Shimano Inc.v.Globeride, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13009554 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 40
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: June 16, 2016
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

SHIMANO INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
GLOBERIDE, INC.,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2

Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Petitioner, Shimano Inc. (“Shimano”), filed a corrected petition (Paper
7, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–12 (the “challenged
claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,022 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’022 patent”).
Shimano supported the Petition with a declaration from Scott L. Springer,
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
2
PhD (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner, Globeride, Inc. (“Globeride”), timely filed a
Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On June 18, 2015,
based on the record before us at the time, we instituted an inter partes
review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12, Paper 14 (“Institution Decision” or
“Dec.”), on the ground that those claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 because they were obvious in light of the combination of the following
three prior art references: Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2009-131212,
(“JP212”) (Ex. 1004); Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH11-276042
(“JP042”) (Ex. 1007); and Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2002-354974
(“JP974”) (Ex. 1005).
After we instituted this review, Globeride filed a Patent Owner
Response in opposition to the Petition (Paper 22, “Resp.”) that was
supported by declarations from Grace King (Ex. 2042), Kimberly Cameron,
PhD (Ex. 2043), and Terry Pederson (Ex. 2049). Shimano filed a Reply in
support of the Petition (Paper 27, “Reply”).
Shimano filed a motion to exclude evidence. Paper 30 (“Pet.
Motion”). Globeride filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion to exclude
evidence. Paper 34 (“Pet. Mot. Opp.”). Shimano filed a reply in support of
its motion to exclude evidence. Paper 37 (“Pet. Mot. Reply”).
Globeride also filed a motion to exclude evidence. Paper 32 (“PO
Motion”). Shimano opposed Patent Owner’s motion to exclude evidence.
Paper 35 (“PO Mot. Opp.”). Globeride filed a reply in support of its motion
to exclude evidence. Paper 38 (“PO Mot. Reply”).
Globeride did not file a motion to amend any claim of the ’022 patent.
We heard oral argument on February 9, 2016. A transcript of the
hearing is entered as Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
3
For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Shimano has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12
are unpatentable. We also grant-in-part Shimano’s motion to exclude
evidence and deny Globeride’s motion to exclude evidence.
B. Related Proceedings
The parties identify no related proceedings. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2.
C. The ’022 Patent
The ’022 patent is directed to a “spinning reel for fishing.” Ex. 1001,
1:5. Prior spinning reels include a seal surrounding a drive shaft and located
near the front of the reel body to prevent water from entering and corroding
the internal mechanisms of the reel. Id. at 1:12–24. The Specification
describes the claimed reel as including all the typical elements of a spinning
reel such as a reel body, handle, spool, rotor, and pinion. Id. at 3:55–4:16.
The claimed reel also includes a “magnetic seal device.” Id. at 9:54
(independent claim 1), 10:40 (independent claim 9). The Specification
illustrates magnetic seal device 150 in Figure 5, which is reproduced below
with colorized portions to aid in its understanding.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
4

Figure 5 of the ’022 patent is an enlarged sectional view of a
portion of a spinning reel with a magnetic seal device located
near the distal end of the pinion.
Magnetic seal device 150 includes magnet 151 (yellow), two magnetic
rings 152 (yellow), inner race 21 (green), and magnetic fluid 155 (light
blue), which is maintained between magnet 151 (yellow) and inner race 21
(green). Id. at 6:37–42. Inner race 21 (green) is a pipe-shaped element that
is fixed to pinion 8 (red), which rotates when a user winds the handle of the
reel. Id. at 6:42–47. Bolt 139 secures magnetic rings 152 (yellow) to
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
5
support portion 1a (purple) of reel body 1. Id. at 6:61–66. Bolt 139 also
secures magnetic seal device 150 to the front portion of cover body 50
(orange). Id. at 7:17–23.
Gap G exists between inner race 21 (green) and laterally located
magnet 151 (yellow) and magnetic rings 152 (yellow) so that inner race 21
(green) may rotate freely relative to magnet 151 (yellow) and magnetic rings
152 (yellow). Id. at 6:67–7:2. Magnet 151 (yellow), magnetic rings 152
(yellow), and inner race 21 (green) maintain magnetic fluid 155 (light blue)
within gap G and thus prevents intrusion of water or other contaminants into
the interior of reel body 1 without imparting significant additional friction as
inner race 21 (green) and pinion 8 (red) rotate relative to magnet 151
(yellow) and magnetic rings 152 (yellow). Id. at 8:32–47.
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims among the claims under
review, and claim 1, which is illustrative, recites:
1. A spinning reel for fishing comprising:
a reel body including a front portion;
a handle provided in the reel body;
a spool on which a fishing line is to be wound;
a rotor that includes a cylindrical portion accommodating the
front portion of the reel body and a fishing line guide part, the
rotor being rotated by the rotational manipulation of the
handle to wind the fishing line on the spool, an opening being
formed radially through the cylindrical portion of the rotor;
a driving part transmitting the rotation of the handle to the rotor;
a support part provided in the front portion of the reel body and
supporting the driving part; and
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
6
a magnetic seal device arranged between the driving part and the
support part.
Id. at 9:40–55.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
“A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final
written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction
in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly approved the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”), cert.
granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.)
(2016). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning.
