Filed on behalf of Clearlamp, LLC
`By:
`Matthew L. Cutler (moutler@hdp.00m)
`Brym K. Wheelock (bwheelock@hdp.com)
`Harness, Dickey 8e: Pietrca, PLC
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Tel: (314) 72647500
`Fax: (314) 726-7501
`
`WTEEI) STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`'
`Petitioner
`
`V0
`
`Patent of CLEARLAMZP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013~00020
`
`Pa’wnt 7,297,364
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER and JOSIAH C3. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DECLARATION OF DIMITRIS KATSAMBERIS
`
`' Declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ V. Cleaflamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`1 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`_
`7/1/2013
`
`1
`
`Clearlamp, LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`
`1
`
`
`By:
`Matthew L. Cutler (moutler@hdp.00m)
`Brym K. Wheelock (bwheelock@hdp.com)
`Harness, Dickey 8e: Pietrca, PLC
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Tel: (314) 72647500
`Fax: (314) 726-7501
`
`WTEEI) STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`'
`Petitioner
`
`V0
`
`Patent of CLEARLAMZP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013~00020
`
`Pa’wnt 7,297,364
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER and JOSIAH C3. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DECLARATION OF DIMITRIS KATSAMBERIS
`
`' Declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ V. Cleaflamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`1 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`_
`7/1/2013
`
`1
`
`Clearlamp, LLC
`Exhibit 2007
`
`1
`
`
`
`beelaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`
`I, Dimitris Katsamberis, declare as foliows:
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and I am otherwise competent to make the
`
`statements in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness to provide testimony on
`
`behalf of Ciearlamp, 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 infomation provided to me by others.
`
`I am being compensated
`
`for my time in connection with this declaration at a rate of $225M. A copy of my
`
`resume is attached as Exhibit 2008.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Patent Office has instituted a review of all claims
`
`of the ‘364 patent, and that the review is based on three references: {3.3. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2005/0208210 (“Kata”): US. Patent No. 6,106,648
`
`(“Butt”); and a series of intemet forum posts on the Eastwood ShopTaik Web site
`
`("Eastwood"). More particulariy, I understand that the Patent Office has granted
`
`review based on two grounds:
`
`a. Ciaims 1~24 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art based on the diaclosures of Kate. and Butt; and
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ v. Ciaarlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013—00020 (SCM)
`2 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/ 1/2013
`
`2
`
`
`
`13. Claims 1—24 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art based or: 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 December 2005.
`
`5.
`
`As explained in more detail below, there are significant differences
`
`between the disclosures of Kate, Butt, and Eastwood on one bend relating to the
`
`iemp’e clear coating, and the teaching of the ‘364 patent on the other. These
`
`differences include:
`
`a. Kuta fails to teach or suggest the removal of all prior clear coating
`
`material from the lamp as a part of its refinishing process;
`
`b. Kata fails to teach or suggest spray application of clear coating
`
`material;
`
`c. Kate fails to teach or suggest statically neutralizing a lens surface
`
`before application of a clear coating;
`
`(1. Eastwood fails to teach or suggest a replacement clear coating that can
`
`come close to approximating the qualities of an original equipment
`
`clear coating; and
`
`e. Butt fails to teach or suggest the application of any clear coating as a
`
`part of a vehicle lamp repair.
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2613~00020 (SCM)
`3 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/lf2013
`
`3
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Further, these differences result from the different goals of the Kate,
`
`Eastwood, and Butt processes on one hand, and that of the ‘364 patent on the other
`
`hand. The processes taught in Kata, Eastwood, and Butt result in an inferior clear
`
`coating relative to the clear coating quality that results from the ‘3 64 patcnt’s
`
`process. As a result, the coatings that result from the Kata, Eastwood, and Butt
`
`references do not restore a lamp to original equipment condition, while the coating
`
`that results from the ‘364 patent’s process does restore a lamp to original
`
`equipment condition.
`
`7.
`
`Based on these differences, and as described limiter below, I believe
`
`that the clear coating limitations of the ‘364 patent are substantially different from
`
`the teachings of the Kuta, Eastwood, and Butt references, such that Kuta,
`
`Eastwood, and Butt do not teach or suggest the clear coating that results item the
`
`‘364 patent’s process.
