`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Heartland Tanning, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.
`Douglas A. Robinson
`Greg W. Meyer
`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
`
`_____________
`
`HEARTLAND TANNING, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUNLESS TANNING, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`Patent 8,201,288
`_____________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES W. LIPP
`(U.S. PATENT NO. 8,201,288)
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`I, Charles W. Lipp, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`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 Heartland Tanning, Inc. as a part of an inter partes review (“IPR”)
`directed to U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288 (EX1001, “the ‘288 patent”). I am being
`compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at a rate of $162.50 per hour.
`3.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion relative to the patentability
`of claims 1-5, 8-17 and 19-20 (“the challenged claims”) of the ‘288 patent.
`Independent claims 1, 8 and 19 of the ‘288 patent are directed to booths for
`spraying one or more liquids onto a human subject. I have reviewed the following
`documents:
`
` U.S. Patent 8,201,288 (“EX1001”)
`
` Prosecution History of U.S. Patent 8,201,288 (“EX1002”)
`
` U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/756,304 (“EX1003”)
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0279865
`(“EX1004”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,302,122 (“EX1005”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,416,747 (“EX1006”)
`
` International Publication No. WO 2004/084983 (“EX1007”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,554,208 (“EX1008”)
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
` Declaration of Kenneth D. Shinneman (“1010”)
`
` Sunless Airbrush/HVLP Technician Course, published by Virgo
`Publishing in 2005 (“EX1011”)
`
` Sunless Tanning, publication (“EX1012”)
`
` International Publication No. WO 2004/069322 (“EX1016”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5, 922,333 (“EX1017”)
`
` A Guide to Spray Technology for Steel Mills, published by
`Spraying Systems Co., 2005,
`http://service.spray.com/Literature_PDFs/c44_steel_us.pdf,
`downloaded on 9/19/2013 (“EX1018”)
`4. My opinions are based on the documents listed above, and my general
`understanding of the field of spray mechanics, before December 2005, which I
`understand to be before the earliest priority of the ‘288 patent.
`5.
`I have considered the disclosure of the ‘288 patent in light of general
`knowledge in the art in 2005. Further, in forming the opinion expressed herein, I
`have given claims terms their broadest reasonable meaning as it would be
`construed by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure of the ‘288
`patent.
`
`II. MY EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`I am an expert in the field of spray technology, including systems and
`devices suitable to atomize fluids for coating an object. I have been an expert in
`this field since prior to 1998. Throughout the remainder of my declaration, I will
`refer to the field of spray technology as the “relevant field” or the “relevant art.”
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`This includes spray tanning, which is the spray application of fluids onto a person.
`In formulating my opinions herein, I also rely upon my training, knowledge, and
`experience in the relevant art. A copy of my resume is provided as EX1019.
`7. Given my extensive experience in spray technology, I am qualified to
`provide the opinions that I set forth below.
`8.
`I have been a member, director and corporate secretary for the
`Institute for Liquid Atomization and Spray systems (ILASS Americas). ILASS
`Americas is an engineering society that holds annual conferences on the methods
`to characterize sprays, spray nozzle performance, mathematical modeling of
`sprays. This two to three day conference consists on presentations by researchers
`and industrial spray practitioners. The participants are university based
`researchers, industrial users of sprays and spray nozzle manufacturers. The
`technology includes atomizers for jet engines, rocket engines, agricultural sprays,
`industrial sprays, paint sprays.
`9.
`I was also a member of American Society of Testing Materials ASTM
`E29.04 Sub-committee on liquid particle characterization. In that role consensus
`standards related to spray technology were developed and published.
`10. Between 1969 and 1974 I attended Iowa State University, earning a
`bachelor’s of science in chemical engineering.
`11. After earning my degree, I was employed by The Dow Chemical
`Company (“Dow”) in Midland, Michigan, Plaquemine, Louisiana, and Freeport,
`Texas, from 1973 until 2008. Dow employed me in several positions related to
`spray science and technology. I am the inventor, or co-inventor on several US
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`patents involving gas atomized nozzles used for coal gasification. My work at
`Dow included developing spray characterization technology, including drop size
`measurement. Project work is confidential to Dow.
`12.
