. The MacSports Directors Chair,
Seng, and the '61 1 patent are all analogous art, as all compri se a form POSA would
know to combine the MacSports Chair with Seng to achieve a rocking chair that
also collapses. RX-0119C, Q&A 157.
The combination would not be difficult to implement, as no unusual
techniques would be required. 	RX-0l 19C, Q&A 158. 	The engineering involved
to combine the MacSports Chair with Seng is simple and straightforward, such that
a POSA would find such a combination obvious and easy to implement. Id.
Combining these prior art elements (that is, a collapsible chair with a
rocking mechanism from other prior art) would, predictably, result in a collapsible
rocking chair. 	RX-0119C, Q&A 159. 	As there are collapsible rocking chairs in
the prior art, such a combination would have been obvious to try. Id. Indeed, one
goal of the ' 611 patent's purported invention is to "optimize the collapsibility and
portability of the full-sized article without compromising comfort," which a POSA
would realize can be easily accomplished by simply adding a rocking mechanism
to any existing chair, such as shown by Seng. Id.
The MacSpo1is Directors Chair-Seng combin ed device would resemble the
MacSports Directors Chair with the Seng device implemented on at least the rear
legs. RX-0119C, Q&A 160. The apparatus of Seng provides advantages of a stable
rocking motion that a POSA would know could be combined with the MacSports
267

PUBLIC VERSION
Directors Chair. Id. The supplementary leg of Seng comprises "branches G" with
"rubber buffers g" at their ends for the purpose of preventing excessive motion to
the right or left. 	Id.; RX-0088, 1:51 -63, Fig. 2. 	These supporting branches and
buffers would also provide stability when the chair is used on soft ground or sand,
a specific goal of the '611 patent. 	JX-0002, 2:34-37; RX-0l 19C, Q&A 160. 	It
would also be obvious to a POSA that the spring D of the supplementary leg of
Seng would prevent an occupant from rocking a chair backward to the point of
tipping, "the spring in such leg will be compressed sufficiently to ease the backward
motion of the chair and give it the desired impulse forward." RX-0088, I :79-82.
This is another example of the stable rocking motion provided by adding at least
one supplementary leg of Seng to the MacSports Directors Chair. 	RX-01 l 9C,
Q&A 160.
The combination of the MacSports Directors Chair in view of Seng
discloses each element of the asserted claims. RX-0l 19C, Q&A 59, 16 1-209.
* 	* 	*
This combination also discloses the fifth element of claim l because it
discloses a fulcrum point. RX-0119C, Q&A 171-75. Seng discloses converting a
chair into a rocking chair by adding either a "supplementary leg" to the back of a
chair, or two supp le mentary legs, one each on either side of the back of the chair
(behind the rearlegs of the chair). RX-0088, 1:7-9; 1:26-29; Hrg. Tr. (Lee) 493:4-
13 , 493:23-494:7. Seng does not specify how to attach the supplementary leg, other
than using a Plate A. RX-0088, 1:20-24. It would have been obvious to a POSA
how to attach Plate A to each rear leg that is immediately within the legs and under
the seat. 	RX-0119C, Q&A 171-75; Hrg. Tr. (Lee) 493:4-13, 493:23-494:7. The
converted chair is meant to move between forward and rearward positions by
pivoting on the back leg. Id., RX-0088, 1:77-86. Spring D facilitates the rocking
motion; spring J is not required. 	RX-0088, Fig. 1., 1:71-75, 1:89-2:3; claim 1.
Thus, the back leg of the chair is the fulcrum point. Moreover, the back leg supports
the chair frame. RX-0088, FIG. I.
* 	* 	*
Resps. Br. at 144-50.
GCI argues, in paii:
For the same reasons discussed in Section VI.D.2(i), supra, a POSITA
would not have been motivated to combine the MacSports Director Chair with Seng
to arrive at a collapsible and portable rocking chair as claimed in the '611 Patent.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 344. There are various additional reasons why
such a combination would not have been obvious and why a POSITA would not
have been motivated to combine these re fe rences as di scussed in Section V.D.2(ii).
268

PUBLIC VERSION
Dr. Lee states that his proposed combination would have been obvious to
tty but provides no analysis as to what were the finite number of identified,
predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. Dr. Lee further
states that the '611 Patent 's goal to "optimize the collapsibility and portability of
the full-sized article without compromising comfort" "can be easily accomplished
by simply adding a rocking mechanism to any existing chair, such as shown by
Seng" without explaining how any of the problems identified in the '611 Patent
would be solved. See RX-0119C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 159. Yet Dr. Lee proposes a
combination that requires substantial modifications to the MacSports Director
Chair. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 347.
Claims 1 and 14 require "a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame
and about which said chair frame can move between forward and reanvard
positions ." JX-0002 ('6 11 Patent) at 14:9-11, 15:40-42. Dr. Lee relies entirely on
the disclosure of Seng in opining that "the [back/rear] leg of chair [in Seng] is the
fulcrum point" but fails to explain how this limitation is met in the Director-Seng
combination. 	CX-0464C 	(Smith 	RWS) 	at 	Q/A 	343. 	Indeed, 	his 	proposed
combination does not even include adding the "rear leg" in Seng to the MacSports
Director Chair. RX-0119C (Lee WS) at Q/A 160. Further, a POSITA would not
understand the alleged "[rear/back] leg" in Seng as a whole to be the fulcrum po int
as it is not a "point." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 343. Identifying the
"[rear/back] leg" in Seng as a whole to be the fulcrum point is also inconsistent
with GCI's and MacSports's proposed constructions. Id. Regardless, Seng does not
disclose a fulcrum point under any proposed construction. Tr. (Smith) at 791 :5 - 17.
Claims 1 and 15 further require "at least one rocker mechanism attached to
the chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame
between said forward and rearward positions." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 14:12-14,
16 :16-20. Dr. Lee has failed to explain how the "supplementa1y leg" in Seng
satisfies the proposed claim construction under § l 12(f) other than the fact that it
includes a spring D. Indeed, the proposed conshuction of the term further requires
a sleeve but there is no sleeve around the Spring D in Seng. CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at QIA 349; RX-0088 (Seng) at Fig. 1.
Dr. Lee's assertion that "the supplementary leg [in Seng] is attached to the
chair frame, as shown in FIG. l " directly contradicts the teachings of Seng that the
supplementa1y leg B is connected to a plate A "under the rigid seat." CX-0464C
(Smith RWS) at Q/A 344; RX-0088 (Seng) at 20-24. Dr. Lee has failed to explain
how Seng could be connected to any purported "rear leg" and did not create any
visual illustrations of such a connection. RX-0l 19C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 1 73 .
Claim 14 also requires "a third foot associated with the fulcrum point of
each frame side assembly." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 14: 12-14, 16:8-9. Dr. Lee
relies entirely on the disclosure in Seng and asserts that the purported "rear leg" in
Seng is both the fulcrum point and the third foot. RX-0119C (Lee DWS) at Q/A
201,203. In Figure 2 of the '611 Patent, the first, second and third feet (36a, 36b,
269

PUBLIC VERSION
36c) and the fulcrum point (54) are shown as separate structures. Dr. Lee does not
identify a separate fulcrum point and third foot in the Director-Seng combination.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 350. In particular, the "rear leg" in Seng is not
even part of Dr. Lee's proposed Director-Seng combination. See RX-0l 19C (Lee
DWS) at Q/A 160 (proposing to add only the supplementary leg (not the rear leg)
in Seng to the MacSports Director Chair). Further, a POSITA would not understand
the purported "rear leg" as a whole to be the fulcrum point as it is not a "po int" and
such an identification is also inconsistent with MacSports's and GCI's proposed
constructions. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 350. Dr. Lee has also failed to
identify where exactly is the third foot located in the Director-Seng combination.
Id.
Claims 8 and 19 further require that "the rocker mechanism is attached
to at least one of the front leg portion and the rear leg portion of each side
frame assembly." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 14:55-59, 16:45-47. Dr. Lee relies
entirely on the disclosure in Seng because "the rocker mechanism is behind the
[back/rear] of each frame assembly" but fails to explain whether and how the
alleged rocker mechanism is "attached to" any purported rear leg portion in the
Director-Seng combination. RX-0119C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 177-79. 206-08. Indeed,
Seng teaches that the supplemental leg is attached to the seat of the chair, see RX-
0088 (Seng) at 1: 19-26; which would not be functional with the fo ldable fabric seat
of the MacSports Director Chair. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 351.
Compl. Br. at 151-53.
The administrative law judge finds that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the MacSports Directors Chair with Seng to arrive at a collapsible and
portable rocking chair as claimed in the ' 611 patent. MacSports faced difficulties in designing
its MacRocker rocking chair. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at QI A 130. MacSports's corporate
representative, Sharon Wei, testified that
CX-0352C (Wei Dep.) at 49:20-50:23, 63: 1-9, 65:5-24, 67:18-68:8, 74:23-
7 5: 19. Eddie Zheng, one of the witnesses testifying on be half of MacSports, documented the
difficulties of designing collapsible rocking chairs in a patent that issued to him in 2006. Zheng
Tr. 410-41 1.
270

