UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`and MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00110
`Patent 6,482,228
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES J. KERNELL
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 1
`Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc.,
`Medtronic Corevalve, LLC
`v. Troy R. Norred, M.D.
`Case IPR2014-00111
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`and MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TROY R. NORRED, M.D.
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00110
`Patent 6,482,228
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES J. KERNELL
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 1
`Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc.,
`Medtronic Corevalve, LLC
`v. Troy R. Norred, M.D.
`Case IPR2014-00111
`
`
`
`I, James J. Kernell, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am the attorney that prepared and prosecuted the application for
`
`United States Patent No. 6,482,228 (the “‘228 patent”). In preparing this declaration,
`
`I have reviewed my workload and correspondence from the date I first met with Dr.
`
`Troy R. Norred until the date the patent application was filed. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the following facts and would and could testify competently regarding
`
`the following statements if called as a witness.
`
`2.
`
`I passed the patent bar in 1997 and graduated from law school in
`
`2000. Following graduation, I began work as an associate at the law firm then known
`
`as Chase & Yakimo, L.C. (“Chase & Yakimo”). As an associate with Chase &
`
`Yakimo, I was the attorney primarily responsible for legal research for legal issues
`
`pertinent to the other attorneys’ cases and clients as assigned. Other duties included
`
`client consultations and conferences, and preparing drawings for some of the patent
`
`applications. Because I was a recent graduate, all of my work was reviewed by a
`
`partner of the firm. For the ‘228 patent application, Mr. Mike Yakimo reviewed all of
`
`my work.
`
`3.
`
`Generally a patent application requires 40-60 hours to prepare. A
`
`more complex application or application regarding unfamiliar subject matter may take
`
`80 hours or more to prepare. It is my practice to meet with the inventor to receive an
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 2
`
`
`
`initial disclosure of the invention, discuss various aspects of the invention, and discuss
`
`the patent process. In order to begin preparing the application I require drawings to
`
`be prepared. This may involve meeting with a draftsperson, or preparing the
`
`drawings myself, depending on the complexity of the drawings. Additionally, I take
`
`time to research the subject matter of the invention to become familiar with the
`
`particular art. During the process of preparing the application, I typically have two or
`
`more telephone conferences with the client to discuss various aspects of the
`
`invention. Once the application is prepared it is sent to the inventor for review and
`
`comments. Because of the complexity and subject matter of Dr. Norred’s invention,
`
`the application for the ‘228 patent took approximately 80 hours to prepare.
`
`4.
`
`On May 3, 2000, I met with Dr. Norred. At this meeting
`
`Dr. Norred provided an initial disclosure of his invention and some sketches, Exhibit
`
`2050. We discussed his invention and the patent process. The meeting lasted
`
`approximately two hours.
`
`5.
`
`On May 11, 2000, I received a retainer check from Dr. Norred
`
`and formal authorization to begin preparing the patent application.
`
`6.
`
`At this time I was involved in several litigation matters and
`
`working on other patent and intellectual property matters. As is my practice, I
`
`handled each of these matters in chronological order as they were assigned to me to
`
`handle, except to the extent that filing deadlines in litigation matters or patent
`
`-3-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 3
`
`
`
`applications with a higher priority, such as a pending statutory bar, necessitated
`
`affording those matters a different priority.
`
`7.
`
`From May 3, 2000 to November 14, 2000, I was involved in seven
`
`lawsuits in seven different courts.
`
`8.
`
`From May 3, 2000 to November 14, 2000, I prepared 19 patent
`
`applications and prepared numerous office action responses.
`
`9.
`
`The following is a summary of the time spent on various matters
`
`from May 3, 2000 until November 14, 2000.
`
`10. During the weeks of May 1 and 8, I worked on plaintiff’s First
`
`Amended Petition in the lawsuit Ed Tobergte Associates Company dba Gear 2000 v. Zide
`
`Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al, District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Civil Court
`
`Department, Case No. 00 C0422. I also worked on a patent application serial No.
