UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

________________

BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRIAL APPEAL BOARD

________________

SATTLER

TECH CORP.

Petitioner

v.

HUMANCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC

Patent Owner

________________

Patent No. D 823,093

________________

PETITION FOR POST‐GRANT REVIEW

OF U.S. PATENT NO. D 823,093

 
 


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities
Table of Exhibits
I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………….……...………… Page 1
II. STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS ……………………….………….…… Page 1
III. MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................................................Page 2
A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................................................Page 2
B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................................................Page 2
C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) .......................................................Page 2
D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .....................................................................Page 3
IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................................................Page 3
V. ’093 PATENT BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FIELD ............................................................Page 3
A. Overview of the ’093 Patent ................................................................................................Page 3
B. Relevant Field ............................................................................................................................Page 9
1. Tabs ................................................................................................................................Page 10
2. Grommet Spacing .................................................................................................... Page 13
3. Grommet Size ............................................................................................................ Page 15
4. Grommet Raised Edges ......................................................................................... Page 16
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................Page 17
VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF INVALIDITY ............................................................................Page 17
A. Lack of Ornamentality ........................................................................................................Page 18
1. Applicable Law Regarding Invalidity Regarding Ornamentality …….…. Page 18
2. The Design of the 093 Patent is Primarily Functional ……………………… Page 19
3. Claim: The Ornamental Design for a VESA Mount Adapter Bracket, as Shown
and Described……….......................................................................................................Page 27
VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................,....Page 30

 
 
Table of Authorities 

Statutes 

35 U.S.C. § 171 ...........................................................................................................1, 3, 17, 18, 19 
37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ........................................................................................................................... 1 
37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) .................................................................................................................... 1,7 
37 C.F.R. § 42.206(a) .................................................................................................................... 1,7 
37 C.F.R. § 10(b)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 
37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…1 
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)....................................................................................................................... 2 
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)....................................................................................................................... 2 
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)....................................................................................................................... 2 
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)....................................................................................................................... 3 
37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a) ......................................................................................................................... 3 
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................... 17, 18 
M.P.E.P. § 1504.01(c) .................................................................................................................... 18 
37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ..................................................................................................................... 18 
 
Cases 
 
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,2140‐45 (2016) .......................................... 17, 18 
High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................... 18 
L.A. Gear Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................. 18 
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665,679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................... 19 
Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886) .................................................................................... 19 
Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.3d 234,238‐39 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ......................... 19 
Hupp v. Sirojlex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................. 19 
Ethicon Endo‐Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312,1329‐30 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................. 19 
PGR 2016‐00021 ........................................................................................................................... 18 
 

 
 
 TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Description

1001 U.S. Patent No. D 823,093

1002 Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) Flat

Display Mounting Interface Standard

1003 Amazon Page On Which The VESA Mount Adapter

Bracket Of The ‘093 Patent Is Sold

1004 First Additional Figure Found On Amazon Page On

Which The VESA Mount Adapter Bracket Of The ‘093

Patent Is Sold

1005 Second Additional Figure Found On Amazon Page On

Which The VESA Mount Adapter Bracket Of The ‘093

Patent Is Sold

1006 Paper From The 17th International Conference On

Metal Forming

1007 Gladiator Joe HP Pavilion Monitor VESA Adapter

1008 VIVO VESA Adapter For HP

1009 First Additional Figure From VIVO VESA Adapter For HP

1010 Humancentric Webpage On Which The VESA Mount

Adapter Bracket Of The ‘093 Patent Is Sold

 
 
I. INTRODUCTION

Sattler Tech Corp. (“SATTLER” or “Petitioner”) requests post-grant review of the

claim of U.S. Patent No. D 823,093 (Ex. 1001, “the ’093 Patent”), and cancellation of the

claim as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 171 for lacking ornamentality. This Petition

demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the claim of the ’093 Patent is

unpatentable. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208.

