`By:
`
`Matthew L. Cutler (mcutler@hdp.com)
`
`
`Bryan K. Wheelock (bwheelock@hdp.com)
`
`
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`
`
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`
`
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`
`
`Tel: (314) 726-7500
`
`
`Fax: (314) 726-7501
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of CLEARLAMP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
`_____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF A. HARVEY BELL, IV
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 1 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`1
`
`
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV
`
`I, A. Harvey Bell, IV, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness to provide testimony on
`
`behalf of Clearlamp, LLC as a part of the above-captioned inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”). I make this Declaration based upon facts and matters within my own
`
`knowledge or on information provided to me by others. I am being compensated
`
`for my time in connection with this IPR at a rate of $350/hr.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Patent Office has instituted a review of all claims
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,297,364 (“the ‘364 patent”), and that the review is based on
`
`three references: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0208210 (“Kuta”):
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,106,648 (“Butt”); and a series of internet forum posts on the
`
`Eastwood ShopTalk Web site under the thread “Plastic headlight re-sealing”
`
`(“Eastwood”). More particularly, I understand that the Patent Office has granted
`
`review based on two grounds:
`
`a. Claims 1–24 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art based on the disclosures of Kuta and Butt; and
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 2 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`2
`
`
`
`b. Claims 1–24 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art based on the disclosures of Kuta and Eastwood.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ‘364 patent and
`
`considered each document cited herein, in light of the general knowledge in the
`
`field of vehicle parts manufacturing, as it stood prior to the December 2005 filing
`
`date of the ‘364 patent.
`
`5.
`
`As explained in more detail below, there are significant differences
`
`between the disclosures of Kuta, Butt, and Eastwood on one hand, and the teaching
`
`of the ‘364 patent on the other. Those differences include:
`
`a. Kuta fails to teach or suggest removing a vehicle lamp from the car
`
`before refinishing the lamp’s surface. As explained in detail
`
`below, leaving the lamp on the car when refinishing the surface
`
`negatively impacts the quality of the refinished lamp relative to the
`
`process described and claimed in the ‘364 patent;
`
`b. Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt all fail to teach or suggest the step of
`
`removing all the original clear coating from the lamp surface;
`
`c. Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt all fail to teach or suggest the step of
`
`“evening” the lamp surface to minimize troughs in the surface that
`
`are present after removing damage to the surface; and
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 3 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`3
`
`
`
`d. Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt all fail to teach or suggest the step of
`
`spraying a replacement clear coat finish on the lamp surface.
`
`e. Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt all fail to teach or suggest the step of
`
`statically neutralizing the lamp to remove debris before a coating is
`
`applied.
`
`6.
`
`Further, these differences result from the different goals of the Kuta,
`
`Eastwood, and Butt processes on one hand, and that of the ‘364 patent on the other
`
`hand. Specifically, Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt are all directed to processes for
`
`creating a lamp that is acceptable to the consumer retail market. In contrast, the
`
`‘364 patent is directed to a method for refurbishing a lamp to the point that its
`
`optical quality is equivalent to the optical quality of an original equipment (OEM)
`
`lamp. The Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt processes thus sacrifice quality in favor of
`
`lower expense. As such, the Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt processes do not result in
`
`lamps that meet OEM standards (i.e., original equipment condition). The ‘364
`
`patent’s process result in a lamp that is of significantly higher quality, but that
`
`process is substantially more robust than that of Kuta, Eastwood, or Butt and thus
`
`more expensive.
`
`7.
`
`Based on these differences, and as described further below, I believe
`
`that claims 1–24 of the ‘364 patent would not have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill before the filing of the ‘364 patent.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 4 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`4
`
`
`
`II. My Background and Qualifications
`
`8.
`
`I am currently Professor of Engineering Practice and Co-Director of
`
`the Multidisciplinary Design Program at the University of Michigan. I have held
`
`that position since September 2010.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to taking my current positions, I worked at General Motors
`
`Corporation from June 1969 to November 2008. From April 2006 to November
`
`2008, I was the Executive Director of Advanced Vehicle Development (North
`
`America) at GM. In that position, my responsibilities included leading a matrix
`
`team of 400 advanced engineers in initiating six General Motors vehicle program.
