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: To Be Assigned
`
`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
`
`
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 5
`A.
`Education and Work Experience .......................................................... 5
`B.
`Compensation ....................................................................................... 8
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ..................................... 8
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 9
`A.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 9
`B. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 9
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 10
`V.
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF CLAIMED SUBJECT
`MATTER OF THE 884 PATENT................................................................ 12
`A.
`Spring Motors ..................................................................................... 13
`B. One-Way Friction Brake .................................................................... 15
`C.
`Combinations of Design Components ............................................... 16
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 884 PATENT ........................................................... 17
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART ................................................. 20
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 21
`A.
`“System for Covering an Architectural Opening” ............................. 22
`B.
`“Covering” .......................................................................................... 23
`C.
`“Power Spool” .................................................................................... 23
`D.
`“Spring Motor” ................................................................................... 23
`E.
`“Rotating Output”............................................................................... 24
`F.
`“Lift Cord” ......................................................................................... 25
`G.
`“One-Way Friction Brake” ................................................................. 25
`H.
`“Transmission” ................................................................................... 28
`I.
`Other Terms ........................................................................................ 29
`X. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE 884 PATENT CLAIMS ........................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`Tachikawa In View Of Strahm ........................................................... 29
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Tachikawa And Strahm ........................ 29
`2.
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious By Tachikawa In View Of
`Strahm ...................................................................................... 36
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious By Tachikawa In View Of
`Strahm ...................................................................................... 42
`Tachikawa In View Of Strahm, And Further In View Of Toti .......... 44
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Tachikawa, Strahm, and Toti ............... 44
`2.
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious By Tachikawa In View Of
`Strahm And In Further View Of Toti ...................................... 48
`Tachikawa In View Of Skidmore And Further In View Of
`Schuetz ............................................................................................... 49
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Tachikawa, Skidmore, and Schuetz ..... 49
`2.
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious By Tachikawa In View Of
`Skidmore And In Further View Of Schuetz ............................ 53
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious By Tachikawa In View Of
`Skidmore And In Further View Of Schuetz ............................ 56
`Cohn In View Of Strahm And Further In View Of Todd .................. 59
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Cohn, Strahm, and Todd ...................... 59
`2.
`Claim 5 Is Rendered Obvious By Cohn In View Of
`Strahm And In Further View Of Todd ..................................... 62
`Cohn In View Of Strahm And Further In View Of Todd And
`Toti ..................................................................................................... 68
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Cohn, Strahm, Todd, And Toti ............. 68
`2.
`Claim 6 Is Rendered Obvious By Cohn In View Of
`Strahm And In Further View Of Todd And Toti ..................... 69
`Cohn In View Of Strahm ................................................................... 69
`1.
`Reasons To Combine Cohn And Strahm ................................. 69
`2.
`Claim 7 Is Rendered Obvious By Cohn In View Of
`Strahm ...................................................................................... 69
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`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”), and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,283,192
`
`B2 (“the 192 patent”), 6,648,050 B1 (“the 050 patent”) and 8,230,896 B2 (“the 896
`
`patent”) in connection with Norman’s petitions of inter partes review of those
`
`patents.
`
`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 date to which the 884 patent may claim priority—March 23, 1999.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`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
`
`supplement my opinions following further 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.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`6.
`
`The 884 patent describes a modular system of components to retract
`
`and extend a window covering. I have been asked by Norman’s counsel to analyze
`
`claims 5-7 of the 884 patent, out of a total of 14 claims issued by the Patent Office.
`
`Claims 5-7 recite systems for covering an architectural opening, including a spring
`
`motor, a transmission, and a one-way friction brake.
`
`7.
`
`Based on my review of the evidence and facts, 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.
`
`8.
`
`Specifically, 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 the window
`
`- 2 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`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.”
`
`9.
`
`The prior art references cited below disclose the spring motor,
`
`transmission, and one-way friction brake, among other claimed elements in claims
`
`5-7, either individually or in combination.
`
`10. As described in further detail below, it is my opinion that claims 5 and
`
`7 are rendered obvious by Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication
`
`- 3 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`S54-38648 (“Tachikawa”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,327,765 (“Strahm”). It is
`
`further my opinion that claim 6 is rendered obvious by Tachikawa in view of
`
`Strahm, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,293,329 (“Toti”).
`
`11. Also, as described in further detail below, it is my opinion that claims
`
`5 and 7 are rendered obvious by Tachikawa in view of G.B. Patent No. 1,174,127
`
`(“Skidmore”) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,870,532 (“Schuetz”).
