Filed on behalf of UUSI, LLC
`By: Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Hemant M. Keskar (hkeskar@hdp.com)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`Telephone: (248) 641-1600
`Facsimile: (248) 641-0270
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK EHSANI IN SUPPORT
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Filed on behalf of UUSI, LLC
`By: Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Hemant M. Keskar (hkeskar@hdp.com)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 48098
`Telephone: (248) 641-1600
`Facsimile: (248) 641-0270
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK EHSANI IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER'S
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`1/141
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Education and Background ............................................................................ 7
`
`
`
` Summary ................................................................................................... 7 I.A.
`
`
`
` Education................................................................................................... 8 I.B.
`
`I.B.1.
`
`Background ................................................................................... 8
`
`II.
`
`Information Relied On .................................................................................. 10
`
`III. State of the Art ............................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
` Background........................................................................................... 14 III.A.
`
`IV. Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
` Overview .............................................................................................. 19 IV.A.
`
`
`
` Anticipation/Novelty ............................................................................ 20 IV.B.
`
`
`
` Obviousness/Nonobviousness .............................................................. 21 IV.C.
`
`
`
` Means Plus Function............................................................................. 23 IV.D.
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 24
`
`VI. Cited References .......................................................................................... 24
`
`VI.A.
`
`
`Itoh ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
` Kinzl ...................................................................................................... 27 VI.B.
`
`VI.C.
`
`
`Lamm.................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
` Duhame ................................................................................................ 35 VI.D.
`
`VI.E.
`
`
`
`Jones .................................................................................................... 44
`
`VII. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ 54
`
`VII.A.
`
`
`Nonobviousness Over Lamm and Itoh ............................................... 55
`
`Failure of Lamm to Teach or Suggest Measuring Current
`VII.A.1.
`Magnitude ................................................................................................... 55
`
`VII.A.2.
`
`
`Failure of Itoh to Teach or Suggest Measuring Current Magnitude
`56
`
`VII.A.3.
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot be Combined .......................................... 56
`
`Lamm Requires One or Ordinary Skill in the Art to Perform More
`VII.A.4.
`Than Ordinary Amount of Experimentation ................................................. 58
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`2/141
`
`

`

`Itoh Requires One or Ordinary Skill in the Art to Perform More
`VII.A.5.
`Than Ordinary Amount of Experimentation ................................................. 63
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot Accurately and Timely Detect Obstacles
`VII.A.6.
`Without Undue False Detections ................................................................. 66
`
`VII.A.7.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................... 66
`
`
`
` NonObviousness over Duhame and Kinzl ............................................. 66 VII.B.
`
`Failure of Duhame to Teach or Suggest Measuring Current
`VII.B.1.
`Magnitude ................................................................................................... 66
`
`VII.B.2.
`
`
`Failure of Kinzl to Teach or Suggest Measuring Current Magnitude
`67
`
`VII.B.3.
`
`Duhame and Kinzl Cannot be Combined ..................................... 67
`
`Kinzl Requires One or Ordinary Skill in the Art to Perform More
`VII.B.4.
`Than Ordinary Amount of Experimentation ................................................. 77
`
`VII.B.5.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................... 80
`
`VIII.
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 80
`
`Failure of Lamm to Teach or Suggest a 40 MS Time Interval for
`VIII.A.
`
`Immediate Past Measurements ....................................................................... 81
`
`Failure of Itoh to Teach or Suggest a 40 MS Time Interval for
`VIII.B.
`
`Immediate Past Measurements ....................................................................... 85
`
`VIII.C.
`
`
`40 MS is Not a Design Choice ............................................................ 86
`
`VIII.D.
`
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot be Combined ................................................ 88
`
`VIII.E.
`
`
`Conclusion ......................................................................................... 88
`
`IX. Claim 7 ......................................................................................................... 88
`
`
`
` NonObviousness Over Lamm and Itoh .................................................. 88 IX.A.
`
`Failure of Lamm to Calculate Obstacle Detection Threshold as
`IX.A.1.
`Claimed 89
`
`Failure of Itoh to Calculate Obstacle Detection Threshold as
`IX.A.2.
`Claimed 96
`
`IX.A.3.
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot be Combined .......................................... 96
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot Accurately and Timely Detect Obstacles
`IX.A.4.
`Without Undue False Detections ................................................................. 96
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`3/141
`
`