PUBLIC VERSION
Simply adding a "spring" does not enable a chair to rock properly or safely, or to function
for its intended purpose. Smith Tr. 787-789; 800; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 112.
Because of this, it was difficult, time-consuming, and not obvious to add rocking capabilities (as
claimed in the '611 patent) to collapsible chairs. Id. As noted above, the evidence shows that
the front feet of the DLHA ch air exhibited translational movement when straight springs were
added to the back legs. See Penn Tr. 554-555; CX-0450C (Lock N'Rock Engineering Recap) at
4.
The administrative law judge finds that respondents have not shown by clear and
convincing evidence that the proposed combination of the MacSports Directors Chair with Seng
renders the asserted claims obvious because the proposed combination would not result in a chair
with a working "fulcrum point". Straight springs may experience friction/binding during rocking
motion and the stationary front foot may create a tipping hazard. See CX-0464C (Smith RWS)
at Q/A 348; Penn T r. 546-547; CX-0075C at 6 ("Why it doesn' t work"). The spring mechanism
of Seng would experience sinlilar issues when added to the MacSports Directors Chair. See CX -
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 347-48. Accordingly, adding the spring mechanism of Seng to the
MacSports Directors Chair would not create a workable collapsible and portable rocking chair.
Id.
5. 	MacSports Directors Chair in View of Lampila
Respondents argue, in part:
Dr. Lee also explained this combination in detail in his witness statement.
RX-0119C, Q&A 261-304. The MacSports Directors Chai r, Lampila, and th e '6 11
patent are all analogous art, as all comprise a fom1 of chair. R X-0119C, Q&A 261.
A POSA would combine the MacSports Directors Chair and Lampila because,
although not collapsible, Lampila provides a light chair that takes up little room
(RX-0089, 1: 1-3) and is tubular in design, like the MacSports Directors Chair and
the '611 patent. 	RX-0089, 1:39-2:3; Fig. l ; RX-0119C, Q&A 262. 	Such a
2 71

PUBLIC VERSION
combination would be obvious to try, as a POSA would know how to combine the
MacSports Directors Chair and Lampila to achieve a collapsible chair with the
additional function of rocking. RX-0119C, Q&A 263.
Lampi la comprises a lower frame 2 that provides support for the chair (RX-
0089, 1: 10-11) and a point 6 that comprises a fu lcrum that allows the chair to rock
RX-0 l 19C, Q&A 263. A spring 1 is also provided, that reduces the effort needed
to use th e Lampi la device. Id . It would have been obvious for a POSA at th e time
of the alleged invention of the '611 patent to modify Lampi la to use one such spring
on each rear leg of the MacSports Directors Chair, and remove the portion oflower
frame 2 that spans the width of the chair (from the left to the right side), such that
it would provide the rocking function while not interfering with the ability of the
MacSports Directors Chair to be collapsed. Id. 	That is, although Lampila is not
collapsible, the rocking mechanism is easily adapted to a collapsible chair such as
the MacSports Directors Chair. Id .
The combination would be easy to make, as no unusual techniques would
be required. RX-01 l 9C, Q&A 264. The engineering involved in the combination
is simple, and such a modification would not require undue experimentation and
would be within the skill of a POSA. Id. As there are other collapsible rocking
chairs in the prior art, such a combination would have been obvious to try. 	Id.
Indeed, combining these prior art elements (that is, a collapsible chair with a
rocking mechanism from other prior art) would, predictably, result in a collapsible
rocking chair. Id.
Essentially, the MacSports Directors Chair-Lampila device would add a
portion of the lower frame, disclosed in Lampila, that is parallel to, and directly
under, the bottom of each side frame of the Mac Sports Chair. 	RX-0119C, Q&A
265. 	A piv ot point 6 would be added to the bottom of each side frame,
approximately midway between the front and back of the side frame, connecting
the side frame to the lower frame below it (in other words, at a fulcrum). id. The
lower frame of Lampila would provide the advantage of stable support on soft
ground or sand, a specific goal of the '61 1 patent. JX-0002, 2:34-37; RX-0119C,
Q&A 265. Instead of a rocker that contacts the ground at one point at a time, the
lower frame of Lampila would be straight and flat, providing ideal support. RX-
0 l l 9C, Q&A 265. It would also be obvious to a POSA that the bearing elements
7 ofLamp ila would provide a means of averting an occupant from rocking a chair
backward to the point of tipping, "bearing elements 7 are attached to the lower
portion of the upper frame 8, one on each side of the same in such manner that on
rocking the chair backwards these stop and bearing elements contact with the lower
frame thus preventing upsetting of the chair. " Id.; RX-0089, I :32-38.
Dr. Lee also opined that each element of the asserted claims is rendered
obvious by the combination of th e MacSports Directors Chair and Lamp il a. RX-
0119C, Q&A 59, 266-304.
272

PUBLIC VERSION
* 	* 	*
The combination also discloses the fifth element of claim 1. 	RX-0 l l 9C,
Q&A 277-78. 	Lampila discloses a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame and
about which said chair frame can move between forward and rearward positions.
Specifically, Lampila discloses an upper frame "p ivotally connected" with a lower
frame at points 6, one "point 6" being on each side of the upper frame. RX-0089,
1: 13 -1 4; Fig. 1. Lampila further discloses that the upper frame, together with the
seat, will "oscillate" on the pivots 6. RX-0089, 1:27-28. Thus, "point 6" as shown
on Figure 1 ofLamp ila is a fulcrum point supporting the chair frame in such a way
that allows for forward and backward motion. 	GCI does not contest that this
combination discloses this limitation. GCI Pre. Br. at 129-31.
The combination also discloses the sixth element of clain1 1. RX-0119C,
Q&A 279-80. The lower frame of Lampila would be added to th e MacSports
Director Chair. 	RX-0089, F ig. 1. Lampi la discloses a "bent spring 1" that is
pivotally attached to the rear of the frame assembly at "point 4" and attached to a
lower frame at "point 5." This bent spring 1 is the rocker mechanism, as it regulates
the oscillation of the chair on the pivots 6. 	RX-089, 1:15-17, Fig. 1. 	A POSA
would understand that one could use two springs in this combination. Hrg. Tr. (Lee)
483: 17-24, 486: 12-487: 11.
Resps. Br. at 150-57.
GCI argues, in part:
A POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the MacSports
Director Chair and Lampila to arrive at a collapsible and portable rocking chair as
clain1ed in the '611 Patent. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 363. Dr. Lee 's
proposed combination requires not only sub stantial modifications to the MacSports
Director Chair, but also to the elements borrowed from Lampila, including
removing the lateral section of lower frame 2 in Lampila and replacing the bend
spring 1 with two bent springs on two sides of the chair frame. Id. at Q/A 366; Tr.
(Lee) at 482: 10-11 (confirming that Lampila does not disclose that portions of the
frame 2 can be removed). Dr. Lee 's proposed modification finds no support in the
teachings ofLamp ila. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 366.
In addition, Lampila teaches that the bend spring 1 could be either a "p late
spring" or "several wire springs placed side by side and held together by a sleeve"
with noticeable width. RX-0089 (Lampila) at 1:21 -25; Tr. (Lee) at 483:10-24;
484:20-25. Thus, using two such springs on each side of th e modified chair would
affect its collapsibility due to part of the bend springs extending laterally outside
the chair, would interfere with the upper frame, and would also create safety
concerns. 	CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 366. 	Further, a POSITA would
recognize that Lampila contains a non-flexible seat 3, Tr. (Lee) at 4 81 :14-20, which
in combination with bend spring 1 and lower frame 2, provides lateral stability for
273