`
`09/569,281, entitled Interactive Offer System for Elective Medical Procedures, which
`
`was filed May 12, 2000. The application concerned an interactive offer procedure and
`
`apparatus for selecting an elective medical or surgical procedure from a list of
`
`available procedures over the Internet and making an offer to a selected physician to
`
`perform the selected procedure at an offered price to a patient is provided. The
`
`physician may accept or reject the offer and notify the patient, and if the offer is
`
`accepted, schedule a further consultation with the patient to determine final
`
`acceptance of the offer and subsequent performance of the requested medical
`
`-4-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 4
`
`
`
`procedure. This application took approximately 60 hours to complete. I researched
`
`legal issues related to Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc. & John L. Aker, U. S.
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 03-1431, -1432, and drafted the
`
`opposition to ACI’s motion to file a supplemental appendix, which was filed on May
`
`12, 2000. Additionally, I worked on the patent application for U. S. Patent No.
`
`6,378,430, filed May 17, 2000. The ‘430 patent discloses a flexible plate gripped and
`
`secured to a plate cylinder in a rotary printing press by spaced-apart tines extending
`
`from an operating shaft rotatably mounted within a bore in the cylinder. The leading
`
`and trailing legs of the flexible plate are inserted in a channel in the cylinder, and then
`
`rotation of the shaft to a plate-securing position causes the tines to penetrate the
`
`trailing leg and hold the plate. I spent approximately 20 hours preparing the claims
`
`for this application.
`
`11. During the weeks of May 15 and 22, 2000, I worked on the patent
`
`application for U. S. Patent No. 6,415,922, filed May 19, 2000. The ‘922 patent
`
`discloses a tool case with first and second housings pivotal about a central spine to
`
`present a book-shaped configuration. Within each housing is two or more walls
`
`having a plurality of post-shaped flanges therealong. A tool accessory tray includes a
`
`shelf having recesses for a snap fit engagement of the particular tool accessory therein.
`
`At the opposed end of the shelves are recesses for slidably seating the flanges therein
`
`so as to releasably maintain the tray within the housing. The tray type and number
`
`-5-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 5
`
`
`
`may thus be varied for releasable seating within each housing. I spent approximately
`
`40 hours drafting this application. I conducted legal research, prepared hearing notes,
`
`and participated in hearing regarding a motion to dismiss filed in the lawsuit Ed
`
`Tobergte Associates Company dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al, District
`
`Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Civil Court Department, Case No. 00 C0422.
`
`The hearing was held in Wichita, Kansas, which required travel out of town. I also
`
`worked on prosecution of the patent application for U. S. Patent No. 6,809,656. I
`
`researched prior art cited by examiner, prepared amended claims and arguments in
`
`support of patentability, and prepared a written response that was filed May 26, 2000.
`
`I met with Justin Thomas of River City Awning regarding a new awning clip. I
`
`requested a preliminary patentability search be conducted by our Washington, D.C.
`
`associate. After receiving the search results, I analyzed the seven patents located as a
`
`result of the search and provided a patentability opinion to my client. I researched
`
`infringement and invalidity issues for the lawsuit Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc.
`
`and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Case
`
`No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN. Additionally, I prepared a summary and analysis of a
`
`motion hearing in the lawsuit Ed Tobergte Associates, Inc. dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop
`
`of Ohio et al, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, Case No. 99-2208-CM.
`
`12. During the weeks of May 29 and June 5, 2000, I investigated U. S.
