premier gem v. wing yee gems & jewellery - petition for ipr
TRANSCRIPT
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 1/55
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD___________
PREMIER GEM CORP. and JAY GEMS INC.,
Petitioners,
v.
WING YEE GEMS & JEWELLERY LIMITED and BK JEWELLERY HK,
Patent Owner.
___________
Case No. 2016-00434
Patent D618,132
___________
Request for Inter Partes Review,
Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319,
of U.S. Patent No. D618,132
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 2/55
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit List ............................................................................................................... iii
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
II. Notice of Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................... 3
III. Certification of Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............. 4
IV. Notice of Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................ 4
V. Notice of Lead Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(3) ......................................9
VI. Notice of Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(4) ............................ 9
VII. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................10
VIII. Certification Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105 ...................................10
IX. Statement of Precise Relief Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1)
and 42.104(b) .................................................................................................10
X. Claim Construction ........................................................................................17
A. Legal Standard .....................................................................................17
B. The ‘132 Patent’s Claim Should Be Construed by Reference Only
to Its Drawings ....................................................................................19
XI. Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 119(a) ...........................22
A. Legal Standard .....................................................................................22
B. The Lin References and the Auction House Catalogs Are Prior Art
Under Pre-AIA 35 C.F.R. §§ 102(b) and 119(a) ................................25
1. The Lin References ...................................................................26
2. The Auction House Catalogs ....................................................28
XII. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................31
A. Legal Standard .....................................................................................31
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 3/55
ii
B. The ‘132 Patent Is Obvious in View of the Lin References and in
Further View of the Auction House Catalogs .....................................33
1. Primary Reference.....................................................................33
2. Proposed Rejections: Primary Reference in View ofSecondary References ...............................................................38
3. Additional Proposed Rejections ................................................48
XIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................49
Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................50
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 4/55
iii
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit Description
Ex. 1001 U.S. Design Patent No. D618,132 to Tse-Kok Wong & Lok-
Sung Wong (“‘132 Patent”)
Ex. 1002 Second Amended Complaint, filed by plaintiffs on November 17, 2015
in S.D.N.Y. Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-2333 (“Kiran Action”)
Ex. 1003 Amended Complaint, filed by plaintiff on June 22, 2011 in S.D.N.Y.
Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-2930 (“Prestige Action”)
Ex. 1004 Answer and Counterclaims, filed by defendants on June 30, 2011 in
the Prestige Action
Ex. 1005 Court’s Order, filed September 15, 2014 in the Prestige Action,
granting partial summary judgment regarding the ‘132 Patent’s
validity
Ex. 1006 Prestige Jewelry International, Inc.’s Request for Ex Parte
Reexamination of the ‘132 Patent, dated March 2, 2012
Ex. 1007 Patent Office’s Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the
‘132 Patent, issued July 26, 2013
Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,762,104 to Tian-Wei Lin (“Lin U.S. Patent”)
Ex. 1009 Patent Office’s Notice of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination
Certificate for the ‘132 Patent, dated July 10, 2013 (“Notice of Intent”)
Ex. 1010 Patent Owner’s Response requesting reconsideration of initial rejection
of the ‘132 Patent in the ex parte reexamination, dated March 15, 2013
(“Reconsideration Request”)
Ex. 1011 Tian-Wei Lin’s People’s Republic of China Patent Application
No. 200710076738.6, published under Publication No. CN101112263A on January 30, 2008 (“Lin Publication”),
along with English-language translation of page 1 of the same
Ex. 1012 Tian-Wei Lin’s U.S. Patent Application No. 11/959,620, published
under Publication No. US 2009/0056376 on March 5, 2009
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 5/55
iv
Ex. 1013 Shenzhen Jewelry Net Article, published October 16, 2007 (“Lin
Article”), along with certified English-language translation of the same
Ex. 1014 Selected pages from Volume 11 of the Shenzhen Jewelry magazine,
published in January 2008 (“Lin Magazine”)
Ex. 1015 Selected pages from the Heritage Auction Galleries’ catalog for an
auction scheduled to take place on May 21, 2007 (“Heritage 2007
Catalog”)
Ex. 1016 Selected pages from the Christie’s catalog for an auction scheduled to
take place on September 20, 2005 (“Christie’s September 2005
Catalog”)
Ex. 1017 Selected pages from the Christie’s catalog for an auction scheduled to
take place on March 20, 2005 (“Christie’s March 2005 Catalog”)
Ex. 1018 Selected pages from the Sotheby’s catalog for an auction scheduled to
take place on February 4, 2003 (“Sotheby’s February 2003 Catalog”)
Ex. 1019 Selected pages from the Sotheby’s catalog for an auction scheduled to
take place on April 20, 2005 (“Sotheby’s April 2005 Catalog”)
Ex. 1020 Patent Office’s Non-Final Rejection of the ‘132 Patent’s claim, dated
January 15, 2013 (“Non-Final Rejection”)
Ex. 1021 Letter from Patent Owner’s counsel letter to the Court in the Prestige
Action, dated July 13, 2015 (“Prestige Action Letter”)
Ex. 1022 Patent Owner’s Written Statement of Issues to Be Discussed at
Interview Pursuant to MPEP 2281, transmitted February 25, 2013
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 6/55
1
Premier Gem Corp. (“Premier”) and Jay Gems Inc. (“Jay” and, collectively
with Premier, “Petitioners”) respectfully request inter partes review of the single
claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D618,132 (the “‘132 Patent”), titled “DIAMOND
JEWELLERY [sic].” The ‘132 Patent issued on June 22, 2010, from U.S.
Application No. 29/313,783, filed in the United States on February 11, 2009,1 and
has not yet expired.
The fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) accompanies this Request for
Inter Partes Review (the “Request”).
I. Introduction
Petitioners request inter partes review of the single claim of the ‘132 Patent,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1001, which is assigned on its face to Wing Yee Gems
& Jewellery Limited (“Wing Yee”), a Hong Kong subsidiary of BK Jewellery HK
(“BK” and, together with Wing Yee, the “Patent Owner”). This Request
establishes and shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a
reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail regarding the invalidity of the
1 Although the ‘132 Patent claims a foreign application priority date of August 12,
2008—the result of an earlier patent application filed in Hong Kong under serial
no. 0802018—for the reasons set forth in detail below, the actual U.S. filing date
of February 11, 2009 is controlling for the purposes of the prior art references (all
of which are printed publications) submitted herewith.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 7/55
2
‘132 Patent, which was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of various
combinations of printed publications that form the basis of the prior art newly
introduced with this Request. Thus, the ‘132 Patent and its sole claim should be
found unpatentable and the ‘132 Patent cancelled.
On February 11, 2009, the Patent Owner submitted a U.S. design patent
application under U.S. Application No. 29/313,783. See Exhibit 1001 ¶ 21. This
application ultimately resulted in the issuance of the ‘132 Patent on June 22, 2010.
See id. ¶ 45. The ‘132 Patent’s U.S. application claimed priority to an earlier-filed
Hong Kong patent application, filed on August 21, 2008 and identified by serial
no. 0802018. See id. ¶ 30. However, this earlier priority date is irrelevant for
purposes of this Request. That is because, under the operative versions2 of both
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 119(a), the effective date for a printed publication to be
available as prior art as against a U.S. patent is a publication date at least one year
prior to the application’s actual U.S. filing date. Thus, the ‘132 Patent’s
Hong Kong foreign priority filing date is irrelevant for purposes of the requested
review. Put otherwise, printed publications available on or before
2 That is, the pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) versions of the cited sections.
The pre-AIA versions are operative for purposes of the ‘132 Patent, which issued
on June 22, 2010—that is, before the earliest effective date of the AIA
(September 16, 2011).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 8/55
3
February 10, 2008 constitute available prior art and can be relied upon for this
Request under pre-AIA §§ 102(b) and 119(a).3 Because all the references relied
upon by this Request are printed publication available before February 10, 2008,
they all constitute prior art as to the ‘132 Patent. That is, the references relied upon
herein all predate, by more than one year, the ‘132 Patent’s U.S. application filing
date.