PUBLIC VERSION
the chair. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 366. Yet, in Dr. Lee's Director-Lampila
combination, not only is the seat panel flexible, the bend spring is also moved to
the two sides of the chair frame with lower frame 2 being deprived of its lateral
portion, which results in substantially reduced lateral stability in comparison to the
original Lampila embodiments and no obvious in1provement in lateral stability in
comparison to the original MacSports Director Chair. Id.
Moreover, the bend spring in Lampila is connected to a rigid seat, whereas
the MacSports Director Chair uses a flexible seat panel supported by the frame.
Thus, a POSITA would further understand that substantial strnctural modifications
are needed to connect the bend spring as taught by Lampila with the flexible seat
panel and frame structure from the MacSports Director Chair. Id. Dr. Lee states that
his proposed combination would have been obvious to try but provides no analysis
as to what were the finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a
reasonable expectation of success. See RX-0119C (Lee DWS) at Q/A 263-64.
Accordingly, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the
MacSports Director Chair and Lampi la. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 366.
Additional reasons why such a combination would not have been obvious and why
a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine these references are
discussed in Section V.D.2(ii), supra.
Claims l and 15 require "at least one rocker mechanism attached to the
chair frame for supporting the chair during movement of the chair frame
between said forward and rearward positions." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 14:12-
14, 16:16-20. Dr. Lee does not explain how the bent spring in Lampila would be
implemented in the proposed combination. CX-0464C (Smith R\VS) at Q/A 367.
Further, the bent spring does not satisfy the proposed claim constrnction under §
112(f). id. Indeed, Dr. Lee admitted on cross that Lampila does not disclose any
torsion spring or compression spring as disclosed in the alternative strnctures for
the "rocker mechanism" under the means-plus-function construction. Tr. (Lee) at
482:22-9.
Claim 14 requires "a first foot associated with the front leg portion of
each frame side assembly; a second foot associated with the rear leg portion of
each frame side assembly; and a third foot associated with the fulcrum point
of each frame side assembly." JX-0002 ('611 Paten t) at 16:4-9. A POSITA would
not understand the stop bearing element to be a foot, and Dr. Lee does not explain
how this strncture satisfies either MacSports 's or GCI's proposed constrnctions.
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 368. Regardless, the stop bearing element would
be 	located 	"at the 	bottom 	of each 	side 	frame 	[of the 	MacSports 	Chair],
approximately midway between the front and back of the side frame ," RX-0 ll 9C
(Lee DWS) at Q/A 265, which is not part of either the front leg portion or th e rear
leg potion. Thus, the alleged first foot would not "be associated with the front leg
portion." CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 368.
274

PUBLIC VERSION
Dr. Lee identifies the bend spring 1 in the Director-Lampila combination as
both the rocking mechanism and second foot and the pivots 6 in the Director-
Lampila combination to be both the fulcrum point and the third foot. Dr. Lee does
not identify a separate rocking mechanism and second foot or a separate fulcrum
point and third foot in the Director-Lampila combination. Id. Dr. Lee has failed to
explain how the alleged second and third feet meet MacSport s's and GCI's
proposed constructions. Regardless, a POSITA would not consider any of the
alleged structures to be a foot, especially given that none of them is intended to be
in contact with the ground or support surface. Id.; Tr. (Lee) at 482:15-19
(confirming the frame 2, to which all of the alleged "feet" connect, "would be the
interface to the support surface").
Claim 14 further requires "each frame side assembly contacts the support
surface on which said frame side assembly is set up with at least two of the
first, second and third feet at all positions between the forward and rearward
positions of the chair frame." JX-0002 ('611 Patent) at 16:10-14. Contrary to Dr.
Lee's assertion, a POSITA would not consider the lower frame from Lampila to be
the "support surface." Tr. (Lee) at 482: 15 -19 (confirming the support surface is the
floor underneath the lower frame 2); CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 369; see RX-
0089 (Lampila) at 1:10- 12 (emphasis added).
As discussed, the alleged fulcrum point in Lampila is not a foot. Further,
Dr. Lee has failed to explain how the stop bearing element is ever in contact with
the support surface. CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 369.
Compl. Br. at 153-56.
The administrative law judge finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
combined the MacSports Directors Chair with Lampila's chair to anive at a workable,
collapsible rocking that reads on the asserted claims. Dr. Lee 's proposed combination requires
not only substantial modifications to the MacSports Directors Chair, but also to the elements
borrowed from Lampila, including removing the lateral section of lower frame 2 in Lampila and
replacing the bend spring 1 with two bent springs on two sides of the chair frame. See CX-
0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A at Q/A 366; Lee Tr. 482 (confirming that Lampila does not disclose
that portions of the frame 2 can be removed).
Moreover, the administrative law judge finds that this combination would not provide the
claimed "rocker mechanism." As noted above, the claim term "rocker mechanism" is construed
275

PUBLIC VERSION
pursuant to 35 U .S.C. § l 12(f), and the function is identified in claim one as "for supporting the
chair during movement of the chair fr ame between said fotward and reaiward positions."
Furthermore, the structure corresponding to the claimed "rocker mechanism" includes the
fo llowing portions of the specification: col. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4, In. 11, col 6, lns. 56-64, col. 7, Ins.
42-64, col. 11 , Ins. 17-32, col. 11, ln. 55 - co l. 12 , In . 27, and Figs. 2, 6, and 9.
Lampila's bent spring does not satisfy the proposed clain1 construction under § 112(f).
CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 367. Dr. Lee admitted on cross examination that Lampila does
not disclose any torsion spring or compression spring as disclosed in the alternative structures for
the "rocker mechanism" under the means-plus-function construction. Lee Tr. 482-483.
As noted above, a "second foot" means "a contact at the lower portion of each side of a
chair frame, each corresponding to a portion of the chair frame supporting a rearward portion of
the chair frame", and "third foot" means "a contact at the lower portion of each side of a chair
frame, each corresponding to a point on which th e chair frame is supported and about which the
chair frame pivots." Dr. Lee identifies the bend spring 1 in the Directors-Lampila combination
as both the rocking mechanism and second foot and the pivots 6 in the Directors-Lampila
combination to be both the fulcrum point and the third foot. RX-0l 19C (Lee DWS) at Q/A
299-300. Dr. Lee does not identify a separate rocking mechanism and second foot or a separate
fulcrum point and third foot in the Directors-Lampila combination. See CX-0464C (Smith
RWS) at Q/A 367. Ne ither the bend spring 1 nor the pivots 6 are intended to be in contact with
the ground or support surface. Id.; Lee Tr. 482 ( confirming the frame 2, to which all of the
alleged ''feet" connect, "would be the interface to the support surface"). Hence, the
administrative law judge finds that respondents have not shown by clear and c onvincing
evidence that the proposed Directors-Lampila combination satisfies all limitations of the asserted
276

PUBLIC VERSION
claims.
G. 	Obviousness - Secondary Considerations
The objective evidence, also known as "secondary considerations," includes commercial
success, long felt need, and failure of others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U .S. 1, 13 -1 7
(1966); Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
"[E]vidence arising out of the so-called 'secondary considerations' must always when present be
considered en route to a determination of obviousness." Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip C01p. , 713
F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Secondary considerations, such as commercial success, will
not always dislodge a determination of obviousness based on analysis of the prior art. See KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398,426 (2007) (commercial success did not alter conclusion
of obviousness).
GCI argues there is substantial evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness of the
invention in the '61 1 patent. See Compl. Br. at 79-85. GCI argues several factors weigh in favor
of a finding of non-obviousness:
• 	the claimed invention of the ' 611 patent is a commercial success
• 	the claimed invention of the '611 patent addresses a long-felt but unresolved need
• 	there is substantial recognition in the industry of the claimed invention of the ' 611
patent
• 	there has been copying of the claimed invention of the '611 patent
The evidence supports the first and third of the four factors and shows a nexus with the
merits of the claimed invention of the '611 patent. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdor_ff
Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, the evidence supports the validity of
the '611 patent.
277