`
`I was also responsible for ensuring that all designs met GM, as well as
`
`government, safety requirements
`
`10. Before that, I was the Executive Director of Vehicle Performance
`
`from August 2001 to April 2006. In that position, I was responsible for evaluating
`
`the role of, inter alia, vehicle dynamics, noise, vibration, energy, and human
`
`factors on vehicle performance. My responsibilities included oversight of Vehicle
`
`Performance Managers, Systems Engineers, and Architecture Resources. In that
`
`role I managed an organization of over 1700 people, with a $170MM budge and a
`
`development fleet of 8500 vehicles.
`
`11. From January 2001 to August 2001, I was Engineering Director,
`
`Vehicle Dynamics, Noise and Vibration for GM’s North American Car Group.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 5 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`5
`
`
`
`From January 2000 to January 2001, I was Engineering Director for Performance
`
`Integration. My responsibilities in that role included assessing the effect of various
`
`factors (noise, vibration, etc.) on vehicle performance.
`
`12. Prior to January 2000, I held various other positions at GM. For
`
`example, from August 1994 to Jun 1998, I as Assistant Chief Engineer – Vehicle
`
`Systems Engineering, and from July 1989 to August 1993, I was Chief Engineer of
`
`Vehicle and Assembly for Camaro/Firebird. More information regarding the
`
`positions I held at GM is provided in my Biography, which is attached as Exhibit
`
`2005.
`
`13.
`
`In each of my positions at GM, vehicle safety was one of, if not the,
`
`paramount concern. Vehicle safety includes all vehicle systems, including
`
`headlamps and taillamps.
`
`14.
`
`I also served in the United States Navy from May 1970 to June 1973.
`
`My assignments in the Navy included Main Propulsion Assistant, LST-1179, USS
`
`Newport (May 1970–December 1971), during which I was awarded the Navy
`
`Commendation Medal.
`
`15. Since joining the University of Michigan, I have published the
`
`following works: Making a College-Level Multidisciplinary Design Program
`
`Effective and Understanding the Outcomes Shanna R. Daly (University of
`
`Michigan), A. Harvey Bell (University of Michigan), Brian E. Gilchrist
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 6 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`6
`
`
`
`(University of Michigan), Gail Susan Hohner (University of Michigan, College of
`
`Engineering), and James Paul Holloway (University of Michigan) Session Title:
`
`Multidisciplinary Technical Session Conference: 2011 Annual Conference &
`
`Exposition Year: 2011.
`
`III. My Expertise as It Concerns this Proceeding, and the Person of
`Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`16. As a result of my more than 40 years’ worth of experience in the car
`
`industry, I am familiar with all aspects of vehicle structure, design and
`
`performance, including vehicle lamps. I understand the performance requirements
`
`of original equipment vehicle lamps (headlamps and tail lamps).
`
`17. Also as a result of my career, I am intimately familiar with federal
`
`vehicle safety requirements. Included in those safety requirements are Federal
`
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (“FMVSS 108”), which concerns vehicle
`
`lamps. I have reviewed that document, and am also familiar with the SAE testing
`
`protocols referred to in the FMVSS 108.
`
`18. Accordingly, I am competent to provide expert opinions on the safety
`
`and performance requirements of vehicle lamps, including the performance and
`
`safety requirements of vehicle lamps.
`
`19. Further, I am also competent to provide expert opinions on the
`
`structure and components of vehicle lamps. This is also based on my years of
`
`experience in the vehicle industry, detailed above.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 7 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`7
`
`
`
`20. As of December 2005, I would have considered someone with at least
`
`1–2 years’ of experience in either designing automobiles (including lamp
`
`integration), or in manufacturing/refurbishing headlamps, to be a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. A college degree would not be necessary, but would be
`
`helpful.
`
`IV. Background Concerning the Target Markets for the ‘364 Patent and the
`Kuta, Butt, and Eastwood References
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘364 patent and its claims. The ‘364 patent’s
`
`“Field of the Invention” teaches that “the invention relates to a method for
`
`removing surface wear and scratches in [a] lamp surface to return the lamp surface
`
`as near as possible to its original optical quality.” ‘364 patent, column 1, lines 9–
`
`12. As explained in more detail in the following section, the methods taught in the
`
`‘364 patent achieve that goal through a robust process that involves removing the
`
`lamp from the car, removing all old clear coating from the lamp, evening, grinding,
`
`buffing, and cleaning the lamp surface to effectively restore the lamp’s surface to
`
`substantially original condition, and then applying a replacement clear coating and
`
`curing the coating.