`
`Patent No. 4,478,549 and its file history, and provided an opinion to a client. The
`
`-6-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 6
`
`
`
`‘549 patent discloses a foldable ramp for on and off loading all terrain/recreational
`
`vehicles from the rear of trucks, trailers, and vans. The ramp folds longitudinally to a
`
`width smaller than the wheelbase of the all-terrain/recreational vehicles. When folded
`
`it may be slipped between the wheels of the all-terrain/recreational vehicle for storage
`
`on the bed of the truck, trailer or van. When operational the ramp is engaged against
`
`the rear of the truck, trailer or van and allows the operator of the all-
`
`terrain/recreational vehicle to either ride or push the vehicle onto or off of the truck,
`
`trailer, or van. I prepared first interrogatories and requests for production in the
`
`lawsuit Ed Tobergte Associates Company dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al,
`
`District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Civil Court Department, Case No. 00
`
`C0422. I began researching information related to the physiology of the heart, heart
`
`valves, and met with the draftsperson regarding drawings for the Norred patent
`
`application. I spent approximately 20 hours conducting background research for the
`
`Norred application over a two-week period. I worked on the patent application for
`
`Serial No. 60/211,160, for an improved fender mirror mount for use with plastic
`
`fenders provides a durable mount for all vehicle operations, reduces normal stresses at
`
`the mounting points, reduces vibrations to the mirror, is simple to install, and reduces
`
`the maintenance cost of vehicles with plastic fenders. The mirror mount assembly
`
`transfers forces acting upon the free end of the mirror guide bar into planar forces at
`
`the mounting points acting in the planes of the fender. The assembly comprises an
`
`-7-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 7
`
`
`
`upright guide bar mounted at its lower portion to the fender, a mirror movably
`
`mounted to the upper portion of the guide bar, a front brace that secures the guide
`
`bar to the top of the fender, and a side brace that secures the guide bar to the
`
`rearward sidewall of the fender. Connections between the guide bar, the braces and
`
`the fender are made using rubber collars and grommets to isolate the assembly from
`
`fender vibrations. This provisional application took approximately 30 hours to
`
`complete, including preparation of some drawings.
`
`13. During the weeks of June 12 and 19, 2000, I researched Katz
`
`patents that had issued, updated the Katz patent family tree, and updated a non-
`
`infringement opinion related to the Katz patents. The Katz non-infringement
`
`opinion consists of 88-pages of claim charts and analysis of 60 Katz patents and
`
`published applications, as well as analysis of hundreds of prior art references. I
`
`conducted legal research and prepared a motion to dismiss in the lawsuit Zide Sport
`
`Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al v. Ed Tobergte Associates, Inc. et al, Court of Common Pleas, Butler
`
`County, Ohio, Case No. CV0030688. I drafted a mediation statement for Zide Sport
`
`Shop et al v. Ed Tobergte Associates et al, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No.
`
`00-3183. I reviewed and prepared a written analysis of an office action for patent
`
`application Serial No. 09/414,414 and discussed my analysis with the client. I began
`
`preparing the Norred application.
`
`-8-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 8
`
`
`
`14. During the week of June 26, 2000, I conducted legal research to
`
`determine a patent owner’s duty to disclose prior art discovered after the issuance of a
`
`patent, drafted a written opinion summarizing my research and conferred with the
`
`client regarding my opinion. I worked on the patent application for U. S. Patent No.
`
`6,412,251, which was filed August 30, 2000. The ‘251 patent discloses a panel system
`
`with a first skin, a second skin, a web core constructed from sheet material for
`
`securing the skins together in a spaced, sandwich relationship, and a connecting
`
`means for affixing the web core within the skins. The web core includes a plurality of
`
`spaced apart longitudinal members having longitudinally spaced projections extending
`
`therefrom and further having transversely aligned, longitudinally spaced slots therein.
`
`The web core further includes a plurality of spaced-apart, transverse cross members
`
`each having spaced slots therein receiving the longitudinal members at corresponding
`
`transversely aligned slots thereof to provide an interlocked grid between the first and
`
`second skins. The grid is connected to the skins utilizing the projections, which
`
`extend through slits in the skins to facilitate welding or otherwise bonding the
`
`components. I spent approximately 20 hours on this draft of this application. I had
`
`several telephone conferences with Dr. Norred to discuss his invention and the patent
`
`application.
`
`15. During the weeks of July 3 and 10, 2000, I worked on the patent
`
`application for U. S. Patent No. 6,378,260, which was filed July 12, 2000. The ‘260
`
`-9-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 9
`
`
`
`patent discloses a form tie for joining a pair of form sidewalls with first and second
`
`vertical struts presenting planar nailing surfaces for embedding in the first and second
`
`sidewalls. A web obliquely extends between the struts and across the cavity between
`
`the laterally spaced-apart sidewalls. The web includes a top strut which slopes
`
`between the vertical struts and across the cavity. The form ties are alternately placed
`
`in alternate 180° orientations along the sidewalls such that the web extends in
`
`alternate directions across the cavity which enhances the form rigidity. Concurrently,
`
`the top web strut slopes in opposed direction to form a V-type seat for placement of a
`
`horizontal rebar within the cavity. I spent approximately 40 hours on this application
`
`over 2 weeks. I researched the law related to a motion to compel, and prepared a
`
`motion and memorandum in for the lawsuit Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc. and
`
`Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Case
`
`No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN.