PUBLIC VERSION
1. 	Commercial Success
GCI argues that the '611 GCI products (Freestyle Rocker / Mesh Freestyle Rocker,
FirePit Rocker, and Beach Rocker) practice the '6 11 patent, and have been commercially
successfu l. See Compl. Br. at 79-81. GCI has adduced evidence demonstrating that the '61 1
GCI products are commercially successful. See id. Furthermore, GCI adduced evidence
showing that that the ability of the '611 GCI products to safely rock in a portable, collapsible
chair drove the success of these products. See CX-0419C (Polke RWS) at Q/A 58-60, 68, 78-80,
84-89, 94-95, 103-05, 131-33; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 284. GCI has released other
products without this rocking capability that have not been as successful as the '611 GCI
products. See CX -000 lC (Grace WS) at Q/A 103-08; CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 284. The
administrative law judge finds that the commercial success of the '611 GCI products is tied to
the claimed features that provide this capability, such as the "rocker mechanism" and "fulcrum
point."
2. 	Long-Felt But Unresolved Need
GCI argues that was a long-felt but unresolved need for portable and collapsible rocker
chairs embodying the claims of the '611 patent, and that respondents have identified no portable
rocking chairs that are collapsible in the manner described by the '611 patent. See Compl. Br. at
81-82. GCJ mainly relies on the testimony of its expert, Mr. Smith, who cites the asserted patent
for support. See id. (citing CX-0464C (Smith RWS) at Q/A 285). GCI cites the following
passages of the ' 611 patent:
• 	[T]here is a desire for a rocking chair that is likewise foldable and portable,
so that a user at a picnic or an outdoor event can rock in their chair or recline
as desired.
JX-0002 ('611 patent) at col. 2, Ins. 19-22.
278

PUBLIC VERSION
• 	Prior art foldable and portable chairs, such as those described above, have
not been capable of rocking due to the design and construction of such
chairs.
Id. at col. 2, lns. 22-25.
The administrative law judge finds that these statements are of little probative value
because th e patent does not explain how the need arose or descri be how long it was felt. See
Certain Strontium-Rubidium Infusions Systems, and Components Thereof Including Generators,
337-TA-1110, Final Initial Determination (Aug. 1, 2019) at 120, aff'd in pertinent part, Cornm'n
Opinion (Dec. 11 , 2019) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. ID 696920) at 38. GCI's other evidence
does not demonstrate any long-felt unresolved need for the claimed invention of the ' 61 1 patent.
See CX-0258C (Oliphant Dep.) at 26: 17-27:8; 34: 1-12, 36:6-37:4; Zheng T r. 409, 41 1. Viewing
the evidence as a whole, this factor does not supp ort a conclusion of non-obviousness.
3. 	Praise by Others
GCI argues that the invention of the '6 11 patent "has[s] received contemporaneous praise
by others and professional approval, which shows that those with ordinary skill in the art
consider GCI's inventions to be new and nonobvious." Compl. Br. at 82. GCI has adduced
articles and awards that praise the rocking features (such as the "rocker mechanism") of the ' 611
GCI products. See CX-0419C (Polke RWS) at Q/A 138-61; CX-0418C (Grace RWS) at Q/A 94-
95; CX-0421 (Dream Guides: "Best Portable Fishing Chair in 2019"); CX-0422 (Gear Junkie:
"Best Camping Chairs (That Rock)"); CX-04 23 (Gear Patrol: " The 11 Best Camp Chairs of
2019"); CX-0424 (Men's Health: "Best Camping Chairs 2 01 9"); CX-0425 (Popular Mechanics:
"Best Camping Chairs 2019"); CX-0426 (The Manual: "Best Camp Chairs on Amazon for
Chilling Around the Campfire"); CX-0427 (Yahoo Finance: "Celebrate National Tailgating Day
With Tailgating Challenge"); CX-0428 (Business Insider: "The best folding chair in 2019");
279

PUBLIC VERSION
CDX-0386 (Photo of 2013 Tailgater Magazine Best in Show at the National Hardware Show for
GCI's Freestyle Rocker).
Respondents argue that GCI' s reviews are inherently unreliable because many are online
and do not list an author. See Resps. Br. at 162. However, CDX-0386 is a photo of GCI's 2013
Tailgater Magazine Best in Show, an award GCJ received at the National Hardware Show for its
Freestyle Rocker. CX-0419C (Polke RWS) at Q/A 139-43. Moreover, the reviews and other
exhibits accorded any weight in this regard were published as part of well-known publications,
such as Men's Health Magazine, Popular Mechanics, and Business Insider. See CX-0423 (Gear
Patrol); CX-0424 (Men' s Health); CX-0425 (Popul ar Mechanics); CX-0428 (Business Insider).
The administrative law judge finds that this information provides evidence of praise of others for
the claimed features of the '611 patent.
4. 	Copying
GCI argues that copying by \Vestfield and MacSports is further objective evidence of the
non-obviousness of the invention of the '611 patent. See Compl. Br. at 83-85. GCI argues that
GCJ argues that MacSports sent a GCI Freestyle Rocker to the Meike
factory during development of the MacRocker. Wei Tr. 395-396; Zheng Tr. 414. GCI contends
that MacSports "purchased th ese GCI rockers for th e purpose of studying them." See Comp l. Br.
at 84 (quoting Wei Tr. 394).
Westfield argues 	which does not practice the '6 11
patent. See Re sps . Br. at 164 (citing CX-0330C). \Vestfield argues that
280

PUBLIC VERSION
as no relation
to the claimed invention of the '611 patent. See id. (citing CX-0054C).
MacSpo11s argues that it "designed around the GCI chair to make sure that we did not
copy the GCI chair." RX -0384C (Zheng DWS) at Q/A 17. MacSports argues that it specifically
designed th e MacRocker to not copy GCI's intellectual property. RX-0118C (Liu D\VS) at Q/A
35-49; RX -0384C (Zheng DWS) at Q/A 12-2 1; RX-01 17C (Wei DWS) at Q/A 19-53.
The administrative law j udge finds that GCI has not adduced evidence demonstrating that
Westfield or MacSports copied the invention of the '611 patent.
does not practice the '6 11 patent. See Resps. Br. at
164 (citing CX-0330C). Moreover, testing a competitor' s product does not equate to copying.
Grace Tr. 733.
GCI cites evidence showing that MacSports se nt a GCI chair to its factory in China. See
Compl. Br. at 83-85. However, Mr. Zheng testified that he wanted to make a non-infringing
rocking chair and sent the GCI chair to the factory so it would "kn[ow] what it was not supposed
to be copying." RX-0384C (Zheng DWS) at Q/A 17. MacSports engaged Wen Liu, Es q. , an
experienced patent lawyer, to ensure that its chairs did not infringe and Mr. Liu found that they
did no t. See id.
The administrative law judge finds that this evidence shows that Westfield and
MacSports were aware of the '6 11 GCI products, but such knowledge is insufficient evidence to
demonstrate that Westfield and MacSports in fact copied these products. GCI argues that there is
a "similarity between Respondents' accused products and GCI's patented products." Comp l.
Reply Br. at 29. However, as noted above, neither Westfield nor MacSports infringes an
281

PUBLIC VERSION
asserted claim of the '61 1 patent. The administrative law judge finds that the accused chairs are
not similar enough to demonstrate that Westfield or MacSports copied GCI's technology.
* 	* 	*
Accordingly, the administrative law judge finds that there is some evidence of secondary
considerations that tends to support non-obviousness of the claims of the '6 11 patent.
VII. 	Economic Prong
GCI argues that it has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement
of section 337(a)(3)(A)-(C) through significant investment in plant and equipment with respect
to the articles protected by the '824 and '61 1 patents, significant investment in labor and capital
with respect to the articles protected by the '824 and '611 patents, and substantial investment in
exploitation of the '824 and '6 11 patents. See Compl. Br. at 165-73. Respondents oppose any
such findings. See Resps. Br. at 170-75.
GCI applied a sa les-based allocation method to apportion its expenses for its capital and
equipment. See Com.pl. Br. at 168. Respondents did not challenge GCI's use of a sales-based
allocation method. See Resps. B r. at 170-75. Indeed, sales-based allocation may be used when
determining whether the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been
satisfied. See Certain Marine Sonar imaging Devices, including Downscan and Sidescan
Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof("Marine Sonar"), Inv. No.
337-TA-921, Comm'n Op. at 61-62 (approving use of weighted sales-based allocation to arrive
at investment amounts) (Jan. 6, 2016) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. ID 571940). Yet, even when
applying a sales-based methodology, the overall economic analysis must still include an
appropriate assessment of the relative in1portance of domestic activities related to the domestic
282