As an initial matter, the design claimed by the ’093 Patent lacks ornamentality, as it

was dictated entirely by functional considerations and is primarily functional. The claim of

the ’093 Patent is therefore not directed at patentable subject matter. It should be

invalidated on that basis.

II. STANDING AND PROCEDURAL STATEMENTS

Petitioner certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.204(a) that the ’093 Patent is

available for post-grant review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from

requesting post-grant review of the ’093 Patent. This Petition is also filed within nine

months from the July 17, 2018 issue date of the ’093 Patent.

Petitioner files this petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R. section 42.206(a),

and files concurrently with this petition a Power of Attorney and an Exhibit List

pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 10(b) and 42.63(e), respectively.

The required fee is paid via online Deposit Account payment.

1 
 
III. MANDATORY NOTICES

A. Real Party‐in‐Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))

Petitioner is the real party-in-interest.

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))

On information and belief, the sole judicial or administrative matters involving the

’093 Patent is Case No. 2:18-cv-09332-PSG-JPR in the United States District Court, Northern

District of California.

C. Lead and Back‐Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))

Lead Counsel Back – Up Counsel

Michael L. Greenberg (Reg. No. 47,312) Kenneth E. Keller (SBN 71450)

GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC William T. Palmer (SBN 312923)
1775 Eye Street, NW PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
Suite 1150 LLP
Washington, DC 20006 Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
Telephone: (202) 625-7000 San Francisco, CA 94111
Facsimile: (202) 625-7001 Telephone: (415) 983-1084
Michael@APLegal.com Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
kenneth.keller@pillsburylaw.com

Stevan Lieberman
GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC
1775 Eye Street, NW
Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 625-7000
Facsimile: (202) 625-7001
stevan@aplegal.com

Robert C.F. Pérez (Reg. No. 39,328)

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP
1650 Tysons Boulevard, 14th Floor
McLean, VA 22102
Telephone: 703-770-7900
Facsimile: 703-770-7901
Email: robert.perez@pillsburylaw.com

2 
 
 D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))

Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at the addresses of counsel provided

above.

IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.22(a), Petitioner states that the claim of the

’093 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 171 for lacking ornamentality.

Petitioner seeks cancellation of the claim. Petitioner’s full statement of the reasons for the

relief requested is set forth in detail in Section VII below.

V. ’093 PATENT BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FIELD

A. Overview of the ’093 Patent

The ’093 Patent (Ex. 1001) is entitled “VESA MOUNT ADAPTER BRACKET.” It issued

on July 17, 2018, from Application Ser. No. 29/594,376 (“the ’376 Application”), filed

February 17, 2017. The ’093 Patent claims what it purports to be an ornamental design for

a VESA mount adapter bracket represented by the following figure:

3 
 
(Ex. 1001 at 3.) The ’093 Patent contains 5 other figures, FIGS. 2-6, directed at front, back,

right, top, and bottom perspectives of the claimed design. FIG. 2 is a front view of the

claimed design:

4 
 
(Ex. 1001 at 4.) A back view of the claimed design is shown in FIG. 3:

5 
 
(Ex. 1001 at 5.) FIG. 4 is a right-side view:

6 
 
(Ex. 1001 at 6.) FIGS. 5 and 6 are a top view and a bottom view, respectively:

7 
 
(Ex. 1001 at 7.) As seen in the Figures, there are parts of figures that are shown in broken

lines. As noted in the patent itself: “The broken lines represent portions of the article and

form no part of the claimed design.” The only solid-lined parts of the design – or in other

8 
 
words, the claimed design -- are essentially a (1) the top and bottom tabs and (2) the

grommets arranged in diagonal pairs toward the four corners of the plate of the design. As

demonstrated below, the look of those individual elements—as well as the look of those

elements together—is dictated by its functionality.

B. Relevant Field

The VESA mount adapter bracket – the “ornamental” design of

which is claimed in the ’093 Patent – is used in connection with the Video Electronics

Standards Association (VESA) Flat Display Mounting Interface Standard, Copyright 2006.

