DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`CASE: Unassigned
`
`Patent No. 6,968,884 B2
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 2
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ....................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Education and Work Experience ........................................................................... 4
`
`Compensation ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ....................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Anticipation............................................................................................................ 8
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................... 9
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER OF
`THE 884 PATENT .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Spring Motors ...................................................................................................... 11
`
`One-Way Friction Brake ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Combinations of Design Components ................................................................. 14
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 884 PATENT .............................................................................. 15
`
`VIII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............ 17
`
`IX.
`
`CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION........................................................................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`“System for Covering an Architectural Opening” ............................................... 18
`
`“Covering” ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`“Power Spool” ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`“Spring Motor” .................................................................................................... 20
`
`“Rotating Output” ................................................................................................ 20
`
`“Lift Cord” ........................................................................................................... 21
`
`“One-Way Friction Brake” .................................................................................. 21
`
`“Transmission” .................................................................................................... 25
`
`X.
`
`UNPATENTABILITY OF THE 884 PATENT CLAIMS .............................................. 25
`
`A.
`
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 5-7 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER TODD ..................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious By Todd ................................................... 26
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious By Todd ................................................... 29
`
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious By Todd ................................................... 30
`
`B.
`
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 5-7 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER TODD IN VIEW OF STRAHM ............ 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious By Todd In View Of Strahm ................... 35
`
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious By Todd In View Of Strahm ................... 38
`
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious By Todd In View Of Strahm ................... 40
`
`GROUND 3: CLAIM 6 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER TODD IN VIEW OF STRAHM
`AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF McCLINTOCK ................................................ 43
`
`GROUND 4: CLAIMS 5-7 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER KUHAR IN VIEW OF LOHR ............... 43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious By Kuhar In View Of Lohr ..................... 45
`
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious By Kuhar In View Of Lohr ..................... 48
`
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious By Kuhar In View Of Lohr ..................... 49
`
`GROUND 5: CLAIM 6 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER KUHAR IN VIEW OF LOHR AND
`IN FURTHER VIEW OF McCLINTOCK .......................................................... 52
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 3
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Lawrence E. Carlson, and I am a Professor Emeritus of
`
`Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. I am
`
`also an independent consultant on various matters involving mechanical
`
`engineering.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Norman International, Inc. (“Norman”) to
`
`investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884 B2
`
`entitled “MODULAR TRANSPORT SYSTEM FOR COVERINGS FOR
`
`ARCHITECTURAL OPENINGS” (“884 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I understand that, according to the first page of the 884 Patent, the 884
`
`Patent was assigned to Hunter Douglas Inc. Hunter Douglas Inc. is therefore
`
`referred to as the “Patent Owner” in this document.
`
`4.
`
`In this declaration, I will discuss the technology related to the 884
`
`Patent, including an overview of that technology as it was known at the time of the
`
`earliest priority date of the 884 Patent, which is March 23, 1999 according to
`
`Norman’s counsel. This overview of the relevant technology provides some of the
`
`bases for my opinions with respect to the 884 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 4
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`may not yet be taken.
`
`6.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the 884 Patent, the prosecution history of
`
`the 884 Patent, and prior art references including U.S. Patent No. 6,056,036
`
`(“Todd”), U.S. Patent No. 3,327,765 (“Strahm”), U.S. Patent No. 5,531,257
`
`(“Kuhar”), U.S. Patent No. 3,216,528 (“Lohr”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,641,229
`
`(“McClintock”) listed as Exhibits to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the 884
`
`Patent. I have also relied on my own experience and expertise in the relevant
`
`technologies and systems that were already in use prior to, and within the
`
`timeframe of the earliest priority date of the claimed subject matter in the 884
`
`Patent—March 23, 1999.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`7.
