throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case CBM2012-00003
`Patent 8,140,358
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R.
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF MARY L. O’NEIL ON BEHALF OF
`PETITIONER LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. REGARDING U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,140,358
`
`I, Mary L. O’Neil, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I. Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I am currently Principal of O’Neil Consulting Services, Inc. (OCS), an
`
`independent actuarial consulting practice, which I established in 1986. I have over 30
`
`years experience as a property casualty actuary in the insurance industry. My CV is
`
`attached as Ex. 1033.
`
`2.
`
`OCS provides actuarial consulting services to a variety of clients from
`
`both the regulatory and private sectors. For example, the regulatory agencies in which
`
`
`
`Liberty Mutual Exhibit 1032
`Liberty Mutual v. Progressive
`CBM2012-00003
`Page 00001
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have provided consulting services include the North Carolina Department of
`
`Insurance (for which I have completed Private Passenger Automobile rate analyses
`
`for more than twenty years), the New Jersey Department of Insurance, the New York
`
`Department of Insurance, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, the Texas Office
`
`of Public Insurance Counsel, the Georgia Department of Insurance, the Pennsylvania
`
`Department of Insurance, and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
`
`3.
`
`Individual insurers or insurance pools for which I have provided
`
`consulting services include Integrity Insurance Company in Liquidation (on behalf of
`
`liquidator), Home State Holdings, Inc. in Liquidation (on behalf of liquidator),
`
`Security Indemnity Insurance Company in Rehabilitation (on behalf of rehabilitator),
`
`Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company, several small insurers, and several
`
`self-insurance pools.
`
`4.
`
`The services I have performed on behalf of OCS include analysis of
`
`proposed rates by insurers, analysis of required insurer reserves in conjunction with
`
`regulatory examinations of insurance companies, evaluation of loss reserves for
`
`purposes of reinsurance commutation, preparation of required reserve opinions for
`
`individual insurers and pools, evaluation of legislation, and other special projects.
`
`5.
`
`Rate analyses have included private passenger automobile, homeowners’,
`
`dwelling fire, title, and workers’ compensation. These projects have been completed
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for individual rate filings or full industry rate filings in selected states. I have also
`
`estimated the required loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for a multibillion
`
`dollar multi-line insurer group, a number of insurers in conjunction with financial
`
`examinations, for purposes of commutations, several small insurers, and self-
`
`insurance pools. These analyses have sometimes addressed the issues of mass torts or
`
`catastrophes.
`
`6. My previous work experience includes insurance actuary positions at the
`
`New Department of Insurance (“NJDOI”), Prudential Property and Casualty
`
`Insurance Company, and General Reinsurance Corporation.
`
`7.
`
`During my nearly two years at NJDOI, I served as the Department’s
`
`Chief Actuary. My responsibilities included supervision of the actuarial aspects of
`
`regulation for all lines of insurance: personal lines and commercial lines rates and
`
`forms, life contracts and health rates. In addition, I supervised the life valuations and
`
`supplied assistance to the Examinations Division in valuing property/casualty insurer
`
`reserves. I also served as an advisor to the commissioner and other department staff
`
`on all issues before the department.
`
`8.
`
`For the eleven years I worked at Prudential, I had a variety of
`
`responsibilities, which included insurance pricing, marketing, reserving, financial
`
`analysis, and various special projects. I started as an actuarial student and rose to the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`level of Vice President and Assistant Actuary. Finally, at General Reinsurance
`
`Corporation, I spent one year doing mostly statistical insurance work.
`
`9.
`
`I have also worked with several law firms in a consulting and/or expert
`
`capacity. My attached CV lists all the matters in which I was involved, including my
`
`testimonial experience. See Ex. 1033.
`
`10.
`
`I have the professional designations of Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial
`
`Society (FCAS), Member of the American Academy of Actuaries (MAAA), Chartered
`
`Life Underwriter (CLU), and Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC). I am also a
`
`member of the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS), American Academy of Actuaries
`
`(AAA), and the International Association of Insurance Receivers (IAIR).
`
`11. My education includes a B.S. in Mathematics from Pennsylvania State
`
`University, and an M.A. in Statistics, also from Pennsylvania State University.