`

`Lamm and Itoh Require One or Ordinary Skill in the Art to Perform
`IX.A.5.
`More Than Ordinary Amount of Experimentation........................................ 96
`
`IX.A.6.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................... 97
`
`
`
` Nonobviousness over Duhame and Kinzl .............................................. 97 IX.B.
`
`Failure of Duhame to Teach or Suggest Obstacle Detection Along
`IX.B.1.
`the Entire Path of Travel .............................................................................. 98
`
`Failure of Kinzl to Teach or Suggest Obstacle Detection Along the
`IX.B.2.
`Entire Path of Travel................................................................................... 100
`
`IX.B.3.
`
`Duhame and Kinzl Cannot be Combined ................................... 101
`
`IX.B.4.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................. 101
`
`X. Claim 11 ..................................................................................................... 101
`
`
`
` Nonobviousness Over Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones ....................................... 104 X.A.
`
`X.A.1.
`
`
`Itoh and Kinzl do Not Disclose the Claimed Calibration Sequence
`104
`
`X.A.2.
`
`Jones Does Not Disclose the Claimed Calibration Sequence ...... 105
`
`X.A.3.
`
`Jones Cannot be Combined with Itoh and Kinzl ......................... 109
`
`X.A.4.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................. 112
`
`
`
` Nonobviousness Over Lamm, Itoh, and Duhame ................................ 113 X.B.
`
`X.B.1.
`
`Lamm Does Not Disclose the Claimed Calibration Sequence ..... 113
`
`X.B.2.
`
`Itoh Does Not Disclosed the Claimed Calibration Sequence ...... 115
`
`X.B.3.
`
`Duhame Does Not Disclose the Claimed Calibration Sequence . 115
`
`X.B.4.
`
`Duhame Cannot be Combined With Lamm and Itoh ................. 117
`
`X.B.5.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................. 123
`
`X.C.
`
` Nonobviousness Over Duhame and Kinzl ........................................... 123
`
`X.C.1.
`
`Duhame Does Not Disclose the Claimed Calibration Sequence . 123
`
`X.C.2.
`
`Kinzl Does Not Disclose the Claimed Calibration Sequence ....... 123
`
`X.C.3.
`
`Duhame and Kinzl Cannot be Combined ................................... 123
`
`X.C.4.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................. 124
`
`XI. Claim 15 ..................................................................................................... 124
`
`
`
` Obstacle Detection Along Entire Travel Path ...................................... 124 XI.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`4/141
`
`

`

`XI.B.
`
`
`Logic Unit ............................................................................................ 125
`
`XI.C.
`
` Nonobviousness Over Itoh and Kinzl .................................................. 128
`
`Failure of Itoh to Teach or Suggest Using an Obstacle Detection
`XI.C.1.
`Threshold Along the Entire Path of Travel of the Window ......................... 128
`
`Failure of Kinzl to Teach or Suggest Using an Obstacle Detection
`XI.C.2.
`Threshold Along the Entire Path of Travel of the Window ......................... 131
`
`Failure of Itoh to Teach or Suggest the Structure Corresponding to
`XI.C.3.
`the Logic Unit ............................................................................................. 131
`
`Failure of Kinzl to Teach or Suggest the Structure Corresponding to
`XI.C.4.
`the Logic Unit ............................................................................................. 132
`
`XI.C.5.
`
`Non-Combinability of Itoh and Kinzl .......................................... 132
`
`XI.C.6.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................. 133
`
`
`
` Nonobviousness Over Lamm and Itoh ................................................ 134 XI.D.
`
`Failure of Lamm to Teach or Suggest Using an Obstacle Detection
`XI.D.1.
`Threshold Along the Entire Path of Travel of the Window ......................... 134
`
`Failure of Itoh to Teach or Suggest Using an Obstacle Detection
`XI.D.2.
`Threshold Along the Entire Path of Travel of the Window ......................... 135
`
`Failure of Lamm to Teach or Suggest the Structure Corresponding
`XI.D.3.
`to the Logic Unit ......................................................................................... 136
`
`Failure of Itoh to Teach or Suggest the Structure Corresponding to
`XI.D.4.
`the Logic Unit ............................................................................................. 136
`
`XI.D.5.
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot be Combined ........................................ 137
`
`XI.D.6.
`
`Lamm and Itoh Cannot Detect Obstacles as Described.............. 137
`
`Lamm and Itoh Require One of Ordinary Skill in the Art to Perform
`XI.D.7.
`More Than Ordinary Amount of Experimentation...................................... 137
`
`XI.D.8.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................. 137
`
`XI.E.
`
` Nonobviousness Over Duhame and Kinzl ........................................... 138
`
`Failure of Duhame and Kinzl to Teach or Suggest Using an Obstacle
`XI.F.
`
`Detection Threshold Along the Entire Path of Travel of the Window ............. 138
`
` Failure of Duhame to Teach or Suggest the Structure Corresponding to XI.G.
`
`the Logic Unit ................................................................................................. 138
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`5/141
`
`