`
`12. Also, as described in further detail below, it is my opinion that claim 5
`
`is rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 2,390,826 (“Cohn”) in view of Strahm, and
`
`further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,056,036 (“Todd”). It is further my opinion
`
`that claim 6 is rendered obvious by Cohn in view of Strahm, and further in view of
`
`Todd and U.S. Patent No. 6,293,329 (“Toti”).
`
`13. Also, as described in further detail below, it is my opinion that claim 7
`
`is rendered obvious by Cohn in view of Strahm.
`
`14. For purpose of my analysis in this declaration only and based on the
`
`disclosure and file history of the 884 patent, and under the Patent Office’s standard
`
`of “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent” to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, I provide my proposed construction of certain terms
`
`in claims 5-7 in a later part of this declaration.
`
`- 4 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`15. 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
`16.
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`I have spent nearly 40 years educating engineering students on
`
`mechanical and component design, primarily 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 from 1971 to 1974.
`
`18.
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`for my work at the University of Colorado, including the Bernard M. Gordon Prize
`
`for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education from the National
`
`Academy of Engineering in 2008. A copy of my CV is included in Attachment A.
`
`19. As a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, I regularly taught
`
`mechanical design courses at the University of Colorado beginning in 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 many types of mechanical
`
`systems. I have also reviewed several textbooks relating to component design
`
`during the course of my career.
`
`20.
`
` In addition to my extensive teaching experience, I also have more
`
`than 40 years of practical experience in mechanical design and research in
`
`numerous fields, including rehabilitation engineering, upper-limb prosthetics,
`
`consumer products, sculptures, and products to help developing countries. This
`
`includes the supervision of undergraduate and graduate research projects, most of
`
`which involved hands-on mechanical design in countless areas, including
`
`- 6 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`interactive learning exhibits, sporting equipment, and consumer products. My
`
`personal design efforts include a turbine-based flowmeter, a human-powered water
`
`pump, and a counterbalance mechanism for a computer monitor that allows it to
`
`float in space. I have had a supervisory and collaborative role in many other
`
`mechanisms, including a patented releasable ski binding, an improved spring-
`
`loaded rock climbing cam, and an automatic drywall screw gun. Many of these
`
`designs and design tests have been described in two dozen of my publications,
`
`which are listed in my CV (Attachment A).
`
`21. For my doctoral research project, I designed, built, and tested a
`
`pneumatically-powered above-elbow prosthesis. This complex mechanical design
`
`utilized a variety of relevant mechanical components including bevel and spur
`
`gears, springs, cams, shafts, a clutch, pulleys, pneumatic cylinders, and other
`
`components to coordinate wrist and elbow rotation in various directions.
`
`22.
`
`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)
`
`- 7 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`Patent No. 8,560,031 issued October 15, 2013, entitled “Extending socket for
`
`portable media player.”
`
`23. A true and accurate copy of my CV is included in Attachment A,
`
`which will supplement the additional details about my education and experience
`
`above.
`
`B. Compensation
`24.
`
`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
`
`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
`25. The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`
`declaration are the 884 patent, the prosecution history for 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. I 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
`
`potential priority date of the claimed subject matter in the 884 patent—March 23,
`
`1999.
`
`- 8 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`26. 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 of the claim language, and that any term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is also given a reasonably broad interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`27. Norman’s counsel has advised that obviousness under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013 is a basis for invalidity. 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. I understand that obviousness can
`
`be based on a single prior art reference or a combination of references that either
`
`expressly or inherently discloses all limitations of the claimed invention.
`
`28. Norman’s counsel has explained that prior art needs to be either (a) in
`
`the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different
`
`- 9 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`problem than the claimed invention, or (b) reasonably pertinent to the problem
`
`faced by the inventor, even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`
`invention. I understand that prior art is reasonably pertinent to the problem when it
`
`would have logically presented itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the
`
`problem. Norman’s counsel has also explained that in a simple mechanical
`
`invention, a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored, and it is reasonable to
`
`inquire into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that
`
`similar problems exist, including where other areas have inventions with similar
`
`structure and function.
`
`29. Norman’s counsel has also explained that a conclusion of obviousness
`
`can be supported by a number of reasons. Obviousness can be based on
`
`inferences, creative steps, and even routine steps and ordinary ingenuity that an
`
`inventor would employ. A conclusion of obviousness can be supported by
`
`combining or substituting known elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results, or by using known techniques to improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, or by trying predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success, among other reasons.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`30.
`
`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
`
`- 10 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`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.
`
`31. 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, one-way braking mechanisms,
`
`and friction brakes.