`
`22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would thus have understood that
`
`the ‘364 patent is directed to the market for OEM replacement parts. As explained
`
`in more detail below, lamps that are refurbished according to the ‘364 patent’s
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 8 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`8
`
`
`
`methods are directly comparable to—and thus competitive with—OEM parts and
`
`OEM replacement parts.
`
`23. Further, the fact that the lamp is removed from the car before
`
`refurbishing further indicates that the ‘364 patent’s methods are directed to a
`
`process for creating OEM replacement parts. Often when a vehicle is damaged in,
`
`for example, a crash, some parts remain intact. For example, in a rear-end
`
`collision, the car’s front headlamps may remain in relatively good condition. Such
`
`parts can be salvaged from the vehicle even if it is totaled. Indeed, there are many
`
`businesses in United States that salvage and re-sell car parts. In the case of a
`
`salvaged headlamp, though, the lamp will show signs of normal wear-and-tear,
`
`such as scratches, gouges, or yellowing from degradation of the original clear
`
`coating.
`
`24. Such a salvaged headlamp would not be suitable as an OEM
`
`replacement, because it would not be in in original equipment condition and thus
`
`not match the quality of a new OEM headlamp. Nonetheless, if the structure of the
`
`lamp is intact, and if the surface can be refurbished to return the lamp surface as
`
`near as possible to its original optical quality, then the lamp can be re-sold as a
`
`replacement for an OEM lamp.
`
`25. When a car’s lamps are so damaged that they cannot be repaired, but
`
`the car is not totaled, then a car repair shop will install an OEM replacement lamp.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 9 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`9
`
`
`
`The cost is often paid by the car owner’s automobile insurer. This is the market
`
`that the ‘364 patent is directed to. More specifically, the invention of the ‘364
`
`patent is directed exclusively to the OEM refurbished parts market, and
`
`coterminous safety and performance requirements. Such an industry is dictated by
`
`federal regulations governing safety and performance.
`
`26.
`
`I have also reviewed the Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt references. A
`
`person of ordinary skill would have understood that the methods described in these
`
`references were not directed to the OEM replacement lamp market, and thus not
`
`directed to the same market as the ‘364 patent.
`
`27. First, and as explained in more detail below, Kuta is directed to a
`
`method for in situ (on the car) repair of a damaged lamp. In that situation, the
`
`lamp is obviously not so damaged that it must be replaced. Hence, there is no need
`
`for a replacement that is in original equipment condition. Instead, Kuta is more
`
`directed to a “backyard mechanic” who wants to fix a scratch or gouge in his or her
`
`car’s headlamp. That is, Kuta is directed to the consumer retail market, wherein
`
`there are no standards relevant to safety, luminous transmittance, or longevity. As
`
`explained in more detail below, the Kuta process does not result in a lamp that is in
`
`original equipment condition.
`
`28. Second, the Butt reference is similarly directed to the consumer
`
`market, not the OEM replacement part market. Butt is directed to the situation
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 10 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`10
`
`
`
`where a headlamp is struck by, for example, a rock, resulting in a crack or hole in
`
`part of the headlamp. Like Kuta, the lamp is not so damaged that it has to be
`
`replaced. But, a portion of the lamp surface is so compromised that it can’t be
`
`repair through, for example, the Kuta method. Thus, Butt teaches a “backyard
`
`mechanic” a method for replacing a portion of the lamp surface with a patch. Like
`
`Kuta, the Butt process does not result in a lamp that is in original equipment
`
`condition because it does not approximate the optical quality of an OEM lamp.
`
`29. Third, the Eastwood reference appears, as best I can tell from a series
`
`of internet posts, to be directed to the car show market. In that market, cars that
`
`are shown are typically not driven or, if they are, are driven only rarely and for
`
`relatively short distances. (Instead, they are trucked to a show or just driven to
`
`local car shows). In that market, the look of the headlamp is much more important
`
`that the quality of the lamp. Further, having original-number parts on the car is
`
`very important for the car show market. Thus, the Eastwood posts are directed to
`
`methods that result in lamps that look nice, but the refinishing imparts next to no
`
`durability on the lamp. Thus, lamps refurbished according to the Eastwood posts
`
`also do not approximate the quality of OEM lamps, and thus do not result in a lamp
`
`that is in original equipment condition.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 11 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`11
`
`
`
`V. The ‘364 Patent and Its Claims
`
`30. The ‘364 patent describes methods for refurbishing a damages vehicle
`
`lamp. In my opinion, the steps set forth in the ‘364 patent describe a methodology
`
`that can restore a damaged vehicle lamp to original equipment condition, including
`
`such that it meets federal safety requirements.