`
`II. My Background and Qualifications
`
`8.
`I am currently the Technology Manager for Five Stat-Coatings Group
`in Twin Lakes, WI. Five Star Coatings Group is a privately owned manufacturer
`
`of coated polycarbonate and acrylic sheets for the transportation industry. In my
`
`role as Technology Manager, I am reSponsible for all technical efforts supporting
`
`new product development and quaiity improvements of existing products and
`
`processes. I have held this position since December 2011.
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsatnberis
`LKQ V. Cleatlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013—00020 (SCM)
`4 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`4
`
`
`
`9.
`
`From 2007 through 2011 i was employed by Sun Chemical
`
`Corporation of St. Charles, Illinois. In 2010 and 2011 I was Sun’s Specialty
`
`Coatings Initiatives Leader. in that role I developed and commercialized specialty
`
`energy curable coatings for the graphic arts market. From 2007 to 2010, I was
`
`Applications Leader for Energy Curable Technology at Sun’s Northlake, Illinois
`
`facility. In that role I led and managed the production and application
`
`development efforts of a 12 member multi—site team for energy curable inks and
`
`coatings for the packaging and commercial markets.
`
`10.
`
`From 2005 to 2006 I was Director of Technology for Wolverine
`
`Advanced Materials in lnkster, Michigan. In that role, I directed all product and
`
`process development activities regarding rubber coated materials for automotive
`
`brake shim and gasket applications in North America, Europe, and Asia. As a part
`
`of my efforts, I developed and launched products for Wolverine’s global
`
`aftermarket brake shim business.
`
`11.
`
`From 2002 to 2005 lwas Technical Fellow at Vistcon Corp. of
`
`Plymouth, Michigan. In that role i let the manufacturing engineering efforts for
`
`Visteon’s instrument panel, door, trim, fascia, and lighting automotive coating
`
`applications. As a part of my duties, 1 assisted Visteon’s North American plants
`
`with quality improvements and with maximizing coating yrocess efficiencies for
`
`the Mexican launch of headlamps for the 2005 Corvette.
`
`Declaration of Dirnitris Katsamberis
`LKQ V. Clearlarnp
`
`Case [PR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`5 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/ 1/2013
`
`5
`
`
`
`12.
`
`From 1999 to 2001 Iwas Finishing Engineering Manager for Masco
`
`Corporation of Taylor, Michigan. In that role I identified new technologies and
`
`improved the physical, mechanical and weathering properties of existing products,
`
`including developing structure-pmperty reiationships regarding costings
`
`performance.
`
`i3.
`
`From 1986 through 2009 iheid a series of positions at various entities
`
`associated With General Electric Co. From 1998 to 1999 I was Coating
`
`Technoiogy Leader at EXATEC LLC, a 50/50 joint venture of GE and Bayer
`
`located in Wixom, Michigan. My duties in that position were directed to the
`
`development and implementation of coating technologies for polycarbonate
`
`automotive Window systems. From 1994 to 1998 I was Global Glazing
`
`Technology Leader for GE Plastics of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. In that position, I
`
`assessed and developed coating technologies for polycarbonate glazing. I also
`
`managed the start—up of the EXATEC joint venture. Before that, I was staff
`
`chemist at GE CR&D / GE Plastics in Mt. Vernon, Indiana.
`
`in that role I
`
`developed several patented UV curable coating technologies for the automotive,
`
`appliance, and graphic art markets, including supporting those technologies
`through successful and timely commaciaiisatien.
`
`34.
`
`I hoid a Master of Science degree in Chemistry/’Polymers anti
`
`Coatings from North Dakota State University.
`
`1' also hold a Bachelors of Arts
`
`DeclaratiOn of DimitrisKatsarnbcris
`LKQ V. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013—00020 (SCM)
`6 of 21
`Patent 7,2973 64
`7/1/2013
`
`6
`
`
`
`degree in Chemistry from Valley City State University in Valley City, North
`
`Dakota.
`
`III. My Expertise Concerning Clear Coating of Vehicle Lamps
`
`15.