`
`Claims 5-7 of the 884 Patent cover systems for covering an
`
`architectural opening. However, the components, their functions, and
`
`interconnections within the claimed systems are well-known mechanical
`
`components and are based on routine mechanical engineering designs that were
`
`documented before the earliest priority date of the 884 Patent. Claims 5-7 are mere
`
`obvious and routine combinations of components and features that were known in
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 5
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`the window coverings industry and mechanical engineering in general. More
`
`specifically with respect to Claims 5 and 6, each of the following features of (1)
`
`the recited spring motor including “a coil spring and a power spool, wherein said
`
`coil spring wraps onto and off of said power spool,” and (2) the recited rotating
`
`output “operatively connected to the power spool of the spring motor,” and (3) the
`
`recited one-way friction brake to provide “a braking force that stops the rotation of
`
`the rotating output” is not novel and their combinations with other features in
`
`Claims 5 and 6 are not novel. With respect to Claim 7, the recited “one-way
`
`friction brake operatively connected to said rotating output” is not novel nor are the
`
`features of “said one-way friction brake providing braking force opposing the
`
`rotation of the rotating output in one of the directions while permitting the rotating
`
`output to rotate freely in the other of said directions” and “wherein said one-way
`
`brake applies a braking force opposing rotation of the rotating output for
`
`movement of the covering to the extended position while permitting free rotation
`
`for movement of the covering to the retracted position.”
`
`8.
`
`It is my opinion that the claimed combination in each of Claims 5-7
`
`contains nothing novel or inventive and, under the patentability standard of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) explained to me by Norman’s counsel as stated below, Claims 5-7
`
`are unpatentable and invalid.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 6
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`9.
`
`For purpose of my analysis in this declaration only and based on the
`
`disclosure and file history of the 884 Patent, I provide my proposed construction of
`
`certain terms in claims 5-7 in detail in a later part of this declaration.
`
`10. The subsequent sections of this declaration will first provide my
`
`qualifications and experience and then describe details of my analysis and
`
`observations.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`A. Education and Work Experience
`
`11.
`
`I received my Doctorate (D.Eng.) and Masters (M.S.) Degrees in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1971 and
`
`1968, respectively. I also received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1967.
`
`12.
`
`I have spent more than 30 years educating engineering students on
`
`mechanical and component design in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
`
`the University of Colorado at Boulder. I was an Assistant Professor from 1974 to
`
`1978, a tenured Associate Professor from 1978 to 1994, and a tenured Professor
`
`from 1994 to 2010, when I became a Professor Emeritus. Prior to joining the
`
`faculty of the University of Colorado, I was an Assistant Professor of Mechanical
`
`Design in the Materials Engineering Department at the University of Illinois at
`
`Chicago Circle from 1971 to 1974.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 7
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`13.
`
`I was also a founding co-director of the Integrated Teaching and
`
`Learning Laboratory and Program for the College of Engineering and Applied
`
`Science at the University of Colorado and have received several teaching awards
`
`for my work at the University of Colorado, including the Bernard M. Gordon Prize
`
`for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education by the National
`
`Academy of Engineering in 2008. A complete copy of my CV is included in
`
`Attachment A.
`
`14. As a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, I regularly taught
`
`mechanical design courses at the University of Colorado since the 1970’s,
`
`including Component Design, Design for Manufacturability, Invention and
`
`Innovation, and hands-on design project courses at the undergraduate and graduate
`
`levels. The catalog description for the Component Design course (MCEN 3025) is
`
`the “[a]pplication of mechanics and materials science to the detailed design of
`
`various machine elements including shafts, bearings, gears, brakes, springs, and
`
`fasteners.” It was my responsibility to teach engineering students how to describe
`
`and apply these fundamental machine elements to different types of mechanical
`
`systems. I have also reviewed several textbooks relating to component design
`
`during the course of my career.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to my extensive teaching experience, I also have more than
`
`40 years of experience in mechanical design and research in numerous fields,
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 8
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`including rehabilitation engineering and prosthetics. This includes the supervision
`
`of graduate research projects, most of which entailed hands-on design projects.
`
`Many of these designs and design tests have been described in two dozen of my
`
`publications, which are listed in my CV (Attachment A).
`
`16. For my doctoral research project, I designed, built, and tested a
`
`pneumatically-powered above-elbow prosthesis. This complex mechanical design
`
`utilized a variety of mechanical components including bevel and spur gears,
`
`springs, cams, shafts, a clutch, pulleys, pneumatic cylinders, etc. to coordinate
`
`wrist and elbow rotation in various directions.
`
`17.
`
`I am also a named inventor of five United States patents: (1) Patent
`
`No. 4,461,085 issued July 24, 1984, entitled “Goniometer”; (2) Patent No.