`
`12.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner and real party in interest,
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Petitioner” or “Liberty Mutual”), I have been
`
`asked by Liberty Mutual to respond to certain assertions and opinions offered by
`
`Michael Miller and Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. (“Progressive”) concerning
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (“the ‘358 patent”) in this matter.
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $500 per hour for my services, after
`
`expert service fees. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Business Method Review Petition or the pending litigation between Petitioner and
`
`Progressive in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
`
`II. Scope of Rebuttal Declaration
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to respond to certain assertions and opinions of Mr.
`
`Michael Miller expressed in his declaration of June 12, 2013 as Exhibit 2005, his
`
`supplemental declaration of June 26, 2013 as Exhibit 2013, and certain assertions of
`
`Progressive in its Patent Owner’s Response of June 12, 2013.
`
`15.
`
`In developing my opinions below, I have considered the following
`
`materials:
`
` Declaration of Michael Miller (Ex. 2005);
`
` Supplemental Declaration of Michael Miller (Ex. 2013);
`
` Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 33) (“Opposition” or “Opp.”);
`
` Board’s Decision on Institution of Covered Business Method Review
`(Paper 15);
`
` Progressive’s U.S. Patent No. 8,140,358 (“the ‘358 Patent”) (Ex.
`1001);
`
` United States Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0128882
`(“Nakagawa”) (Ex. 1005);
`
` United States Patent Application No. 09/571,650 (“the
`Application”) (Ex. 2004);
`
`‘650
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`
`
`
` United States Patent Application No. 10/764,076 (“the
`Application”) (Ex. 2012);
`
`‘076
`
`
`
`
`
` All other materials referenced as exhibits herein.
`III. Analysis and Opinions
`A. Mr. Miller’s Opinions and Progressive’s Assertions Regarding
`“Actuarial Classes” and Determining Auto Insurance Premiums
`
`16. Although I have not addressed certain of Mr. Miller’s arguments in his
`
`declaration here, that does not mean I agree with them. Mr. Miller repeats many of
`
`the same arguments related to “actuarial classes” as in CBM2012-00002 and
`
`CBM2012-00004, related to Patent No. 6,064,970. Although I still disagree with
`
`many of his points, as I stated in my declarations in those covered business method
`
`proceedings (Ex. 1022 in each of CBM2012-00002 and CBM2012-00004), I do not
`
`believe addressing these issues is necessary to demonstrate the errors in Progressive’s
`
`arguments in this proceeding, as addressed below.
`
`B. Mr. Miller’s Opinions and Progressive’s Assertions Regarding
`“Rating Factor”
`
`17. Claim 1 of the ‘358 patent recites “generat[ing] a rating factor based on the
`
`selected vehicle data stored in the database,” and dependent claim 19 further recites
`
`“calculat[ing] an insured's premium under the insured’s insurance policy based on the rating
`
`factor, or a surcharge or a discount to the insured's premium, based on the rating factor.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`
`
`
`18. The Board construed the term “rating factor” as “a calculated insurance
`
`
`
`
`
`risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount” and added the clarification that
`
`“an insurance risk value would be a value that reflects an associated level of insurance
`
`risk and therefore, also a corresponding insurance premium.” ID at 6. Mr. Miller
`
`opines that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the Board's
`
`reference to ‘insurance risk’ to mean expected claims losses, and ‘an associated level of
`
`insurance risk’ to describe rating factors associated with actuarial classes.” Ex. 2005, ¶
`
`38.
`
`19.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Miller’s interpretation of the Board’s construction.
`
`Progressive and Mr. Miller are improperly adding “expected claims losses” and
`
`“actuarial classes” to the Board’s construction. A POSITA would understand the
`
`Board’s construction of the term “rating factor” to mean exactly what it says: “. . . in
`
`the context of the specification of the ‘358 patent, a “rating factor” is a calculated
`
`insurance risk value such as a safety score or a usage discount, which reflects a level of
`
`insurance risk and a corresponding insurance premium.”
`
`20. Mr. Miller opines that the ‘650 application “inherently” discloses “rating
`
`factors (as has been defined by the Board) based on selected vehicle data.” Ex. 2005, ¶
`
`42. Mr. Miller cites to the following portions of the ‘650 as disclosing “actuarial
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`classes based on driver safety data,” which Mr. Miller alleges “inherently” disclose
`
`“rating factor”:
`
` “The subject invention will base insurance charges with regard to current
`material data representative of actual operating characteristics to provide a
`classification rating of an operator or the unit in an actuarial class which has
`a vastly reduced rating error over conventional insurance cost systems.”