`
`I am a chemical technical leader with over 25 years of experience
`
`primarily in the area of clear thermally and UV cured hard coats for polycarbonate
`
`substrates such as headlamp lenses. l have worked for 13 years for GB Plastics,
`
`currently known as SABIC and Momentive, developing clear coatings for
`
`polycarbonate and their application processes. At Exatec, I lead the technical
`
`efforts of clear hard coating and process development for polycarbonate
`
`automotive windows. At Visteon, I was reaponsible for improving the clear
`
`coating manufacturing efforts ofheadlamp lenses for different vehicles. Currently,
`
`I am leading the technical efforts for thermally cured silicone based hard coats for
`
`making polycarbonate windows for NASCAR vehicles and Windshields for Harley
`
`Davidson motorcycles.
`
`16.
`
`I are informed that A. Harvey Bell, IV states in his declaration that, as
`
`of December 2005, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least 1~—2
`
`years’ of experience in either designing automobiles (molesting lamp integration),
`
`or in manufacturing/refurbishing headlamps, and that a college degree would not
`
`be necessary, but would be helpful. I agree with this assessment and my
`
`statements below regarding persons of ordinary skill reflect this definition.
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsarnbeiis
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case [PR 201300020 (80M)
`'7 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`7
`
`
`
`IV. Backgrouad Concerning Clear Coatings for Vehicle Lamp
`
`17.
`
`In the context of vehicle lamps, a person of otdinery skill in the art
`
`would understand a “clear coating” to be a hard, XIV-resistant, and durable coating
`
`that adheres to the outer surface of the polycarbonate plastic lens ofthe lamp.
`
`18.
`
`‘A proper clear coating is a necessary component of any original
`
`equipment vehicle lamp, including vehicle headlamps. Accordingly, for any
`
`refilrbished lamp to be equivalent to an original equipment vehicle lamp, the
`
`rehabished lamp must also have a proper clear coating.
`
`19.
`
`Clear coatings on vehicle lamps serve two necessaiy fimctions. First,
`
`the clear coating protects the underlying plastic lens by shielding the plastic from
`
`UV radiation, which is a component of sunlight. Overtime, UV radiation will
`
`degrade the plastic used on vehicle headlamps. This degradation is made apparent
`
`when the plastic begins to turn yellOW. Substrate degradation leads to a weal:
`
`coating-substrate interface, which eventually causes coating delamination. The
`
`degradation also negatively impacts the structural integrity of the plastic, reducing
`
`the impact resistance of the lens. The clear coating materials used on vehicle
`
`headlamps (including before 2005) contain UV absorbers that block the UV
`
`radiation.
`
`20. Vehicle lamp clear coatings also provide physical protection for the
`
`plastic lens. Such clear coatings are hard and durable, and are necessary in order
`
`Declaration ofDirnitris Katsamberls
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`8 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`8
`
`
`
`protect the lens from scratches and chemical attack. Scratches can occur fiom car
`
`wash brushes and road particulates. Chemicals such as gasoline, Window cleaners
`
`and car waxes will attack and degrade an unceated plastic lens.
`
`21.
`
`Proper clear coatings adhere to the plastic lens, rather than simply
`
`resting on too of it. To obtain proper adherence, the lens surface must be clean of
`
`any surface contamination when the clear coating is applied. Static neutralization
`
`' of the lens before clear coating is also helpful, in that removhlg static will result in
`
`dust in the air not being attracted to the lens before the clear coating is applied.
`
`Proper adherence of the clear coating is necessary to impart durability to the clear
`
`coating.
`
`22. Materials such as wax, was paraffin, polish, die~cut clear films, or
`
`polyurethane will not adhere to a vehicle lens like a clear coating will. Rather,
`
`these other materials simply rest on the lens. Waxes are not cross-linked and thus,
`
`they do not provide the same durability and hardness of a clear coating, nor do they
`
`block UV radiation. Also, these materials can chemically attack and degrade the
`
`plastic lens as mentioned above. For these reasons, the other materials are not
`
`'
`
`acceptable alternatives to clear coatings on a vehicle lens, at least if the lens is to
`
`he sold as an OEM part or OEM replacement part that is in original equipment
`
`condition.