See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The
ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to
a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). For the purposes of this
decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim term needs express
interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to
be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
B. The Parties’ Post-Institution Arguments
In our Institution Decision, we concluded that the argument and
evidence adduced by Shimano demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
7
combination of JP212, JP042, and JP974 rendered claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12
obvious. Dec. 8–9, 15–16. We must now determine whether Shimano has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the specified claims are
unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). In this connection,
we previously instructed Globeride that “any arguments for patentability not
raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 15, 6;
see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied
may be considered admitted.”). Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice
Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the
involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that
belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766
(Aug. 14, 2012).
In response to Shimano’s challenge to the claims, Globeride argues
that the combination of JP212, JP042, and JP974 fails to describe “a
magnetic seal device arranged between the driving part and the support
part,” as recited in claims 1 and 6–8, or the “magnetic seal” mounted in a
“cover body” as recited in claims 2, 9, and 12. Resp. 32–49. Globeride also
argues that Shimano’s obviousness challenge to all claims fails because
Shimano fails to establish that an ordinary artisan would have been
motivated to modify JP212 with teaching of JP042 and/or JP974 to add a
magnetic seal in the claimed locations. Id. at 13–32. Accordingly, the
record now contains unrebutted arguments and evidence presented by
Shimano regarding the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches all
other elements of the claims against which that prior art is asserted. Based
on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we conclude that the prior
art identified by Shimano describes all limitations of the reviewed claims
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
8
except for those that Globeride identifies above. We address Globeride’s
arguments made at trial below.
C. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12 in View of JP212, JP042,
and JP974
We instituted this review on Shimano’s challenge to the patentability
of claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12 on the ground that these claims are obvious in
light of the combination of JP212, JP042, and JP974. Dec. 16. The
Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
(2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized
the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining
whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
1. determining the scope and contents of the prior art,
2. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue,
3. resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and
4. considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address Shimano’s
challenge below.
1. Claims 1 and 6–8
Shimano contends that JP212 describes every element of the spinning
reel of independent claim 1 except for the magnetic character of the seal
located “between the driving part and the support part.” Pet. 17–22.
Shimano contends that seal 104 of JP212 is located “between the driving
part and the support part” as required in claim 1 but acknowledges that seal
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
9
104 is not magnetic. Pet. 21. To address this deficiency, Shimano cites
JP042 as describing magnetic seal devices 33a, 53, 124, and 125, with seal
125 also surrounding the spool shaft to prevent water from impinging upon
clutch 151 and bearings 116a for pinion 112 of JP042. Id. at 15, 21 (citing
Ex. 1007 ¶ 55, Fig. 9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Based on the similarity of the
functions performed by seal 104 in JP212 and seal 125 in JP042, Shimano
argues that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to replace seal 104
of JP212 with magnetic seal 125 of JP042. Pet. 16–17. Shimano also cites
the ’819 patent as demonstrating that a skilled artisan would have known at
the time of invention about the interchangeability of non-magnetic and
magnetic seals. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1006, 18:55–61).
a) Whether the Combination of JP212 and JP042 Describes All
Limitations of Claims 1 and 6–81
Shimano contends that it is undisputed that the combination of JP212
and JP042 describes a magnetic seal “arranged between the driving part and
the support part” as required in claims 1 and 6–8. Reply 1–3. We agree.
Globeride argues that “JP042 . . . fails to teach a magnetic seal at the
location disclosed in the ’022 Patent.” Resp. 33. The issue, however, is
whether the combination of JP212 and JP042 describes a magnetic seal in
the location recited in claims 1 and 6–8. Globeride argues that JP212 fails to
teach a magnetic seal in the claimed location, but Globeride fails to address

1 Shimano does not rely upon JP974 as describing any aspect of claims 1 and
6–8 but instead relies solely upon the teachings of the combination of JP212
and JP042. Pet. 31–35 (claim 1), 37 (claims 6–8). Shimano also asserted
that claims 1 and 6–8 were unpatentable as obvious in view of the
combination of JP212 and JP042. Id. at 15–22. We, therefore, analyze
Shimano’s challenge to claims 1 and 6–8 as being obvious in view of the
combination of JP212 and JP042.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
10
the merits of Shimano’s argument, which relies upon JP212’s disclosure of
an elastomeric seal at the claimed location and JP042’s disclosure of the
interchangeability of magnetic and elastomeric seals.
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the combination
of JP212 and JP042 describes an elastomeric seal in the claimed location and
the interchangeability of elastomeric and magnetic seals in spinning reels.
Both experts agree that JP212 describes seal 104 in the recited location
“between the driving part and the support part.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 at 16–17;
Ex. 1015, 104:25–107:19. Both experts also agree that, based on JP042, a
skilled artisan would have known that spinning reels could employ magnetic
seals in place of elastomeric seals. Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 at 17–18; Ex. 1015,
119:14–22. Not only does JP042 describe the use of magnetic seals in
spinning reels, but JP042 also indicates that magnetic seals could be used in
locations other than those that it expressly describes. Ex. 1007 ¶ 78. Thus,
we find that the combination of JP212 and JP042 describes a seal in the
claimed location (JP212’s seal 104) and the use of magnetic seals in a
variety of locations within a spinning reel (magnetic seals 33a, 53, 124, and
125 of JP042). Accordingly, we determine that the combination of JP212
and JP042 describes all limitations of claims 1 and 6–8.
b) Reason for Combining JP212 and JP042
Shimano argues that JP212’s seal 104 (an elastomeric seal) and
JP042’s seal 125 (a magnetic seal) perform the same function in a spinning
reel, namely, preventing water from entering an opening through which a
shaft extends to protect the clutch and bearings. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004
Fig. 2; Ex. 1007, Fig. 9, ¶ 55). Based on the similarity in the function of
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
11
these two seals, Shimano contends that it would have been obvious to
replace JP212’s seal 104 with a magnetic seal as taught by JP042. Id.
