IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC., ANDREW J. TOTI TESTAMENTARY
`TRUST, RUSSELL L. HINCKLEY, SR., and ROBERT F. MILLER
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00283
`U.S. Patent No. 6,283,192
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JOHN A. COREY, P.E.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`I, John A. Corey, being over the age of 18 and competent to make the
`statements herein, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`SCOPE OF THE REPORT
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Hunter Douglas, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) as an expert consultant to analyze and provide my opinions on the
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884 (the “‘884 Patent”), and such other
`topics as addressed in this report.
`2. As part of this work, I have been requested by counsel for Patent
`Owner to study the challenged claims of the ‘884 Patent and compare them
`with the Grounds identified by Petitioner Norman International Inc.
`(“Petitioner”) and instituted by the Board in its February 10, 2015 Decision
`regarding Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 7).
`3.
`I have prepared this report summarizing certain of my opinions
`regarding this subject matter and its relevance to the validity of the ‘884
`Patent.
`If called upon to do so, I am prepared to testify as an expert
`4.
`witness in this regard.
`5.
`This declaration is based on information currently available to
`me. To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve
`the right to continue my investigation and study, which may include a
`
` - 1 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`review of documents and information that may be produced, as well as
`testimony from depositions that have not yet been taken.
`II.
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`6. A detailed Curriculum Vitae that includes my professional
`qualifications, publications, honors and professional activities is attached
`with this report as Attachment A.
`7.
`I have over 29 years of experience in the window covering
`industry.
`I hold a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and a
`8.
`Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Union College, with a
`minor in Advanced Mathematics. I also previously held a Graduate
`Research Fellowship in Advanced Energy Storage/Flywheels supported by
`Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
`9.
`I am currently Vice President for Innovation & Engineering at
`Chart, Inc. I am responsible for leading development, delivery to the
`market, and sustaining engineering of diverse biomedical products.
`10. Since at least 1985, I have been an active inventor and engineer
`in the window coverings industry, associated with Comfortex Window
`Fashions (“Comfortex”) and for many years have served as Director of
`Research and Development for Comfortex. During my tenure there, I have
`
` - 2 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`provided guidance and support for product development, including the
`invention of
`the double-depth cellular window coverings and key
`manufacturing equipment that formed the basis for the creation of
`Comfortex as a manufacturing concern. I also have consulted as an expert
`witness, including providing a patent infringement analysis in the field of
`window coverings. Since at least 1987, I have led the technical development
`of primary products, including but not limited to, equipment used for double
`cell and 3-D fabric venetian window shade products and their manufacture
`including, but not limited to, the world’s fastest and widest pleater, a unique
`helical textile lap-laminator, integration of a unique 2-sided, registered
`printing line, and certain curing systems.
`11.
`I am a named inventor on 57 U.S. Patents, many of which relate
`to window coverings. These patent numbers and titles are listed on my
`Curriculum Vitae.
`12.
`I am being compensated at a rate of $225 per hour plus
`reimbursement for usual business expenses, which is my standard and
`customary practice. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of
`this matter.
`13. During the past four (4) years, I have provided expert testimony
`or reports in the following cases: Judkins v. HT Window Fashion Corp.,
`
` - 3 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`Case No. 2:07-cv-00251-GLL, United States District Court, Western District
`of Pennsylvania; Norman International, Inc. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc. et al.,
`IPR2014-00283, United States Patent & Trademark Office Patent Trial &
`Appeal Board.
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`14.
`In forming my opinions, I reviewed:
`• Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884
`B2 (the “Petition”) (Paper 1) and the following exhibits
`thereto:
`o Ex. 1003 U.S. Patent No. 3,327,765 (“Strahm”)
`o Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 2,390,826 (“Cohn”)
`o Exhibit 1009 Declaration of Lawrence E. Carlson in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,968,884B2;
`o Exhibit 1010 Declaration of Patrick E. Foley in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,968,884B2
`• Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response Under 37 CFR §
`42.107 to Petitioner for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,968,884 (Paper 6); and
`
` - 4 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`• Decision re Institution of Inter Partes Review pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108 (the “Decision”) (Paper 7).
`I intend to continue to review materials that may inform my
`15.
`opinions expressed in this Declaration. I reserve the right to amend or
`supplement this Declaration and to rely on additional materials and
`testimony brought to my attention during the course of this proceeding.