`
`31. The ‘364 patent and its claims describe a robust refurbishing process
`
`that essentially re-creates the outer surface of the lamp. More specifically, the ‘364
`
`patent’s process teaches the user to remove all old coating from the lamp—not just
`
`the damaged portion—and evening, grinding, buffing, and cleaning the lamp
`
`surface to create a new plastic substrate upon with a replacement clear coating can
`
`be replaced. The person of ordinary skill would have understood that the ‘364
`
`patent’s step of “removing the original clear coat finish from the lamp surface of
`
`the lamp” does not mean merely removing some (or even most) of the clear
`
`coating. Rather, all the original clear coating must be removed.
`
`32. With the possible exception of “evening the lamp surface,” most of
`
`the terms used in the ‘364 patent are common terms whose meaning would be
`
`readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art without additional
`
`explanation. In the context of the ‘364 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that the phrase “evening the lamp” surface” means
`
`returning the lamp surface to a contour that is substantially similar to the contour
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 12 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`12
`
`
`
`of the original lamp surface. See column 3, lines 20–28, particularly lines 24–28,
`
`of the ‘364 patent. According to the ‘364 patent’s teaching, this includes
`
`smoothing out the lamp surface to minimize any troughs created through the
`
`removal of damages to the lamp. ‘364 patent, column 3, lines 24–26.
`
`33. Further, the description of this step separately from the grinding and
`
`sanding steps of the ‘364 process would further indicate to the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art that the “evening” step requires something additional to the grinding
`
`and sanding of the lamp surface. See, for example, column 4, lines 35–39 of the
`
`‘364 patent.
`
`34. Notably, the “evening” step is an important part of the ‘364 patent’s
`
`goal of refurbishing a lamp to original equipment condition. First, an uneven lamp
`
`surface would look cheap and thus likely not be acceptable to a purchaser who
`
`wants a lamp in original equipment condition (like an insurer). From a safety
`
`perspective, an uneven lamp surface may affect the light dispersal pattern, which
`
`could, for example, cause light to be directed too low or too high, with the result
`
`that it doesn’t illuminate the road as well as it should.
`
`35.
`
`Importantly, the robust clear coat removal, evening, grinding, and
`
`buffing steps called for the by ‘364 patent can only be effectively performed when
`
`the lamp is removed from the vehicle. Lamps nearly always have irregular shapes,
`
`at least on the edge of the plastic (clear) surface, such that using standard power
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 13 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`13
`
`
`
`tools to, for example, grind the entire lamp surface would inevitably also grind the
`
`vehicle body, causing damage.
`
`36.
`
`Importantly, the steps described in the ‘364 patent are progressive,
`
`meaning that each builds off of the previous step. For example, in claim 1, it
`
`would make no sense to “even” the lamp surface before removing the clear
`
`coating, removing the clear coating requires course grit sandpaper that would
`
`invariably cause uneven spots. Similarly, buffing the lamp before grinding swirls
`
`and scratches out of the surface would be pointless, because the removal, evening,
`
`grinding, and buffing steps create microscopic (or larger) debris as materials are
`
`removed from the lamp.
`
`37. Likewise, with respect to claim 13, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that the static neutralization step needed to occur after the
`
`steps that create debris (e.g, the grinding and buffing steps). The purpose of the
`
`static neutralization step is to facilitate removal of captured dust and other particles
`
`from the lamp surface, in order to create as clean a surface as possible for the final
`
`coating. ‘364 patent, column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 3. To perform a
`
`static neutralization step at any other point in the process would be meaningless
`
`and ineffective. (For clarity, I note that static neutralization could certainly be
`
`performed at other points in the process, but only in addition to—not in place of—
`
`performing that step after the cleaning step as set forth in claim 13).
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 14 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`14
`
`
`
`VI. The Teachings of Kuta
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed the Kuta reference, U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2005/0208210, including relative to the teaching of the ‘364
`
`patent.
`
`39. Kuta’s “Field of the Invention” statement (paragraph 0002) teaches:
`
`40. Figure 1 of Kuta is described as a “perspective view of the invention
`
`showing its method of use.” (paragraph 0017). Figure 1 of Kuta shows:
`
`
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 15 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`41. This indicates—and would have indicated to a person of ordinary
`
`skill—that Kuta’s process and apparatus was directed to the commercial retail
`
`market. That is, the Kuta patent document describes a method and apparatus that a
`
`consumer/car owner could use on his or her car to refinish a headlamp surface.
`
`Alternatively, a car repair shop could conduct the Kuta method with the Kuta
`
`apparatus. Either way, Kuta’s teaching is meant to avoid the need for a car owner
`
`to replace a headlamp that has been scratched or has otherwise degraded.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 16 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`16
`
`
`
`42. That consumer retail market is different from the market for
`
`refurbished parts that are in original equipment condition. The market for original
`
`equipment condition refurbished parts, then, is a part of the market for replacement
`
`car parts. That is, sellers of original equipment condition (i.e., OEM-quality)
`
`refurbished parts compete with sellers of OEM replacement parts.
`
`43. Kuta is not directed to the market for OEM-quality refurbished parts,
`
`including because it does not describe a process that results in a car part that can be
`
`sold for installation on another car (because Kuta’s refinishing process is
`
`performed while the lamp is on the vehicle). Indeed, the very purpose of Kuta is to
`
`avoid the consumer having to buy and install a replacement lamp.
`
`44. This is confirmed by Kuta’s further description of its method: First, a
`
`“fine sanding disc” of “approximately 320 grit is placed into contact with one of
`
`the lenses and moved continuously, over the exterior surface 12 while applying an
`
`oscillating motion to the disc 20 and while flushing the exterior surface 12 with
`
`water 30 to prevent the exterior surface 12 from melting due to friction heat
`
`buildup from the sanding.” Kuta, ¶[0023]. The “water flush” apparatus is
`
`described as a bucket with a nozzle and spigot. Kuta, ¶[0029]. This sanding
`
`process stops when the flush water turns clear. Kuta ¶[0023].
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 17 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`17
`
`
`
`45. The next step in the Kuta process is a repeat of the previous step,
`
`except that 600 grit sandpaper is used. Kuta, ¶[0025]. According to Kuta, this step
`
`takes about 10 minutes. Kuta, ¶[0025].
`
`46. Third, an “ultra-ultra fine” 1500 grit sanding pad is moved manually
`
`(by hand) and continuously over the exterior surface of the lens until limited access
`
`corners of the surface—whether the prior sanding discs were unable to reach—
`
`become clear. Kuta, ¶[0023]. As with the prior steps, the water flush is also used
`
`with this third sanding step. Kuta, ¶[0023]. According to Kuta, this “step takings
`
`about 5 minutes and is used mostly in corners 14 which are blended into the entire
`
`surface 12 of lens 10.” Kuta, ¶[0025].
`
`47. After the lens is “satisfactory and quite clear,” it is buffed to a high
`
`gloss. Kuta ¶[0023]. This step takes about 10 to 15 minutes. Kuta, ¶[0025].
`
`48. Next in the Kuta process, polish is applied. First, a polishing pad is
`
`used to polish the new surface, preferably with “high purity aluminum oxide
`
`polishing compound with low viscosity.” Kuta, ¶[0025]. Then, a final polish is
`
`applied, using a napped poromeric pad, until all fine scratches are removed. Kuta,
`
`¶[0025].
`
`49. The final Kuta step is that the exterior surface of the lamp is coated
`
`with a transparent ultraviolet hardenable coating. Kuta, ¶[0023]. The coating is
`
`then exposed to an ultraviolet light source to harden it. Kuta, ¶[0023].
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 18 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`18
`
`
`
`50. All of these steps in the Kuta patent take place while the lamp remains
`
`on the car. This is in line with the purpose of the Kuta patent, which is to refinish a
`
`lamp without the “relatively high cost of replacing” it. Kuta, ¶[0023].