(Ex. 1002). As noted on the first page, “This proposal is to provide industry standard

mounting interfaces for Flat Displays (FDs) such as flat panel monitors, flat displays and

flat TVs.” (Ex. 1002 at 1.)

The VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is designed specifically to fit

onto the back of certain video monitors so they can attach to VESA mount systems instead

of a stand that came with the monitors. Specifically, the typical consumer would attach the

VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent to a monitor in place of a stand that was

packaged with the monitor.

As shown in the following figure found on the Amazon page on which the

VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1003 at 3.), the owner of the ‘093

Patent notes that it works per the VESA mounting system:

9 
 
 1. Tabs

As shown in the following two additional figures found on the Amazon page

on which the VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1004 at 1 and Ex. 1005 at 1.), the top

tab of the VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent fits atop a lower bulge on the

back of a video monitor to secure the top tab via screw to the video monitor. There is

already a hole in the monitor to receive a screw through the top tab of the bracket of the

‘093 Patent. Note that the bracket of the ‘093 Patent (as shown in the following several

images) is sandwiched between the monitor and support arm – so that no one is going to

see much of the bracket of the ‘093 Patent once the bracket of the ‘093 Patent has been

installed.

10 
 
 11 
 
 As shown in the following figure found on the Amazon page on which the VESA

mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1003 at 6.), the bottom tabs of the

VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent fit into preexisting slots on the back of a

video monitor.

So, in short, the tabs must be positioned and sized as they are – else they won’t fit the

monitor. The top tab is shaped as minimally as possible to provide support for the bracket

of the ‘093 Patent.

12 
 
 2. Grommet Spacing

As shown in the following figure found on the Amazon page on which the

VESA mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent is sold,

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DNCP7HW , (Ex. 1003 at 3.), grommets of the VESA

mount adapter bracket of the ‘093 Patent are shown to be VESA standardly-spaced (via the

manufacturer’s blue notations in the below figure) to fit for mounting at the back of a video

monitor.

As noted on page 18, Section 5.2.1 of the VESA Flat Display Mounting Interface

(FDMI™) Standard (Ex. 1002 at 28.),:

5.2.1 Screw Mounting Interface Dimensions

• Preferred, center-located mounting interface implementation
o Use 100 mm x 100 mm hole spacing for all displays weighing up to 14 kg

13 
 
(30.8 lbs.)
o See Illustration: Paragraph 5.2.4.1.
• Alternate, center located mounting interface implementation for smaller displays
o 75 mm x 75 mm hole spacing may be used for smaller displays, typically
weighing less than 8 kg (17.6 lbs.)
o See Illustration: Paragraph 5.2.4.2.

And here are the corresponding illustrations that are referenced per that VESA Standard as

found on pages 19 and 20, Section 5.2.4.1 and Section 5.2.4.2 of the VESA Flat Display

Mounting Interface (FDMI™) Standard (Ex. 1002 at 29 and 30.),:

14 
 
So, in short, the grommets must be spaced as they are – else they won’t meet VESA

standards.

3. Grommet Size

Even the grommet size is dictated by VESA Standards, as noted on page 22,

Section 5.6 of the VESA Flat Display Mounting Interface (FDMI™) Standard (Ex. 1002 at

32.),:

5.6 Part D – Center Located Interface Mounting Pad

Specifications
• FD mounting device manufacturers shall provide a standardized interface mounting pad
as follows:
Interface Mounting Pad
Specifications
100 mm x 100 mm Screw
Mounting Pattern
75 mm x 75 mm Screw
Mounting Pattern
Hole spacing 100 mm x 100 mm (3.937”) 75 mm x 75 mm (2.953”)
Hole spacing tolerances +/- .25 mm (.010”) +/- .25 mm (.010”)