PUBLIC VERSION
industry products. Among the analyses that may be helpful to the Commission in ascertaining
significance are a c omparison of domestic and foreign investments or expenditures in relation to
the domestic industry products or a value-added analysis. Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123,
Comm' n Op. at 17 (Oct. 28, 2019) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. ID 6925 17); Certain Movable
Barrier Operation Sys. and Components Thereof("Movable Barrier"), Inv. No. 33 7-TA-1118,
Co mm ' n Order at 4 (May 4, 2020) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. ID 709462).
GCI applied the sales-ba sed percentages of the ' 61 1 and '824 GCI products sold each
ye ar from 2015 through May 30, 2019 to produce the following table:
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 16
'6 11 GCI
Products
Sold
'611 GCI Products as
% of Total Sales
(Allocations Factor)
'824 GCI
Products
Sold
'824 GCI Products as
% of Total Sales
(Allocation Factor)
CX-O00lC (Grace WS) at Q/A 61-102; CX-0376C (GCI's Rocker Sales)
A. 	GCl's Investments in Plant and Equipment
GCI argues, in pa1i :
Since 2018, GCI has occupied
457 Killingworth Roa
0351, with callouts to space devoted to R&D activities. I d. at Q/A 120-23.
16 According to GCI, the 2019 data is current as of May 30, 2019. See Comp l. Br at 168.
283

PUBLIC VERSION
Accordingly, app lying the sales-based allocation methodology using the
2019 percentages, the total investmen 	le to
the '824 Covered Rockers in 2019 i 	CX-
000lC (Grace WS) at Q/A 13 1. Similarly, total investm nt in Ian 	an 	ii in
I , 	, I 	I 	able to the '6 11 Covered R ockers in 2019
Id. at Q/A 13 2.
Compl. Br. at 169.
Respondents argue, in part:
GCI incorrectly inflates its alleged expenses by including in its investments
the entire purchase price for the 457 Killingwo1th Road facility. 	GCI's Co-
President Dan Grace testified that a separate (non-party) entity owns that facility
and GCI pays rent monthly for this space. Hrg. Tr. (Grace) 99: 13-15, 100:7-101:4;
RX-0035C (Grace Dep.) 109:1-110:11. 	Any alleged investment for plant and
equipment should use GCl's monthly rent and not the total purchase price as the
starting point its allocation.
Resps. Br. at 171.
The administrative law judge finds that GCl' s investment for plant and equipment should
use the fair market value for GCl's monthly rent as the starting point for the allocation, rather
than the purchase price for the facility because a separate (non-party) entity owns that facility
and GCI pays rent monthly for this space. Grace Tr. 99, 100-101; RX-0035C (Grace Dep.)
109: 1-110: 11. Mr. Grace testified that the fair market value of GCI's facility would be
" CX-000IC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 130. Thus, the starting point for the
allocation would b
With respect to GCl's investments in plant and equipment relating to its '824 GCI
products, the evidence shows that GCI's total investment in land and buildings that is attributable
to the '8 24 GCI products in 2019 is 	See CX-000lC (Grace WS)
284

PUBLIC VERSION
at Q/A 130. S im ilarly, total investment in land and buildings that is attributable to the ' 611 GCI
products in 2019 i 	See id.
GCI further argues:
llllllllllllltpplying the sales-based allocation methodology, GCI spent approximately
- 	on war h 	facilities 	related to 	the 	'824 Covered Rockers 	and
approxin1ately 	on warehouse facilities related to the '611 	Covered
Rockers from 	ough May 2019. Id.
Compl. Br. at 170.
Respondents did not dispute GCI's investments in warehousing, totalling more than
between the asserted patents. See Resps. Br. at 170-75. The administrative law judge
from 2015 through May 2019. See CX-000lC (Grace WS) at Q/A 133 -49.
GCI fmther argues:
Equipment related to R&D is accounted for separately .. . 	.. 	.
• 	th r n.l lHY 	2019 i
Id. at Q/A 150-55. This
eqmpment me u es computers, tra es ow 	oot s, copiers, and office equipment.
Id. at Q/A 156; CX-0377C (GCI Equipment Expenditures). This equipment is used
for all ofGC I' s products, including the '824 and ' 611 Covered Rockers. CX-000lC
(Grace WS) at Q/A 15 7.
Us ing the sales-based allocation methodology, the amount of G~
• 	an be attributed to the '824 Covered Rockers i~
an 	th 	amount att1ibutable to the ' 611 Covered Rockers is
from 2015 through May 2019. Id. at Q/A 158-
285

PUBLIC VERSION
Compl. Br. at 170.
Respondents argue:
GCI also improperly includes investments in "tradeshow booths, copiers
and office equipment, etc.," (CX-000lC (Q&A 156)), without connecting these
marketing and sales expenses to the '6 11 patent or the '824 patent. 	In addition,
GCI failed to show how these expenses add value to the Domestic Industry
Products.
Resps. Br. at 171.
The administrative law judge finds that GCI has not provided sufficient evidence to
"show how its activities were important to the articles protected by the asserted patents in the
context of the company's operations, the marketplace, or the industry in question, or whether
complainant's undertakings had a direct bearing on the practice of the patent." Certain Printing
and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-690; Comm'n Op. at 30-31
(Feb. 17, 2011).
GCI fmther argues:
........i1 addition, from 2015 through May 30, 2019, GCI sp ent approximately
- 	on R&D-related computers and equipment. Id. at Q/A 218-19. Using the
sales-based allocation methodology (id. 	at QI A 	220-27), 	GCI's total R&D
-
• 	nt expenditures attributable to the '824 Covered Rockers is approximately
Id. at Q/A 229. GCI's total R&D eq111	· 	xpenditures allocable to the
'611 Covered Rockers for the same period is 	Id. at Q/A 228.
Compl. Br. at 170-71.
Respondents did not dispute GCI's investments in R&D-related computers and
equipment. See Resps. Br. at 170-75. The administrative law judge finds that GCI invested
approximate! 	on R&D-related computers and equipment related to the '824 GCI
products and approximately 	on R&D-related computers and equipment related to the
'611 GCI products from 2015 through May 2019. See CX-0001 C (Grace WS) at Q/A 220-29.
286

PUBLIC VERSION
B. 	GCl's Investm ents in Labor and Capital
GCI argues, in part:
GCI has also invested and continues to invest significant sums in domestic
labor and capital relating to the Covered Ro• 	. At the time of th e Amended
Complaint in August 11 9, GCI employed 	full -time personnel at its US
h eadquarters, including 	R&D employees. Id. at Q/A 15- 17 ; see also CX-0378C
(GCI Employee/Salary List). GCI's~ 	xpenditures for its US employees
from 2015 through May 2019 was - 	CX-000lC (Grace DWS) at Q/A
170-80; CX-0378C (GCI Employee/Salary Lis t).
Using the sales-based allocation methodology, the total non-R&D labor
-
es attributable 	to GCI's 	'824 	Covered Rockers 	is approximately
from 2015 through May 2019. CX-000lC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 184.
g 	same methodology, the total ~bor expense attributable to the
'61 1 Covered Rockers is approximatel~ 	from 2015 through May 2019.
Id. atQ!A 183 .
Compl. Br. at 171.
Respondents argue, in part:
GCI's labor and capital expenses also suffer from the same flaw as its plant
and equipment expenses- 	namely, not removing non-Domestic Industry Product
or example, GCI's1-ude "sales and mark. 	in
finance/production 	; and distribution
." CX-00 0lC Q&A 165. These non- 	omestic Industry Product re ate
expenses are improper because GCI failed to tie them to the '61 1 patent or the '824
patent a nd GCI failed to show whether and to what extent these expenses add value
to the Domestic Industry Products. 	Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Comm'n Op. at 30- 31 (Feb. 17, 2011)
("[C]omplainant [did not] demonstrate whether and to what extent its domestic
activities added value to the imported products.").
As noted above, respondents did not challenge the use of GCI's sale-based allocation
method, and the administrative law judge finds that GCI's allocation methodology reasonably
approximates the labor and capital expenditures relating to the '6 11 and '824 GCI products. See
Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No . 337- TA-739,
Comm' n Op. at 74-75, 79-81 (June 8, 2012). Using GCI's sales-based allocation methodology,
the administrative law judge finds that GCI's total amount of non-R&D labor expenditures
287