`
`4,990,162 issued February 5, 1991, entitled “Rotary hand prosthesis”; (3) Patent
`
`No. 5,800,571 issued September 1, 1998, entitled “Locking mechanism for
`
`voluntary closing prosthetic prehensor”; (4) Patent No. 7,458,598 issued December
`
`2, 2008, entitled “Telemark binding with releasable riser plate assembly”; and (5)
`
`Patent No. 8,560,031 issued October 15, 2013, entitled “Extending socket for
`
`portable media player.”
`
`B. Compensation
`
`18.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $200 per hour for the services I
`
`am providing in this case. The compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 9
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceeding, or
`
`any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`
`19. The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`
`declaration are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the
`
`884 Patent, patents related to the 884 Patent, the prosecution history for the 884
`
`Patent and patents related to the 884 Patent, the prior art references and
`
`information discussed in this declaration, and any other references specifically
`
`identified in this declaration, in their entirety, even if only portions of these
`
`documents are discussed here in an exemplary fashion.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`20. Norman’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms, a
`
`claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” Norman’s counsel
`
`has further informed me that the broadest reasonable construction is the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language, and that any term that lacks
`
`a definition in the specification is also given a broad interpretation.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 10
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`21. Norman’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be
`
`valid, the claimed invention must be novel. They have further advised that if each
`
`and every element of a claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference, then the
`
`claimed invention is anticipated, and the invention is not patentable according to
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 effective before March 16, 2013. In order for the
`
`invention to be anticipated, each element of the claimed invention must be
`
`described or embodied, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art
`
`reference. In order for a reference to inherently disclose a claim limitation, that
`
`claim limitation must necessarily be present in the reference. Norman’s counsel
`
`has also advised that a prior art reference must be enabling in order to anticipate a
`
`patent claim.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`22. Norman’s counsel has also advised that obviousness under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013is a basis for invalidity.
`
`Specifically, I understand that where a prior art reference discloses less than all of
`
`the limitations of a given patent claim, that patent claim is invalid if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art reference are such that the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 11
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`Obviousness can be based on a single prior art reference or a combination of
`
`references that either expressly or inherently disclose all limitations of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`23.
`
`I understand from Norman’s counsel that the claims and specification
`
`of a patent must be read and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the priority date of the claims. I have also been
`
`advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, the following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`24. The relevant technologies to the 884 Patent are mechanical design
`
`components used for spring motors and friction brakes. The 884 Patent discloses
`
`the use of these spring motors and friction brakes in systems for covering an
`
`architectural opening, such as a window covering, although there are numerous
`
`potential and known applications for spring motors and friction brakes.
`
`25. The technical problems encountered in these types of systems, and
`
`specifically the use of spring motors and friction brakes in systems for covering an
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 12
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`architectural opening, involve basic, straight-forward, routine and well-known
`
`mechanical device solutions. This technology is not sophisticated, and the
`
`components of this technology—spring motors and one-way friction brakes—are
`
`basic design components that have been in use long before the application that led
`
`to the 884 Patent was filed. The 884 Patent does not disclose a one-way friction
`
`brake throughout the specification of the 884 Patent. Rather, the 884 Patent
`
`describes and schematically illustrates a one-way clutch mechanism that is in series
`
`with a friction brake mechanism, and terms the combination of the one-way clutch
`
`mechanism and the friction brake mechanism as a one-way brake module (e.g.,
`
`variable or manually adjustable).
`
`26. Based on the above considerations and factors, it is my opinion that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have an associate’s degree or a
`
`bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, mechanical design, or a related field
`
`involving mechanical design coursework and a few years of working experience in
`
`the area of mechanical design. This description is approximate and additional
`
`educational experience in mechanical design could make up for less work
`
`experience in mechanical design and vice versa.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 13
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF CLAIMED SUBJECT
`MATTER OF THE 884 PATENT
`
`27. Technology related to window covers generally and, more
`
`specifically, spring motors and friction brakes for window covers, involve basic
`
`mechanical design components. The components disclosed in the 884 Patent,
`
`including spring motors and friction brakes, have been well known individually
`
`and in various combinations long before the 884 Patent was filed.