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsamheris
`LKQ V. Clearlamp
`
`Case IFR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`9 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/ 1/2013
`
`9
`
`
`
`23.
`
`If a piastic lens is not properly cleaned before the clear coating is
`
`applied, then the clear coating will not fully atihere to the lens. This is because
`
`surface contamination, such as old coating or fingerprint oil, will interfere with the
`
`adherence of the clear coating to the lens. The result is that the clear coating will
`
`delaminate, or flake off the lens. Dirt and old coating particles on the lens surface
`
`will create weak points to the new coating making the coating more susceptible to
`chemical attack'and loss (if-adhesion. They will also cause optical distortion.
`
`24.
`
`For this reason, when a clear coating is applied as a part of
`
`refurbishing a vehicle lamp, it is very important to remove all of any old clear
`
`coating material from the lens surface. Again, the new coating will not adhere to
`
`any old coating left behind and old coating particles will cause optical distortion
`
`which is incompatible with original equipment conditions and is a safety hazard for
`
`forward—illuminating vehicle lighting
`
`25.
`
`For original equipment vehicle lamps, clear coatings are sprayed on or
`
`applied with a process called flow coating. Original equipment clear coatings are
`
`not wiped or brushed onto the lamp. The coating thickness is in the order of
`
`microns and coating thickness uniformity is critical to the long term weathering
`
`performance of the lamp lens. A thin coating will not provide the required
`
`abrasion, chemical and weathering resistance. A thick coating will have flow
`
`defects and also cause stress cracking leading to adhesion loss. It is essential to
`
`Deciaration of Dimitris Katsarnberis
`LKQ V. Clearlanip
`'
`
`Case [PR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`10 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`use a spraying apparatus that can evenly coat the lamp surface with the
`
`replacement clear coat, applying the required thickness of the coating, and ensuring
`
`that the coating adheres to the lamp surface without the introduction of debris and
`
`foreign material into the opticai layer. In contrast, the process of wiping or
`
`brushing a clear coating on can easily damage the soft polycarbonate lens surface,
`
`as well as introduce dirt particles to the coating and create coating flow defects,
`
`such as drips and runs, which result in an unacceptable coating appearance.
`
`Wiping or brushing a clear coating onto a lens will also fail to resuit in a clear
`
`coating that has a uniform thickness.
`
`26. Once the clear coating is applied, proper curing is necessary. Curing
`
`ofthe clear coating is caused by exposing the coating to UV radiation or heat. The
`
`curing causes the cicar coating material to form a three dimensional cross-linked
`
`‘ network within itself. Proper cross~iinking of the coating is necessary for
`
`achieving optimum abrasion, chemical resistance and weathering performance.
`
`V.
`
`The Teachings of the ‘364 Patent Regarding Clear Coating
`
`27.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘3 64 patent. The ‘364 patent requires that the
`
`original clear coating is “fully removed from the lamp surface.” Sec ‘364 patent,
`
`column 2, line 58 through column 3, line 19. Indeed, nothing in the “364 patent
`
`suggests that less than ali the clear coating can be removed as a part ofthe ‘364
`
`patent’s process. Rather, the entire teaching of the “364 patent addresses a process
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ v. Cleariamp
`
`Case IPR 2013—00020 (SCM)
`11 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/ 1/20 1 3
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`of restoring a headlamp to its original equipment condition. See, for example, ‘364
`
`patent column 3, lines 15—49 (“Once the original clear coat finish 12 is removed
`
`and the damage 14 is removed from the lamp surface 10, subsequent steps may be
`
`taken to prepare the lamp surface 10 for restoring it to its original equipment
`
`condition”) and column 4, lines 19—23 (“Once cured, the lamp surface 10 and
`
`replacement clear coat 58 are in a condition for sale as a refiirbished lamp having
`
`optical characteristics which are very similar to those of the original equipment
`
`lamp assembly”)
`
`I 28. When refurbishing a lamp as described in the ‘364 patent, original
`
`equipment condition cannot be obtained without first removing all of the original
`
`clear coating from the lamp surface. As mentioned above, the newly applied
`
`coating will not adhere to any old, degraded coating left behind on the lens surface.