PUBLIC VERSION
attributable to GCI's '824 GCI products is approximatel 	from 2015 through May
2019. See CX-OOO lC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 184. Using this same methodology, the
administrative law jud ge finds that the total amount of non-R&D labor expense attributable to
the '6 11 GCI products is approximatel 	rom 2015 through May 2019. See id. at
Q/A 183.
C. 	GCI's R&D Expenditures
GCI argues, in part:
GCI has invested and continues to invest significant sums in engineering,
research and development, and equipment ( such as computers
relatin 	to the '824 and '611 Covered Rockers. For example,
Id. at QIA 250. GCI consi ers
"extremely important" and R&D related to its Covered Rockers "a critical
component of [GCI's] ability to grow." Id. at Q/A 255. As evidence of its R&D
expenditures; GCI provided letters showing tax 	·1 	, 11·1 	I 	Ill 	·,
-93
. The 	p 	~
GCI was investing in fo r each year. Id. at Q/A 193 ; CX-0379C (R&D Tax Ltrs.).
Taking the total R&D expenditures for each year and dividing them by the
perc~ects related to the Covered Rockers for that year, GCI spent at
leas~ 	n R&D related to the '824 Patent from 20 15 through May 2019.
CX-OOOlC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 216; CX-0462C (Grace Errata). According to M r.
Grace, "these figures significantly underestimate the amount expended on R&D on
these products for these years, since both the '8 24 and '611 Covered Rocker
Products were important products to which more R&D resources were devoted
proportionally than other projects." CX-OOO lC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 217.
Compl. Br. at 171-72.
Respondents argue, in part:
GCI also failed to properly allocate its R&D expenses and failed to show a
nexus between its alleged investments and the asserted patents. GCI's employees
did not keep track of their time spent on the '611 patent or the '824 patent. Hrg.
Tr. (Grace) 97:8 -1 1. Instead, GCI uses a sales-based allocation that suffers a fatal
flaw- 	any R&D expenses that may have a nexus to the asse1ted claims occurred
before GCI sold any Domestic Industry Products in 2013. GCI did not and cannot
•:•-· 	..................... -.:~	show a nexus between its
Grace discusses R&D wor
288

PUBLIC VERSION
6), 	(id. at Q&A51-53),
id. 	e of which are relate 	o 	e asse e
c aims. 	Hrg. Tr. 	race) 737:14-19. 	The futility of applying GCI's sales-based
allocation in this investigation is shown by the fact that GCI had no sales during its
R&D efforts to create its first Domestic Industry Product and now the chairs make
up the vast majority of GCI's sales while the R&D efforts to create the GCI chairs
ended years ago.
GCI's allocation to create R&D expenses does not correspond with the
actual 	ount of time the
g 1
20: 19-21: 1 1. In addition, Mr. 	race testi 1e 	t at t e trme estimates he provided
for GCI's various R&D efforts overlap- 	that GCI worked on more than one project
at a time, including work on projects not related to the asserted patents or the
Domestic Industry Products. Hrg. Tr. (Grace) 96:24-97:7, 734:20-735:7.
GCI also overstates its R&D expenses by claiming R&D expenses in the
years after GCI started selling the '611 patent Domestic Industry Products in the
market. For example, GCI alleges that four products practice the ' 611 patent (CX-
0001 Q&A 26-30), and that GCI offered all four products for sale starting in 2016.
CX-0001 Q&A28, 61-64; CX-0376C.003 (showing 2017 sales totals). 	Yet, GCI
clain1s R&D expenses in 2017, 2018, and 2019 for the '611 patent. 	CX-0001
Q&A222, 224, 226, 228.
Resps. Br. at 172-73.
As an initial matter, respondents appear to be incorrect regarding GCI's manner of
calculating R&D expenses. GCI used letters showing tax credits it claimed for most years
between 2011 through 2018. See CX-OOOlC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 188-93; CX-0379C.
Moreover, it is not the case that GCI "clain1s R&D expenditures in 2017, 2018, and 2019 for the
'6 11 patent." Resps. Br. at 173. GCI did not allocate any R&D expenditures for the '611 patent.
See Comp 1. Br. at 172-73.
The administrative law judge finds that GCI's R&D efforts are related to the specific
products covered by the patents. See Motorola Mobility, LLC v. US Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 73 7
F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[N)othing in§ 337 precludes a complainant from relying on
289

PUBLIC VERSION
investments or employment directed to significant components, specifically tailored for use in an
article protected by the patent."). The evidence demonstrates that GCI expended at least
n R&D related to the '824 patent from 2015 through May 2019. CX-000lC
(Grace DWS) at Q/A 216.
D. 	GCl's Engineering-Related Travel Expenditures
GCI argues, in part:
GCI also incurred engineering-related travel expenses that are attributable
to t 	• 	d manufactu • 	of the Covered Ro
Us ing 	the 	sales-based 	allocation 	methodology, 	the 	value 	of GCI's
engineering-rel-el expenses attributable to GCI's '824 Covered Rockers is
approxin1ately 	rom 2015 through May 2019. Id. at Q/A 247. Using the
same methodo ogy, 	t e value 	of GCI's 	engineering-rela 	l 	expenses
attributable to the '6 11 Covered Rockers is approximately 	from 2015
through May 2019. Id. at Q/A 246.
Compl. Br. at 172.
Respondents argue, in part:
GCI's alleged engineering related expenses are for activities occurring
outside t he United States. Hrg. Tr. (Grace) 101 :1 4-102:5, 102:15-103:1 ; CX-0001
Q&A230. The ALJ should not count these expenses because Section 337 requires
that the investment take place in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (a)(3) (" [A]n
industry in the United States shall be considered to exist if there is in the United
States ...") ( emphasis added).
Resps. Br. at 173-74.
GCI argues that it incurred engineering-related travel expenses "that are attributable to
the production and manufacturing of the Covered Rockers." See Comp I. Br. at 172. However,
Mr. Grace testified that this was "travel to 	to discuss production of our products."
290

PUBLIC VERSION
CX-000lC (Grace DWS) at Q/A 230. These are thus admittedly activities occurring outside the
United States. The administrative law judge finds that these travel-related expenses are not
attributable to the domestic industry.
E. 	Contextual Analysis
Respondents argue, in part:
GCI's arguments under any prong of the domestic industry requirement fail
because GCI did not provide enough context of GCI's operations, the marketplace,
or the industly for the Commission to evaluate. Certain Carburetors and Products
Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. 337-TA-1123, Comm'n Op. at 17 (Oct. 28,
2019) ("Carburetors") ("Walbro's reliance on the numerical amounts, which the
ID refers to as ' absolute values,' of its domestic investments fails to evaluate
significance based on any context of Walbro's operations, the marketplace, or the
industry in question."). Significantly, "o ther than the sales-based allocation of its
investments, [GCI] fails to provide any other context for its domestic industry
investments." Carburetors at 13-14.
Here, GCI failed to provide enough information so that the Commission can
consider "the nature and in1portance of the complainant 's activities to the patented
products in the context of the marketplace or industry in question." Carburetors at
18. 	''Beyond using sales for allocating the absolute amount of inves tments, the
Commission has also compared those investments to sales of protected articles in
order to consider the context of a complainant's domestic industry investments
among other evidence." Carburetors at 9. 	GCI has failed to provide the
Commission such context. To the extent GCI argues its investments are significant
or substantial relative to the industry as a whole, GCI failed to provide any evidence
of what t he no1ms are in th e industry beyond self-serving statements by GCI's Co-
President Mr. Grace. Hrg. Tr. (Grace) 97: 12-98:6.
The Commission seeks "to place the value of domestic investments in the
context of the relevant marketplace, such as by comparing a complainant's
domestic expenditures to its foreign expenditures or considering the value added to
the product from a complainant's activities in the United States." Carburetors at
18. Critically, GCI failed to show how any of GCI's domestic activities add value
to the domestic industry product s. 	Id. 	Moreover, GCI failed to provide any
evidence relating to its worldwide sales to put its U.S. sales or investments into
context. 	Id. at 20-21. 	For example, GCI failed to provide any information about
investments 	it made 	in other product categories and only provides vague,
unsubstantiated claims about what investments the industry makes.
Resps. Br. at 174-75.
291