`IV.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`16. Based on the materials that I have reviewed, the analyses I have
`performed, the positions I have summarized within this report, and my
`personal experience, I have formed at least the opinions listed below.
`17. Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Claim 7 of the ‘884 Patent is invalid based on obviousness. I detail the
`support for my conclusion in the following paragraphs.
`V.
`UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`18. The paragraphs in this section represent my understanding of the
`applicable legal standards. Such understanding is premised entirely on
`direction provided by Patent Owner’s counsel, and does not reflect any
`independent assessment by me of the relevant legal standards.
`
`
`
` - 5 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`A. Obviousness
`19.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid for obviousness only
`if the invention described in the claim would have been obvious to a person
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. I understand
`that the fundamental question in an obviousness analysis is whether the
`claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`the art, taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, (3) the
`level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any objective considerations of
`non-obviousness, including commercial success of products or processes
`using the invention, long felt need for the invention, failure of others to
`make the invention, industry acceptance of the invention, and copying of the
`invention by others.
`20.
`I further understand that multiple references can be combined
`with one another, or with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, to render a claim obvious. However, obviousness is not established
`simply because all of the elements of a patent claim can be found in the
`prior art. There must be a reason that would have prompted a person of
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
`claimed new invention does.
`
` - 6 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`In addition, I understand that obviousness of a patent cannot
`21.
`properly be established through hindsight, and that elements from different
`prior art references, or different embodiments of a single prior art
`reference, cannot be selected to create the claimed invention using the
`invention itself as a roadmap. The claimed invention as a whole must be
`compared to the prior art as a whole, and courts must avoid aggregating
`pieces of prior art through hindsight, which would not have been combined
`absent the inventor’s insight.
`22.
`I understand that in an inter partes review, a claim of
`unpatentability based on alleged obviousness must be proved by a
`preponderance of the evidence.
`B. Claim Construction
`23.
`I understand that the Petitioner has proposed a construction for a
`single claim term.1
`24.
`I understand that in an inter partes review, claim terms are
`construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent
`with the specification. I further understand, however, that absent express
`indication that a claim term has special meaning or definition set forth in the
`
`
`1 See Paper 1 at 11-12.
`
` - 7 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`specification, claim terms are presumed to take on their plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`VI.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`25.
`I understand that certain issues in the inter partes review involve
`the concept of a “person of ordinary skill in the art.” I also understand that
`the following appears in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Manual of
`Patent Examining Procedure at Section 2141.00:
`The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person
`who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining
`the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) “type of
`problems encountered in the art;” (2) “prior art solutions to
`those problems;” (3) “rapidity with which innovations are
`made;” (4) “sophistication of the technology;” and (5)
`“educational level of active workers in the field.” In re
`GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “In a given
`case, every factor may not be present, and one or more
`factors may predominate.” Id. See also Custom Accessories,
`Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indust., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983).
`
` - 8 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`It is my opinion that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`26.
`time of the invention for the ‘884 Patent would possess at least three (3)
`years of experience in the window covering industry, and more specifically,
`in the development of “hard” window coverings and their components.
`Hard window coverings refer to window covering products other than the
`traditional drapes and curtains, including such hybrids of these, all typically
`manufactured in factories, whereas “soft” window coverings are typically
`sewn in workrooms. The components of hard window coverings are metal
`and molded plastic parts, including rails, caps, handles, pulleys, cords, and
`the like.
`27. Typically, but not necessarily, an ordinary artisan also would
`have two to four years of basic engineering knowledge, whether acquired
`through formal education or relevant industry experience.
`28. Given my long history in the window covering industry, I have
`significant experience with “hard” window treatment components. I also
`am familiar with
`the basic engineering principles associated with
`development of window coverings. I have directly participated in both
`assembly and development of many types of window coverings.
`29. Based on my knowledge and experience, I understand what a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and expected at the
`
` - 9 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`time of the invention and development of the ‘884 Patent, and my comments
`and opinions set forth in this Declaration are provided from the perspective
`of such a person having at least ordinary skill in the art.
`VII.
`OVERVIEW OF
`THE
`‘884
`PATENT/TECHNOLOGY
`BACKGROUND
`30. The invention of the ‘884 Patent relates to a transport system for
`opening and closing cordless window cover systems.
`31. Not long ago, many in the industry became interested in
`developing blinds that did not have exposed cords. The impetus for this was
`the increased recognition of safety concerns for children by U.S. government
`agencies and industry organizations, though other factors (such as aesthetic
`concerns) also exist.