15 
 
Pad size 115 mm x 115 mm (4.527”),
6 mm R (4)
90 mm x 90 mm (3.543”),
6 mm R (4)
Flat mounting area required 117 mm x 117 mm (4.606”),
0 – 7 mm R (4)
92 mm x 92 mm (3.622”),
0 – 7 mm R (4)
Pad thickness 2.6 mm or 12 GA (0.102”-0.105”) 2.6 mm or 12 GA (0.102”-0.105”)
Hole size in pad (4 ea.) 5 mm ø (0.197"ø) 5 mm ø (0.197"ø)
Pad material Steel * Steel *
Mounting screws (4 ea.) 4 mm ø, .7 pitch x 10 mm long ** 4 mm ø, .7 pitch x 10 mm long **

So, in short, the grommets must be standardly-sized -- else they won’t conform to

VESA standards.

4. Grommet Raised Edges

Having raised edges for grommets is known to increase the strength of the

sheet to which the grommets are attached. The bracket of the ‘093 Patent has raised

grommets, just as is described in the paper found at

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2351978918309818?token=186A3C95214FB

D7FFAF2696FF0C729BA9898C083389382871689FDD15BF37C4AF2430D508B0F199C10

3805B73576DCF5 entitled, “Thickened holes edge including compressed rollover for

improving tensile fatigue strength of thick sheet.” In particular, that paper, from the 17th

International Conference on Metal Forming, Metal Forming 2018, 16-19 September 2018,

Toyohashi, Japan, states in the second paragraph on page 5 of the 7 page PDF (or the page

that is numbered 616 in the publication), (Ex. 1006 at 5.):

“For the purpose of improving fatigue strength of the steel sheet, the edge of the

hole was thicken. Thus the fatigue strength was improved as compared to the normal

piercing hole without thickening. …The result shows that the punch holes including

16 
 
thickening with compressed rollover at the holes edge of thick steel sheet are effective in

improving tensile fatigue strengths.”

So to support heavy monitors to which the bracket of the ‘093 Patent attaches, the

grommets have raised edges as reinforcement so the sheet to which the grommets are

attached will not break under heavy monitor weight.

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.100(b), the challenged claim “shall be

given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent

in which it appears.” See also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271,

1278-83 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

The language of the challenged claim does not need to be construed for

purposes of the invalidity ground set forth in this petition. The claim language

should therefore be given its plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF INVALIDITY

The claim of the ’093 Patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 171 for lacking

ornamentality.

The claimed design lacks ornamentality, as it is primarily functional.

The claim of the ’093 Patent is therefore not directed at patentable subject matter,

and it should therefore be invalidated.

17 
 
 A. Lack of Ornamentality

1. Applicable Law Regarding Invalidity for Ornamentality

To be patentable under 35 U.S.C. section 171, a design must be “primarily

ornamental.” See M.P.E.P. § 1504.01(c). That is, it must have been “created for

the purpose of ornamenting” and cannot be the result or “merely a by-product” of

functional or mechanical considerations. Id.

“Based on this requirement, a design patent can be declared invalid if the

claimed design is ‘primarily functional’ rather than ‘primarily ornamental,’ i.e., if

‘the claimed design is ‘dictated by’ the utilitarian purpose of the article.’” High Point Design

LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

(citations omitted).

“In determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily

ornamental the claimed design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is

not the functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but the overall

appearance of the article, in determining whether the claimed design is dictated by

the utilitarian purpose of the article.” See L.A. Gear Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d

1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

As noted in PGR2016-00021, in a post-grant review, "[a] claim in an unexpired

patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the

patent in which it appears." 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.

Ct. 2131,2140-45 (2016) (holding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.l00(b) "represents a reasonable

exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the ... Office"). With regard

to design patents, it is well-settled that a design is represented better by an illustration

18 
 
than a description. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665,679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

(en banc) (citing Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)). The Board found that the

figures alone provide a complete construction of the challenged claim.

The Board went on to note that under 35 U.S.C. § 171, a design patent may be

granted only for a "new, original, and ornamental design." "If the patented design is

primarily functional rather than ornamental, the patent is invalid." Power Controls Corp. v.

Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.3d 234,238-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (vacating a preliminary injunction

"[i]n view of the strong and clear showing of functionality" made by a declarant). However,

''the fact that the article of manufacture serves a function is a prerequisite of design

patentability, not a defeat thereof. The function of the article itself must not be confused

with 'functionality' of the design of the article." Hupp v. Sirojlex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,

1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The inquiry into whether a claimed design is primarily functional

should begin by assessing the availability of alternative designs-"an important-if not

dispositive factor in evaluating the legal functionality of a claimed design." Ethicon Endo‐

Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312,1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, a proper

inquiry assesses "the overall appearance of the article-the claimed design viewed in its

entirety," "not the functionality of elements of the claimed design viewed in isolation." Id. at

1329 (emphasis added).

2. The Design of the ‘093 Patent is Primarily Functional

In the present case, the fact that the VESA standards dictate the claimed design

of the ‘093 Patent have been shown above in the “Relevant Field” Section. And the

raised grommets of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent acting to functionally

19 
 
reinforce has been shown above. In addition, assessing the availability of alternative

designs to ascertain whether the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent is primarily

functional shows that there are a variety of brackets to perform the same function as

the bracket protected by the ‘093 Patent ‐‐ and they all have the same design or

appearance as the black‐lined portions of the figures of the ‘093 Patent.

This is because the black-lined portions of the figures of the ‘093 Patent are

necessary for the bracket to function. The black-lined portions of the figures of the ‘093

Patent are not anything but the functional requirements that are common to similarly

marketed brackets for the same function – this is because to function, the bracket of

claimed design of the ‘093 Patent must have tabs and grommets that meet VESA standards

and are sized and positioned for a specific line of flat panel displays.

As one example showing that there is not any availability of alternative designs

because the design is dictated by the bracket’s function, Gladiator Joe makes an HP Pavilion

Monitor VESA Adapter for CVB100 Kit Hp 25xw 25cw 27xw 27cw that is identical, but for

raised grommet edges, to the bracket protected by the ‘093 Patent. See

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Pavilion-Monitor-VESA-Adapter-for-CVB100-Kit-Hp-

25xw-25cw-27xw-

27cw/191976160276?epid=5016453995&hash=item2cb2abbc14:g:H5AAAOSw8S9a0K15:

rk:1:pf:0 (Ex. 1007 at 1.) The tabs and the grommets are the same as those of the bracket

of the ‘093 Patent, as shown in the below figures, the Gladiator Joe product shown first, and

the bracket of the ‘093 Patent shown second:

20 
 
 As a second example showing that there is not any availability of alternative designs

because the design is dictated by the bracket’s function, VIVO makes a VESA Adapter for HP

27xw, 25xw, 24xw, 23xw, 22xw, 22cwa, 27cw, 25cw, 23cw, 22cw that is identical to the

bracket protected by the ‘093 Patent, but for raised grommet edges. See

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VESA-Adapter-for-HP-27xw-25xw-24xw-23xw-22xw-22cwa-

27cw-25cw-23cw-

22cw/362116029052?hash=item544fcc1a7c:g:1uYAAOSwZW5aAdjf:sc:USPSPriority!9458

7!US!-1:rk:3:pf:0 (Ex. 1008 at 1.) The tabs and the grommets are the same as those of the

bracket of the ‘093 Patent, as shown in the below figures, the VIVO product shown first, and

the bracket of the ‘093 Patent shown second:

21 
 
Telling is that the VIVO product also has the below side and back side views showing the

exact spacing/ positioning of grommets as the bracket of the ‘093 Patent matching the

VESA standard measurements (both views below are of the VIVO product) (Ex. 1009 at 1.):

22 
 
And, from the owner of the ‘093 Patent, here is the bracket of the ‘093 Patent with VESA

standard grommets distances, as shown at

https://www.humancentric.com/products/vesa-adapter-bracket-for-hp-pavilion-cw-xw-

series-monitors (Ex. 1010 at 1.):