`I was also a Technical Leader in the Freeport Texas section of the
`Fluid Mechanics and Mixing group of The Engineering Sciences Department. In
`this role, I served as an internal engineering consultant to process design engineers,
`manufacturing engineers, and researchers. I was involved with the design of
`systems to facilitate testing chemical and plastics manufacturing processes
`involves the design, construction, and operation of liquid delivery systems. Such
`liquid delivery systems included different flow, application and control devices,
`such as feed vessels, pumps, solenoid valves, actuated valves, manual valves,
`check valve and spray nozzles.
`13. During this time I developed significant knowledge and experience
`with two-fluid or air atomized spray systems and spray nozzles. “HVLP” spray
`systems and nozzles are a sub-set of two-fluid nozzles and systems. Two-fluid
`nozzles refer to a classification of spray nozzles that use a gas, most commonly air,
`to produce a spray of liquid.
`14. When I left Dow Chemical in 2008, I formed a consulting company
`called Lake Innovation, LLC. I am currently a principle consultant and Chief
`Executive Officer (CEO) of Lake Innovation, LLC. Lake Innovation, LLC, a
`Texas corporation, specializes in providing consulting services for projects
`involving spray applications and other complex fluid mechanics.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`15.
`In addition to employment with Lake Innovation, LLC, I am the
`author of “Practical Spray Technology: Fundamentals and Practice” (2012), which
`is a handbook on applying sprays in to solve “industrial” problems. This book
`provides an introduction to spray technology, describes spray fundamentals,
`modeling of spray systems, control of spray systems, classification of spray
`nozzles, a chapter on each type of spray nozzle. The intended audience is an
`engineer or designer that needs to solve a problem rapidly.
`16. My technical work at Lake Innovation LLC manly involves projects
`for clients. I teach a one-day short-course on Atomization and Spray Technology
`that the University of Wisconsin offers through the Engineering and Professional
`Development group. The work with clients, other than the University of
`Wisconsin, is always under a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
`17. However, I can say the types of applications vary from industrial
`manufacturing such as spray drying to sprays used for entertainment parks. The
`materials being sprayed include water as well as viscous formulations of one or
`more different materials. Some of the materials included slurries which are non-
`Newtonian. This complex fluid behavior includes shear thinning and yields stress
`as well as time dependent, thyrotrophic, behavior.
`
`III. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is one who is
`presumed to be aware of all the pertinent art, who approaches problems consistent
`with the conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person having ordinary creativity.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`119. A perrson havinng ordinaryy skill in thhe relevant
`art would
`have the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`knowleddge of commponents aand methodds, includinng the use
`
`nd of HVLP nnozzles an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rson ject. A peronto an objcheck vvalves, for eeffectivelyy deliveringg an atomizzed fluid o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`having oordinary skkill in the aart would hhave sevenn years of ppractical exxperience iin
`
`
`
`
`
`the fieldd. Alternattively, a baachelor of science deegree in an
`
`
`engineerinng disciplinne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would bbe equivaleent to threee years of ppractical exxperience iin the fieldd.
`
`
`
`IV. TTHE ‘288 PPATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`220. The ‘‘288 patent is directeed to a spraay tanning
`
`booth for aautomatic
`
`
`
`
`
`n subject. nto a humane fluids onspray appplication of multiple
`
`EX1001 aat Abstract
`.
`
`A. TTHE BACKG
`
`GROUND O
`
`OF THE ‘2888 PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`221. The BBackgrounnd section oof the ‘2888 patent expxplains thatt the use off an
`
`
`
`
`automatted systemm for sprayiing tanningg products
`
`
`onto the hhuman subjject was w
`ell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: t 1:27-34):EX1001 atknown iin the art bbefore the ‘‘288 patent, stating (E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`222. The BBackgrounnd section’s notation
`
`
`
`that prior bbooths werre “limitedd” to
`
`
`
`one product suggeests it woulld have be
`
`
`
`le to applyy more thann one soluttion.
`en desirab
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ied ay be applis, which mah productseveral suchther lists sesection furtThe Bacckground s
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`for cosmetic purposes, and thus, logically suggests it would be desirable to provide
`a spray booth capable of spraying more than one product.
`23.
`I understand the Background section of a patent to be an explanation
`of what was known prior to the inventors’ conception of the invention. Thus,
`according to the applicants of the ‘288 patent, I understand that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in 2005 would have appreciated that spray tanning booths
`should not be limited to application of only one product.