`‘650 Application, 6:15-18.
`
` “One benefit obtained by the use of the present invention is a system that
`will provide precise and timely information about the current operation of
`an insured motor vehicle that will enable an accurate determination of
`operating characteristics, including such features as miles driven, time of use
`and speed of the vehicle. This information can be used to establish actual
`usage based insurance charges, eliminating rating errors that are prevalent in
`traditional systems and will result in vehicle insurance charges that can be
`directly controlled by individual operation…It is another object of the
`present invention to generate actuarial classes and operator profiles relative
`thereto based upon actual driving characteristics of the vehicle and driver, as
`represented by the monitored and recorded data elements for providing a
`more knowledgeable, enhanced insurance rating precision.” ‘650
`Application, 8:1-7; 12-15.
`
` “Examples of data which can be monitored and recorded are:
`
`1. Actual miles driven;
`2. Types of roads driven on (high risk vs low risk); and,
`3. Safe operation of the vehicle by the vehicle user through:
`A. speeds driven,
`B. safety equipment used, such as seat belt and turn signals,
`C. time of day driven (high congestion vs. low congestion),
`D. rate of acceleration,
`E. rate of braking,
`F. observation of traffic signs.” ‘650 Application, 10:28-11:5.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`
`
`
`21. The following explanation was provided to me to inform the
`
`
`
`
`
`development of my opinions concerning whether the ‘650 application “inherently”
`
`discloses certain claim limitations of the ‘358 patent: when an explicit limitation in a
`
`claim is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought, it must be
`
`shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent
`
`application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.
`
`22.
`
`I do not agree that the ‘650 application “inherently” discloses the
`
`generation of a “rating factor.” I further do not agree that the ‘650 application
`
`“inherently” discloses the generation of a “rating factor” based on the “selected
`
`vehicle data” or calculation of insurance premium or surcharge/discount based on the
`
`“rating factor.” That is, a POSITA would not have understood, at the time the ‘650
`
`application was filed, that the disclosure in the ‘650 application cited by Mr. Miller (or
`
`any other disclosure in the ‘650 application) “requires” the generation of a “rating
`
`factor” based on the “selected vehicle data” or the calculation of insurance premium
`
`or surcharge/discount based on a “rating factor.”
`
`23.
`
`In the absence of specific mention of the calculation of rating factors, a
`
`POSITA could conclude that direct calculation of insurance costs was intended by the
`
`‘650 patent application. For example, the ‘650 application discloses type of roads
`
`driven as an example of monitored vehicle data. If type of roads driven was utilized
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to identify two appropriate actuarial classes, high risk and low risk, it would not be
`
`necessary to generate rating factors in order to determine the cost of insurance for
`
`each group. Instead each group could be analyzed separately and an appropriate
`
`insurance cost could be derived directly using standard actuarial ratemaking
`
`procedures, e.g., using each group’s premium experience, claim loss experience, and
`
`expense experience. The same concept would apply to each of the examples of
`
`monitored data provided. Hence, there would be no requirement to generate a rating
`
`factor.
`
`24.
`
`Progressive and Mr. Miller also argue that determining insurance charges
`
`(such as surcharges and discounts) “necessarily involves generating and using a rating
`
`factor.” Opp. 48-49; Ex. 2005 ¶ 39 (“use of an actuarial class within an insurance
`
`context necessarily involves generating and using a rating factor”). This is incorrect.
`
`Insurance costs, (i.e., premiums including discounts and surcharges) may be
`
`determined based on detected driving characteristics without generating a “rating
`
`factor” prior to such determination, for example, by a direct estimate using standard
`
`actuarial ratemaking procedures, e.g., using the premium experience, claim loss
`
`experience, and expense experience of each group. Additionally, a person of ordinary
`
`skill would not understand the cursory references to insurance cost determination in
`
`the ‘650 application to disclose the additional calculation of a “rating factor” as
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construed by the Board. On the contrary, insurance costs can be determined without
`
`the generation of rating factors, as explained above.
`
`25.