PUBLIC VERSION
GCI argues, in pati:
GCI put its US expenditures into the proper context. Mr. Grace testified that its
expenditures on the Covered Rockers "very significant" to GCI, particularly for a
company of GCI's size. CX-000lC (Grace D\VS) at Q/A 250-52, 256. Mr . Grace
also expla 	domestic spend on the '611 and '824 Covered Rockers
was about 	respectively, of GCI's total expenditures in the same
period. Id. at Q/A 251-52; see also id. at Q/A 217 ("[B]oth the '824 and '611
Covered Rocker Products were in1portant products to which more R&D resources
were devoted proportionally than oth~tptalled, 	GCI's US
investments in the Covered Rockers is •~ 	f [GCI's] total US
expenditures over the last few years." Id. at Q/A 252.
Mr. Grace also explained that, based on his experience in the industly and
his personal knowledge of GCI's competi to rs, GCI's US investments in the
Covered Rockers would be considered significant for this industry. Id. at Q/A 253-
54. Thus, GCI put its expenditures into the proper context.
Compl. Reply Br. at 63-64.
Respondents rely on Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Comm' n Op. (Oct. 28, 2019),
and argue that "GCI did not provide enough context of GCI's operations, the marketplace, or the
industry for the Commission to evaluate." Resps. Br. at 174. However, in Carburetors, the
Commission observed that "comparing a complainant's domestic expenditures to its foreign
expenditures" was one of multiple ways of conducting a contextual analysis of a complainant 's
domestic activities. See Carburetors at 18. In other words, "Commission precedent permits
complainants to present evidence of their U.S. investments using methods and approaches that
are appropriate to the facts of a particular investigation." Movable Barrier, Inv. No. 337-TA-
1118, Comm'n Op. at 23 (Jan. 12, 2021) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. ID 730303) (citing
Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Inv. No. 337 -TA-860,
Comm' n Op. at 18-19 (May 9, 2014) (Public Version) (EDIS Doc. ID 533534) ("These figures
show the relative importance of [complainant 's] R&D investments as they are directly tied to
292

PUBLIC VERSION
development of the articles protected by the patent and are critically important to [complainant 's]
business as a whole.")).
The administrative law judge finds that GCI's domestic industry activities are critical to
the sales of the '8 24 and ' 61 1 GCI products. GCI's
workshop at its 457 K.i llingwo1ih Road facility is used fo
warehouse/R&D
CX-000 l C (Grace DWS) at Q/A 122. GCI's warehouse space is used fo
See id. at Q/A 127. Moreover, '
Id. at Q/A 125-26; CX-0379C.
The administrative law judge finds that these activities provide context for the company 's
operations, demonstrating that the relative value of GCI's domestic activities and investments is
significant and substantial.
F. 	Analysis of GCl's Investments
In summary, the evidence shows:
• 	Land and buildings attributable to the '824 GCI products
• 	Land and buildings attributable to the ' 611 GCI prod
• 	Warehouse facilities related to the '824 GCI products:
• 	Warehouse facilities related to the '611 GCI products
• 	R&D-related computers and equipment related to the '824 GCI products:
• 	R&D-related computers and equipment related to the '61 1 GCI pro
• 	No n-R&D labor expenditures attributable to the '824 GCI pro
• 	No n-R&D labor expense attrib 	' 6 11 GCI products
• 	R&D related to the '824 patent:
293

PUBLIC VERSION
The administrati ve law jud ge thus finds that the total value of GCI's domestic activities
and investments attributable to the '824 and '6 11 GCI products, established during the
evidentiary hearing, is
Based on the record evidence discussed above, it is determined that GCI has satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a) (3 )(A) and (B). GCI
adduced testin10ny and documentary evidence showing that GCI has made significant
investments in plant and equipment with respect to its '824 and ' 61 1 GCI products, as well as
significant investments in labor and capital with respect to its '824 and ' 611 GCI products.
Specifically, the evidence shows that GCI made significant investments in its Killingworth Road
facility, including, but not limited to, rent and laboratory equipment. The evidence also shows
that GCI has made significant investments in salaries fo r people working on its '824 and ' 611
GCI products, including engineers, technicians, and Mr. Grace himself.
VIII. 	Conclusions of Law
1. 	The Commission has subject matter, personal, and in rem jurisdiction in this
investigation.
2. 	The importation requirement is satisfied as to respondents.
3. 	Denovo and Zhenli's Rok-It Chair infringes asserted claims 10, 11, 12, 15, 18,
and 19 of the '82 4 paten t.
4. 	Westfield's Mulberry Bounce Chair does not infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 10, and
11 of the '6 11 patent.
5. 	MacSports and Meike's MacRocker does not infringe asserted clain1s 1, 2, 8, 14,
15 , and 19 of the '6 11 patent.
6. 	The domestic industry requirement is not satisfied as to the '824 patent.
294

PUBLIC VERSION
7. 	The domestic industry requirement is satisfied as to the ' 611 patent.
8. 	It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted clain1 of
the ' 824 patent is invalid.
9. 	It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claim of
the ' 61 1 patent is invali d.
IX. 	Initial Determination on Violation
Accordingly, it is the initial determination of the undersigned that a violation of section
337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) has not occun-ed in the importation into the United States, the sale for
in1portation, or the sale within the United States after in1portation of certain collapsible and
portable furniture, with respect to asserted clain1s IO , 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No.
9;282;824; and asserted claims l ; 2; 8; 10; 11; 14; 15 and 19 ofU.S. Patent No. 9;060;61 L
Further, this initial determination, together with the record of the hearing in this
investigation consisting of (1 ) the transcript of the hearing, with appropriate corrections as may
hereafter be ordered, and (2) the exhibits received into evidence in this investigation, is hereby
certified to the Commission.
In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 210.93(c), all material found to be confidential by the
undersigned under 19 C.F.R. § 210.5 is to be given in camera treatment.
The Secretary shall serve a public version of this initial determination upon all parties of
record and the confidential version upon counsel who are signatories to the Protective Order, as
amended, issued in this investigation.
Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h), this initial determination shall become the
determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review pursuant to
295

PUBLIC VERSION
§ 210.43(a) or the Commission, pursuant to§ 210.44, orders on its own motion a review of the
initial determination or certain issues herein.
X. 	Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding
Pursuant to the notice of investigati on, 84 Fed. Reg. 52896 (Oct. 3, 2019), this is the
recommended determination in Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture, United States
International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA- 11 78.
A. 	Limited Exclusion Order
The Commission has broad discretion in selecting th e form, scope, and ex tent of th e
remedy in a section 337 proceeding. Viscofan, S.A. v. U.S. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 787 F.2d 544,
548 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A limited exclusion order directed to respondents' infringing products is
among the remedies that the Commission may impose . See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d).
GCI req uests that the Commission in1pose a limited exclusion order that prohibits
Denovo and Zhenli from importing products found to infringe asserted claims 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 ,
and 19 of the '824 patent, Westfield from in1porting products found to infringe asse1ted clain1s 1,
2, 10, and 11 of the '6 11 patent, and MacSports and Me ike from importing products found to
infringe asserted claim s 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, and 19 of the ' 611 patent. See Compl. Br. at 173.
In their po sthearing briefs, respondents argue that, in the event of a linuted exclusion
order, th e order should be limited to products imported after th e Presidential Review Period, and
delayed by 24 months to allow the respondents sufficient time to implement or license a new
design.
Respondents offer no legal authority supporting such a significant delay and, indeed, su ch
a request would be particularly inappropriate here inasmuch as, due to the pandemic, the target
296