23 
 
Even the length of the tabs is roughly the same because they must interlock into slots on an

HP monitor. Moreover, even the below product description, appearing next to the above

image at the following link, by the owner of the ‘093 Patent, notes the VESA standards that

dictate the design of the ‘093 Patent -- https://www.humancentric.com/products/vesa-

adapter-bracket-for-hp-pavilion-cw-xw-series-monitors (Ex. 1010 at 1.):

24 
 
 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Bought an HP Pavilion monitor and disappointed that you can't VESA mount it? Unable to
find the HP L6V75AA (CVB100 VESA Mount Adapter Kit)? This bracket enables you to
mount select HP Pavilion monitors to a desk mount, articulating arm, or any other VESA
mounting system.

Fits ONLY the following HP Monitors:

 Pavilion 22cw
 Pavilion 22cwa
 Pavilion 22xw
 Pavilion 23cw
 Pavilion 23xw
 Pavilion 24cw
 Pavilion 24xw
 Pavilion 25cw
 Pavilion 25xw
 Pavilion 27cw
 Pavilion 27xw

**DOES NOT FIT ANY OTHER BRANDS OR MODELS. Check to make sure your monitor is
listed before ordering! **

Fits Standard VESA Hole Patterns: 75 mm x 75 mm, 100 mm x 100 mm

Included are nuts to secure the bracket to the VESA mount, and the only tool required for
installation is a screwdriver that fits the screws that came with your VESA mount.

A VESA mount can be used to save desk space or provide additional viewing flexibility by
mounting the monitor on a stand, movable arm, multiple-monitor mount, or a wall mount.

Thus, the overall appearance of the bracket of the ‘093 Patent is the same as

similarly marketed brackets because the overall appearance of the bracket of the ‘093

Patent is not a design choice – but rather a functional requirement dictated by needing to

fit a monitor and meeting VESA standards -- and needing to fit (as the owner of the ‘093

Patent notes above) VESA mounts. The grommets of the ‘093 Patent are required by VESA

standards as aforementioned; and the tabs of the ‘093 Patent are required to be angled at

25 
 
roughly ninety degrees to fit onto (in the case of the top tab) and into (in the case of the

bottom tabs) the back of the flat panel which the bracket of the ‘093 Patent supports.

Moreover, the bottom tabs are required to be shaped in such a way in order to interlock

with the slots in the back of the flat panel into which the bracket of the ‘093 Patent

supports. As noted previously, having raised edges for grommets is known to increase the

strength of the sheet to which the grommets are attached.

Applying the Board’s guidance as noted above, the inquiry into whether the claimed

design of the ‘093 Patent is primarily functional should begin by assessing the availability

of alternative designs – an important – if not dispositive factor in evaluating the legal

functionality of a claimed design. In the case of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent, there

is no availability of alternative designs because claimed design of the ‘093 is dictated by

VESA standards and needing to fit on and into monitors made by Hewlett Packard. Further,

as the Board noted above, a proper inquiry assesses "the overall appearance of the article-

the claimed design viewed in its entirety," "not the functionality of elements of the claimed

design viewed in isolation." And when the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent is viewed in its

entirety, there does not appear to be anything that is not dictated VESA standards and the

Hewlett Packard monitors that it is designed to fit. Even the raised edges for the grommets

is known to increase the strength of sheet to which the grommets are attached.

In short, if the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent did not have the overall appearance

that it does, then the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent would not function. The elements

of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent – viewed in isolation as well as together –

must appear as they do so that the bracket of the ‘093 Patent can function. Without

the elements of the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent – viewed in isolation as well as

26 
 
together – the claimed design of the ‘093 Patent would not fit the very standard

monitors that it must fit to function.

Thus, it is more likely than not that Petitioner should prevail on a ground of

unpatentability with respect to the claim of the ‘093 Patent.

3. Claim: “The ornamental design for a VESA mount adapter bracket, as

shown and described.”