`

`XI.H.
` Failure of Kinzl to Teach or Suggest the Structure Corresponding to the
`Logic Unit ....................................................................................................... 139
`
`
`
` Non-Combinability of Duhame and Kinzl ............................................ 140 XI.I.
`
`Kinzl Requires One or Ordinary Skill in the Art to Perform More
`XI.I.1.
`Than Ordinary Amount of Experimentation ............................................... 140
`
`XI.J.
`
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................... 140
`
`XII. Construction of “De-Activate” .................................................................. 141
`
`XIII. Signature .................................................................................................. 141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`6/141
`
`

`

`I. EDUCATION AND BACKGROUND
`
` SUMMARY I.A.
`
`2. My name is Mark Ehsani. I have been retained by Patent Owner UUSI,
`
`LLC to testify as an engineering expert at the hourly rate of $600 through
`
`Thomson Reuters. My compensation in this matter is not affected in any way by
`
`the opinions I reach or the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I submit this Declaration in support of Patent Owner's Response
`
`regarding the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802 (the '802 Patent)
`
`filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Brose.
`
`4.
`
`I consider myself an expert in the field of electrical and computer
`
`engineering, specifically within the motor vehicle realm, and have been an expert
`
`in this field since before 1992. That expertise includes specific expertise in the
`
`areas of body control systems, sensorless and Hall-effect-based motor control,
`
`microprocessor-based and discrete circuit logic design and programming, and
`
`safety systems, all with applications in the field of motor vehicles.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 2002 to this
`
`Declaration and provides a comprehensive description of my relevant experience,
`
`including academic and employment history, publications, conference
`
`participation, and patenting activity.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`7/141
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Based on my review of the '802 Patent, the alleged prior art cited in the
`
`Petition, the additional documents listed below, my understanding of the
`
`applicable legal standards, and my knowledge of the art, it is my expert opinion
`
`that the claims of the '802 Patent are not anticipated or rendered obvious in view
`
`of the references cited by Petitioner Brose. My opinion is based on my
`
`understanding that the priority date of the '802 Patent is April 22, 1992.
`
` EDUCATION
`I.B.
`I have a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`7.
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison (1981).
`
`8.
`
`I have a Master's of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin (1974).
`
`9.
`
`I have a Bachelor's of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin (1973).
`
`I.B.1. BACKGROUND
`For the past 33 years, my research work has been in power electronics,
`
`10.
`
`motor drives, hybrid vehicles, and their control systems. I am a Professor of
`
`electrical engineering at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. I am
`
`Director of the Advanced Vehicle Systems Research Program and the Power
`
`Electronics and Motor Drives Laboratory at Texas A&M University.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`8/141
`
`

`

`11.
`
`I am the co-author of sixteen books on automobile power electronics,
`
`motor drives and advanced vehicle systems, including "Vehicular Electric Power
`
`Systems, " Marcel Dekker, Inc. 2003 (identifying pages attached as Exhibit 2017)
`
`and "Modern Electric Hybrid Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles – Fundamentals,
`
`Theory, and Design", CRC Press, 2004. I am the author of over 350 publications in
`
`motor drives, advanced vehicle systems, pulsed-power supplies, high-voltage
`
`engineering, and power electronics. I am an inventor on more than 30 granted or
`
`pending US and EU patents related to automotive power and propulsion systems
`
`and their subsidiary technologies.
`
`12.
`
`In 2005 I was elected as a Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`(SAE). I was selected for the IEEE Vehicular Society 2001 Avant Garde Award for
`
`"Contributions to the theory and design of hybrid electric vehicles." In 2004 I was
`
`elected to the Robert M. Kennedy endowed Chair in Electrical Engineering at
`
`Texas A&M University. In 2003 I was selected for the IEEE Undergraduate
`
`Teaching Award "For outstanding contributions to advanced curriculum
`
`development and teaching of power electronics and drives."
`
`13.
`
`I am the founder of the IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference
`
`(VPPC), which
`
`is an annual
`
`international conference that has been held
`
`continuously for the past 15 years all over the world and brings together experts
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`9/141
`
`