These references, when considered in the combinations set out in detail in
Section XII.B., infra, render the ‘132 Patent obvious under § 103. Had the
references set out herein been considered during the prosecution of the ‘132 Patent,
or during the ‘132 Patent’s prior ex parte reexamination, the ‘132 Patent would not
have issued nor been maintained.
II.
Notice of Real Party in Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
The real parties in interest are Premier Gem Corp. (“Premier”) and Jay Gems
Inc. (“Jay” and, together with Premier, “Petitioners”), both residents of New York.
3 Indeed, Patent Owner’s counsel admitted as much in a July 13, 2015 letter to the
Court in the Prestige Action, as that term is defined in Section IV., infra (the
“Prestige Action Letter”). See Exhibit 1021 (noting that the Lin Publication, as
that term is defined in Section IX., infra, “could be considered prior art under
35 U.S.C. 102(b)”).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 9/55
4
Premier is a New York corporation with its primary business address at 529
Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
Jay is a New York corporation with its primary business address at 529 Fifth
Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10017.
III. Certification of Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘132 Patent is available for inter partes
review and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
review of the ‘132 Patent’s single claim on the grounds identified in this Request.
IV. Notice of Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
On March 27, 2015, Patent Owner, with its U.S. licensee AV Jewelry
Export-Import, Ltd. (“AV Jewelry”), commenced an action with respect to the
‘132 Patent in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption BK Jewellery et al. v. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. et al. (Civil Action
No. 1:15-cv-02333-LAP) (the “Kiran Action”), alleging infringement of the
‘132 Patent as well as Lanham Act violations. An Amended Complaint was filed
in the Kiran Action on July 20, 2015. The currently-operative Second Amended
Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1002, was filed in the Kiran Action on
November 17, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint originally named as
defendants Rajiv Kothari, Mitten Kothari, Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd., Kiran Designs,
Kiran Jewelry, Kiran Jewels Inc., Milano Diamond Gallery, Tejas Shah, and
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 10/55
5
International Diamond Distributors Inc. (“IDD”). IDD has been dismissed from
the Kiran Action with prejudice as of December 22, 2015. Otherwise, the
Kiran Action is currently pending and in the very early stages of discovery.
On April 29, 2011, Prestige Jewelry International, Inc. (“Prestige”)
commenced an action with respect to the ‘132 Patent in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the caption Prestige Jewelry
International, Inc. v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewelery Limited et al. (Civil Action No.
1:11-cv-02930-LAP) (the “Prestige Action”), seeking a declaration that the
‘132 Patent was invalid and further not infringed by Prestige. On June 22, 2011,
Prestige filed an Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1003, listing as
defendants the Patent Owner (i.e., BK and Wing Yee) as well as AV Jewelry
(“AV,” and together with BK and Wing Yee, the “Prestige Action Defendants”).
On June 30, 2011, the Prestige Action Defendants filed an Answer and
Counterclaims, attached hereto as Exhibit 1004, with regard to the ‘132 Patent,
alleging patent infringement and violations of the Lanham Act. By means of an
Order dated September 15, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit 1005, the Court
granted the Prestige Action Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding,
inter alia, the ‘132 Patent to be not invalid. The Court’s Order, however, was
rendered without consideration of the printed publications comprising the
references submitted with this Request.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 11/55
6
On March 2, 2012, Prestige filed a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1006, which was granted. The resulting ex parte
reexamination resulted in a Reexamination Certificate, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1007, which issued on July 26, 2013 and affirmed the validity of the only
claim of the ‘132 Patent. However, that prior ex parte reexamination did not
consider the printed publications comprising the references presented herein.
During the ex parte reexamination, the U.S. Patent Office considered Tian-
Wei Lin’s U.S. Patent No. 7,762,104 (the “Lin U.S. Patent”), issued on July 27,
2010 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1008, which claims “[a] modular setting
diamond jewelry” that is elsewhere and commercially referred to as the “Lotus
Carat.” During the ex parte reexamination, the Patent Owner argued to the
Examiners that the Lin U. S. Patent was not prior art because the ‘132 Patent’s
inventors could “swear behind” (i.e., establish a conception and reduction to
practice earlier than) the Lin U. S. Patent’s U.S. filing date.4
Petitioners now submit three different printed publication prior art
references that (i) depict the so-called Lotus Carat jewelry design and (ii) predate
the Lin U.S. Patent’s effective prior art date. See Exhibit 1011; Exhibit 1013;
Exhibit 1014 (collectively, the “Lin References,” as that term is defined in
4 See Reconsideration Request, Exhibit 1010 at 14 (arguing, in the alternative, that
the Lin U.S. Patent is not prior art as to the ‘132 Patent).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 12/55
7
Section IX., infra). Thus, Petitioners submit prior art references that were not
considered by the Patent Office during the ex parte reexamination of the
‘132 Patent.5
The Examiners in the ex parte reexamination affirmed the ‘132 Patent’s
claim in the face of the Lin U.S. Patent, which taught the Lotus Carat design that
(as further described in Section XII.B., infra) taught all the elements of the
‘132 Patent’s claimed design except for the use of single-cut diamonds at the
periphery. In doing so, the Examiners credited “the Patent Owner’s assertion that
it would not have been obvious to substitute one cut style for another” in the
peripheral diamonds of the Lotus Carat’s design, which shows a round, larger, full-
cut diamond at the center with smaller, full-cut diamonds surrounding the larger
diamond (as opposed to the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design, which shows a round,
larger, full-cut (also known in the trade as brilliant-cut) diamond at the center but
with smaller, single-cut diamonds surrounding the larger diamond). Notice of
Intent to Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (“Notice of Intent”), dated
July 10, 2013 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1009, at 7 (emphasis added).
5 As stated in Section XI., infra, Patent Owner will not be able to “swear behind”
any of the new Lin References, which are all definitively prior art as to the
‘132 Patent as they are printed publications available more than one year before the
U.S. application filing date of the ‘132 Patent..
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 13/55
8
Indeed, Patent Owner emphatically argued that the “the crucial and most
salient teaching of the ‘132 Patent is to provide [] single cut diamonds only at the
periphery . . . .” Patent Owner’s Response requesting reconsideration
(“Reconsideration Request”), dated March 15, 2013 and attached hereto as
Exhibit 1010, at 4 (emphasis added). See also id. at 6 (“It was counterintuitive in
2008 . . . to deliberately choose some of the stones to be ‘full cut’ and to provide
the other stones as ‘single cut’ diamonds.”); id. at 12 (“[T]here is no record, in the
nearly one hundred year period from [a reference dated 1917] to 2008, of anyone
making a cluster top jewelry design with differently cut stones at the center and at
the periphery.”). Indeed, it is quite clear that the decision to confirm the validity of
the ‘132 Patent was based on the arguments proffered by Patent Owner that it was
non-obvious at the time of the ‘132 Patent’s invention to combine a central round,
larger, full-cut diamond with peripheral round, smaller, single-cut diamonds. See
Notice of Intent, Exhibit 1009 at 8.