Globeride argues that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated
to replace seal 104 in JP212 with a magnetic seal as described by JP042 for
four reasons. Resp. 13–32. We address each in turn below and find
Globeride’s arguments to be unpersuasive.
(1) JP212’s Elastomeric Seal 104 Reduces Friction Well
Enough
Globeride argues that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated
to replace seal 104 in JP212 with a magnetic seal because JP212 states that
its seal 104 “does not lower the rotational properties” of the shaft that it
surrounds and prevents water from intruding into the reel body. Resp. 17
(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 49). Globeride also criticizes Dr. Springer for allegedly
failing to explain why a skilled artisan would remove seal 104 in favor of a
magnetic seal. Id. at 18.
Shimano persuasively argues that Globeride’s reliance on JP212’s
description of the performance of seal 104 ignores the well-known use of
magnetic seals for reducing friction when compared to seals involving
physical contact such as JP212’s seal 104. Reply 3–4. Both experts agree
that contact between moving parts will result in friction. Ex. 1015, 88:3–
90:6; Ex. 2050, 108:10–15. JP042 expressly states that “when causing an
elastic-made seal to contact a rotating body that will perform relative
rotation, there is the danger that the rotational performance will drop
because the friction force between the seal and the rotating body is large.”
Ex. 1007 ¶ 5. Accordingly, we determine that a skilled artisan would have
known that a magnetic seal at the location of JP212’s seal 104 would reduce
friction when compared to elastomeric seal 104. Globeride’s argument that
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
12
a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to reduce friction caused by
JP212’s seal 104 because that friction was sufficiently low is unpersuasive.
(2) Replacing JP212’s Seal with a Magnetic Seal Would
Prevent JP212 from Achieving Its Intended Purpose
Globeride also argues that a skilled artisan would not have replaced
seal JP212’s 104 with a magnetic seal because doing so would prevent seal
104 from achieving multiple aspects of its intended purpose. Resp. 19–22
(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Globeride identifies
the four advantages of JP212’s elastomeric seal 104 that would allegedly be
eliminated by replacing it with a magnetic seal, including: (1) providing an
axially compact design that maintains stability and strength, id. at 19 (citing
Ex. 1004 ¶ 40), (2) making the reel lightweight by reducing the number of
components, id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 10–11), (3) sealing the entire front
portion of the reel, id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 49–52), and (4) providing
elasticity in the front portion of the reel, id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶ 46).
Globeride’s reliance upon unspecified portions of In re Gordon and its
overemphasis on allegedly thwarted intended purposes of JP212 is
unpersuasive. Gordon does not preclude any modification of a reference
that might diminish some advantages while leading to others. Rather,
Gordon, stands for the proposition that a case for obviousness is undermined
if modifying the prior art would render that prior art “inoperable for its
intended purpose.” Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902.
We are not persuaded that Globeride has established that replacing
seal 104 with a magnetic seal would render the reel of JP212 inoperable
because Globeride merely recites improvements touted by JP212 itself
relating to seal 104, rather than how replacing that seal with a magnetic seal
would render the modified reel inoperable. By contrast, Shimano has
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
13
demonstrated persuasively based on testimony from both experts and
disclosure in JP042 that a skilled artisan would have known that replacing
seal 104 with a magnetic seal would have resulted in a reel having a simple
design, a hermetically sealed interior that prevented contamination, a low
degree of rotational friction, smooth rotary motion with maximum
transmission of torque, and long-lived high reliability. Reply 4 (citing
Ex. 1015, 94:12–95:7; Ex. 2050, 109:11–16; Ex. 1007 ¶ 79).
(3) JP212 Allegedly Cannot Be Modified to Replace Seal
104 with a Magnetic Seal
Globeride argues that Shimano has failed to demonstrate how a skilled
artisan would have been able to modify JP212 by replacing seal 104 with a
magnetic seal and that doing so would be so complicated that it could not
have been obvious. Resp. 22–32. We are not persuaded by Globeride’s
argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Here, the
prior art conveys that a skilled artisan would have known how to implement
a magnetic seal in a spinning reel. That the implementation of a magnetic
seal into a particular fishing reel, e.g., that of JP212, may have involved
some level of complexity does not compel a conclusion of non-obviousness.
Moreover, both experts agree that magnetic seals that were available to a
skilled artisan were of the same general size and shape as elastomeric seals
of the same timeframe. Ex. 1015, 22:13–25; Ex. 2050, 117:23–118:6.
Shimano persuades us that the collective teachings of JP212 and JP042
would have provided a reason for a skilled artisan to substitute a magnetic
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
14
seal for JP212’s seal 104 and that making such a substation would have been
within the ordinary level of skill.
(4) Conclusion
Based on the evidence of record, we are persuaded that a skilled
artisan would have been provided a reason for to combine the teachings of
JP212 and JP042 and modify JP212 by replacing seal 104 with a magnetic
seal.
2. Claims 2, 9, and 12
Independent claim 92 recites the rotor in less detail than claim 1,
compare Ex. 1001, 10:33–35 (claim 9) with id. at 9:44–49 (claim 1), but
additionally requires that the reel include “a cap-shaped cover body” and
that the magnetic seal device is “mounted in the cover body,” id. at 10:30–
40. Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, similarly recites a “cap-shaped
cover body” having a “front portion” into which the “magnetic seal device is
mounted.” Ex. 1001, 9:56–60. The ’022 patent describes the claimed cover
body as protecting the clutch within the reel body. Ex. 1001, 4:58–60;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 26 at 30–37.