`
`. In addition any old coating on the lens sarface will compromise the integxity of the
`
`new coating layer causing poor abrasion and chemical resistance performance.
`
`Also, any remaining old coating will create optical distortion.
`
`29. Accordingly, refinbished vehicle lamps that retain portions of the
`
`original clear coating under the new surface (even if only at the edges of the lamp)
`
`cannot be restored to original equipment condition.
`
`30.
`
`Further, to achieve original equipment condition, it is necessary that
`
`the ham surface is completely clean (including free of dust that remains after
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case 113R 2013400020 ($0M)
`12 01°21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`grinding the old coating fi'om a lamp being refurbished) before the replacement
`
`clear coating is applied. This is because dust and other particles not removed from
`
`the lamp will be easily seen through the replacement clear coating. This will
`
`impact the optical quality (perfonnance) and integrity (longevity) of the
`
`refiirbished lamp’s coating, because it makes the coating susceptible to the
`
`delamination problems discussed above. Further, and aside from possible
`
`delamination, trapped particles can cause the lamp to have an aesthetically
`
`unacceptable appearance and, if enough particles axe present, negatively affect the
`
`photometry (light transmission and dispersion) ofthe lamp.
`
`31. Heat and UV radiation will both effectively cure a clear coating.
`
`Inflated energy can be used as a source for heat curing.
`
`VI. Kate’s Teachings Regarding the Clear Coating
`32.
`I have reviewed the Kata reference, US. Patent Anplication
`
`Publication No. 2005/0208210. The Kata references teaches a process where some
`
`of the close coating is removed. See generally [0023]. However, that teaching
`
`recognizes that, because the lamp remains on the car during refinishing, the 320
`
`grit and 600 grit sandpaper (which are applied to the lainp in an oscillating motion)
`
`cannot fully reach “dented access corners 14” of the lamp. Kata, [0023]. _
`
`33.
`
`These “limited access corners 14” are shown in the following portion
`
`chigure 1 of Kata:
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsainberis
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`13 of 21
`Patent 7,2973: 64
`7/1/2013
`
`l3
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`This means that the process of removal of clear coating by the 320 grit
`
`sandpaper and 600 grit sandpaper would leave old degraded clear coating in those
`
`“limited access corners.” Kata attempts to address this problem by teaching a
`
`further step ofmanually applying a 1500 grit sandpaper to those limited access
`
`comers (Kuta, [0023]) for about 5 minutes (Kuta, [0025]). However, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that using that fine grit of
`
`sandpaper (1500) for only five minutes (or even substantially longer) would not
`
`remove the clear coating from the limited access corners; The purpose of clear
`
`coating on vehicle lamps is to provide durable protection to the underlying lamp
`
`surface. Accordingly, Such clear coating is by its nature difficult to remove, and
`
`would not be fully removed with the 1500 grit sandpaper as described in Kata. As
`
`explained above, the remaining original clear coating would cause delarnniation of
`
`the replacement clear-coating since the adhesion of the newly applied clear coat
`
`over any old clear coat will be peer at best.
`
`35.
`
`Further, Kuta fails to teach that static neutralization is a preferred
`
`method used during the cleaning of a lamp surface before application of a
`
`Declaration ofDimitriS Katsamberis
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`14 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`replacement clear coating. As explained above, static neutralization is an effective
`
`method ofkeeping dust and other partlclea from a lamp, meariing that static
`
`neutralization will decrease the risk of later delamination or other problems
`
`(hazing, poor photometrics).
`
`36.
`
`Regarding the coating, in the Kata process, “the exterior surface 12 is
`
`coated with a transparent ultraviolet hardenable coating material, which is then
`
`hardened by exposure to an ultraviolet light.” Kata, [0023]. Texaco Armor Coat
`
`NowBake Scratch Coat is identified as an acceptable clear coating in Kota [0026].
`
`No description of that product is provided.
`
`37. Kate provides no disclosure of the composition or properties oftbe
`
`“Tomco Armor Coat No—Bake Scratch Coat” product. I am not familiar with this
`
`product and am not aware that it is currently available. The only Armor Coat I am
`
`aware of is a thermallywoured urethane type clear coat that can be applied over
`
`paint in order to minimize chip damage of the paint (www.morcoatusacom).