The new prior art submitted by Petitioners with this Request teaches exactly
the often repeated “salient” element alleged to be missing from the Lotus Carat
design: the mixing of smaller round, single-cut peripheral diamonds surrounding a
larger round, full-cut central diamond. The Lotus Carat design—as depicted in the
Lin References (defined in Section IX., infra, and discussed in detail in
Section XII.B., infra)—teaches all the other elements of the ‘132 Patent’s claimed
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 14/55
9
design. And the newly submitted Lin References cannot be “sworn behind” and
are unassailable prior art. A combination of any of the Lin References’ teaching
with any one of the new printed publications showing the common concept of
mixing of diamond cuts renders the claim of the ‘132 Patent obvious and
unpatentable.
Petitioners are not aware of any other pending prosecution or administrative
proceedings or pending state or federal court litigations that relate to the
‘132 Patent.
V. Notice of Lead Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(3)
Petitioners designate as their Lead Counsel:
Andrew S. Langsam (USPTO Reg. No. 28,556)
Pryor Cashman LLP
7 Times Square, 38th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 326-0180
Facsimile: (212) 515-6969
Email: [email protected]
VI.
Notice of Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42(b)(4)
All correspondence may be directed to Petitioners’ Lead Counsel at the
information provided in Section V., supra. Further, Petitioners consent to
electronic service by email at the email address provided in Section V.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 15/55
10
VII. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
As stated above, the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) accompanies this
Request. The Patent and Trademark Office is hereby authorized to charge any fee
deficiency or credit any overpayment to Petitioners’ Lead Counsel’s law firm’s
Deposit Account No. 50-0932.
VIII. Certification Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105
Petitioners certify that a complete and entire copy of this Request for Inter
Partes Review, including all supporting exhibits, was served on the Patent
Owner’s counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105. See also
Certificate of Service, infra.
IX.
Statement of Precise Relief Requested Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1)
and 42.104(b)
Petitioners request invalidation and cancellation of the single claim of the
‘132 Patent as the same was obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art in view of:
(1)
Tian-Wei Lin’s People’s Republic of China Patent Application
No. 200710076738.6, printed and published under Publication
No. CN 101112263A on January 30, 2008 (the “Lin Publication”),6
6 The Lin Publication, published in Chinese, is accompanied by a translation of
page 1 of the same. See Exhibit 1011. Upon information and belief, the language
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 16/55
11
depicting the Lotus Carat design7 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1011, in
further view of any one or more prior art printed publications consisting of:
(i) the Art Deco Diamond, Platinum Ring, Item No. 39432
photographed, shown, and described in the printed and published
Heritage Auction Galleries’ catalog for an auction scheduled to take
place on May 21, 2007 (the “Heritage 2007 Catalog”), the cover and
selected pages of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 1015 (the
“Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring”);
and teaching of the patent application printed and published in the Lin Publication
is identical to Lin’s English-language U.S. Patent Application No. 11/959,620,
published under Publication No. US 2009/0056376 on March 5, 2009 and attached
hereto as Exhibit 1012. Lin’s U.S Patent Application No. 11/959,620 resulted in
two issued patents: the Lin U.S. Patent (Patent No. 7,762,104), issued July 27,
2010, as well as U.S. Patent No. 8,051,676, issued on November 8, 2011.
7 The jewelry design depicted in the Lin Publication is, elsewhere, referred to as
the Lotus Carat. Because the Lotus Carat design appears in three separate
references, that term will be used to designate the design shown, described, taught,
and depicted in the Lin Publication and the other two Lin References.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 17/55
12
(ii) the Diamond, Platinum Ring, Item No. 39433 also photographed,
shown, and described in the printed and published Heritage 2007
Catalog, the cover and selected pages of which are attached hereto
as Exhibit 1015 (the “Heritage Diamond Ring”);
(iii) the Diamond Ring, Item No. 169 photographed, shown, and
described in the printed and published Christie’s catalog for an
auction scheduled to take place on September 20, 2005 (the
“Christie’s September 2005 Catalog”), the cover and selected pages
of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 1016 (the “Christie’s
Diamond Ring”);
(iv)
the Diamond Cluster Ring, Item No. 227 photographed, shown, and
described in the printed and published Christie’s catalog for an
auction scheduled to take place on March 20, 2005 (the “Christie’s
March 2005 Catalog”), the cover and selected pages of which are
attached hereto as Exhibit 1017 (the “Christie’s Diamond Cluster
Ring”);
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 18/55
13
(v) the Diamond Ring, Item No. 15 photographed, shown, and described
in the printed and published Sotheby’s catalog for an auction
scheduled to take place on February 4, 2003 (the “Sotheby’s
February 2003 Catalog”), the cover and selected pages of which are
attached hereto as Exhibit 1018 (the “Sotheby’s Ring”); and/or
(vi)
the Diamond Necklace, Circa 1890, Item No. 225 photographed,
shown, and described in the printed and published Sotheby’s catalog
for an auction scheduled to take place on April 20, 2005 (the
“Sotheby’s April 2005 Catalog”), the cover and selected pages of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit 1019 (the “Sotheby’s
Necklace”).
For ease of reference, the Catalogs described in (i) to (vi)—i.e., Exhibits 1015
to 1019—are collectively referred to as the “Auction House Catalogs.”
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 19/55
14
(2) Shenzhen Jewelry Net Article, published October 16, 2007 (the “Lin
Article”),8 attached hereto as Exhibit 1013, depicting, showing, teaching,
and describing the Lotus Carat design embodied in the Lin Publication, in
further view of any one or more of the Auction House Catalogs, namely:
(i) the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring, attached hereto at
Exhibit 1015;
(ii)
the Heritage Diamond Ring, attached hereto at Exhibit 1015;
(iii)
the Christie’s Diamond Ring, attached hereto at Exhibit 1016;
(iv)
the Christie’s Diamond Cluster Ring, attached hereto at
Exhibit 1017;
(v)
the Sotheby’s Ring, attached hereto at Exhibit 1018; and/or
(vi)
the Sotheby’s Necklace, attached hereto at Exhibit 1019.
8 The Lin Article, which originally appeared in Chinese, is accompanied by a
certified translation of the same. See Exhibit 1013.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 20/55
15
(3) Volume 11 of the Shenzhen Jewelry magazine, published in January 2008
(the “Lin Magazine”),9 selected pages of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit 1014, also depicting, showing, teaching, and describing the Lotus
Carat design embodied in the Lin Publication, in further view of any one or
more of the Auction House Catalogs, namely:
(i)
the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring, attached hereto at
Exhibit 1015;
(ii)
the Heritage Diamond Ring, attached hereto at Exhibit 1015;
(iii)
the Christie’s Diamond Ring, attached hereto at Exhibit 1016;
(iv)
the Christie’s Diamond Cluster Ring, attached hereto at
Exhibit 1017;
(v)
the Sotheby’s Ring, attached hereto at Exhibit 1018; and/or
(vi)
the Sotheby’s Necklace, attached hereto at Exhibit 1019.
9 The Lin Magazine does not contain any relevant descriptive text, only images of
the Lotus Carat design embodied in the Lin Publication. Therefore, a translation of
the Lin Magazine has not been provided at this time. However, Petitioners are
willing and able, upon the Patent Office’s request, to provide a translation of the
same.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 21/55
16
The Lin Publication (Exhibit 1011), the Lin Article (Exhibit 1013), and the
Lin Magazine (Exhibit 1014) (collectively, the “Lin References”) all qualify as
prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 119(a), as explained in further
detail in Section XI., infra. Individually, each shows the claimed invention of the
‘132 Patent with the sole exception, as repeatedly suggested by the Patent Owner,
of the “salient” “mixing” of a single, large, full-cut central diamond surrounded by
smaller, single-cut diamonds. Yet the prior art set forth in the Auction House
Catalogs shows the common concept of mixing of a large, round, full-cut central
diamond with surrounding smaller, single-cut round diamonds.