Shimano’s analysis of independent claim 9 is substantially the same as
its analysis of claim 1, compare Pet. 37–41 with id. at 17–22, except that
Shimano further identifies retaining component 33 of JP974 as constituting
the claimed cover body, id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract); see also
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 13, 18–21. Shimano argues that it would have been obvious to

2 Claim 9 recites “a cylindrical magnetic body” and later recites “the
magnetic ring” without antecedent basis. Ex. 1001, 10:40–44. Dr. Springer
testifies that he reads “the magnetic ring” in claim 9 as if it were written as
“the magnetic body.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26, p. 37. For purposes of our Decision,
we also read “the magnetic ring” as “the magnetic body.”
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
15
incorporate retaining component 33 of JP974 into the reel of JP212 because
both JP212 and JP974 are “concerned with protecting the clutch and
bearings.” Pet. 33. Shimano similarly relies upon JP974 as describing the
cover body of claim 2. Id. at 35–36.
a) Whether the Combination of JP212, JP042, and JP974
Describes All Limitations of Claims 2, 9, and 12
Globeride argues that the combination of JP212, JP042, and JP974
fails to describe the cap-shaped cover body of claims 2, 9, and 12 because
retaining component 33 is not a cover body. More specifically, Globeride
cites Dr. Cameron’s testimony that retaining component 33 “is not simply a
cover for the reel body but rather is the support structure for a bearing of the
pinion shaft.” Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2043 ¶ 68). Shimano responds that Dr.
Cameron’s testimony on this point is irrelevant because the “cover body” of
claims 2, 9, and 12 reads on the retaining component 33. Reply 14.
Shimano’s argument is persuasive for two reasons. First, Dr.
Cameron’s testimony, on its face, fails to establish that retaining component
33 is not a cover body. Her statement that retaining component 33 “is not
simply a cover body” reveals that she believes component 33 to be a cover
body, but also something else, the “support structure for a bearing.” Second,
claims 2, 9, and 12 merely require that the cover body be cap shaped and
have a surrounding wall mounted in the front portion of the reel body.
Retaining component 33 of JP974 meets all these limitations. Accordingly,
we determine that the combination of JP212, JP042, and JP974 describes all
limitations of claims 2, 9, and 12.
b) Reason for Combining JP212 and JP974
Shimano relies upon similarities in the purposes of seal 104 and wall
part 98 in JP212 with seal 40 and retaining component 33 of JP974 as the
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
16
reason for a skilled artisan to incorporate retaining component 33 from
JP974 into the front portion of the reel body of JP212. Pet. 32–33. Shimano
contends that both sets of structures “protect the clutch and bearings” within
the reel body. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26 at 30–37). Dr. Springer testifies that
because JP212 and JP974
are both concerned with protecting the clutch and bearings
(which is the same purpose of the cap-shaped cover body in the
’022 patent), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to include the cap-
shaped cover body of the JP974 publication on the spinning reel
of the JP212 publication.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 26 at 31–32 (claim 2), 35–36 (claim 9). Shimano also points out
that JP974’s seal 40 is mounted in the front portion of retaining component
33. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 21, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 26 at 30–32).
Globeride responds by arguing that a skilled artisan would not have
been motivated to add JP974’s component 33 to the reel of JP212 or to place
a magnetic seal in component 33 because doing so “would add weight to the
reel and . . . add more structures to the reel.” Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2043
¶ 68). Globeride criticizes Dr. Springer’s suggestion that a skilled artisan
would have known that weight could be minimized by selecting plastic for
the cover body. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 2050, 180:5–181:12). Globeride
contends that a skilled artisan would have known that component 33 screws
onto a metal part. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2043 ¶ 69). Globeride argues that a
skilled artisan would have known that it would be “ill advised to use a
plastic fitting in conjunction with a metal one.” Id. (citing Ex. 2043 ¶ 69).
Globeride relies upon Dr. Cameron’s declaration testimony for both points.
Id. However, on cross examination, Dr. Cameron admitted that JP974 does
not disclose that the part onto which component 33 is screwed is made of
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
17
metal but that she concluded it was metal based solely on her experience.
Ex. 1015, 125:20–127:9. She also admitted that the part onto which
component 33 is mounted could be made of hard resin. Id. at 127:10–12.
We determine that both JP212 and JP974 teach an elastomeric seal
(104 in JP212 and 40 in JP974) in the claimed location with JP974
suggesting that its seal 40 is mounted in the front portion of a cover body.
Figure 4 from JP212, reproduced below left, and Figure 6 from JP974,
reproduced below right, illustrate the location of JP212’s seal 104 and
JP974’s seal 40 (both of which are highlighted blue) respectively.

Figure 4 of JP212 illustrates
components of a spinning reel
inside the rotor.
Figure 6 of JP974 illustrates
components of a spinning reel
inside the rotor.
These figures illustrate that both JP212 and JP974 describe a seal (seal 104
in JP212 and seal 40 in JP974) against the driving part that is located inside
the space defined by the rotor. JP974 further describes retaining component
33 (highlighted in orange), which Shimano identifies as constituting the
claimed cover body.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
18
We find that the evidence of record establishes that a skilled artisan
would have known how to incorporate the components of JP974 and JP042
into JP212. We also determine that Shimano has demonstrated persuasively
that JP042 and JP974 expressly suggested reasons that a skilled artisan
would have modified JP212 to arrive at the device of claims 2, 9, and 12.
3. Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness
Globeride proffers argument and evidence that secondary
considerations demand a finding of non-obviousness. Resp. 49–60.
Globeride contends that evidence of praise of others, the long-felt but
unresolved need for the invention, and Shimano’s actions demonstrate the
non-obviousness of all claims at issue. Id. at 50–60. Globeride relies on
five articles that were published in print (Exs. 2044 and 2047) or on the
internet (Exs. 2045, 2046, and 2048) in support of its argument. Id. (citing
Exs. 2044–48).3
a) Nexus
The factual inquiries for obviousness include secondary
considerations based on evaluation and crediting of objective evidence.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). However, to accord

3 Globeride also attempts to add evidentiary weight to each of Exhibits
2044–48 by having Dr. Cameron parrot the use of these exhibits in the
Patent Owner Response and conclude that Exhibits 2044–48 are objective
evidence that demonstrates non-obviousness of the claimed invention.
Ex. 2043 ¶¶ 70–74. Dr. Cameron testified that she had never designed any
components for a fishing reel or disassembled a spinning reel before her
involvement in this proceeding. Ex. 1015, 16:17–17:22. This testimony
demonstrates that she had no personal knowledge of the state of the industry
at the time Exhibits 2044–48 were created. On balance, we consider her
testimony at ¶¶ 70–74 of her declaration to be of essentially no additional
probative value beyond the articles themselves.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
19
substantial weight to objective evidence requires the finding of a nexus
between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. In re GPAC
Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “Nexus” is a legally and factually
sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed
invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in
determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing
Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The burden of showing that
there is a nexus lies with the patent owner. Id.; see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Shimano argues that Exhibits 2044–48 fail to establish that the reels
being described “have all of the features of the spinning reels claimed in the
’022 patent” because they merely contain “bare reference[s] to the use of a
magnetic fluid or seal” in a spinning reel. Reply 15. Based upon our review
of Exhibits 2044–48, we conclude that none of Exhibits 2044–48 alone
establishes a nexus between the evidence and the claimed invention. None
of these Exhibits describes the reel in sufficient detail to know whether the
magnetic seal described in the exhibit is in the claimed location.
Nevertheless, Globeride proffers the declaration of Terry Pederson,
who testifies in support of Globeride’s effort to establish nexus between the
proffered evidence and the claimed invention. Resp. 50–60 (citing
Ex. 2049). Mr. Pederson testifies that each of Exhibits 2044–48 refers to
commercial products made by Globeride, either by model name or by using
variations of Globeride’s MAGSEALED trademark that are “covered by the
claims of the ’022 patent.” Ex. 2049 ¶¶ 3–7. Rather than address this aspect
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
20
of Mr. Pederson’s testimony, Shimano moved to exclude his declaration.4
Reply 15. Because Shimano did not depose Mr. Pederson, his testimony is
undisputed and therefore establishes that the articles submitted as Exhibits
2044–48 refer to Globeride products that included the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we determine that Globeride has established nexus between
Exhibits 2044–48 and the claimed spinning reel.
b) Sufficiency of the Evidence of Secondary Considerations
The Federal Circuit recently held that “weak secondary considerations
generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness. . . .
This is particularly true when an invention involves nothing more than ‘the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.’” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 816 F.3d 788, 804 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citations omitted). Shimano’s showing of obviousness relies upon
the straightforward substitution of a magnetic seal (from JP042) and a cover
body (from JP974), both of which are used according to their established
functions, into JP212.
(1) Praise by Others
Globeride contends that Exhibits 2045–48 reflect praise of the
claimed invention by others. Resp. 50–52. We discuss each in turn and
determine that none of the articles, alone or in combination, constitutes
sufficient evidence of praise by others of the claimed invention to outweigh
Shimano’s strong showing of obviousness.
Exhibit 2045 is an online review of a Globeride spinning reel having a
magnetic seal that was posted on October 13, 2012, by an organization

4 For the reasons expressed in part in part III.A.2 below, we deny Shimano’s
motion to exclude Mr. Pederson’s declaration.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
21
called J&H Tackle, a fishing and tackle sporting goods store in New York.
Ex. 2045, 1–3. The reviewer, Joshua Fuld, states that a reel with the claimed
magnetic seal “is the smoothest spinning reel I have ever felt.” Id. at 1.
However, Mr. Fuld also stated that “16 ball bearings, coupled with the
magnetic seal make this reel an absolute dream.” Id. Accordingly, it is
unclear how much of Mr. Fuld’s praise is directed to the claimed magnetic
seal rather than the unclaimed “16 ball bearings.” We determine that,
because Mr. Fuld’s praise is not limited to the claimed magnetic seal, its
probative value in establishing praise of others is diminished.
Exhibit 2046 is an online article posted November 26, 2014, and
authored by Joe Sills, the Digital Editor for Fishing Tackle Retailer, which is
“an online and print resource providing business information to the fishing
retail and sport fishing industry.” Ex. 2046, 3. Mr. Sills reports to the
fishing retail industry that Globeride’s magnetic seal technology is being
brought “down to lower line reels” to “make it more cost affordable for the
general public.” Id. at 1. The article states that:
[T]he engineers at Daiwa have been on a mission to stop the gear-
stripping malice of the sea.