`
`A.
`
`Spring Motors
`
`28. Spring motors (which can also be referred to as spring drives) are
`
`basic mechanical devices with numerous applications. At its most fundamental
`
`level, a spring is a mechanical element that exerts a force when deformed. (J.
`
`Shigley & C. Mischke, Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th ed. (1989).)
`
`Mechanical springs are used in machines to exert force, to provide flexibility, and
`
`to store or absorb energy. (Id. at 413.) There are several types of springs. In
`
`general, springs can be classified as wire springs, flat springs, or special-shaped
`
`springs, although there are variations within these classifications. (Id.) Flat
`
`springs include, for example, cantilever springs, elliptical springs, wound motor- or
`
`clock-type power springs, and Belleville springs. (Id.)
`
`29. The particular spring disclosed in the 884 Patent is termed a “coiled
`
`spring” or “coil spring.” The term “coiled spring” or “coil spring” more
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 14
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`commonly refers to helical extension or compression springs, or clock springs, for
`
`example. In my experience, the type of spring shown and described in the 884
`
`Patent is more properly termed a “constant-force spring” or a “flat spiral spring.”
`
`This type of spring is made from a strip of flat spring material (e.g., usually steel)
`
`that has been wound to a given curvature so that in its relaxed condition it is in the
`
`form of a tightly wound coil. (Id. at 443.) The unique characteristic of this type of
`
`spring is that the restraining force is independent of the deflection. In other words,
`
`the force required to uncoil a “constant-force spring” remains approximately
`
`constant, which is why it is called a “constant-force spring.” (Id.) In reality, the
`
`force required to uncoil the spring actually has slight variations, but “constant-
`
`force” is generally understood to be the best word available to describe the force-
`
`deflection characteristics of this type of spring. (See Mechanical Components
`
`Handbook (1985) at 9-35.)
`
`30. Constant-force springs generally have an approximately zero spring
`
`rate, although it was well-known before the relevant date for the 884 Patent that
`
`constant-force springs can also be manufactured to have either a positive or a
`
`negative spring rate, meaning that the force required to uncoil the spring can either
`
`increase or decrease with deformation. (See, e.g., Mechanical Engineering Design
`
`at 443.) Based on my experience as an educator on mechanical design, this is all
`
`basic knowledge that has been taught to engineering students for decades and is
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 12 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 15
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`widely available in textbooks like Mechanical Engineering Design. This is
`
`consistent with the 884 Patent, which discloses that the spring motor is
`
`“preferably” a “constant force” motor. (884 Patent, 5:5-16.)
`
`31. When a constant-force spring is mounted on two drums of different
`
`diameters, as is disclosed in the 884 Patent, the result is a constant-force spring
`
`motor. Constant-force spring motors were well understood in the art long before
`
`the 884 Patent, including design formulas and suggestions. (See, e.g., Shigley, J. &
`
`C. Mischke, Standard Handbook of Machine Design (1986) at 24-10 - 20-10-4.)
`
`B. One-Way Friction Brake
`
`32. A brake is a device usually associated with rotation that absorbs or
`
`transfers the energy of rotation to slow or stop a machine or an individual
`
`component. In a friction brake, the brake absorbs or transfers that energy through
`
`surface resistance, which depends on the coefficient of friction between the two
`
`contacting surfaces. The resistance force opposes the direction of motion, and is
`
`equal to the contact force between the two surfaces multiplied by the coefficient of
`
`friction. If a friction brake only absorbs or transfers the energy of rotation when
`
`the machine or individual component is rotating in one direction, that friction brake
`
`can be described as a one-way friction brake. Rotation in the opposite direction is
`
`relatively free, hence the term “free wheeling” or “overrunning”.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 13 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 16
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`33. Brakes generally, and more specifically the one-way friction brake disclosed
`
`in the 884 Patent, were widely known and used in mechanical design long
`
`before the relevant date for the 884 Patent in a host of applications. One
`
`common example is a fishing reel, which allows free rotation in one
`
`direction and a controlled drag torque in the opposite direction. Such a one-
`
`way braking mechanism in the fishing reel was commercially available
`
`many years before the filing date of the 884 Patent.