Likewise, the Heritage 2007 Catalog (Exhibit 1015), the Christie’s
September 2005 Catalog (Exhibit 1016), the Christie’s March 2005 Catalog
(Exhibit 1017), the Sotheby’s February 2003 Catalog (Exhibit 1018), and the
Sotheby’s April 2005 Catalog) (Exhibit 1019) (collectively, the “Auction House
Catalogs”) all qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 119(a),
as explained in further detail in Section XI., infra.
The claim of the ‘132 Patent is invalid as obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in
light of the various combinations of the teachings of any one of the Lin References,
on the one hand, and any one of the Auction House Catalogs, on the other hand.
Specific invalidating combinations of these references are presented in
Section XII.B., infra. The “salient” distinguishing feature, so heavily relied upon
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 22/55
17
by the Patent Owner in the prior ex parte reexamination proceeding is and was
quite common, shown, taught, and known in the prior art and was not only not
counterintuitive but, rather, was rather routine, as shown in the uncovered and
provided prior art.
X. Claim Construction
A. Legal Standard
A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
C.F.R. § 42.100(b). A “detailed verbal description of the claimed design” is not
required in the context of design patents, as it is for utility patents. Egyptian
Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Design patents are typically claimed as shown in drawings, with claim
construction adapted accordingly. Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, it is well-
established that “ a design is better represented by an illustration ‘than it could be
by any description and a description would probably not be intelligible without the
illustration.’” Id. (quoting Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)) (emphasis
added).
Indeed, “[g]iven the recognized difficulties entailed in trying to describe a
design in words, the preferable course ordinarily will be . . . not to attempt to
‘construe’ a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of the
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 23/55
18
claimed design.” Id. (emphasis added). However, it may be “helpful to point
out . . . various features of the claimed design as they relate to the . . . prior art.” Id.
at 680.
Because the drawings are of paramount importance in construing a design
patent, “the inventor’s subjective intent is irrelevant to the issue of claim
construction . . . .” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (emphasis added, citation & quotations omitted); see also Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 985 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d , 517
U.S. 370 (1996) (“The subjective intent of the inventor . . . is of little or no
probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the
prosecution history).”).
The ‘132 Patent has a single claim and that refers to the design of “Diamond
Jewellery” as “shown and described.” The design is illustrated by Fig. 1 and Fig. 2
and the description merely refers the reader to the “new design” of a “diamond
jewellery.” Thus, the claim is for an article of “Diamond Jewellery,” as taught by
the two drawings, reproduced in Section X.B., infra, and the single claim that
tersely describes the ‘132 Patent’s covered subject matter as “[t]he ornamental
design for a diamond jewellery, as shown and described.” Exhibit 1001 ¶ 57.
For the reasons set out in detail in Section X.B., infra, the ‘132 Patent should
be construed and the analysis based only on the design shown and taught by the
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 24/55
19
drawings depicted therein. Patent Owner’s professed intent, even if genuine,
should be disregarded as irrelevant.
B. The ‘132 Patent’s Claim Should Be Construed by Reference Only
to Its Drawings
A design patent should preferably and ordinarily be construed as depicted in
its claimed drawings, with no written or verbal construction necessary. See
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679-80.
Thus, the ‘132 Patent covers only the arrangement of stones into a
“diamond jewellery” as depicted in its Figures 1 and 2, which are reproduced for
convenience below.10
To the extent that Patent Owner may, retrospectively, attempt to argue that
the inventor’s subjective intent in the ‘132 Patent was to simulate the appearance
of a solitaire diamond (i.e., that the central large round diamond and the
10 As already stated in Section X.A., supra, the ‘132 Patent’s claim describes the
depicted drawings only as an “ornamental design for a diamond jewellery, as
shown and described.” Exhibit 1001 ¶ 57.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 25/55
20
surrounding smaller round stones were provided to simulate a single, larger and
round stone), that argument should be wholly disregarded. Design intent is
irrelevant; the description of the “invention,” the ‘132 Patent’s title, and the
absence of any top view to show this so-called “solitaire” intention is contrary to
such an intent. Moreover, the openings or spacing between the small diamonds
and the outside edge of the large diamond and the outside perimeter defined by the
smaller diamonds, showing scalloped edges belies this single large round or
solitaire diamond look or concept. The claimed invention is defined by the
drawings, not the after-the-fact intention claimed by the Patent Owner and their
attorneys.
Also, the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design refers to the drawings and is better
represented by its own illustrative drawings than by any description, especially one
that is a belated afterthought. The description merely refers to a “diamond
jewellery” and not to any “solitaire” or larger-looking diamond.
And, as stated in Section X.A., supra, “the inventor’s subjective intent is
irrelevant to the issue of claim construction . . . .” Cordis Corp., 561 F.3d at 1338
(citation & quotations omitted).
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. Patent Office has already
considered— and rejected —the Patent Owner’s argument that the ‘132 Patent’s
claimed design is intended to depict a solitaire simulation (rather than the
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 26/55
21
untethered, scalloped-edge collection of canted and slightly overlapping smaller
round stones about a larger central round stone, as actually shown in the
‘132 Patent’s two drawings). This issue arose after the Patent Office, in the course
of the prior ex parte reexamination, rejected the ‘132 Patent in a Non-Final
Rejection (“Non-Final Rejection”), dated January 15, 2013 and attached hereto as
Exhibit 1020. In Patent Owner’s Reconsideration Request, Patent Owner argued
that the drawings claimed in the ‘132 Patent sought “to simulate a solitaire look.”
Exhibit 1010 at 6. This “intent,” however, is neither taught nor suggested by the
drawings nor contained within any description of the “diamond jewellery,” as
originally filed. It is clear reconstruction in hindsight.
In its Notice of Intent, the Patent Office expressly held that the fact that
Patent Owner, “in creating [its] design, had the purpose of emulating a solitaire . . .
does not . . . bear[] upon the [] consideration of the prior art.” Exhibit 1009 at 15
(emphasis added). That is because the ‘132 Patent is a design patent and its
drawings are determinative, not the intent sought to be achieved . As the Patent
Office there and then stated:
Nowhere in application’s specification is there
description of what the claimed design is intended to do,
other than to provide an ornamental appearance. Its title
is simply, “Diamond Jewelry [sic],” and not, for example,
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 27/55
22
“Diamond Jewelry Arrangement that Looks Like a
Solitaire,” or “Simulative Diamond Solitaire.”
Id. at 15.
XI. Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 119(a)
A. Legal Standard
Under the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a teaching or disclosure of
an invention of another or even the inventor is prior art if it was “described in a
printed publication in . . . a foreign country . . . more than one year prior to the
date of application for patent in the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA)
(emphasis added). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”)
confirms that “[t]he 1-year time bar is measured from the U.S. filing date.” MPEP
§ 2133(II) (emphasis added). Moreover, prior art under pre-AIA § 102(b) “cannot
be overcome by . . . foreign priority dates” or “affidavits and declarations [of prior
invention] under [37 C.F.R. § 1.131] (Rule 131 Declarations).” MPEP
§ 2133.02(II).
Similarly, the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) considers as prior art
any invention “described in a printed publication in any country more than one
year before the date of the actual filing of the application in [the United States] .”