Now, they’ve done just that. And they’ve done it in a way
that no other reel manufacturer on the planet has been able to
replicate-by using a sealing system designed using space age
technology.
The system is called Magsealed. It’s incredibly cool stuff,
and it’s the best reel protection you’ve never heard of.
Ex. 2046, 1. The article also contains quotes from Globeride’s marketing
manager in the United States, Curt Arakawa, who claims that the “oil helps
rotation and makes it a smoother reel with less maintenance.” Id. We
determine that Exhibit 2046 does not reflect an independent analysis of the
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
22
performance of Globeride’s reels. Rather, the article is akin to a press
release announcing a new product introduction and containing statements
written by advertising and marketing personnel. We consider the article to
be of little probative value in establishing praise of others.
Exhibit 2047 is an article in the December 2014 issue of TackleTrade
World magazine. Ex. 2047. The article purports to reveal how Globeride
“came up with” its “Mag Sealed Technology.” Id. at 1. The article includes
quotes from an assistant manager with Globeride, Moto Obayashi, in which
Mr. Obayashi explains why Globeride included the magnetic seal into its
newest spinning reels. Id. at 1–2. The article also explains that “[w]ith Mag
Sealed on board, smooth rotor efficiency has improved beyond comparison,”
id. at 3, and that “Mag Sealed Technology — has turned the market on its
head,” id. at2. Based on our review, and just as with Exhibit 2046, the
TackleTrade World article reads like a news feature that includes
Globeride’s own marketing claims rather than an independent analysis of the
performance of Globeride’s reels. Accordingly, we find the article to be of
little probative value in establishing praise of others.
Globeride only briefly mentions Exhibit 2048, which is an online
article posted by On The Water on February 12, 2015. Ex. 2048. The
authenticity of the article is established by the declaration of Joe Pechie, an
employee in advertising sales and marketing, who describes On The Water
as an organization “dedicated to covering fishing and boating news in the
Northeast of the United States.” Id. at 6. The article reports that Globeride
has incorporated its “Magseal” technology into the entire range of its
spinning reels. Id. at 1–2. The article describes the technology as “an
incredibly cool technology that replaces the standard rubber seals in an
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
23
average reel with a special, magnetic-oil seal.” Id. at 1. The article also
contains quotes from Mr. Arakawa, who claims that the “oil helps rotation
and makes it a smoother reel with less maintenance.” Id. at 2. Just as with
Exhibits 2046 and 2047, we determine that Exhibit 2048 does not reflect an
independent analysis of the performance of Globeride’s reels and is,
therefore, of little probative value in establishing praise of others.
(2) Long-felt Need
Globeride contends that Exhibit 2044 demonstrates that the
’022 patent solved a long-felt but unmet need for a spinning reel that still
rotates smoothly despite exposure to harsh conditions. Resp. 54. Exhibit
2044 is a copy of an article in the March 2011 issue of a Japanese fishing
magazine called Lure magazine Salt with a translation of portions of the
article provided by Globeride. Ex. 2044. The unidentified author describes
the state of spinning reel technology before the introduction of the
CERTATE 2500 and CERTATE 3000, both of which included a magnetic
seal behind the rotor as follows:
Each model change enhanced the durability in bodies and
parts by increasing the strength of bodies, gears, shafts, etc.
However, bearings could not be freed of rust or salt grains. The
seawater entering the reel through a gap evaporates and leaves
salt grains which cause the reel to produce a rumbling sound as
if sand grains are left in the reel.
Newly used reels soon lose smoothness in rotation and
start rumbling due to rust or salt grains in bearings. “The only
one spinning reel that can maintain its comfortable initial
performance is ‘SALTIGA,’” I have been saying and writing so
for these ten years.
However, “CERTATE 2500” which I have been using for
almost one year since the spring in 2010 still maintains its
smooth rotation, and “CERTATE 3000” which I have been using
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
24
since last summer still rotates smoothly without producing an
unusual sound in spite of harsh use in fishing of blackfin sea bass
on shore.
This seems to be a matter of course but actually is so
essential, and has troubled many saltwater lure fishermen
including me.
Ex. 2044.
Although we deny Shimano’s motion to exclude Exhibit 2044, we
consider the weight of this evidence to be diminished for two reasons. First,
the article is only partially translated, which deprives us and Shimano from
understanding the context presented in the untranslated portion of the article.
Second, Globeride did not provide a declaration from the author or any other
person to demonstrate that the entire article was reproduced. Nevertheless,
considering the entirety of the translated portion of the article, it is apparent
that the author believed that the “problem” of degraded “initial
performance” caused by intrusion of seawater into the reel body had been
solved by a reel that did not have a magnetic seal, the SALTIGA model that
he had been writing about for ten years prior. Ex. 2044, 3. One partially
translated article from an unidentified author who touts Globeride’s
magnetic seal but also recognizes that another product without the magnetic
seal apparently performed as well and reveals little about whether a need
existed to replace any particular seal in a spinning reel with a magnetic seal.
(3) Shimano’s Alleged Failure to Place a Magnetic Seal in
the Claimed Location
Globeride argues that Shimano’s failure to add a magnetic seal to the
claimed location despite its knowledge of magnetic seals in spinning reels as
taught by JP042 demonstrates the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.
Resp. 55 (citing Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1356-1357,
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
25
1359 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (commenting that long delay in combining known
prior art features weighs against argument that invention was obvious to
try)). We are not persuaded by Globeride’s argument. It is true that the
prior art indicated that use of magnetic seals in spinning reels was well
known by early 1998, see Ex. 1007 (filing date of March 26, 1998) or mid-
2001, see Ex. 1006 (claiming priority to application filed May 18, 2001),
which was 9–12 years before the priority application leading to the
’022 patent was filed. Nevertheless, Globeride points out that the novel
aspect of its claimed invention was the placement of a magnetic seal in the
specified location in the front portion of the reel body. The prior art that
Shimano relies upon as teaching the use of a seal at this location dates to the
end of 2007. See Ex. 1003 (filing date of November 30, 2007). Moreover,
the mere presence of a Shimano prior art reference that describes magnetic
seals does not demonstrate that Shimano, or any other entity was trying to
make the claimed reel but failed. Absent a showing of long-felt need or the
failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is
not evidence of nonobviousness. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
4. Conclusion
Based on our review of the entire record before us and for the reasons
expressed above, we conclude by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1
and 6–8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the
combination of JP212 and JP042 and that claims 2, 9, and 12 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the combination
of JP212, JP042, and JP974.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
26
III. MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
For the reasons expressed below, we grant-in-part Shimano’s motion
to exclude evidence and deny Globeride’s motion to exclude evidence.
A. Shimano’s Motion to Exclude
Shimano moves to exclude all or part of Exhibits 2001–23 and 2043–
49. Pet. Motion 1–5. For the reasons that follow, we grant Shimano’s
motion to exclude Exhibits 2002–23, but deny the motion to exclude
Exhibits 2001 and 2043–49.
1. Exhibits 2002–2023
Globeride proffered Exhibits 2002–2023 as evidence in support of its
argument in the Preliminary Response that secondary considerations
mandated a conclusion that the claimed inventions were not obvious.
Prelim. Resp. 35 (citing Exs. 2002–2023). Exhibits 2002–2013 and 2016–
2023 are articles apparently downloaded from the internet that purportedly
comment upon Globeride products that Globeride alleges to be covered by
the claims. Exs. 2002–2013 and 2016–2023. Exhibits 2014 and 2015 are
marketing materials by Globeride describing commercial products that
Globeride alleges to be covered by the claims. Exs. 2014, 15.
Shimano contends that Exhibits 2002–2023 are inadmissible because:
(1) the exhibits are hearsay that should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 802;
(2) the exhibits are irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 because Globeride
failed to establish nexus between the statements and the claimed invention;
and (3) Globeride fails to authenticate the exhibits as required under Fed. R.
Evid. 901. Pet. Motion 1–2.
Globeride opposes Shimano’s motion on the grounds that Shimano’s
objections to Exhibits 2002–2023 were filed untimely in violation of Rule
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
27
42.64(b)(1) because the letters in which Shimano raised the objections were
not filed until Shimano filed its motion, which was long after the time period
set forth in Rule 42.64(b)(1). Pet. Mot. Opp. 1–2. However, Shimano’s
letters were sent to Globeride within the time period for objecting. Pet. Mot.
Reply 5. We exercise our discretion under Rule 42.5(c)(3) and, in the
interests of justice, excuse Shimano’s late action in filing its objections.
Accordingly, Globeride’s argument is unpersuasive.
Globeride also opposes Shimano’s motion on the grounds that
Shimano failed to set forth objections to the admissibility of evidence with
sufficient particularity to allow Globeride an opportunity for correction
under Rule 42.64(b)(1). Although Shimano’s objections are noted at a high
level by merely citing Federal Rules of Evidence that were allegedly
violated, we are not persuaded in these circumstances that Shimano’s
objections failed to provide sufficient opportunity for correction. The
hearsay and authentication problems associated with Exhibits 2002–2023 are
glaring. Globeride provided no evidence to establish that any of Exhibits
2002–2023 were authentic. Globeride also failed to explain how any
exception to the rule against admitting hearsay applied to any of Exhibits
2002–2023 or why any of Exhibits 2002–2023 contained statements that
were not hearsay. We conclude that Fed. R. Evid. 802 and 901 both justify
excluding Exhibits 2002–2023 from evidence.
We also note that Globeride conceded that it does not rely in its Patent
Owner Response on any of Exhibits 2002–2023. Tr. 49:9–50:9.
Furthermore, Globeride has not attempted to overcome our initial
determination that it failed to establish a nexus between the information in
Exhibits 2002–2023 and the claimed invention. Dec. 16. Therefore,
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
28
Globeride has failed to establish how Exhibits 2002–2023 are relevant at
trial in this proceeding. Under Fed. R. Evid. 402, irrelevant evidence is not
admissible. For all these reasons, we grant Shimano’s motion to exclude
Exhibits 2002–2023 from the record at trial.
2. Exhibit 2049
Shimano moves to exclude the declaration of Terry Pederson, Exhibit
2049, on the grounds that it is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 802 and offered
as expert testimony by a witness without sufficient training under Fed. R.
Evid. 702 to opine on whether the commercial products described in
Exhibits 2044–2048 are covered by the claims at issue. Pet. Motion 3.
Shimano’s hearsay objection is overruled. Globeride properly proffered Mr.
Pederson’s declaration as direct testimony in accordance with Rule 42.53(a),
which rendered Fed. R. Evid. 802 inapplicable to his declaration. See
37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) (noting that Federal Rules of Evidence apply in
proceedings before the Board except as otherwise provided in the Board’s
Rules); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) (“Uncompelled direct testimony must
be submitted in the form of an affidavit.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.2
(“Affidavit means affidavit or declaration under § 1.68 of this chapter.”)