`
`Based on this and the “No-Bake” part of the Tomco product’s name, I fully expect
`
`that, Whatever that product is or was, it would not have included any UV absorbers
`
`and morefoIe would have provided no UV protection for the lens. Also, as with
`
`other methanes, i would expect it would also have inferior abrasion resistance to
`
`any DEM clear coat.) Typically, afiennarket lamp coatings are applied in situations
`
`Where an original equipment condition coating is not: required (such as, for
`
`Declaration ofDimitris Kateamberis
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 20l3~00020 (SCM)
`15 of21
`Pateat 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`exampie, a consumer who is attempting to refinish his or her own car’s lamp).
`
`However, such products are not compatible With the old coating, because they will
`
`not adhere to any remaining old coating on the lamp, and because urethanes often
`
`contain harsh solvents that damage polycarbonate lamps, which are not chemically
`
`resistant. This results in an overall coating that is not as strong as an OEM coating,
`
`and which also affects the lamp’s photometrics.
`
`38.
`
`The Kuta process is directed to a refinishing process in which the
`
`lamp remains on the vehicle while it is being refinished. Further, Kate’s teaching
`
`that its process is “more cost effective” ([0010]) (because it does not require
`
`removal of the lamp) would have indicated to a person of ordinary skiil that Kora
`
`did not‘describe a process in which adjacent parts of the car (hood, bumper, side
`
`panel) were covered before the new clear coating is applied. That is because
`
`covering the car parts around the uneven surface of the lamp is time-intensive and
`
`. requires precise placement, especially if the coverings are, for example, square or
`
`rectangular sheets or tape.
`
`39. As a result. a person of ordinary skill in the art woold have understood
`
`that the replacement clear coating of Kata would not be sprayed on. Rather, it
`
`would be brushed or wiped onto the lamp.
`
`40.
`
`This is significantly different from the spray application of ciear
`
`coating required by the ‘364 patent. When applying a clear coating to a
`
`Declaration of Dimitris Katsarnberis
`LKQ v. Ciearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`16 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7f1/2013
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`refurbished lamp that is sufficient to restore a larnp to original equipment
`
`condition, which is necessary for the iamp to be resold as an OEM replacement
`
`part, it is essential to use spraying technology that can evenly coat the lamp sm'face
`
`with the replacement clear coating.
`
`41.
`
`Further, one of ordinary skill in the art regarding clear coatings would
`
`have recognized that the process of wiping or brushing can easily damage the soft
`
`' polycarbonate lens surface, introduce dirt particies to the coating and create
`
`coating flow defects, such as drips and runs leading to an unacceptable coating
`
`appearance.
`
`VII. The Opinions of Mr. Francisco Yards
`
`42.
`
`I have reviewed the “Declaration of Francisco G. Yards Under 37
`
`CPR. 1.68,” dated October 11, 2012.
`
`i have also reviewed the transcript of Mr.
`
`Yarde’s deposition, dated June 13, 2013.
`
`43.
`
`Based on my review of Mr. Yarde"s credentials, as set forth in those
`
`documents, 1 do not believe that he has the necessary education, training, or
`
`expertise to assess the quality of the replacement clear coating that results from the
`
`‘364 patent’s process.
`
`44.
`
`For example, at deposition Mr. Yards was asked to provide a list of
`
`the various clear coatings that are available and suitable for use on vehicle
`
`headlamps. See Yards deposition transcript, pp. 5146. In response, MI. Yartie
`
`Declaration ofDimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ V. Cleatlatnp
`'
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`17 of 21
`. Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`listed polyurethane, wax paiaffln, and die—cut films. None of these materials are
`
`suitable for use as a clear coathig to restore a lamp to original equipment condition.
`
`45.
`
`Specifically, herd coats that are designed for use with polycarbonate
`
`and specifically for automotive lighting applications will meet stringent OHM
`
`weathering, abrasion, environmental, optical and safety requirements. Typical
`
`coatings used. on vehicle lamps are usually primerless or primed silicone hard coats
`
`such as GXE Nu Glass HCFC introduced in 2003, or Momentive’s thermally cured
`
`SilFORT P330587 or SilFORT AS4000 and UV cured SilFOR'i“ UVHC3 000.