`
`51. These teachings from Kuta would have illustrated to a person of
`
`ordinary skill that the Kuta process does not remove all the old clear coating from
`
`the lamp. First, the fact that the Kuta process is performed in situ (while the lamp
`
`is on the car), see Kuta, ¶¶ [0023], [0029], informs a person of ordinary skill that a
`
`sanding disc would not be able to sand all surfaces of the lamp without also
`
`damaging the car body (hood, fender, bumper, etc.). This is confirmed by Kuta’s
`
`paragraph 23, which references the need for manual sanding of “limited access
`
`corners 14 of the lens 10, where the sanding disc 20 is unable to reach.” Those
`
`“limited access corners 14” are shown in this portion of Kuta Figure 1:
`
`
`
`52. Kuta asserts that manual buffing these “limited access corners” for
`
`about 5 minutes with a 1500 grit sandpaper will “blend” those corners into the
`
`entire surface of the lens. Kuta, ¶[0025]. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known that this “blending” step would not remove all clear coating
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 19 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`19
`
`
`
`from the “limited access corners” of the lamp. In reality, applying 1500 grit
`
`sandpaper for about 5 minutes is far too fine of a sandpaper and too short of a time
`
`to have any sort of success with the removal of the clear coat.
`
`53. Specifically, the whole purpose of clear coating is to provide a hard
`
`protectant shell for the lamp surface. By definition, it is difficult to remove.
`
`Conversely, 1500 grit sandpaper is a very fine grit, meaning that it does not have
`
`great ability to remove materials. Manual sanding a clear coat for 5 minutes with a
`
`1500 grit sandpaper would remove very little, if any, of the remaining clear
`
`coating.
`
`54.
`
`I requested that Clearlamp conduct an experiment to illustrate this
`
`point. Clearlamp then set up a test where the bottom half of a lamp was sanded for
`
`about 5 minutes with a 1200 grit sandpaper (substantially less fine than a 1500 grit
`
`sandpaper), and the top portion was sanded with a powered orbital sander using
`
`320 grit sandpaper for 5 minutes. As shown in the picture, the differences clear
`
`coat removal are substantial:
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 20 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`55. Also based on my request for data on this point, Clearlamp performed
`
`further experiment comparing the effect of manually sanding a headlamp coating
`
`using 1500 grit sandpaper for 5 minutes with the effect of sanding a headlamp
`
`coating with 320 grit sandpaper on an air-powered padded grinder. Videos of
`
`these sanding operations are available at
`
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRUEHTjAD0c (1500 grit) and
`
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtPDO7iK8-c (320 grit). In these
`
`experiments, a tint was placed between the silicone hard and the underlying
`
`polycarbonate surface. The silicone hard coat was a standard heat cured hard coat,
`
`with a thickness of 6–8 microns, meeting the requirements for automotive
`
`applications. As can be seen in the pictures below (taken after the sanding
`
`described above), the 1500 grit sandpaper was ineffective at removing the hard
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 21 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`21
`
`
`
`coat, while the cloudy surface of the lamp sanded with 320 grit sandpaper, and tint
`
`removal, illustrates the hard coat was removed :
`
`1500 Grit
`
`320 Grit
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 22 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`22
`
`
`
`56. This is, again, consistent with the goal of the Kuta process: to teach a
`
`refinishing process that is suitable for the commercial retail market. Leaving some
`
`clear coating on the lamp may be acceptable for that market. But, that is not the
`
`case if the end goal of the refinishing process is a lamp that is in original
`
`equipment condition. More specifically, I have reviewed the declaration of
`
`Dimitris Katsamberis, an expert in clear coating materials, including for vehicle
`
`headlamps, and I agree with his conclusions that, for example, leaving old clear
`
`coating on could result in later delamination of the new clear coating. That
`
`delamination would result in a compromised clear coating, which is not acceptable
`
`for an OEM part. Further, contaminants would likely cause the blend line between
`
`the clear coat and the lamp surface to haze, which would cause light diffusion that
`
`is inconsistent with safety standards, including FMVSS 108, ASTM D1003, and
`
`various SAE standards.
`
`57. Kuta also does not teach the “evening” of the lamp surface, as taught
`
`by the ‘364 patent. Kuta teaches that its sanding steps should continue until “the
`
`flushing water 30 turns clear” (Kuta, ¶[0023]) or until “clarity is restored to the
`
`lens” (Kuta, ¶0025]). There is no disclosure in these paragraphs of Kuta, nor
`
`elsewhere in Kuta, that teaches or suggests “evening” of the lamp surface, i.e.,
`
`smoothing it out to minimize any troughs created through the removal of damage.
`
`Declaration of A. Harvey Bell, IV 23 of 33 Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`LKQ v. Clearlamp Patent 7,297,364 7/1/2013
`
`23
`
`
`
`58. Like with the clear coating step, though,