35 U.S.C. § 119(a) (pre-AIA) (emphasis added). As with §102(b), prior art for
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 28/55
23
purposes of § 119(a) is measured in reference to a patent’s U.S. filing date—
regardless of whether the patent claims an earlier foreign priority date.
The ‘132 Patent’s U.S. application was filed on February 11, 2009. See
Exhibit 1001 ¶ 22. Thus, any “printed publication” published on or before the
critical date of February 10, 2008 (i.e., one year prior to the ‘132 Patent’s U.S.
filing date) is prior art as to the ‘132 Patent. As described in further detail in
Section XI.B., infra, each of the Lin References and each of the Auction House
Catalogs was printed and published before February 10, 2008, and thus each is
unassailable prior art for purposes of the ‘132 Patent. Moreover, the
‘132 Patent’s inventors cannot overcome the Lin References or the Auction House
Catalogs by an affidavit of prior inventorship.
Moreover, as also described in further detail in Section XI.B., infra, each of
the Lin References and the Auction House Catalogs readily meets the definition of
a “printed publication,” as that term is defined for purposes of pre-AIA §§ 102(b)
and 119(a).
A reference is considered a “printed publication” where it has “‘been
sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” In re Klopfenstein, 380
F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)) (other citation omitted). “[D]issemination and public accessibility are
the keys to the legal determination whether a prior art reference was ‘published.’”
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 29/55
24
Id. (citations & quotations omitted); see also SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys.,
511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“‘[P]ublic accessibility’ has been called the
touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’
bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).”) (emphasis in original, citation & quotations
omitted).
Put another way, “[a] reference is publicly accessible ‘upon a satisfactory
showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to
the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art
exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .’” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v.
ITC , 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194)
(other citation omitted). Although the determination of public accessibility is
made “on a case-by-case basis,” id., the Federal Circuit has held that even the
dissemination of a printed publication “without restriction to at least six persons” is
sufficient to establish public accessibility or where “between 50 and 500 persons
interested and of ordinary skill in the subject matter were actually told of the
existence of the . . .” reference. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia, 774
F.2d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1985).11
11 Moreover, the Lin Publication is a published Chinese patent application—and, as
a leading patent law treatise confirms, where “the specification of a[] [patent]
application is published or otherwise made available to the public prior to
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 30/55
25
Thus, all of the references submitted by Petitioners meet the requirements to
be considered prior art under pre-AIA §§ 102(b) and 119(a). Specifically, all of
the Lin References and all of the Auction House Catalogs (1) were published more
than one year before the ‘132 Patent’s February 11, 2009 U.S. filing date and (2)
meet the definition of a “printed publication,” as described in detail in
Section XI.B., infra.
B. The Lin References and the Auction House Catalogs Are Prior
Art Under Pre-AIA 35 C.F.R. §§ 102(b) and 119(a)
Under the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 119(a), a reference is
prior art to a patent if that reference was described in a “printed publication” more
than one year before the date that the patent’s application was filed in the United
States. See Section XI.A., supra. The ‘132 Patent’s U.S. patent application was
issuance,” it is “[t]hus a ‘printed publication’” that “will constitute . . . prior art
for obviousness purposes under Section 103 in determining the patentability of
claims in any U.S. application with an effective filing date more than twelve
months after such publication.” Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 6.02[9].
Thus, the Lin Publication of the earlier-filed Chinese patent application by Lin is
an unquestionably “printed publication” for purposes of pre-AIA §§ 102(b) and
119(a). And, as mentioned, it was published more than a year before the U.S.
filing date of the application leading to the ‘132 Patent.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 31/55
26
filed on February 11, 2009—thus, any “printed publication” that was published on
or before February 10, 2008 is prior art as to the ‘132 Patent. Further, the
“touchstone” for determining whether a reference is a “printed publication” is that
reference’s public accessibility. SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194.
1. The Lin References
The Lin Publication (Exhibit 1011) was published by the Chinese
government on January 30, 2008 (i.e., before February 10, 2008). This Publication
was disseminated via the Internet, and therefore has been publicly accessible, with
minimal diligence, since its publication. Indeed, copies of the Lin Publication are
available via a simple Google Patent Search. See Publication No. CN101112263A,
http://www.google.com/patents/CN101112263A (last visited Dec. 17, 2015).
Because the Lin Publication is a “printed publication” that was publicly
disseminated before February 10, 2008, it is available and applicable prior art as to
the ‘132 Patent.12
Moreover, Patent Owner’s counsel has essentially admitted that
the Lin Publication is unassailable prior art as to the ‘132 Patent. See
Prestige Action Letter, Exhibit 1021 (noting that the Lin Publication “could be
considered prior art under [pre-AIA] 35 U.S.C. 102(b)”).
12 Further, as described in note 11, supra, the Lin Publication is a “printed
publication” because it is a published Chinese patent application.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 32/55
27
The Lin Article (Exhibit 1013) was published on or around October 16, 2007
(i.e., well before February 10, 2008). This Article was disseminated to the public
via publication on the Internet. The Lin Article remains readily accessible to
interested members of the public. See
http://www.0755zb.com/Association/Index_View.asp?ID=316 (last visited Dec. 17,
2015). Because the Lin Article is a “printed publication” that was publicly
available before February 10, 2008, it is also prior art as to the ‘132 Patent.
The Lin Magazine (Exhibit 1014) was published on or before January 2008
(i.e., before February 10, 2008). This Magazine—referring to, describing, and
teaching the Lotus Carat design—was disseminated at least in part over the
Internet and, upon information and belief, is readily accessible to interested
members of the public.
In light of the foregoing, each one of the Lin References constitutes a valid
prior art reference for purposes of the ‘132 Patent. All of the Lin References relate
to the concept of surrounding one larger round, full-cut diamond with several
smaller, canted and overlapped, full-cut, round diamonds. Indeed, the Lin
References refer to the concept of arranging the diamonds so as to simulate a
single larger solitaire diamond than the central large and round diamond by itself.
Furthermore, the U.S. Patent Office had originally invalidated the ‘132 Patent
during the prior ex parte reexamination proceedings based on anticipation by the
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 33/55
28
Lin U.S. Patent. See Non-Final Rejection, Exhibit 1020 at 5-6. And the District
Court’s Chief Judge in the pending Prestige Action has held that “[t]he Lin [U.S.]
Patent shows a full-cut central diamond surrounded by eight full-cut peripheral
diamonds which are angled against the central diamond.” Exhibit 1005 at 14 n.10.
2. The Auction House Catalogs
The Heritage 2007 Catalog (Exhibit 1015) was published in anticipation of
an auction scheduled to take place on May 21, 2007, which necessarily means that
it was published before the critical date of February 10, 2008. The Heritage 2007
Catalog was intended to be distributed and disseminated to interested members of
the public. The purpose of such an auction catalog is to generate interest in buyers
for the displayed items of jewelry, all to increase the sales price to the auction
house/seller. Thus, Heritage Auctions—like each other Auction House whose
catalog(s) are presented herein—has a professional interest in ensuring that both
the descriptions and photographs depicted in its catalogs are as accurate as possible.