`
`Furthermore, Mr. Miller states that the surcharges and discounts
`
`disclosed in the ‘650 application disclose the generation of rating factors. Ex. 2005 ¶
`
`43. However, claim 19 of the ‘358 patent makes it clear that surcharges and discounts
`
`are based on rating factors; they are not the rating factors themselves. Mr. Miller and
`
`Progressive seem to be confusing these calculated surcharges and discounts with the
`
`“usage discounts” included in the construction of “rating factor.” These usage
`
`discounts of the ‘358 patent, however, are percentages applied in calculating insurance
`
`charges, and thus “rating factors,” while the surcharges and discounts of the ‘358
`
`patent are calculated insurance costs, and not “rating factors.” Ex. 1001 at 22:21-24,
`
`23:29-59, Fig. 8.
`
`C.
`Progressive’s Assertions and Mr. Miller’s Opinions Regarding
`Nakagawa
`
`26.
`
`Progressive alleges that Nakagawa’s “usage data” is not the “selected
`
`vehicle data that relates to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a vehicle”
`
`as recited in claim 1 of the ‘358 patent. Opp. 20-22. I do not agree. Nakagawa clearly
`
`states:
`
`In step S2, the on-board control part 12 determines whether the
`operation and installation statuses of a vehicle are safe or dangerous
`based on data collected from operating status detection means 7 and
`11
`
`
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`
`
`
`installation status detection means 8. When it determines that both the
`operating and installation statuses are safe, the degree of safe operation
`is recorded in point form (step S3). When it determines that the statuses
`are dangerous, the danger status is recorded in point form (step S4). The
`data stored in steps S3 and S4 are stored in the memory provided in the
`on-board control part 12 as “usage data” (step S5).
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0065]. Contrary to Progressive’s assertions, a POSITA would find that
`
`Nakagawa’s “usage data” “relates to a level of safety or an insurable risk in operating a
`
`vehicle” because it includes “degree of safe operation” and “danger status” that are
`
`based on determinations of “whether the operation and installation statuses of a
`
`vehicle are safe or dangerous.”
`
`
`
`27. Based on Mr. Miller’s improper understanding of “rating factors,” he
`
`asserts that a POSITA would find that Nakagawa’s “operating levels” are not “rating
`
`factors.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 44. However, that is incorrect. The Nakagawa reference clearly
`
`states:
`
`Here, user operating levels … are based on data relating to the driver
`operation of the car from the start of the month to the present. That is,
`at the end of the month, the evaluation of operating levels for one
`month is calculated in numeric form and displayed to reflect the amount
`by which the insurance premium will be multiplied. The operating levels
`show driving techniques and the level of safe driving as points which are
`then evaluated as number.
`
`Ex. 1005 at [0076]. Contrary to Mr. Miller’s assertions, a POSITA would find that
`
`Nakagawa’s “operating level” satisfies the Board’s construction of “rating factor”
`12
`
`
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`
`Aug 15 ‘I3 05:31p
`
`O'Neil Consulting Service
`
`4128842402
`
`P2
`
`because it shows “driving techniques and the level cy‘r.cy% d:rz'w's:g” and is a calculated
`
`insurance risk value.
`
`28.
`
`Even under Progressive’s and Mr. Miller’s added requirements that
`
`“rating factor” must be “based on or tied somehow to expected claims losses or
`
`actuarial classes” (Opp. 29, Ex. 2005 fll 44), l‘Cakagawa’s “operating level” satisfies
`
`such requirements. In fact, the ‘358 patent itself ties the level of safe driving to
`
`expected claim losses:
`
`0 EX. 100i at 3:40-55: describing that metrics and monitoring can, for
`
`example, "be used to mearme the relative mfigy qf[cz machine 337 c‘per.:z.!:z'mz” and
`
`“generate data that may cferarrrzine the core‘ roproiea‘ agazflrta riraé qf£o.m‘.”
`
`0 Ex. 1001 at 3:61-63: “The data may establish a safe driving record [sic,
`
`and] a lower risk of being subject to a claim.”
`
`0 Ex. 1001, Figs. 8-13: depicting driving techniques (3.32, “Aggressive
`
`Accelerations,” etc.) and level of safe dfiving (dag, “Safety Score”) used in
`
`determining premiums.
`
`Dated:
`
`8,/15/2013
`
`
`
`Page 00013

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket