throbber
Filed on behalf of Clearlamp, LLC
`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,

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