Moreover, the Heritage auction house makes available for download on its
website catalogs from prior auctions. See Heritage Auctions,
https://www.ha.com/c/catalog-orders.zx (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). Thus, the
Heritage 2007 Catalog is and was publicly accessible, rendering it a “printed
publication” that predates the ‘132 Patent’s U.S. filing date by more than one
year—which means that it is prior art for purposes of the ‘132 Patent.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 34/55
29
The Christie’s September 2005 Catalog (Exhibit 1016) was published in
anticipation of an auction scheduled to take place on September 20, 2005, which
necessarily means that it was published before the critical date of February 10,
2008. Similarly, the Christie’s March 2005 Catalog (Exhibit 1017) was published
and distributed in anticipation of an auction scheduled to take place on
March 20, 2005, which necessarily means that it was also published years before
the critical date of February 10, 2008. The Christie’s Catalogs were widely
distributed and disseminated to interested members of the public—all to increase
the interest in the proposed sales of the photographed, displayed, and described
jewelry at the impending auctions. Further, Christie’s makes available on its
website the results (with photographs) of past auctions. See Auction Results,
Christie’s, http://www.christies.com/results/ (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). Thus, the
Christie’s September 2005 and March 2005 Catalogs are publicly accessible,
rendering them “printed publications” that predate the ‘132 Patent’s U.S. filing
date by more than one year—which means that they are prior art for purposes of
consideration of the patentability and obviousness of the invention claimed by the
‘132 Patent.
The Sotheby’s February 2003 Catalog (Exhibit 1018) was published in
anticipation of an auction scheduled to take place on February 4, 2003. It was
published years before the critical date of February 10, 2008. Similarly, the
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 35/55
30
Sotheby’s April 2005 Catalog (Exhibit 1019) was published in anticipation of an
auction scheduled to take place on April 20, 2005, which necessarily means that it,
too, was published on or before the critical date of February 10, 2008. The
Sotheby’s Catalogs were disseminated to interested members of the public as the
intended function of any auction catalog is to increase possible purchasers’ interest
in the items being auctioned. Furthermore, Sotheby’s makes pictorial results of
past sold auction lots and items available on its website. See Sold Lot Archive,
Sotheby’s, http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/lots-archive.html (last visited
Dec. 17, 2015). Thus, the Sotheby’s February 2003 and April 2005 Catalogs are
publicly accessible, rendering them “printed publications” that predate the
‘132 Patent’s U.S. filing date by more than one year—which means that they are
prior art for purposes of consideration of the patentability and obviousness of the
claimed invention of the ‘132 Patent.
Moreover, counsel for Petitioners was able to readily locate and order online
all of the Auction House Catalogs, which further corroborates the fact that they
were and still are publicly available printed publications.
For the reasons stated above, all of the Lin References and the Auction
House Catalogs constitute prior art for purposes of consideration of the
patentability and obviousness of the claimed invention of the ‘132 Patent.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 36/55
31
XII. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
A. Legal Standard
“In the design patent context, the ultimate inquiry under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is
whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary
skill who designs articles of the type involved.” Durling v. Spectrum Furniture
Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); see 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(a patent cannot be obtained for subject matter that, “as a whole” and in light of the
prior art, “would have been obvious at the time [of] invention . . . to a person
having ordinary skill in the [relevant] art . . .”). The § 103 obviousness “inquiry
focuses on the visual impression of the claimed design as a whole and not on
selected individual features.” In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(emphases added, citation omitted).
In this case, a designer having ordinary skill in the art is someone with a
background and training in diamond jewelry design and who is presumed to have
knowledge of the prior art relevant to jewelry designs featuring one or more
diamonds or gems. See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1216 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
The Federal Circuit employs a two-step process for determining obviousness
in the design patent context. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 37/55
32
“First, ‘one must find a single reference, a something in existence, the design
characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.’” Id.
(quoting Durling, 101 F.3d at 103) (other citation & quotations omitted). “Second,
‘other references may be used to modify [the primary reference] to create a design
that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.’” Id. (quoting
Durling, 101 F.3d at 103) (alteration in original).
A primary reference may be modified by secondary references that are “so
related [to the primary reference] that the appearance of certain ornamental
features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.”
Borden, 90 F.3d at 1575 (citation & quotations omitted). See also KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
yield predictable results.”); Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d
1372, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Design patents, like utility patents, must meet the
nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and it is not obvious that the
Supreme Court necessarily intended to exclude design patents from the reach of
KSR”).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 38/55
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 39/55
34
Carat design as depicted in the Lin Article (Lotus Carat Fig. 2, infra) and in the
Lin Magazine (Lotus Carat Fig. 3, infra). They are all available and unassailable
as prior art and all primary references with respect to the ‘132 Patent’s claimed
invention.
Both the Lotus Carat jewelry design (as depicted in any one of the
Lin References) and the ‘132 Patent’s “diamond jewellery” design (as depicted in
the ‘132 Patent’s drawings) depict a larger, round, central, full-cut (also called
brilliant-cut) diamond surrounded by a plurality of smaller, canted or angled, round
diamonds.13
The Lotus Carat’s smaller round and peripheral diamonds are full-cut,
while the ‘132 Patent’s smaller peripheral round diamonds are single-cut. That is
the sole visual, if discernible at all, difference between the Lin References and their
teachings of the Lotus Carat jewelry design, on the one hand, and that of the
‘132 Patent’s claimed invention, on the other hand.
13 Though the Lotus Carat, depicted in the Lin References, teaches eight peripheral
stones while the ‘132 Patent teaches nine peripheral stones, this difference is
inconsequential for the purposes of the issue of obviousness. See Notice of Intent,
Exhibit 1009 at 6 (“[T]he Examiner considered a periphery having only nine stones
to be but a minor difference in appearance from an arrangement having eight or ten
stones.”).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 40/55
35
Thus, the only relevant, “salient” difference between the prior art Lotus
Carat design and the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design is that the ‘132 Patent teaches
smaller diamonds at the periphery that are single-cut, while the Lotus Carat
teaches smaller, full-cut diamonds at the periphery. Indeed, as Patent Owner itself
stated in convincing the Patent Office to confirm the ‘132 Patent during the prior
ex parte reexamination and in also convincing the Court of the patentability of the
‘132 Patent, “the crucial and most salient teaching in the ‘132 Patent is to provide
[] single cut diamonds only at the periphery . . . .” Reconsideration Request,
Exhibit 1010 at 4 (emphases added).
Patent Owner therefore concedes that all of the other features of the
‘132 Patent—i.e., those other than the mixing or combination of smaller, round
peripheral diamonds of one cut (e.g., single cut) around a central larger and round
diamond of a different cut (e.g., full cut)—are known in the field and/or obvious.
Patent Owner has likewise conceded that a ± 1 difference in the number of
peripheral diamonds is irrelevant. See, e.g., Patent Owner’s Written Statement of
Issues to Be Discussed at Interview Pursuant to MPEP 2281, transmitted
February 25, 2013 and attached hereto as Exhibit 1022, at 2 (“[P]atentee agrees
that, to an ordinary observer, the appearance with 8 stones is the same as with the 9
stones. No one ‘counts’ around the circle to discern the ‘number,’ or more
specifically the one stone difference in the stone count.”) (emphasis in original).
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 41/55
36
However, as Petitioners now show, the feature asserted and claimed to be “salient”
and distinct—which was crucial to the issue of non-obviousness during the prior
ex parte reexamination—was common and well-known to designers skilled in the
art prior to the effective priority date of the ‘132 Patent. The Auction House
Catalogs teach, by photos and description, the mixing of a large, round, full-cut
diamond surrounded by a plurality of smaller, round, single-cut diamonds. The
sole claim of the ‘132 Patent is clearly obvious.
Therefore, in light of the combinations of references listed in
Section XII.B.2., infra, the “diamond jewellery” design claimed in the ‘132 Patent
is obvious—thus unpatentable.
Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011) ‘132 Patent Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
Likewise, when the Lotus Carat, as depicted in the Lin Article (Lotus Carat
Fig. 2, infra) and/or in the Lin Magazine (Lotus Carat Fig. 3, infra), is viewed side-
by-side with the claimed design of the ‘132 Patent (‘132 Patent Fig. 1, infra), it is
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 42/55
37
evident that the Lotus Carat is “basically the same” as the ‘132 Patent’s claimed
design for the reasons laid out above.
Lotus Carat Fig. 2 (Ex. 1013) 132 Patent Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
Lotus Carat Fig. 3 (Ex. 1014) 132 Patent Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
Thus, the Lotus Carat diamond jewelry design that is depicted in all three
Lin References is “basically the same” as the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design, with
only one relevant difference: the Lin References’ Lotus Carat design does not
teach the mixing of peripheral smaller round single-cut diamonds about a larger,
central round diamond of a full-cut.
Yet each of the Auction House Catalogs teaches just that: large, full-cut
round central diamonds surrounded on their periphery by smaller, round, single-
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 43/55
38
cut diamonds. As described immediately below, the secondary references (i.e., the
Auction House Catalogs) teach the one aspect of the ‘132 Patent that was
emphasized by the Patent Owner as missing from the Lin References—which,
again, is the use of smaller, round peripheral diamonds of one cut (e.g., a single cut)
to surround a larger central diamond of a different cut (e.g., a full cut). But that is
shown by the prior art now brought to the Patent Office.
2. Proposed Rejections: Primary Reference in View of
Secondary References
Under the second step of the Federal Circuit’s two-step test for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, set forth in more detail in Section XII.A.,
supra, Petitioners next identify secondary references that “modify [the primary
reference] to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the
claimed design.” Apple, 678 F.3d at 1329-30 (citations & quotations omitted,
alteration in original).
Each jewelry design depicted in the Auction House Catalogs, each showing
and teaching the concept of mixing of a large, central, round full-cut diamond with
smaller, round and peripheral single-cut diamonds, as identified in Section IX.,
supra, would be thought of by a designer in the field to modify the Lotus Carat
design to create a design having the same overall visual appearance as the
‘132 Patent’s claimed design.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 44/55
39
Moreover, such mixing is not “counterintuitive” at all. Contra
Reconsideration Request, Exhibit 1010 at 6 (“It was counterintuitive. . . to
deliberately choose some of the stones to be ‘full cut’ and to provide the other
stones as ‘single cut’ diamonds.”). Indeed, it makes sense because (a) the prior art
teaches it and (b) the cost of making single-cut diamonds is ordinarily less (due to
the labor savings) than the cost to manufacture full-cut diamonds.
Specifically, each of the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring,
Heritage Diamond Ring, Christie’s Diamond Ring, Christie’s Diamond Cluster
Ring, Sotheby’s Ring, and Sotheby’s Necklace teaches and shows the common
concept in the field of jewelry design relating to diamond jewelry of mixing of
smaller peripheral round stones of one cut (e.g., a single cut) around a larger,
central and round diamond of a different cut (e.g., a full cut).
a.
Lin Publication and Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring
When the Lotus Carat as depicted in the Lin Publication (Lotus Carat Fig. 1,
infra) is combined with the teaching of the Heritage 2007 Catalog’s Heritage Art
Deco Diamond Ring (Secondary Ref. Fig. 1, infra) it renders obvious, under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design. That is because the Heritage
Art Deco Diamond Ring teaches (understood by the photo and associated
description) a “round brilliant cut diamond . . . enhanced by single-cut diamonds”
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 45/55
40
(Exhibit 1015 at 20152): the larger central and round diamond is brilliant-cut (i.e.,
full-cut) while the smaller peripheral stones feature single cut diamonds.
Consequently, the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring teaches the one
element argued as “missing” from the Lotus Carat as depicted in the Lin
Publication—namely, the mixing of round diamond peripherals of one cut (single
cut) with a central, larger, and round diamond stone of a different cut (full cut).
The Lin Publication teaches all the other elements of the ‘132 Patent’s claimed
design, including the use of a larger central diamond as well as the use of smaller,
canted and slightly overlapped round diamonds extending around the periphery of
the center and larger stone.
A jewelry designer having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring’s teachings (mixing of
smaller, round, single-cut diamonds to surround a larger, round and full-cut
diamond) to modify the Lotus Carat of the Lin References. Use of the single cut
diamonds would be a cost savings. And, specifically, a person having ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Lotus Carat design to
include the combination of different cuts taught by the Heritage Art Deco Diamond
Ring. Thus, the combination of these two references is obvious and there is no
advancement of the prior art by the claimed design of the ‘132 Patent. The
‘132 Patent’s claimed invention is not patentable.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 46/55
41
Therefore, the claimed design of the ‘132 Patent is obvious in light of the
teaching of the Lin Publication in combination with the teaching of the
Heritage 2007 Catalog, specifically the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring.
Secondary Ref. Fig. 1 (Ex. 1015) Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011)
b.
Lin Publication and Heritage Diamond Ring
The Heritage 2007 Catalog’s Heritage Diamond Ring (Secondary Ref. Fig. 2,
infra), like the Heritage Art Deco Diamond Ring described in Section XIII.B.2.a.,
supra, modifies the Lotus Carat design as depicted in the Lin Publication
(Lotus Carat Fig. 1, infra) such that, when the two references’ teachings are
combined, they render the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design obvious under § 103. This
is due to the Heritage Diamond Ring’s teaching of a “round brilliant cut
diamond . . . enhanced by single-cut diamonds” (Exhibit 1015 at 20153): the larger
central diamond features a brilliant cut (i.e., a full cut) while the smaller peripheral
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 47/55
42
stones are single-cut.14
This concept of mixing single cut diamonds and a larger
round and full-cut diamond is common and old; it is clearly a concept taught by the
prior art. There is nothing at all “counterintuitive” to such a combination, despite
the statement to the contrary by Patent Owner in the prior ex parte reexamination.
Thus, the Heritage Diamond Ring teaches and supplies the one element
“missing” from the Lotus Carat design of diamond jewelry as depicted in the Lin
Publication. Therefore, the claimed design of the ‘132 Patent is obvious in light of
the Lin Publication’s teaching when combined with the Heritage 2007 Catalog’s
Heritage Diamond Ring teaching. See also discussion in Section XIII.B.2.a., supra.
Secondary Ref. Fig. 2 (Ex. 1015) Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011)
14 It should be noted that the photo of the Heritage Diamond Ring shows two rings
one placed atop another for illustrative purposes. The description describes both
rings. For present purposes, Petitioners refer to the top ring of the set, as it shows a
large, central and full-cut diamond surrounded on its periphery, as set forth in the
written description, by several, smaller, round and single-cut diamonds.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 48/55
43
c. Lin Publication and Christie’s Diamond Ring
The Christie’s September 2005 Catalog’s Christie’s Diamond Ring
(Secondary Ref. Fig. 3, infra) can be used to modify the Lotus Carat design as
depicted in the Lin Publication (Lotus Carat Fig. 1, infra) such that, when the two
references’ teachings are combined, they render the ‘132 Patent’s claimed
“diamond jewellery” design obvious under § 103. The Christie’s Diamond Ring
shows and is described to teach a “central old-brilliant-cut15
diamond” to pierced
gallery and “shoulders set with single-cut diamonds” (Exhibit 1016 at 19869)—it
15 A brilliant (i.e., full) cut is, by definition, a modern cut that was developed in or
around 1919. See, e.g., Antique Diamond Cuts, Brilliant Earth,
http://www.brilliantearth.com/antique-diamond/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). Thus,
Petitioners presume that the Christie’s September 2005 Catalog intends to describe
a brilliant (i.e., full) cut.
However, even if the description refers to an older cut, such as an old mine
cut, the Christie’s Diamond Ring nevertheless teaches the mixing of one style of
cut diamonds set around the periphery of a differently-cut central, large and round
diamond. Consequently, the teaching of the Christie’s Diamond Ring of mixing of
such cuts, when used to modify the Lotus Carat design of the Lin Publication,
renders the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design obvious and unpatentable under §103.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 49/55
44
teaches a large, central, round and brilliant-cut (i.e., full-cut) diamond surrounded
by a set of smaller, round, and single-cut peripheral diamonds.
When combined with the teaching of the Lotus Carat design, as depicted in
the Lin Publication, the Christie’s Diamond Ring teaching of mixing of diamond
cuts renders the claimed design of the ‘132 Patent obvious—because the Christie’s
Diamond Ring teaches the common concept and combination of single-cut, smaller
peripheral round diamonds placed and set around a full-cut, larger central round
diamond. See also discussion in Section XIII.B.2.a., supra.
Secondary Ref. Fig. 3 (Ex. 1016) Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011)
d. Lin Publication and Christie’s Diamond Cluster Ring
The Christie’s March 2005 Catalog’s Christie’s Diamond Cluster Ring
(Secondary Ref. Fig. 4, infra) can be used to modify the Lotus Carat design as
depicted in the Lin Publication (Lotus Carat Fig. 1, infra) such that the
combination renders the ‘132 Patent merely obvious under § 103. The Christie’s
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 50/55
45
Diamond Cluster Ring shows, describes, and teaches a “brilliant-cut diamond
single stone centre with old and single-cut diamond gallery and shoulders”
(Exhibit 1017 at 20210): i.e., a brilliant-cut (i.e., full-cut) larger central and round
stone surrounded by a plurality of smaller, round, and single-cut (and old-cut)
diamonds.
The Christie’s Diamond Cluster Ring teaches the one element missing from
the Lotus Carat design, as depicted in the Lin Publication, namely, the surrounding
of a full-cut and round large center diamond with single-cut, round and smaller
peripheral diamonds. Consequently, the teaching of the Diamond Cluster Ring,
when combined with the teaching of the Lotus Carat design of the Lin Publication,
renders the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design obvious. See also discussion in
Section XIII.B.2.a., supra.
Secondary Ref. Fig. 4 (Ex. 1017) Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011)
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 51/55
46
e. Lin Publication and Sotheby’s Ring
The Sotheby’s February 2003 Catalog’s Sotheby’s Ring (Secondary Ref.
Fig. 5, infra) would be considered by one of skill in the art to modify the Lotus
Carat design as depicted in the Lin Publication (Lotus Carat Fig. 1, infra) so as to
render the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design obvious under § 103. The Sotheby’s Ring
teaches the combination of one type of cut for a large and central round diamond
with peripheral, smaller, and round diamonds of a different cut. Specifically, the
Sotheby’s Ring features a “cluster set with brilliant-, circular-, and single-cut
diamonds.” (Exhibit 1018 at 19790.)
Thus, the Sotheby’s Ring teaches the one critical element that the Lotus
Carat, as depicted in the Lin Publication, lacks: the mixing of different diamond
cuts at the periphery, i.e., smaller round single-cut diamonds in comparison to the
larger, single, round and center stone, in a jewelry design. As such, the Sotheby’s
Ring’s teachings, in combination with the teachings of the Lotus Carat, render the
‘132 Patent’s claimed design merely obvious. See also discussion in
Section XIII.B.2.a., supra.
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 52/55
47
Secondary Ref. Fig. 5 (Ex. 1018) Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011)
f.
Lin Publication and Sotheby’s Necklace
The Sotheby’s April 2005 Catalog’s Sotheby’s Necklace (Secondary Ref.
Fig. 6, infra) modifies the Lotus Carat design as depicted in the Lin Publication
(Lotus Carat Fig. 1, infra) such that the combination renders the ‘132 Patent’s
claimed design obvious under § 103. The Sotheby’s Necklace teaches, in its photo
and written description, diamond clusters extending around the necklace, each
“with brilliant- and circular-cut diamonds” (Exhibit 1019 at 19955), that is, a
combination of two different diamond cut styles: one larger, round and central
diamond with a brilliant (i.e., full) diamond cut at the center, and other, smaller,
and round diamonds with another cut style surrounding the central diamond.
Thus, the Sotheby’s Necklace teaches the one element that the Lotus Carat
design, as depicted in the Lin Publication, lacks. When the teaching of the
Sotheby’s Necklace is combined with the teaching of the Lotus Carat design, as
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 53/55
48
would be done by one of ordinary skill in the art of designing jewelry, the resulting
combination renders the ‘132 Patent’s claimed design merely obvious. See also
discussion in Section XIII.B.2.a., supra.
Secondary Ref. Fig. 6 (Ex. 1019) Lotus Carat Fig. 1 (Ex. 1011)
3.
Additional Proposed Rejections
Both the Lotus Carat designs as depicted in the Lin Article (Lotus Carat
Fig. 2, supra) and/or as depicted in the Lin Magazine (Lotus Carat Fig. 3, supra)
can easily replace the Lotus Carat design as depicted in the Lin Publication
(Lotus Carat Fig. 1, supra). These Lotus Carat designs can also be combined with
each of the Auction House Catalog teachings of the concept of mixing of a larger
single, round, full-cut diamond surrounded by a set of smaller, round, single-cut
diamonds. Thus, there are a total of 18 distinct invalidating combinations of prior
art references—each of the teachings of the Lin References (Publication, Article,
and Magazine) can be combined with any one of the Auction House Catalog
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 54/55
49
teachings to arrive at the same conclusion of mere obviousness and clear
unpatentability of the claimed invention of the ‘132 Patent.
XIII. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that they will prevail on the single claim of the ‘132 Patent. Petitioners’
Request for Inter Partes Review should therefore be granted, an inter partes
review should be instituted, and the single claim of the ‘132 Patent should be found
unpatentable and the ‘132 Patent cancelled.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: January 7, 2016
By: /s/ Andrew S. Langsam/
Andrew S. Langsam
Reg. No. 28,556
Pryor Cashman LLP
7 Times Square, 38th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Telephone:212-326-0180
Facsimile: 212-515-6969
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioners
8/20/2019 Premier Gem v. Wing Yee Gems & Jewellery - Petition for IPR
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/premier-gem-v-wing-yee-gems-jewellery-petition-for-ipr 55/55
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105, the undersigned certifies that,
on January 7, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Request for Inter Partes
Review and all supporting exhibits were provided via the United States Postal
Service and via email, to the Patent Owner by serving Patent Owner’s counsel of
record as follows:
Max Moskowitz
Reg. No. 30,576
Ostrolenk Faber LLP
1180 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Email: [email protected]
The undersigned further certifies that, on January 7, 2016, a complete and
entire copy of this Request for Inter Partes Review and all supporting exhibits
were provided via email to other counsel of record in the Action captioned BK
Jewellery et al. v. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. et al. (S.D.N.Y. Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-
02333-LAP), as follows:
John Evans Jureller
Klestadt, Winters, Jureller, Southard & Stevens LLP
200 West 41st Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10018
Email: [email protected]
Dated: January 7, 2016
By: /s/ Andrew S. Langsam/
Andrew S. Langsam
Reg. No. 28,556
Pryor Cashman LLP7 Times Square, 38th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Telephone:212 326 0180