`
`C. Combinations of Design Components
`
`34. A person of ordinary skill in the art of mechanical design would be
`
`educated and experienced in the various permutations, advantages, and
`
`disadvantages of combining mechanical design components, such as spring motors
`
`and friction brakes. For example, Mechanical Engineering Design (1985) is a
`
`widely known and respected textbook from which I taught engineering students
`
`about mechanical design. This textbook educates students on the selection and
`
`application of basic design elements, including design considerations, stress and
`
`strength considerations, and reliability, and specifically addresses constant-force
`
`springs (Chapter 10) and friction brakes (Chapter 16) for purposes of mechanical
`
`design.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 14 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 17
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 884 PATENT
`
`35. The 884 Patent describes several individual functional modules that
`
`are used in modular transport system to retract and extend a window covering. For
`
`example, these modules include motor modules, transmission modules, brake
`
`modules, etc. that are categorized in a group based on function, such as a power
`
`and power transmission group, lift and/or tilt stations group, tilt mechanisms
`
`group, or the rest of the blind (see 884 Patent at 3:10-4:16). One of the key points
`
`of emphasis in the 884 Patent is the importance of modularity and
`
`interchangeability of these individual modules, which can form various transport
`
`systems to retract and extend a window covering that satisfies a multitude of
`
`different scenarios for covering an architectural opening, e.g., including various
`
`sizes and weights of window coverings.
`
`36.
`
`Ironically, while the 884 Patent provides a voluminous description
`
`describing many embodiments of these individual modular components, the claims
`
`(i.e., claims 5-7) are vaguely and confusingly worded with terminology not
`
`expressly described in the specification, including the use of structural elements
`
`with unclear and imprecise connections and functions implemented by the
`
`structural elements to perform the operation claimed.
`
`37. As an example, claims 5 and 7 recite a “one-way friction brake” that
`
`“provid[es] a braking force that stops” [claim 5] or “opposing” [claim 7] “the
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 15 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 18
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`rotation of the rotating output in one of the directions while permitting the rotating
`
`output to rotate freely in the other of said directions.” Neither claim 5 nor claim 7
`
`defines the structure of how the one-way friction brake provides such braking
`
`force, and neither claim 5 nor claim 7 recites the structure of the one-way friction
`
`brake to enable the functional limitation of stopping or opposing one rotational
`
`direction while permitting free rotation in the other rotation, which is claimed in
`
`claim 5 and claim 7, respectively.
`
`38. The relevant part of the description and drawings of the 884 Patent on
`
`a “one-way friction brake” discloses a one-way clutch mechanism that is in series
`
`with a “friction brake.” Devices that allow rotation freely in one direction while
`
`preventing rotation in the opposite direction are more commonly known as
`
`“overrunning clutches.” Overrunning clutches may take many forms, and have
`
`been widely used in diverse mechanical applications. Similarly, friction brakes
`
`may take many forms and have been used in very many applications. Friction
`
`brakes oppose rotation in either direction, but combining an overrunning clutch
`
`with a brake, such as a friction brake, will create a “one-way brake” that opposes
`
`rotation in one direction but not the other. Whether or not it actually stops rotation
`
`depends on the specific design of the brake.
`
`110838-0002.8903/LEGAL28767860.1
`
`- 16 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1007 Page 19
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART AND SUMMARY OF
`OPINIONS
`
`39.
`
`I have been advised by Norman’s counsel that the earliest potential
`
`priority date for the claims of the 884 Patent is the filing date of March 23, 1999.
`
`As explained below, it is my opinion that the following prior art references
`
`disclose all technical features in Claims 5-7 of the 884 Patent, thus rendering them
`
`unpatentable: U.S. Patent No. 6,056,036 (“Todd”), U.S. Patent No. 3,327,765
`
`(“Strahm”), U.S. Patent No. 5,531,257 (“Kuhar”), U.S. Patent No. 3,216,528
`
`(“Lohr”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,641,229 (“McClintock”) which are listed as
`
`Exhibits to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the 884 Patent.
`
`40. Based on my review of the above cited prior art references, Claims 5-
`
`7 are rendered obvious and unpatentable by Todd alone, by Todd in view of
`
`Strahm, and by Kuhar in view of Lohr. Additionally, Claim 6 is