`
`B. THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ’288 PATENT
`
`24. The patent also describes an embodiment of a spray booth. The spray
`booth provides space for a person to stand while spray nozzles move vertically to
`coat the person with one or more solutions. EX1001 at Fig. 2. The vertical
`movement is due to a linear slide, which is neither described nor illustrated in any
`detail in the ‘288 patent. In fact, the ‘288 patent states the linear slide is “not
`shown.” EX1001 at 3:20-23. I presume this is because the mechanics necessary to
`move nozzles was well known in the art and within the skill of basic mechanical
`engineering.
`25. The spray nozzles are disclosed as HVLP nozzles, which the
`applicants define as high volume, low pressure. An HVLP nozzle is illustrated in
`Fig. 10 of the ‘288 patent, which is shown below. The nozzle includes an air cap
`having shoulders or wings, which is indicative of an external mix air atomizing
`(two-fluid) nozzle consistent with its use in HVLP applications. The nozzle tip is
`partially visible at the center aperture of the air cap. The nozzle body 126 is
`illustrated as a manifold to receive the fluid lines. This is a common HVLP set-up.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`226. Becaause the Pattent Officee (during eexaminationn) appeareed to questiion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whetherr HVLP is disclosed in U.S. Pattent 6,302,,122 (“statting HVLPP is not
`
`
`
`
`
`“expliciitly” taughht), I will fuurther conssider that teerm here.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`227. Whille not expreessly definning HVLPP, the ‘288
`
`patent stattes “the
`
`
`
`
`
`atomizeed spray ussing an HVVLP air suppply does nnot produc
`
`
`
`
`
`and oveer spray.” EEX1001 att 8:7-9.
`
`e a lingerinng fog of mmist
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 10 off the ‘288 ppatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`228. Beyoond the aboove, the ‘2888 patent pprovides noo descripti
`
`on of whatt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constituutes a high volume, loow pressurre nozzle, aand providdes no definnition of thhe
`
`
`
`
`particullar volumes or pressuures used bby, or even
`
`
`drop sizess producedd by, such
`
`
`s an ambignozzles. HVLP is
`
`
`
`
`uous term.. It is not aa term commmonly useed as a
`nd of fluids anomization oe art of atokilled in they. Those skhe industryclassificcation in th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`spray teechnologies would noot recognizze HVLP too indicate
`
`any particuular range
`of
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`volumetric flowrate or pressures of the atomizing air. Rather, the term HVLP, as I
`have come across it, has been used as a marketing term for spray painting guns.
`29. That being said, if we dissect the term into constituent components:
`high volume and low pressure, we can gain some insight into what the applicants
`may have meant by “HVLP.” Atomization or the formation of a drop spray
`requires the input of energy in some form. Consequently when low pressure is used
`high volume of atomizing air is required. Generally as the input energy for a
`specific nozzle design decreases the average drop diameter will increase.
`Comparison of the input parameters of two-fluid nozzle operation requires
`specifying the liquid flow and pressure and atomizing gas flow and pressure. The
`ratio of atomizing gas flow to liquid flow is a common means of comparing
`operation of two two-fluid nozzles. This ratio can be formulated in several ways,
`such as mass flow ratio, or volume flow ratio.
`30. The volume of atomizing gas normalized by the liquid flow is known
`as the ALR and is often expressed in mass flow ratio, pounds of air per pound of
`liquid. Two-fluid nozzles operationally can be designed to operate at a ALR 0.01
`to 10. The mechanical design of the atomizer will be different if the design range
`of operation is 0.01 that is designed to operate with 1000 time larger air flowrate.
`The design of a “HVLP” two-fluid external nozzle may or may not be
`differentiable from a “normal” two-fluid external mix nozzle. The key features to
`explaining are the diameter, number and orientation of air ports. The ports for
`atomizing air are of two types, annular surrounding the central liquid outlet and
`spray shaping. The shaping air ports serve two functions:1) to shape the spray
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`pattern, starting from a circular footprint to an elliptical or flat fan footprint (also
`known as fan air) and 2) to increase provide axial momentum to the drops and
`surrounding gas. The purpose of the latter item is to increase the drop velocity to
`maximize the effectiveness of the spray deposit on the intended surface. In the
`paint application area this is known as transfer efficiency, amount of liquid
`deposition on surface normalized by the amount of liquid sprayed.