`

`and technologies related to vehicle power systems and propulsion systems and
`
`their components. I am also the founding chairman of the IEEE Vehicular
`
`Technology Society (VTS) Vehicle Power and Propulsion Committee, which is the
`
`organizing committee of the VPPC.
`
`14.
`
`In 2002 I was elected to the Board of Governors of the Vehicular
`
`Technology Society (VTS). I serve on the editorial board of several technical
`
`journals and am the associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
`
`and IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. I am a Fellow of IEEE, an IEEE
`
`Industrial Electronics Society and Vehicular Technology Society Distinguished
`
`Speaker, and an IEEE Industry Applications Society and Power Engineering Society
`
`Distinguished Lecturer. I am a registered professional engineer in the State of
`
`Texas. I am the recipient of the Prize Paper Awards in Static Power Converters and
`
`motor drives at the IEEE-Industry Applications Society 1985, 1987, and 1992
`
`Annual Meetings.
`
`II. INFORMATION RELIED ON
`I have reviewed a variety of documents in preparing this Declaration,
`
`15.
`
`and have relied on the following for my opinion:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,612, Ex. 2006 ( "the '612 Patent")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802, Ex. 1001 ( "the '802 Patent")
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`10/141
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,870,333, Ex. 1006 ( "Itoh")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,468,596, Ex. 1007 ( "Kinzl")
`
`German Patent No. DE 40 00 730 A1, Ex. 1008 ( "Lamm")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,218,282, Ex. 1009 ( "Duhame")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,831,509, Ex. 1010 ("Jones")
`
`The corrected Webasto petition for the '612 Patent (Paper 4 of IPR2014-
`
`00648, referred to as "the '612 Petition") and associated exhibits
`
`•
`
`The corrected Webasto petition for the '802 Patent (Paper 4 of IPR2014-
`
`00650, referred to as "the '802 Petition") and associated exhibits
`
`•
`
`The declaration of Dr. Toliyat with respect to the '612 Patent (Ex. 1003
`
`of IPR2014-00648) and associated exhibits
`
`•
`
`The declaration of Dr. Toliyat with respect to the '802 Patent (Ex. 1003
`
`of IPR2014-00650) and associated exhibits
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The deposition transcript of Dr. Toliyat, Ex. 2003
`
`The deposition transcript of Dr. Borrelli, Ex. 2004
`
`Borrelli Deposition Exhibit 12 including Excerpts from Webster’s New
`
`Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Ex. 2016
`
`•
`
`Borrelli Deposition Exhibit 12 including Excerpts from Webster’s New
`
`Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Ex. 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`11/141
`
`

`

`•
`
`The declaration of Dr. MacCarley with respect to the '612 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001 of IPR2014-00416) and associated exhibits
`
`•
`
`The declaration of Dr. MacCarley with respect to the '802 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001 of IPR2014-00417) and associated exhibits
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent")
`
`•
`
`The deposition transcript of Dr. MacCarley, Ex. 2015
`
`UUSI Priority document U.S. Patent No. 5,334,876, Ex. 1013 ("the '876
`
`Application and drawings as filed for application 07/872,190, which
`
`issued as the '876 Patent, Ex. 2012
`
`•
`
`Patent")
`
`•
`
`UUSI Priority document U.S. Patent No. 6,064,165, Ex. 1016 ("the '165
`
`UL 325 Standard for Door, Drapery, Gate, Louver, and Window
`
`Operators and Systems, Third Edition (Revised December 31, 1991)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,686,669, Ex. 2019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,437,530, Ex. 2020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,315,355, Ex. 2021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,238, Ex. 2022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,952,087, Ex. 2023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,307,395, Ex. 2024
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`12/141
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,245, Ex. 2025
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,236,176, Ex. 2026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,710,562, Ex. 2027
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,673, Ex. 2028
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,834,658, Ex. 2029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,323,611, Ex. 2030
`
`Plungis, Jeff, "Feds to Tighten Window Rules", available at
`
`http://www.autosafety.org/feds-tighten-window-rules, Ex. 2011
`
`16.
`
`I have spoken at length with John Washeleski, co-inventor of the '802
`
`Patent and Vice President of Engineering at UUSI. Mr. Washeleski described the
`
`state of the art prior to April of 1992, the level of ordinary skill in the art prior to
`
`April of 1992, and the design challenges confronted and overcome by the
`
`inventions described in the '802 Patent. Mr. Washeleski showed me photographs
`
`of the window lift mechanisms and controls for systems existing prior to April of
`
`1992, and the evolution of window lift mechanisms and controls subsequent to
`
`April of 1992.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`13/141
`
`

`

`III.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`III.A.
`17. Based on my conversation with John Washeleski, and consistent with my
`
`understanding of the state of the art, the subject matter of the April 22, 1992
`
`priority application to which the challenged patents claim priority represented a
`
`significant improvement over systems then existing in production automobiles.
`
`18.
`
`In the 1980s, power windows were transitioning from simply hand-
`
`operated crank windows to those with an electric motor attached to essentially
`
`the same mechanical window lift mechanism instead of a hand-operated crank.
`
`These prior window lift mechanisms were of a bulky sector-gear and scissor arm
`
`design as shown here:
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`14/141
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 2010 at Fig. 1. In the mid-1990s, changing the lift mechanism to a cable-
`
`
`
`operated mechanism allowed cheaper motors to be used.
`
`19.
`
`There were no explicit safety features built into the motor. Instead, the
`
`motor simply had a certain stall torque, and once the stall torque was reached,
`
`the motor could not apply any further force to the window. The closing speed of
`
`the motor was not very fast, because a higher closing speed would require more
`
`torque, which would then increase the stall torque of the motor, and allow the
`
`motor to apply more force to anything trapped between the moving window and
`
`the window seal. Even with limited torque, these mechanisms would apply 350
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`15/141
`
`

`

`Newtons – 400 Newtons of force, which could snap or strangle the neck of a
`
`toddler or cut off a child's finger.
`
`20. Adding motor control circuitry, which may be able to detect an
`
`obstruction before the motor reaches its stall current, would allow for more
`
`powerful motors and therefore faster window closing cycles. More importantly,
`
`the motor control circuitry would ideally be able to limit the amount of force
`
`applied to an obstruction, thereby limiting or eliminating the risk of injury. In the
`
`years leading up to 1992, automotive suppliers were unable to bring motor
`
`control circuitry to market due to excessive false positives or excessive false
`
`negatives, or sometimes both.
`
`21. A false positive is when an obstruction is detected (which may cause the
`
`window to stop and/or reverse) even though there is in fact no obstruction
`
`present. This is a nuisance and a significant concern to original equipment
`
`manufacturers concerned with perceived quality. False positives may also have an
`
`impact on safety, such as by distracting a driver from operating the vehicle when
`
`determining why the window has not responded as expected. A false negative is
`
`when an obstruction that is actually present is not detected. This may lead to
`
`damage to the window, the motor, the lift mechanism, or worse, to a person
`
`whose body part is caught between the window and the window seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`16/141
`
`

`

`22. According to a 1997 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`(NHTSA) Technical Report (Ex. 2011), a "conservative" (Ex. 2011 at 9) estimate of
`
`power window injuries was 437 injuries per year. Ex. 2011 at 30, Table 17. These
`
`injuries were estimated for the 1-year period from October 1993 through
`
`September 1994, and include injuries caused by the closing of a power window.
`
`The majority of these injuries were to children under the age of 15. Id. at 32,
`
`Table 21.
`
`23.
`
`The 1992 priority application is the practical development of a system
`
`that, in real world scenarios, exhibits a very low false positive rate and an even
`
`lower false negative rate. For example only, real world scenarios may include
`
`conditions experienced by many moving object systems, such as mechanical wear
`
`and friction changes in response to heat. The conditions may also include
`
`situations more specific to motor vehicles, such as ice buildup, fluctuating power
`
`supply voltage from the alternator and/or battery, or static pressure changes due
`
`to, for example, ventilation changes. Static pressure changes may change the
`
`amount of force the window applies against the seal, and therefore change the
`
`amount of friction experienced by the window. Further, the conditions may
`
`include conditions unique to a vehicle in motion, such as wind buffeting.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`17/141
`
`