Shimano’s objection under Fed. R. Evid. 703 is also overruled. Mr.
Pederson is Vice President of Sales for a subsidiary of Globeride who has
worked with the company for over 30 years and is personally knowledgeable
about Globeride’s commercial products. Ex. 2049 ¶ 2. In his capacity as a
Globeride executive in charge of sales, we find that Mr. Pederson has
sufficient personal knowledge to testify on whether the products identified
by name in Exhibits 2044–2048 included the features recited in the claims at
issue. We accept Mr. Pederson’s testimony as being based upon his
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
29
personal knowledge rather than as opinion testimony under Fed. R. Evid.
702 and 703. Accordingly, we deny Shimano’s motion to exclude Exhibit
2049.
3. Exhibits 2044–2048
Shimano objects to Exhibits 2044–2048 on the grounds that they are:
(1) not authenticated as required under Fed. R. Evid. 901; (2) hearsay that
should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 802; (3) irrelevant under Fed. R.
Evid. 401 because Globeride failed to establish nexus between Exhibits
2044–2048 and the claimed invention; and (4) inadmissible under Fed. R.
Evid. 703, which sets standards for expert opinions. Pet. Motion 2–3. We
address each objection in turn below and find that none warrants excluding
Exhibits 2044–2048 from evidence.
First, we find that Globeride authenticated Exhibits 2045, 2046, and
2048 with declarations of the authors of the articles, which overcomes the
objection under Fed. R. Evid. 901. We find that Exhibits 2044 and 2047 are
articles in self-authenticating periodicals under Fed. R. Evid. 902(6).
Second, we find that Shimano’s hearsay objections to Exhibits 2044–
2048 are unavailing either because Shimano could have deposed the
witnesses offered to verify the truth of the matter asserted (Exhibits 2045,
2046, and 2048)5 or because the documents meet the standards set forth
under Fed. R. Evid. 807 (Exhibits 2044 and 2047).

5 Rule 42.53(a) requires parties to submit direct testimony in the form of
declarations. Globeride has attached direct testimony to each of these
exhibits and, in each declaration, a person attests to the accuracy of the
statements made in the article. We, therefore, treat Exhibits 2045, 2046, and
2048 as if the statements were testimony. The proper course for Shimano to
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
30
Third, as explained in part II.C.3.a) above, we find that the declaration
of Mr. Terry Pederson establishes nexus between the information in Exhibits
2044–2048 and the claimed invention. Accordingly, Exhibits 2044–2048
are relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 on the issue of whether secondary
considerations preclude a finding of obviousness of claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12.
Fourth, we find that Exhibits 2044–2048 are admissible as opinion
testimony by lay witnesses under Fed. R. Evid. 701. Accordingly, the
requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 703 do not apply to Exhibits 2044–2048.
For these reasons, we deny Shimano’s motion to exclude Exhibits
2044–2048 from evidence.
4. Exhibits 2001 and 2043
We have reviewed Shimano’s motion to exclude Globeride’s Exhibit
2001 and portions of Exhibit 2043 from evidence, Globeride’s opposition to
the motion, and Shimano’s reply in support of the motion. Based on our
review, we deny Shimano’s motion as it relates to Exhibits 2001 and 2043 in
all respects for one or both of the following reasons: (1) the motion is moot
because it seeks to exclude evidence not considered or relied upon in
rendering this Decision or (2) the motion addresses issues more appropriate
to determining the weight ascribed to the evidence rather than the
admissibility of evidence. In rendering this Decision, we determine and
ascribe the appropriate weight to all proffered evidence and, when
appropriate, comment upon the weight ascribed.

have addressed this evidence would have been to depose the witnesses who
testified about the statements.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
31
B. Globeride’s Motion to Exclude
We have reviewed Globeride’s motion to exclude Shimano’s Exhibits
1011, 1013, and 1014 from evidence, Shimano’s opposition to the motion,
and Globeride’s reply in support of the motion. Based on our review, we
deny Globeride’s motion in all respects for one or both of the following
reasons: (1) the motion is moot because it seeks to exclude evidence not
considered or relied upon in rendering this Decision or (2) the motion
addresses issues more appropriate to determining the weight ascribed to the
evidence rather than the admissibility of evidence. In rendering this
Decision, we determine and ascribe the appropriate weight to all proffered
evidence and, when appropriate, comment upon the weight ascribed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Shimano has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 6–8 of the
’022 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the
combination of JP212 and JP042 and that claims 2, 9, and 12 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the combination
of JP212, JP042, and JP974.
V. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 6–9, and 12 are held unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Shimano’s motion to exclude is granted-
in-part with respect to Exhibits 2002–2023 and denied-in-part in all other
respects;
FURTHER ORDERED that Globeride’s motion to exclude evidence
is denied; and
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
32
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of the Decision must comply with the notice and service
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2015-00273
Patent 8,382,022 B2
33
PETITIONER:
Rod S. Berman
Brennan C. Swain
Gregory S. Cordrey
JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP
rberman@jmbm.com
bswain@jmbm.com
gcordrey@jmbm.com
PATENT OWNER:
Evan Finkel
Roger R. Wise
Keyvan Davoudian
Grace E. King
Richard H. Zaitlen
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
roger.wise@pillsburylaw.com
keyvan.davoudian@pillsburylaw.com
grace.king@pillsburylaw.com
Richard.zaitlen@pillsburylaw.com