`31. With respect to pressure, the inventors of the ‘288 patent were likely
`referring to low pressure relative to what the industry refers to as “shop air
`pressure.” A factory or manufacturing facility, for example, might have a general
`“shop air pressure” available to operate a variety of pneumatic tools within the
`facility. The shop air pressure may be, for example, 100 psi. In this context, “low
`pressure” means some pressure much lower that the shop pressure --- e.g., about 20
`psi or less.
`32. The pressure may be different depending on its field of use. For
`example, in the field of paint sprayers, the upper threshold of low pressure is
`defined as 10 psi. The threshold for “low pressure” is somewhat arbitrary, as there
`would be no difference in performance of the paint sprayer at 10 psi, as compared
`to 11 psi or even 13 psi. The fact that there is no function distinction between 10
`psi and 13 psi is consistent with my observation that the term is more of a
`marketing term than a technological delineation. Accordingly, and given that
`spray tanning is similar to coating or painting the human body, I have determined
`that a reasonable interpretation of low pressure is about 13 psi or less. This
`maximum pressure is based on the sonic flow of slightly greater than 13 psi for air
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`rt. Nothinscharge poras an iddeal gas dis
`g in the ‘2
`
`
`
`88 patent iis inconsis
`
`
`
`tent with thhis
`
`
`
`
`definitioon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`333. Referrring againn to the ‘2888 patent, eeach HVLPP nozzle inncludes a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`manifolld or nozzle body 1266, as shownn in Figuree 10 reprodduced abovve. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`manifolld 126 receeives three separate solutions viia first, seccond and thhird fluid
`
`
`Each fluid paths F11, F2, F3. E
`
`
`
`ves fluid frfrom a fluidd containerr 160. An
`path recei
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examplee fluid conntainer is shhown in Fiigure 6, repproduced bbelow.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 oof the ‘288 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`334. Eachh of the threee fluid patths includees a check
`adjacent t
`o
`valve 133
`
`
`the mannifold 126. One skill
`
`
`
`
`
`ed in the aart would reecognize aa “check vaalve” as a fflow
`control
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in en known iich had beeection, whiin one direflow only idevice for allowing f
`
`
`
`
`
`
`288 patent on of the ‘2descriptiohe detailed e 2005. Ththe art wwell before
`further
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`indicatees the checkk valves 1333 functionn to eliminnate cross-ccontaminaation.
`
`
`
`
`335. The bbooth incluudes a conttroller 122
`
`
`, shown ass a box in FFigure 11,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which ccontrols thee operationn of the boooth. The ccontroller 1122 is conffigured to
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`operate “the HVLP nozzles, HVLP turbine, pumps, valves, and other electrical or
`electro-mechanical devices…” EX1001 at 5:36-39.
`36. A flow diagram of the operations of the booth is illustrated in Figure
`18, which is reproduced below. The flow diagram includes options for a single
`spray session and a multiple spray session. For the single spray session, a user
`selects a solution type and an intensity level. And then, the client selects the start
`button to initiate the session. In response the spray system applies the selected
`solution at the selected level, and then the spray system dries the client to complete
`the spray session.
`37.
`In the multiple spray session, as shown, the client is permitted to
`select different solutions and/or different intensities. The different solution and/or
`different intensities are applied with the client being dried after each application.
`See Figure 18.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`Partial VView of Figgure 18 of f the ‘288 ppatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. TTHE CHALLLENGED C
`
`LAIMS OF
`
`THE ‘288 PPATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`338.
`
`
`are challennged in thee
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat claims 11-5, 7-17, aand 19-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitionn for IPR. II have reviiewed the cchallengedd claims, ass part of mmy review oof
`
`the ‘2888 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`339. The cclaims of thhe ‘288 paatent includde three inddependent
`
`claims, whhich
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generallly claim thhe same sprray booth. There aree some diffferences beetween the
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`independent claims. For example, claim 1 recites a plurality of fluid paths, while
`claims 8 and 19 recite multiple liquid inlet ports, which merge into a common
`liquid pathway inside the HVLP nozzle. Based on my review, however, claims 1, 8
`and 19 are substantially the same.