`32. The ‘884 Patent describes a novel and nonobvious solution to
`difficulties prior attempted cordless systems failed to address. As noted in
`the background section of the ‘884 Patent, the mechanisms utilized in
`previous cordless blind systems left much to be desired. For example, blinds
`using “lift cord” and “ladder types” to achieve a cordless product require
`minimum and maximum force to raise or lower the blind precisely when the
`opposite is desired. Exhibit 1001 at 1:45–2:5. Cordless blinds of the prior
`art required complicated mechanisms to achieve their purpose, and such
`blinds had to be customized not only at the design stage, but the construction
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
` - 10 -
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`(fabrication) stage, and sometimes further adjusted at installation as well, to
`ensure that the mechanisms worked together properly. Id. at 2:59–3:7.
`33. The
`invention of
`the
`‘884 Patent addresses
`several
`shortcomings of cordless blinds attempted in the prior art. One of its
`primary features is that it discloses a modular system, where components are
`housed individually rather than being interconnected in a single system.
`This feature achieves many purposes, including removing the necessity of a
`customized installation, allowing the system to be modified more easily to
`accommodate a wide variety of blinds, and minimizing the cost and effort of
`replacing parts or generally maintaining the blind. See id. at 3:10–55.
`34. The ‘884 Patent also addresses the issue of variable force
`depending on the position of the blinds. As the specification states, “[t]he
`force required to raise the blind varies directly and approximately linearly
`with the raising of the blind, increasing from a minimum when the blind is
`fully lowered to a maximum when the blind is fully raised.” Id. at 1:59-62.
`However, prior art systems “provide[d] the strongest force when the blind is
`down, which is when the least force is required to assist in lifting the blind.”
`Id. at 2:3-5. To overcome this problem, ‘884 Patent thus teaches a modular
`blind system in which “the proper amount of force is provided at all
`
` - 11 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`positions of the blind,” i.e., the force varies depending on the position of the
`blind. See id. at 5:6-24.
`VIII.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`35. My opinions concerning the proper construction of the disputed
`claim term in the ‘884 Patent are set forth below. I disagree with
`Petitioner’s claim construction concerning the single disputed term, and
`further disagree that the identified claim term requires any special
`construction.
`A.
`“one-way friction brake”
`36.
`I do not believe that the term “one-way friction brake” as used in
`Claim 7 requires formal construction. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`and a layperson would understand the meaning of this term without any
`express construction by the Board.
`37.
`I disagree with Petitioner’s construction of the claim term “one-
`way friction brake” as meaning “a mechanism that applies a frictional
`braking force against a rotational motion of a rotating output in one
`rotational direction and insubstantial frictional braking force in the other
`rotational direction.” This proposed construction does nothing to clarify the
`meaning of “one-way friction brake” to one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the ‘884 Patent. Instead, it injects needless, redundant verbiage
`
` - 12 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`(such as “rotational motion of a rotating output in one rotational direction”)
`and ambiguous terminology (such as “insubstantial frictional braking
`force”). Further, the use of “frictional braking force” in Petitioner’s
`proposed construction is circular given that the claim term itself includes the
`term “friction brake.”
`38. Contrary to Petitioner’s proposed construction, the term “one-
`way friction brake” is clear on its face, and no clarity is added by
`Petitioner’s confusing definition.
`IX.
`GROUND 6
`39.
`I understand that the Petition alleges that it would have been
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the blind system
`of Cohn with the braking mechanism of Strahm. I disagree.
`A. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Have
`Combined Cohn and Strahm To Arrive at the Invention in
`Claim 7.
`I disagree with Petitioner’s allegation that Claim 7 is obvious in
`40.
`view of Cohn and Strahm. I make that conclusion because, to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, there is no reason to combine Cohn and Strahm.
`41. The Petition fails to articulate, explicitly or otherwise, any
`rational reason that would convince a person of ordinary skill in the art why
`one of ordinary skill would (or should) combine Cohn and Strahm in the
`
` - 13 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`manner described in Claim 7. The Petition merely alleges that each
`limitation is found in either Cohn or Strahm, and then concludes that “the
`combination of Cohn and Strahm teaches each feature recited in Claim 7 and
`renders the subject matter of Claim 7 as a whole obvious and unpatentable.”