`
`16. On July 14, 2000, I requested additional information regarding the
`
`valve designs shown in the ‘228 patent from Dr. Norred.
`
`17. During the weeks of July 17 and 24, 2000, I prepared responses to
`
`interrogatories for the lawsuit Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v.
`
`U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434
`
`JMR/SRN. I received a CD with the additional information requested from Dr.
`
`Norred and forwarded the information to the draftsperson. The CD included various
`
`-10-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 10
`
`
`
`depictions of the device, as collected in Exhibit 2091. I continued working on the
`
`Norred application based on the information provided by Dr. Norred.
`
`18. During the weeks of July 24 and 31, 2000, I prepared responses to
`
`production requests, produced documents, and prepared a First Amended Answer
`
`and memorandum in support of our First Amended Answer for the lawsuit Natural
`
`Learning Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court,
`
`District of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN. I conducted legal research
`
`and prepared our reply to plaintiff’s opposition to our motion to dismiss in the lawsuit
`
`Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al v. Ed Tobergte Associates, Inc. et al, Court of Common
`
`Pleas, Butler County, Ohio, Case No. CV0030688.
`
`19. During the week of August 7, 2000, I prepared second production
`
`requests and interrogatories for the lawsuit Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc. and
`
`Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Case
`
`No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN. I worked on the patent application for U. S. Patent No.
`
`6,441,889 and prepared drawings. The ‘889 patent discloses a traffic LIDAR device is
`
`presented with an increased laser power output in compliance with the IEC 825
`
`standard for class one-type laser systems. Increased laser emitter power output is
`
`accomplished by reshaping the emitter source output using an optical fiber which has
`
`an inside diameter greater than the minimum dimension of the emitter source. The
`
`resulting increased cross-section of the output pulse overcomes the power output
`
`-11-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 11
`
`
`
`limitation that would otherwise be dictated by the emitter minimum dimension. I
`
`spent approximately 40 hours on this draft of the application. I worked on the patent
`
`application for U. S. Patent No. 6,412,251. I spent an additional 15 hours on this
`
`patent application.
`
`20. During the weeks of August 14 and 21, 2000, I prepared a
`
`protective order, motion to compel interrogatory answers and memorandum in
`
`support for the lawsuit Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S.
`
`Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 00 CV-434
`
`JMR/SRN. I completed the first draft of the Norred application and gave it to Mr.
`
`Yakimo for review.
`
`21. During the weeks of August 28 and September 4, 2000, I worked
`
`on the patent application for U. S. Patent No. 6,441,889. I spent an additional 20
`
`hours on this patent application. I worked on the patent application for U. S. Patent
`
`No. 6,431,556. The ‘556 patent discloses a golf cart towing device includes a bracket
`
`assembly which is selectably attached along a tongue of a golf cart and adjustable to fit
`
`cart tongues of various breadth. A connector rod is angularly adjustable relative to
`
`the handle and includes a hook end for engaging an eyelet extending from a belt worn
`
`by the golfer. A releasable latch on the hook end maintains the hook end within the
`
`eyelet. The various adjustments of the bracket and/or the connector rod allow the
`
`golf cart to be effectively towed by persons of differing statures/physiques. This
`
`-12-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 12
`
`
`
`patent application took about 40 hours to complete. I prepared defendant’s
`
`opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel interrogatory answers for the lawsuit
`
`Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District
`
`Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN. I prepared for and
`
`participated in the deposition of Wilson Hunt in the lawsuit Ed Tobergte Associates
`
`Company dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al, District Court of Sedgwick
`
`County, Kansas, Civil Court Department, Case No. 00 C0422.
`
`22. During the weeks of September 4 and 11, 2000, I worked on the
`
`patent application for U. S. Patent No. 6,374,993. The ‘993 patent discloses a carrier
`
`locking system for a horizontal pendulum conveyor employs a coupler at the free end
`
`of a generally L-shaped pendulum arm which interlocks with a receiver on a carrier.
`
`The coupler and receiver are normally in an unlocked position when the carrier travels
`
`along a horizontal path, and automatically interlock when the carrier travels along an
`
`inclined path. Locking the carrier to the pendulum arms prevents the carrier from
`
`becoming separated from the pendulum arms when descending into a surface
`
`treatment tank. This application took about 60 hours to complete. I worked on the
`
`Norred patent application, based on comments from Mr. Yakimo, and additional
`
`telephone conferences with Dr. Norred. I researched case law for motion to compel
`
`hearing and prepared notes summarizing facts and law for the lawsuit Natural Learning
`
`-13-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 13
`
`
`
`Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District
`
`of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN.
`
`23. During the weeks of September 11 and 18, 2000, I worked on the
`
`patent application for U. S. Patent No. 6,510,861. The ‘861 patent discloses a golfing
`
`accessory apparatus employs a longitudinally extensible and retractable pole upon
`
`which an umbrella unit is mounted for use in the usual fashion when an umbrella is
`
`desired. Mounts on both the handle end and the opposite end of the umbrella pole
`
`provide a means of attaching any one of a number of accessory devices as desired for
`
`the convenience and pleasure of a golfer. When used as a golf ball retriever, the
`
`umbrella unit may be completely removed from the pole so as not to impede use of
`
`the device for retrieval purposes. I spent approximately 20 hours to complete this
`
`application. I provided analysis of the briefs filed in the appeal Kustom Signals, Inc. v.
`
`Applied Concepts, Inc. & John L. Aker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
`
`Appeal No. 03-1431, -1432.
`
`24. On September 22, 2000, I edited the draft patent application and
`
`sent it to Dr. Norred for review, Exhibits 2016 and 2044. He contacted me with his
`
`comments a few days later. We worked through his comments together, and I
`
`subsequently incorporated his changes in the patent application as appropriate.
`
`During the week of September 25 I worked on the patent application for U. S. Patent
`
`No. 6,537,175. The ‘175 patent discloses a power system for a vehicle with a motor, a
`
`-14-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 14
`
`
`
`flywheel and a transmission. Intermediate the motor and flywheel and coupled thereto
`
`is a first expansion pulley system with a second expansion pulley system intermediate
`
`the flywheel and transmission and coupled thereto. A programmable computer
`
`receives information concerning a desired vehicle speed and road level and processes
`
`the information so as to vary the motor RPMs in order to reach a desired vehicle
`
`speed. The pulley systems effectively transmit the power from the motor through the
`
`flywheel and to the transmission at preselected ratios so as to provide for an efficient
`
`power delivery and vehicle acceleration. An additional expansion pulley system drives
`
`accessories at a constant preselected RPM to preclude the transfer of needless power
`
`from the motor to the accessories. This application took about 50 hours to complete.
`
`25. During the weeks of September 25 and October 2, 2000, I
`
`conducted legal research for the issues before the court, created case summaries for
`
`each case cited in the parties’ respective briefs and prepared for oral arguments for the
`
`appeal Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc. & John L. Aker, U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 03-1431, -1432. I travelled to St. Paul,
`
`Minnesota on October 3, 2000, for oral argument at William Mitchell College of Law,
`
`which was held on October 5, 2000. I returned on October 6, 2000.
`
`26. During the week of October 9, 2000, I worked on the patent
`
`application for U. S. Patent No. 6,392,823. The ‘823 patent discloses a foot
`
`examination device which includes a mirror held in a base member, which is
`
`-15-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 15
`
`
`
`controlled and held in a person’s hand, which also includes a footrest to allow the user
`
`to rest his or her foot at an angle proximate the mirror so that the person can see the
`
`bottom of his or her foot easily. I spent approximately 15 hours completing this
`
`application. I worked on the patent application for U. S. Patent Pub. No.
`
`20020138448. This patent application discloses a method of protecting the identity
`
`and physical address of a user in an online environment which establishes a virtual e-
`
`box for the user including a virtual name and address for use by the user when
`
`requesting information or purchasing goods over the Internet. Anonymity may be
`
`further enhanced by providing the user with a virtual credit card, which is tied to a
`
`user's real credit card or other source of payment. Additionally, the user may receive
`
`prepaid shipping labels, which include a barcode or other encoded means of accessing
`
`a user's web site account to charge to the user the cost of shipping a package affixed
`
`with the label.
`
`27. During the weeks of October 9 and 16, 2000, I worked on the
`
`patent application for U. S. Patent No. 6,485,251. Overall, this application took
`
`approximately 50 hours to complete. I prepared for and participated in the mediation
`
`in Zide Sport Shop et al v. Ed Tobergte Associates et al, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit,
`
`Case No. 00-3183 held October 25, 2000, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
`
`28. During the weeks of October 23 and 30, 2000, I worked on the
`
`patent application for U. S. Patent No. 6,428,123. The ‘123 patent discloses a product
`
`-16-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 16
`
`
`
`display that includes a housing for sheltering and protecting a displayed product
`
`whether indoors or outdoors, a support frame mounted within the housing and
`
`adapted for displaying the product within the display and venting members for
`
`allowing air circulation. The housing has a front and rear wall each formed by a series
`
`of vertically extending, transparent doors, a roof, a floor and side walls. Each door
`
`selectively pivots between an open position and a closed position and has side lips
`
`that engage and extend over a side edge of the housing when in the closed position.
`
`At least some of the doors have a bottom lip that engages and extends over an
`
`adjacent door's front surface, and at least one of the doors engages a pivotable roof
`
`flap when in the open and closed positions, to continuously shelter the displayed
`
`products whether the doors are in an open or closed position. The support frame
`
`includes sets of cross-bars, each set having a top bar spaced apart from a bottom bar.
`
`The top bars are adapted for mounting a clip-on tray thereto and the bottom bars are
`
`for supporting the tray. I spent approximately 50 hours on this application. I made
`
`final edits to the application for Dr. Norred’s patent, prepared signature documents,
`
`and sent the patent application to Dr. Norred for final review and approval.
`
`29. During the weeks of October 30, November 6 and 13, 2000, I
`
`researched case law related to the appeal, and prepared our appellate brief in Zide Sport
`
`Shop et al v. Ed Tobergte Associates et al, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No.
`
`00-3183, held October 25, 2000. I prepared a revised scheduling order in the lawsuit
`
`-17-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 17
`
`
`
`Ed Tobergte Associates Company dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. et al, District
`
`Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Civil Court Department, Case No. 00 C0422. I
`
`met with the client and prepared answers to interrogatories for the lawsuit Natural
`
`Learning Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court,
`
`District of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN. I prepared claim charts for
`
`the lawsuit Natural Learning Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc.,
`
`U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN.
`
`30. During the weeks of October 30 and November 6, 2000, I
`
`negotiated dismissal of Wilson Hunt International, prepared and filed motion to
`
`dismiss in the lawsuit Ed Tobergte Associates, Inc. dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop of Ohio
`
`et al, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, Case No. 99-2208-CM. I conducted legal
`
`research and drafted a motion to dismiss or transfer for the lawsuit Natural Learning
`
`Education Toys, Inc. and Eileen M. Glick v. U.S. Toy Co., Inc., U.S. District Court, District
`
`of Minnesota, Case No. 00-CV-434 JMR/SRN.
`
`31. During the week of November 13, I prepared second requests for
`
`production in the lawsuit Ed Tobergte Associates Company dba Gear 2000 v. Zide Sport Shop
`
`of Ohio, Inc. et al, District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, Civil Court Department,
`
`Case No. 00 C0422.
`
`32. On November 14, 2000, I filed the patent application for
`
`Dr. Norred’s U. S. patent, Patent No. 6,482,228.
`
`-18-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 18
`
`
`
`I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the
`
`United States of America that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my
`
`knowledge and understanding.
`
`-19-
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2094 - Page 19
`
`
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