`40. Upon reviewing the claims, it is clear that the claims include a lot of
`repetitive language, which makes the claims look more detailed than they actually
`are. While I have considered all terms in the claims, the claims ultimately recite
`very simple and straightforward concepts that were known before the ‘288 patent
`41. Specifically, if we consider a multi fluid nozzle for atomizing the
`fluids (which were known well in 2005), the claims collapse into a description of
`necessary elements. The plurality of fluid paths and the multiple fluid inlet ports to
`the nozzle are necessary. The air path and the air inlet port to the nozzle are
`necessary. Control of the fluids and the air to the nozzle, by a controller, is
`necessary to control the atomization of the spray from the nozzle. The claims
`recite this same content, but use many more words to do so.
`42. Then, for the automated system, the linear slide is provided to move
`the nozzles up and down. Control of the linear slide, by a controller, would also be
`necessary to control the coating of the person.
`43. Apart from the above, check valves are left. The check valves are
`serially connected with the fluid paths and located substantially proximate to the
`nozzle. Claim 1, however, recites the check valves like this:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`444.
`s a
`
`
`
` I unnderstand thhat the lastt portion o
`
`
`f this clausse “to miniimize…” i
`ess,
`
`
`
`
`
`mitation ostatement of intennded use, wwhich may not be a lim
`
`f the claimm. Regardl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I have aaccounted ffor this neccessary funnction of thhe check vvalves in mmy opinionss
`
`below.
`
`D. TTHE PROSE
`
`ECUTION O
`
`OF THE ‘2888 PATENT
`
`
`
`45.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` I havve review tthe prosecuution of thee ‘288 pateent, EX10002.
`46.
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat the ‘2888 patent claaims priori
`
`ty to the UU.S.
`reviewed tthe
`
`
`
`
`Provisioonal Application 60/7756,304 (““the ‘304 p
`
`rovisional””). I have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`entire fiile wrapperr for the ‘3304 provisiional, whicch is attachhed hereto
`
`as EX10033.
`
`
`
`
`447. The ‘‘304 provissional is limmited to 1
`
`page of deescription
`
`and 3 figurres
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(as commpared to 23 pages off descriptioon and 18 ffigures of tthe ‘056 appplication)
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There iss no disclosure of a ccheck valvee in the ‘3004 provisioonal. Furthher, there iis no
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`structurre describedd in the ‘3004 provisioonal that mmight be coonsidered aa check vallve.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘3004 provisioonal does nnot disclosee any structture that wwould permmit fluid floow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a first directionn and preveent fluid floow in an oppposite dirrection, whhich is the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`general function oof a check vvalve as knnown to thhose skilledd in the art
`
`. In fact, thhe
`
`
`
`
`cription of nd the descFig. 10 (anabove reeferenced
`
`
`
`Fig. 10) iss the only ddescriptionn of
`
`16
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`the check valves as claimed in the ‘288 patent. Fig. 10 is not included in the ‘304
`provisional.
`48. Further, in the absence of any disclosure of the check valves, there is
`no description of the serial connection recited in the claims of the ‘288 patent or
`the substantial proximate location or positioned of the check valves relative to the
`HVLP nozzles. Further still, there is no disclosure of any intended function related
`to cross-contamination.
`49. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the
`‘304 provisional to disclose a plurality of check valves, or a plurality of check
`valves positioned (or located) and serially connected as recited in each of the
`challenged claims. Each of the challenged claims of the ‘288 patent therefore is
`not supported by the ‘304 provisional.
`50. Further, there is no disclosure of an HVLP nozzle with multiple liquid
`inlet ports or a plurality of fluid paths that merge inside an HVLP nozzle. It is true
`that Fig. 2 appears to show two fluid containers at the back of the spray booth, but
`there is no disclosure as to how those fluid containers might be connected to the
`illustrated nozzles. One fluid container might, for example, supply fluid to one
`nozzle 11, and the other might supply the same fluid to the other nozzle 11. There
`is, however, no disclosure of how the containers are in fact coupled to the nozzles
`11, and as such, there is no disclosure of the nozzles with multiple liquid feeds
`claimed in the ‘288 patent.