`Paper 1 at 59. The Petitioner thus concludes, without any reasoning, what it
`is Petitioner’s burden to prove: why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would, in fact, be motivated to combine these references. The fact is that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine these
`references.
`42. For example, Cohn does not disclose a “one-way friction brake,”
`and Petitioner does not argue that it does. Instead, Cohn states in vague
`terms that “[t]he blind may be stopped and maintained at any desired height
`relative to the window casing by suitable means.” Paper 1 at 58. But Cohn
`does not state that a one-way friction brake is a “suitable means,” or provide
`any explanation as to what constitutes a “suitable means.”
`43. Petitioner asserts that the braking mechanism in Strahm is a
`“one-way friction brake.” As characterized by Petitioner, the Strahm brake
`“has conical washers 33 and 36 that contact wall 34 when sleeve 32 is
`rotated, thus forming a friction brake. The ‘hand’ (direction of winding) of
`spring 21 which contacts sleeve 19 allows rotation in one direction but not
`
` - 14 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`the other.” Paper 1 at 27. According to Petitioner, “[t]his combination
`creates a one-way friction brake.” Paper 1 at 27.
`44. While Strahm may disclose a braking mechanism, Petitioner
`offers no factual explanation how any of the Strahm brake components
`(including a wall, a sleeve, and a spring—all of which must operate in
`conjunction with the rotation of the shaft to create the described brake)
`would be incorporated into the Cohn assembly. The conclusory “suitable
`means” language in Cohn upon which Petitioner relies provides no
`instructions whatsoever as to how a complicated, multi-component braking
`mechanism such as the mechanism described in Strahm could be integrated
`into the disclosure of Cohn, or why such a complex mechanism would be
`“suitable” given the disclosure of Cohn. Thus, the “suitable means”
`statement in Cohn would not have suggested the braking mechanism of
`Strahm to one of ordinary skill in the art; quite the contrary.
`45. Furthermore, the brake in Strahm is not a “suitable means” for
`stopping and maintaining the blind “at any desired height” at all. Paper 1 at
`53. The reason is that Strahm does not explicitly describe using its multi-
`component brake mechanism to hold the blind at a specific height. On the
`contrary, Strahm teaches away from that function. The Strahm brake
`“operates to brake the rate of descent of the blind, so that it can be lowered
`
` - 15 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`in a controlled manner.” Exhibit 1003 at 1:30–32 (emphasis added). The
`brake described in Strahm does not stop or maintain the blind at a desired
`height, but merely slows the descent of the blind to a controlled manner.
`46. This is a critical distinction that would provide additional
`reasons against combining Strahm with Cohn. Controlling the rate of
`descent of the blind is not the same as holding the descent at zero. Cohn
`suggests adding a discrete mechanism to stop the blind in position when
`desired. Strahm teaches slowing the descent in a controlled manner using a
`multi-component system. These two approaches are incompatible; they
`approach being mutually exclusive. Strahm offers a limiter that specifically
`allows descent, albeit without rapid and potentially harmful dropping. This
`function does not serve the holding purpose required in Cohn nor the further
`refined holding disclosed in ‘884 Patent, which adapts the holding function
`to balance the changing load as a function of the blinds height (degree of
`raised or lowered level). Importantly, their combination would not occur to
`a person of ordinary skill in the art because of this incompatibility.
`B. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness
`47.
`I understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-
`obviousness must be considered as part of any obviousness determination.
`
` - 16 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`Long Felt But Unsolved Need
`1.
`I understand
`that one secondary consideration of non-
`48.
`obviousness is long felt but unsolved need.
`49. Petitioner’s primary reference, Cohn, dates back to 1945.
`50. Petitioner’s additional reference, Strahm, dates back to 1967.
`51.
`I understand that the length of intervening time between the
`publication dates of the prior art cited for obviousness and the claimed
`invention can qualify as an objective indicator of non-obviousness.
`52. Thus, the time period of over 30 years between Strahm and the
`‘884 Patent is an objective indicator that Claim 7 is not obvious.
`II.
`CONCLUSION
`53.
`I reserve the right to add to or modify this declaration in the
`event that inaccuracies or omissions are discovered or if new or additional
`information is provided to me. I also reserve the right to make any such
`other changes as may be deemed necessary or appropriate.
`The contents of this declaration are true under penalty of perjury of the laws
`of the United States.
`Executed May 4, 2015 in Troy, New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John A. Corey, P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
` - 17 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`JOHN A. COREY, P.E.