The claim of the ’093 Patent should be invalidated since the claimed design

is primarily functional instead of being primarily ornamental. The design as a

whole is dictated by function, not by ornamentation. For instance, there is nothing

in the claimed design indicating that a design choice was made for the purpose of

ornamenting. In fact, the obverse is true: each of the design choices, taken individually --

and as a whole -- was expressly dictated by functional considerations.

As noted before, the claimed design is the only solid-lined parts of the design, which

are (1) the top and bottom tabs and (2) the grommets arranged in diagonal pairs toward

the four corners of the plate. This can easily be seen in the following figure from US D

823,093 (Ex. 1001 at 3.):

27 
 
 There are several prominent design features in US D 823,093:

(1) US D 823,093 shows a top tab and two bottom tabs relatively perpendicular to
the backplate. This is not a design choice for ornamental purposes, but purely
functional as the top tab must be positioned in such a way to fit and screw onto a
bump in the specific flat panels to which it can attach. And this is not a design
choice for ornamental purposes, but purely functional, as the bottom tabs must

28 
 
 be positioned is such a way to fit into pre-existing slots in the specific flat panels
to which it can attach.
(2) US D 823,093 shows grommets in a spaced pattern that is also not a design
choice for ornamental purposes, but purely functional as the grommets must be
positioned in such a way to match VESA standards for flat panel mounts. As
aforementioned, the grommet spacing / positioning meets a VESA standard that
is not a design choice. And the size of the grommets also meets a VESA standard
that is not a design choice. Even the raised grommet edges are known, in the
metal forming industry, to increase the strength of the sheet to which the
grommets are attached.

The look of those individual elements—as well as the look of the entire claimed

design – is dictated by its functionality. The tabs and grommets are disposed where they

are and positioned where they are because of functional – not ornamental – considerations.

Nothing about the overall shape or the design and placement of individual elements, for

instance, can serve an ornamental purpose because they are dictated by a functional

purpose. Change any design elements and the design of the ‘093 patent simply won’t

functionally work. Therefore, the claimed design is primarily functional and cannot be the

subject of a design patent.

‐‐‐ The rest of this page intentionally left blank ‐‐‐

29 
 
VIII. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests post-grant review of the

claim of the ’093 Patent and cancellation of the claim.

Respectfully submitted,
1/15/2019
Date: _____________ /mlg/
_______________________________
GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC Michael L. Greenberg
1775 Eye Street, NW Registration No. 47312
Suite 1150 Attorney for Petitioner
Washington, DC 20006 Sattler Tech Corp.
Telephone: (202) 625-7000
Facsimile: (202) 625-7001

30 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that (1) the above captioned PETITION

FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. D 823,093 (2) copies of

Exhibit No.’s 1001 to 1010 and (3) PETITIONER’S POWER OF ATTORNEY

will be served via FedEx on January __16_____, 2019 at the official correspondence address

for the attorney of record for U.S. Patent No. D 823,093 as shown in the USPTO PAIR

system:

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

ATTN: PATENT GROUP
11911 Freedom Dr.
Suite 300
Reston VA 20190

________/MLG/_______ Date: 1/15/19_____

Michael L. Greenberg (Reg. No. 47,312)
GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC
1775 Eye Street, NW
Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 625-7000
Facsimile: (202) 625-7001
Michael@APLegal.com
Robert C.F. Pérez (Reg. No. 39,328)
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP
1650 Tysons Boulevard, 14th Floor
McLean, VA 22102
Telephone: 703-770-7900
Facsimile: 703-770-7901
robert.perez@pillsburylaw.com
Kenneth E. Keller (SBN 71450)
William T. Palmer (SBN 312923)
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 983-1084
Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
kenneth.keller@pillsburylaw.com
Stevan Lieberman
GREENBERG & LIEBERMAN, LLC
1775 Eye Street, NW
Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 625-7000
Facsimile: (202) 625-7001
stevan@aplegal.com