PUBLIC VERSION
date has already been extended by more than five months (i.e., from January 4, 2021, to June 18,
2021). See Order No. 18 at 2, 4 (unreviewed).
Based on the arguments of the patties, it is the determination of the administrative law
judge that, in the event a violation of section 337 is found, the Commission should issue a
limited exclusion order with respect to products that infringe the asserted claims of the '824 and
'611 patents, subject to any public interest factors considered by the Commission.
B. 	Cease and Desist Order
Section 3 37 provides that in addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion order,
the Commission may issue a cease and desist order as a remedy for a violation of section 337.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(l). Under current Commission precedent, a cease and desist order is
generally issued when there is a "commercially significant" amount of infringing; imported
product in the United States that could be sold by an infringing respondent resulting in evasion of
the remedy provided by an exclusion order. Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Comm'n Op. at 24 (June 5, 2012).
GCI argues that a cease and desist order is appropriate under the circumstances of this
investigation. See Compl. Br. at 174. GCI argues that MacSports has over.units of the
accused MacRocker in its warehouse in 	see id. (citing Wei Tr. 391),Westfield has
"aroun 	units of the Mulberry Bounce Chair in 	see id. (citing Webb Tr. at
321-322), and Denovo has maintained during the pendency of this investigation over 7000 units
in inventory in the US, see id. (citing Perry Tr. 676-678).
Respondents argue that Denovo and Zhenli are exempt from a cease and desist order,
because Zhenli does not maintain any inventory of the accused Rok-It Chair in the United States,
and Denovo has only.un its of the accused Rok-It Chair in inventory in the United States,
297

PUBLIC VERSION
which is not a commercially significant amount. See Resps. Br . at 176 ( citing Perry Tr . 678).
Respondents further argue that GCI has cited to no evidence that Westfield has sufficient
inventory to justify a cease and desist order. See id.
GCI argues and has established that, during the pendency of this investigation, Denovo
has maintained ove 	units in inventory in th e United States. See Compl. Br . at 174-75
(citing Perry Tr. 676-678). GCI further argues tha
sell the accused products on Amazon through Amazon's US fulfillment centers. See id. at
174-75 (citin 	'd. at 389 (MacSports); CX-0470
(MacSports Amazon ad); CX-0016C (receipt for purchase ofDenovo chair on Amazon)).
Base d on the arguments of the patties and the evidence cited in the parties' posthearing
briefs, it is the determination of the administrative law judge that the Commission should issue
cease and desist orders in the event a violation of section 337 is found. GCI has adduced
sufficient evidence showing that Denovo, Westfield, and MacSports each maintains
commercially significant amounts of infringing products in the United States. Moreover, th e sale
roducts on Amazon from Amazon's fulfillment centers "supports the
inference that [respondents] maintain a commercially significant inventory." Certain Hand
Dryers & Housings for Hand D,yers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm'n Op. at 11 (Oct. 30, 2017).
C. 	Bond
Pursuant to section 337(j)(3), the administrative law judge and the Commission must
determine the amount of bond to be required of a respondent, during the 60-day Presidential
review period following the issuance of pem1anent relief, in the event that the Commission
detem1ines to issue a remedy. The purpose of the bond is to protect the complainant from any
tnJuty. 	19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(3); 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.42(a)(l)( ii), 210.50(a)(3).
298

PUBLIC VERSION
When reliable price information is available, the Commission has often set bond by
eliminating the differential between the domestic product and the imported, infringing product.
Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same,
Including Se(f-Stick Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366, Comm' n Op. at 24 (1995). In
other cases, the Commission has turned to alternative approaches, especially when the level of a
reasonable royalty rate could be ascertained. Certain Integrated Circuit Telecommunication
Chips and Products Containing Same, Including Dialing Apparatus, Inv. No. 337-TA-337,
Comm'n Op. at 41 (1995). A 100% bond has been required when no effective alternative
existed. Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No . 337-TA-382,
USITC Pub. No. 3046, Comm' n Op. at 26-27 (July 1997) (a 100% bond imposed when price
comparison was not practical because the parties sold products at different levels of commerce,
and the proposed royalty rate appeared to be de minimis and without adequate support in the
record).
GCI requests bond be required and that for each respondent it be based on the price
differential between the sales price of GCI' s products and the price of each respondent's accused
products. See Compl. Br. at 175-77. GCI argues for a 20.3% bond for the Rok-lt Chair imported
or sold by Denovo and Zhenli, . 	bond for MacSports/Meike's MacRocker, and a
bond for \Vestfield' s Mulberry Bounce Chair. See id.
Respondents argue that GCI did not establish the need for a bond with proof of injury,
such as lost sales or price erosion. It is argued that GCI's Co-President Mr . Polke testified that
See id. In their reply, respondents further argue that GCI's pricing information is
299

PUBLIC VERSION
outdated and unreliable, particularly with respect to Westfiel d's Mulberry Bounce Chair. See
Resps. Br. at 176 ( citing Polke Tr. 687-688); Resp s. Reply Br . at 60-61.
The purpose of a bond, as indicated above, is to prevent any future injury during the
Presidential review pe1iod, in the event that the Commission determines to issue exclusion
orders. As discussed below, th e evidence adduced during the hearing supports the use of th e
commonly used price differential method to calculate bond.
To calculate price differentials, GCI has used pricing data from the summer of 2020
(CX-0380), during the pendency of this investigation, for its own products, and a variety of
evidence for respondents' products, including deposition testimony, shipping information, and a
receipt of purchase. See Compl. Br. at 175-76. With respect to the Westfield products (the
"Mulberry Bounce Chair" or "Bounce Chair"), GCI relies on CX-0341C (Packaging and
Shipping Infom1ation used during the Webb deposition) and CX-0067C (containing a target
retail p 1ice). See id.
Respondents argue that during the hearing, GCI should have cross-examined Mr. Webb,
Westfield 's Seni or Vice President of design, development, and marketing, about current pricing,
but did not do so. Yet, respondents point to no evidence of different pricing. It is unclear
whether GCI could have cross-examined Mr. Webb on a subject that respondents have not
shown to be in Mr. \Vebb 's direct testimony. See Resps. Reply Br. at 61; see also RX-0120C
(Webb DWS). GCI has adduced probative evidence of Westfield pricing. A calculation ba sed
on that evidence is preferable to th e imposition of a 100% bond.
The administrative law judge finds that GCI has adduced sufficient evidence
demonstrating a price differential between the sales price of complainant's product and the price
ofrespondents' products. The administrative law judge recommends that, in the event that a
300

PUBLIC VERSION
violation of section 337 is found, and s ubj ect to the issuance of an exclusion order,
Denovo/Zhenli should be required to post an importation bond of 20.3%, MacSports/Meike
should be required to post a bond o
1/o.
XI. 	Order
o, and Westfield should be required to po st a bond of
To expedite service of the public version of this document, the parties shall file a jo int
proposed public version, on the date and in the manner required by Order No. 28.
Issued: February 18 , 2021
David P. Shaw
Administrative Law Judge
301

CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND PORTABLE FURNITURE 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1178
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached INITIAL DETERMINATION has
been served upon the following parties as indicated, on March 18 2021.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant GCI Outdoor, Inc.:
Gary M. Hnath Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Email: ghnath@mayerbrown.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondent Denovo Brands, LLC and
Zhenli (Zhangzhou) Industrial Co., Ltd.:
Jeff E. Schwartz, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 380 East
Washington, DC 20005
Email: jeschwartz@foxrothschild.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondent Westfield Outdoor, Inc. d/b/a
Westfield Outdoors:
David B. Jinkins, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Email: DJinkins@ThompsonCoburn.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download
On Behalf of Respondents MacSports Inc. and Meike
(Qingdao) Leisure Products Co., Ltd.:
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18th Street NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Email: ariley@meimark.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download

CERTAIN COLLAPSIBLE AND PORTABLE FURNITURE 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1178
Certificate of Service – Page 2