`
`46. Mr. Yarde’s “polyurethane” is likely referring to urethane clear coat
`
`that is commonly used on car bodies, not headlamPs. Such polyurethanes are not
`
`chemically compatible with-polycarbonate lenses, including because of the harsh
`
`solvents that urethanes generally include, and because the curing temperature of
`
`polyurethanes could exceed the softening point ofpolycarbonate (about 300°F).
`
`Wax paraffin, in various compositions with other chemicals, fonns the base for
`
`close automotive wax. it is not chemically cross-linked and it has no abrasion,
`
`chemical or weathering resistance. It is intended to promote shine. There is a large
`
`difference between a wax used for polishing and a coating. Die cut films are
`
`flexible, sticky clear plastic of varying tlfiekness (mils) that are cut to shape and
`
`easily applied or removed. They likewise would provide very limited protection to
`
`a lamp.
`
`~-Gese-IPR 28~13a06820 (Silly '~ ~
`Declaration of Dimitris Kasamberis- -- 48- et? 21--
`LKQ v. Clearlamp
`Patent 7,297,364
`7f 1/2013
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`47.
`
`The ‘3 64 patent identifies MAGNI 700 as a suitable replacement
`
`coating for refurbished vehicle headlamps. ‘364 patent, column 4, lines 10—20. I
`
`am informed by Mr. Maurice Faperi, inventor of the ‘364 patent, that MGM 700
`
`is a silicone hard coat that is thermally curable and is resistant to Weathering.
`
`Based on this, I understand the MAGNI 700 product is similar in composition to
`
`Momeative’s SilFORT AS 4000 and SiiFORT PH587, and GXC NuGlass, all of
`
`which are silicone-based hard coating products. I am familiar with those products
`
`based on my direct use while working at GE Plastics, current SABIC/Momentive,
`
`at Exateo LLC, at Visteon Corporation and my present soie at Five Star Coatings
`
`Group, and agree that, once cured, it created a clear coat surface that has optical
`
`characteristics (clarity, hardness, durability) that are very similar to the clear
`
`coating of an original equipment lamp.
`
`48. Mr. Yards did not identify MAGNI 700 in his listing of clear coatings
`
`that are suitable for use on refilrbished vehicle lamps. Further, MAGNI 700 has a
`
`different composition than any of the clear coating materials that were listed by
`
`Mr. Yards, because it is a silicone heat cured hard coat that meets requirements for
`
`forward fighting applications including durability, luminous transmittance, color
`
`and adhesion.
`
`Declaration of {)infltris Katsamberis
`LKQ V. Clearlamp
`
`Case {PR 2013-00020 (SCM)
`19 of 21
`Patent 7397,364
`7/1/2013
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`VIII. Neither Butt Nor Eastwood Describe a Clear Coating that Would
`Restore a Lamp to Original Equipment Condition
`
`49.
`
`I have also reviewed the Butt reference, US. Patent No. 6,106,648.
`
`The Butt reference does not teach the application of any clear coating to a lamp
`
`surface, much less as clear coating that would restore a. lamp to original equipment
`
`condition.
`
`50.
`
`I have also reviewed the Eastwood reference that I understand was
`
`submitted by LKQ in this proceeding. The Basmood reference, like Mr. Yarde’s,
`
`identifies polishing a lamp with wax. No other possible clear coating; materials are
`
`described in Eastwood. As esplained above, waxes are Very different than the
`
`aforementioned herd coats and do not result in a clear coating surface that would
`
`restore a imp to original equipment condition.
`
`$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`-
`
`Executed on the
`
`i
`
`.91“
`
`day of
`
`L‘ 2013
`
` Dimitris Kate
`
`6! l2€l79l.5
`
`Declaration ofDimitris Ketsemberis
`LKQ V. Clearlamp
`
`Case IPR 2013-00020 (80M)
`20 of 21
`Patent 7,297,354
`7/ 1/2013
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`61 1209931
`
`Declaration ofDimitris Katsamberis
`LKQ v. CiearlamP
`
`Case IPR 2013430020 (SCM)
`21 of 21
`Patent 7,297,364
`7/1/2013
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