`
`
`
`
`RELATIONSHIPS TO ANY PARITES
`Since 2000, Comfortex has been owned by HunterDouglas, and I have consulted
`with Comfortex on new product development throughout that period.
`Comfortex paid me royalties on an invention. I have also provided expert
`witness testimony in other cases in which HunterDouglas was a participant. I
`have had no other relationships with the parties in the past four years (2011-
`present).
`
`RECENT CASES IN WHICH I HAVE TESTIFIED
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
`PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:07-cv-00251-GLL (2008-2009)
`
`REN JUDKINS, an individual, Plaintiff, :
`HT WINDOW FASHIONS CORP., a California corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`
`Others cases earlier or settled before testimony.
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`April 2011- Vice President for Innovation & Engineering, Chart, Inc.
`Present
`Responsible for leading and achieving agile new medical product
`development and delivery; combining refrigeration technology from CFIC
`(below), oxygen concentration technology (Chart San Diego & Buffalo, NY –
`formerly SeQual & AirSep Corporation, now subsidiary to Chart), and vacuum-
`insulated storage (Chart BioMedical and Distribution/Storage dvisions, Canton,
`Georgia) and managing projects and professional staff of 80+ (including
`approximately 40 engineers and scientists) in those locations; and reporting to
`the BioMedical Division president. BioMedical Dvision provides approximately
`one quarter of $1.2 Billion annual Chart revenue (2014).
`
`April 1989- President & Senior Fellow,
`March 2011 Clever Fellows Innovation Consortium, Inc. (CFIC-Qdrive)
`
`Owner/operator of firm developing and producing proprietary
`resonant energy conversion machinery. Managing development of advanced
`STAR resonant linear drivers (co-inventor) for applications in power generation,
`cooling, compression and refrigeration, in multiple sizes of 100 to 10,000 watts
`input. Arranged licenses for worldwide commercial manufacture and consultant
`in product design to companies developing energy-efficient products. Contracts
`included compressor development support for major refrigeration and air-
`conditioning system manufacturers, as well as cycle analysis and system design
`of regenerative cycle machinery for KUBOTA Corporation. Also directed
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`production of CFIC-Qdrive’s commercial products, providing technical support
`for new models of Qdrive™ thermoacoustic cryocoolers and liquefiers.
`In contract engineering service, led multiple product development
`projects, including: automatic load-and-align sheet picker for die-cutting press;
`ankle joint rehabilitation device; high-speed counter-batcher for postage stamp
`coils; and automatic welding equipment for assembly of all-polymer filter
`casings. Served as principal investigator in US DOE funded research on
`Ericsson-cycle refrigeration and NASA-funded development of high-power
`reciprocating alternators.
`
`June 1987- Part-Owner (to 2000) & Director of R&D (consultant),
`Present
`Comfortex Corp., Maplewood, NY
`
`Led technical development of primary products from company
`inception to $100MM+/yr (2005, sold to industry leader). Successes include
`double-cell and 3-D 'fabric venetian' window shade products and their
`manufacture, including development of world's fastest & widest pleater and a
`unique helical textile lap-laminator, integration of unique 2-sided, registered
`printing line, and curing systems development. Provided guidance for
`subcontractors and establishment of permanent technical staff. Now part-time
`consulting, developing new products & next generation machines for this
`company.
`
`April 1985- Consulting Engineer, John A Corey, P.E., Melrose, NY
`Present
`Serving as Director of R&D for Comfortex Window Fashions:
`guiding and supporting product development and performance evaluation.
`Invented double-depth cellular window and key manufacturing equipment that
`became the basis for Comfortex Corporation. Providing expert witness services
`including infringement analysis in window treatment field.
`Providing technology evaluation to leading venture-capital firms in field relating
`to energy conversion and conservation. Provided advanced designs to
`nationally-known compressor (gas and A/C) manufacturer. Provided
`consulting and design services to companies worldwide developing advanced
`small-scale regenerative and fuel cell energy conversion devices.
`
`August 1980- Supervisor of Engine Design,
`June 1988 Mechanical Technology, Inc. Latham, NY
`
`Designer of Mod II automotive Stirling engine. Responsible for
`conceptual design, structural analysis, material and component specification.