`

`24.
`
`The 1992 priority application achieves these results by, among a number
`
`of inventive details, concurrently using multiple obstacle detection algorithms.
`
`The obstacle detection algorithms are selected to detect different forms of
`
`obstacles, such as hard obstacles (for example, a bone) and soft obstacles (for
`
`example, a person's throat). Each obstacle detection algorithm may be set with
`
`less aggressive parameters than if the obstacle detection algorithm were the only
`
`one in use, thereby reducing false positives. By using multiple obstacle detection
`
`algorithms, the various obstacle types can each be detected more accurately
`
`according to the parameters that characterize them respectively, reducing false
`
`negatives.
`
`25.
`
`For example, see "[a]lgorithm processing for hard and soft obstruction
`
`detection is divided into two separate equations, weighting the various terms
`
`depending upon magnitude of importance and processing time requirements."
`
`Ex. 1001 at 22:44-47. An example embodiment of hard obstruction detection
`
`"essentially compares immediate average current with immediately prior average
`
`current and immediately prior average pulse period…." Id. at 22:63-65. An
`
`example embodiment of soft obstruction detection is described as: "Soft
`
`obstruction detection is not nearly as time sensitive, as is hard obstruction
`
`detection, thus additional terms can be computed in the time allowed before the
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`18/141
`
`

`

`slow increase in entrapment force exceeds maximum allowable values." Id. at
`
`23:10-13.
`
`26.
`
`Therefore,
`
`it
`
`is my understanding and belief that production
`
`automobiles prior to April of 1992 did not employ any control logic that sensed or
`
`monitored hard and soft obstacle detection while practically accounting for real-
`
`world operating conditions including wind buffeting, cold versus hot temperature
`
`effects on the window weatherstrips, vehicular voltage variations, G-forces while
`
`hitting holes in the road, and the like. Unfortunately, even after the inventions
`
`described in the '802 Patent, regulations still allowed unsafe older mechanisms to
`
`be used in vehicles. For example, in 2004, Exhibit 2012 describes a NHTSA
`
`meeting with Patent Owner UUSI, and specifically John Washeleski, co-inventor of
`
`the '802 Patent to discuss mandating the safer systems developed by UUSI. In
`
`2004 alone, a watchdog group had documented 8 children being killed by power
`
`window mechanisms. Ex. 2012.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`IV.A.
`OVERVIEW
`In preparing this report, I have been provided with certain legal
`
`27.
`
`principles, which I have included below. I have formed my opinions with these
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`19/141
`
`

`

`legal principles in mind. If it is determined that any other legal principles apply, I
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or supplement the opinions expressed herein.
`
`
`IV.B.
`ANTICIPATION/NOVELTY
`28. Because of its filing prior to March 16, 2013, I understand the condition
`
`for novelty for the '802 Patent is governed by the following version of 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(a) and (b):
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(a)
`
`the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or
`
`a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for
`
`a patent, or
`
`(b)
`
`the invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the date of application
`
`for patent in the United States…
`
`29.
`
`For a claim to be anticipated under Section 102(a) or (b), I understand
`
`that each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a
`
`single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
`
`elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior
`
`art reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`20/141
`
`

`

`30.
`
`I understand that [t]he concept of 'inherent disclosure' does not alter
`
`the requirement that all elements must be disclosed in an anticipatory reference
`
`in the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim and that
`
`anticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference
`
`discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation. Thus, to
`
`rely on inherent disclosure to support an argument of anticipation, the limitation
`
`inherently disclosed must be necessarily present, not merely potentially present.
`
`
`IV.C.
`OBVIOUSNESS/NONOBVIOUSNESS
`In terms of non-obviousness or obviousness, and again, because of the
`
`31.
`
`filing date of the '802 Patent prior to March 16, 2013, I understand the following
`
`version of 35 U.S.C. §103(a) governs:
`
`32. A patent may not be obtained, though the invention is not identically
`
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the said subject
`
`matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the
`
`invention was made.
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2001
`21/141
`
`

`

`33.
`
`In order to determine obviousness under Section 103,
`
`it
`
`is my
`
`understanding that four factual inquiries must be made concerning: 1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; 2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; 3) the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and 4) secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but
`
`unresolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that it is not enough that all of the elements may be found
`
`in a combination of prior art references; rather, a party seeking to invalidate a
`
`patent as obvious must demonstrate that a skilled artisan would have had reason
`
`to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`
`invention. I further understand hindsight analysis is inappropriate because
`
`obviousness must be assessed at the time the invention was ma