`
`32. The technical problems encountered in these types of systems, and
`
`specifically the use of spring motors and friction brakes in systems for covering an
`
`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, one-way friction brakes, lift cords,
`
`and transmissions—are basic design components that have been in use long before
`
`the earliest potential priority date of the 884 patent, which is March 23, 1999.
`
`- 11 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`33. Of note, the 884 patent’s recitation of a one-way friction brake in the
`
`claims is a restatement of what the 884 patent actually discloses. The 884 patent
`
`instead describes and schematically illustrates a one-way clutch mechanism that is
`
`in series with a friction brake mechanism,and terms this combination as a one-way
`
`friction brake module (e.g., variable or manually adjustable).
`
`34. 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 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.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF CLAIMED SUBJECT
`MATTER OF THE 884 PATENT
`35. Technology related to window covers—including spring motors and
`
`friction brakes for window covers— involves basic mechanical design
`
`components. The components disclosed in the 884 patent, including spring
`
`motors, one-way friction brakes, lift cords, and transmissions, have been well
`
`known individually and in various combinations long before the 884 patent was
`
`filed.
`
`- 12 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`A. Spring Motors
`36. 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.
`
`Mechanical springs are used in machines to exert force, to provide flexibility, and
`
`to store or absorb energy. 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. Flat springs include, for example,
`
`cantilever springs, elliptical springs, wound motor- or clock-type power springs,
`
`and Belleville springs. Attachment B to this declaration is a true and accurate copy
`
`of a chapter entitled “Mechanical Springs” from a mechanical engineering
`
`textbook that I regularly required when I taught the junior-level Component Design
`
`course, which is required of all mechanical engineering students. It was published
`
`prior to the relevant priority date and provides additional background information
`
`on springs known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`37. The particular spring disclosed in the 884 patent is termed a “coiled
`
`spring” or “coil spring.” The term “coiled spring” or “coil spring” more
`
`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.”
`
`- 13 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`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. (Attachment B at 443.) The unique characteristic of
`
`this type of spring is that the force exerted 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. It is also the term used
`
`by manufacturers who produce and sell this type of spring. A common example of
`
`this type of spring is the tape measure.
`
`38. Many springs, such as the helical extension spring used to close
`
`screen doors, have a positive spring rate; i.e., the force increases linearly with
`
`deflection. Constant-force springs, on the other hand, generally have a 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 deflection. (See, e.g., Attachment B at 443.) Based on
`
`my experience as an educator in mechanical design, this is all basic knowledge that
`
`has been taught to engineering students for decades and is widely available in
`
`- 14 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`textbooks like Mechanical Engineering Design. This is also consistent with the
`
`884 patent, which discloses that the spring motor is “preferably” a “constant force”
`
`motor. (884 patent, 5:5-16.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`knowledgeable about this known element.
`
`39. When a constant-force spring is mounted on two drums, 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. For example, Attachment C to this
`
`declaration is a true and accurate copy of a chapter entitled “Springs” from a
`
`mechanical engineering reference text published prior to the relevant priority date.
`
`(Shigley, J. & C. Mischke, Standard Handbook of Machine Design (1986) in
`
`Attachment C.) This text provides design formulas and suggestions for constant-
`
`force spring motors. (See, e.g., id. at 24-10 - 20-10-4.)
`
`B. One-Way Friction Brake
`40. 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
`
`- 15 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`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”.
`
`41. 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
`
`priority date of the 884 patent.
`
`C. Combinations of Design Components
`42. All engineers, including mechanical engineers, are taught the design
`
`process, which is a general method for solving a wide variety of problems ranging
`
`from dams to electronic circuits to mechanical devices. Once functional design
`
`requirements have been specified, students are taught to generate as many alternate
`
`design concepts as possible for each component of the system, and to explore
`
`various combinations of the individual elements. For most basic and ordinary
`
`mechanical designs, such as the designs in the 884 patent, individual elements are
`
`chosen from a finite group of ordinary components and predictable solutions
`
`- 16 -
`
`Norman Int. Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884 B2
`
`(across a range of mechanical applications), and combinations and arrangements
`
`are chosen with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`43. A person of ordinary skill in the art of mechanical design would be
`
`educated and experienced in the various advantages and disadvantages of
`
`combining mechanical design components, such as spring motors, friction brakes,
`
`lift cords, and transmissions. For example, Mechanical Engineering Design (1985)
`
`is a widely known and respected textbook from which I taught engineering
`
`students about mechanical design. This textbook is a revised version of the same
`
`text I studied as an undergraduate in the 1960’s. The textbook specifically
`
`addresses constant-force springs (Chapter 10), gear transmissions (Chapter 13),
`
`and bevel gears (Chapter 15) for purposes of mechanical design.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 884 PATENT
`44. The 884 patent is directed to several indivi