`Supervised detail design and provided vendor technical interface during
`procurement and development. Led value engineering effort with team from
`John Deere, manufacturers. Designed resonant refrigerant compressor and high
`temperature heat exchanger/fired pressure vessels for MTI/Lennox gas-fired
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`heat pump. Devised innovative Stirling engines in configurations from 1kW to
`1000kW for clients and applications worldwide.
`
`1981-1984 Associate Professor (adjunct), Union College Schenectady, NY
`
`Developed & updated coursework, laboratory equipment and
`experimental procedures for courses in System Dynamics and Machine Design.
`Taught core courses in Dynamics and Systems/Controls at junior/senior level.
`
`EDUCATION
`1972-1980 Master of Science, Mechanical Engineering, 1980 Union College
`Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering, cum laude, 1980
`(Union)
`Minor in advanced mathematics. Graduate Research Fellowship in
`
`advanced energy storage/flywheels supported by Lawrence Livermore National
`Laboratory (full stipend)
`
`PATENTS, PUBLICATIONS, PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
`Prolific Inventor in Fields of Energy Conversion and Conservation; holder of
`multiple U.S. and foreign patents (with others pending). More than 50% of listed
`patents have been put to use in commercially-available products.
`
`US Patents (many with international equivalents, more in application stages):
`8,371,355 Window shade ass’y w/ re-channeling system & single seal strip of wrapping material
`D625,436 Seal Strip for Window Shades
`D625,435 Seal Strip for Window Shades
`7,800,497 Wireless Detection System
`7,628,022 Acoustic cooling device with coldhead and resonant driver separated
`7,311,132 Self-equalizing corded window covering and breakaway coupling member for same
`7,205,059 Methods and apparatuses for managing effluent products in a fuel cell system
`6,927,506 Low Loss Reciprocating Electromagnetic Device;
`6,908,701 Methods and apparatuses for managing effluent products in a fuel cell system;
`6,901,755 Piston position drift control for free-piston device;
`6,866,952 Apparatus and method for controlling undesired water & fuel transport in a fuel cell
`6,854,501 Multicellular window covering;
`6,841,900 Reciprocating Device and Linear Suspension;
`6,817,400 Method for manufacturing cells of a cellular window covering
`6,786,268 Actuator device for view through window covering
`6,739,136 Combustion system for hybrid solar fossil fuel receiver
`6,688,373 Architectural covering for windows
`6,672,186 Method of making a single-cell window covering
`6,634,409 Fabric venetian blind and method of fabrication
`6,632,553 Methods and apparatuses for managing effluent products in a fuel cell system
`6,604,363 Matching an Acoustic Driver to an Acoustic Load.;
`6,578,364 Mechanical Resonator & Method for Thermoacoustic Systems;
`6,575,222 Fabric venetian blind and method of fabrication
`6,564,552 Drift Stabilizer for Reciprocating Free-Piston Devices;
`6,492,748B1 Reciprocator and Linear Suspension Element Therefor ;
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2001
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`6,377,384 Fabric venetian blind and method of fabrication;
`6,353,987 Methods relating to constructing reciprocator assembly;
`6,302,982 Method of fabrication of fabric venetian blind;
`6,206,075 Cellular window covering having seamless cells and method for making same;
`6,048,298 Apparatus for forming spiral pleated filter cartridges;
`6,024,819 Fabric venetian blind and method of fabrication;
`6,006,812 Sheer support window covering;
`5,918,655 View-through cellular window covering;
`5,882,288 Apparatus and method for forming spiral pleated filter cartridges;
`5,389,844 STAR linear electrodynamic convertor (co-inventor);
`5,217,178 Roll-to-Roll Stamp Counter;
`5,193,601 Multi-cellular Collapsible Shade;
`5,156,196 Shade Positioning and Mounting Apparatus;
`5,135,461 Method & Apparatus for Creasing Web to Form a Multi-cellular Collapsible Shade;
`5,106,444 Method for Making a Multi-cellular Collapsible Shade;
`5,015,317 Method and apparatus for making a multi-cellular collapsible shade
`5,002,112 Suspension & Actuation Systems for Specialty Window Shades;
`4,984,617 Enveloped Blind Ass’y Using Independently-Actuated Slats in Cellular Structure;
`4.984,432 Ericsson Cycle Machine;
`4,958,496 Multi-Bottle, No Compressor, Mean Pressure Control System for a Stirling Engine;
`4,945,969 Method & Machinery for Making a Flawless Shade Product;
`4,934,434 Suspension & Actuation Systems for Specialty Window