`51. Further the fact that the check valves claimed in the ‘288 patent are
`not disclosed in the ‘304 provisional is evidence that multiple liquids to the same
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`HVLP nozzle were not even considered by the person(s) who authored the ‘304
`provisional.
`52. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the
`‘304 provisional to disclose an HVLP nozzle with multiple liquid inlet ports, or a
`plurality of fluid paths, which merge inside an HVLP nozzle. For this additional
`reason, each of the challenged claims of the ‘288 patent is therefore not supports
`by the ‘304 provisional.
`
`V. PRIOR ART CITED IN PETITION
`
`53. The prior art discussed in this Declaration is related to spray tanning
`technology. Each cited reference is directed to a spray system for providing a
`uniform consistent tan to a person.
`54.
`I have provided summaries of the prior art references below, and
`explained how certain portions of the prior art reference would have been
`understood by one skilled in the art in 2005.
`
`A. PARKER
`
`55.
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent 6,302,122 to Anthony J. Parker et al.,
`which is EX1005 (“Parker”) to the IPR. I understand that Parker is prior art to the
`‘288 patent.
`56.
`I understand Parker to disclose a spray tanning booth for uniform
`spray application of artificial fluids onto the human body. The spray booth is
`illustrated in Fig. 1 of Parker, reproduced below, and includes a base and walls
`coupled to the base.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuree 1 of Parkker
`
`
`
`7. The bbooth incluudes a spraay arm 50,
`orizontally which is ooriented ho
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e 51 is f the nozzleed view of more detailees 51. A mr of nozzleincludess a number
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includedd in Fig. 3, a portion of which iis reproducced below..
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`Parrtial View oof Figure 33 of Parkerr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`58. As shhown abovve, the nozzzle 51 incluudes a nozzzle body aand a nozzlle
`
`
`
`
`
`ompositiontanning couid, like a tomize a flutip. In oorder to ato
`
`
`, a nozzle ttip providees an
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`iptical spraay patternss,
`
`
`
`nt to atomiize the fluiid. The abbove figuree shows ell
`
`
`
`
`
`exit poi
`
`
`
`
`s. ay patternsof the spra134, witth overlap
`9. Fig. 6
`5
`
`
`
`6 of Parkerr is reproduuced beloww and illus
`
`trates the sspray arm
`50.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ow) and a y RED arrondicated byd line 52 (insition feeding composAs showwn, a tanni
`
`
`
`
`compressed air feeed line 53 (indicated by BLUE
`
`
` arrow) aree providedd to each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`zzle body, t of the nozd inlet portes at a fluid2 terminateeed line 52nozzle 551. The fe
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the air ffeed line 533 terminatees at an airr inlet of thhe nozzle bbody. EX-
`
`1005 at 9:663-
`67
`
`
`
`
`arker, annoPartial VView of Figure 6 of Pa
`
`
`
`otated
`
`660.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat the Patent Office ddid not undderstand Paarker to
`
`
`disclosee (at least eexplicitly)
`e ozzles. Thee HVLP noarker werethat the noozzles of Pa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent OOffice is coorrect that the term “HHVLP” is
`
`
`
`not used inn Parker. FFor at leasst the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certainly ould have cn the art woreason eexplained bbelow, howwever, one of skill in
`
`
`
`
`understoood Parkerr to disclosse HVLP nnozzles.
`
`
`
`661. The nnozzles 51 are descri
`ng by brannd
`ker, includibed througghout Park
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and perfformance ccharacterisstics. For iinstance, a
`
`
`
`specific exxemplary nnozzle is liisted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the detailed desscription off Parker ass an externaal mix, flatt spray, airr atomizingg
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g Systems m Sprayingailable fromset-up, ava18B spray s1/8J witth a SUE 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX10005 at 8:54-662):
`
`
`
`Co., statinng
`
`publisheed by Spraaying Systeems Co., iss attached aas EX10188. The doccument shoows
`
`
`
`662.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I reseearched thiis specific nozzle andd downloadded the guiide for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e Guide, copy of thed accurate cA true andabove nnozzle on SSeptember 19, 2013. A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a copyriight date oof 2005.
`
`
`663. An immage of th
`
`
`
`
`e nozzle listed in Parrker is provvided beloww. The 1/8
`8 J
`
`
`
`
`f EX1018nozzle bbody is desscribed on page 68 of
`
`and the sppray set-up
`SUE 18B
`on
`
`
`
`
`
`page 755. The grapphic on thee right is sllightly diffferent than
`
`
`r the graphiic in the air
`
`
`
`
`
`
`atomizeed current ccatalog (755) and prevvious cataloogs. This iis a distrac
`
`tion from tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`main pooint that this nozzle 11/8J SUE 18B is intennded to be
`
`
`, as used a loww pressure,
`
`
`shown iin the tablee on the ne
`xt page.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e, page 75 o.’s GuideSystems CoFiigure from Spraying S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`664. Evenn though thhe Guide is
`0, it led in 2000rker was fil dated 20005, and Par
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is indusstry practicce to maintaain the samme part/moodel numbeers for the
`
`same nozzzles
`
`
`
`
`within aa five year time intervval. The ppart/model
`
`
`numbers aare maintaiined to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and materials, ags, bill of mpreservee continuitty for produuct designs, drawing
`
`
`
`
`replacemment parts. Spray noozzle technnology is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be deveeloped, it wwould be coompletely separate annd differennt. Furtherr, in my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`experiennce when tthe same ppart number is used, iit will be uused only foor that partt,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not a neew version of it. I amm confidentt that the nnozzle referrenced in PParker is thhe
`
`
`
`
`same noozzle refereence in thee Guide. Inn fact, a re
`
`
`
`view of Sppray.com oon or aboutt the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`date of execution of this decclaration reeveals the ssame nozzlle is numb
`
`ered in thee
`
`
`
`
`from that an excerpt e included asame way. I have
`
`website beelow.
`
`mature artt. If a neww design woould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Image from CCatalog 755, page B8
`
`
`
`(http://wwww.sprayy.com/cat75/automatiic/index.httml Page BB-16)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lippp Decl. conncerning UU.S. Patentt No. 8,2011,288
`
`
`
`
`
`665.
`
`
`
`I havve reviewedd the Guidee (EX10188) for this mmodel of s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pray nozzlle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`listed inn Parker, annd I have cconcluded the nozzlee listed in PParker is ann HVLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nozzle. A section of the pagee is providded below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the air ppressure shhown at liqquid pressuures of 3, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the SUUE 18B Sppray Set-upp,
`
`and 10 ps
`
`
`
`i are beloww 13 psi annd
`
`
`
`
`
`nearly aall below 10 psi. By tthe most reestrictive ppressure criiteria, 10 ppsi, this nozzzle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`can be ooperated inn the HVLPP mode. TThe operatiional regioon of this n
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ozzle withh an
`
`
`
`air suppply pressure below 122 psi is higghlighted inn green in tthis table tto illustratee the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`portion of the operating regiion that is iin the HVLLP region.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table from Sp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`raying Sysstems Co.’ss Guide, paage 75 annnotated witth highlighht
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`666. Parkeer also disccloses the aabove nozzzle 51 operrating withh an air feeed
`
`
`
`
`
`pressuree of about 10-13 psi. EX1005 aat 9:24-63.. Parker d
`enotes the
`
`nozzles ass
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`operatinng as low ppressure noozzles and consistentt with the thhreshold fofor “low
`
`
`pressuree” that I discussed abbove in Secction IV, suupra.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`667. Those skilled inn the art would underrstand the ttradeoff beetween air
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pressuree and volummetric flowwrate to prroduce a sppray. Giveen this trad
`
`eoff, and thhe
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipp Decl. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,201,288
`
`spray application disclosed in Parker, it is clear the low pressure operation of the
`nozzle further involves a high volume of air flow through the nozzle. Again, the
`nozzle is a high volume, low pressure nozzle.
`68. Parker describes an average drop size that is most effective. EX-1005
`at 8:46-54 and claim 30. Based on my experience with coating type applications
`and a knowledge of spray physics. A volume median drop, VMD or DV50, size of
`100 microns is reasonable to achieve a uniform surface coverage. Avoiding large
`drops that would leave visible spots on the skin and small drops that would have a
`lower transfer efficacy.
`69. And, in describing nozzles 51, Parker indicates that the spray from the
`nozzles 51 is optimized to provide a relatively even coating on the skin of the user,
`with substantially no streaking or dripping. EX1005 at 8:35-37. I understand
`Parker to be talking about regula
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
