UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`CASE: IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE OF MAY 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`CASE: IPR2014-01175
`Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE OF MAY 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 3
`A.
`Education and Work Experience .......................................................... 3
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 4
`V.
`CLAIM 7 IS INVALID AS OBVIOUS OVER COHN IN VIEW OF
`STRAHM ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Lawrence E. Carlson, and I am a Professor Emeritus of
`
`Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I am also an
`
`independent consultant on various matters involving mechanical engineering.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Norman International, Inc. (“Petitioner”) to
`
`investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884
`
`entitled “MODULAR TRANSPORT SYSTEM FOR COVERINGS FOR
`
`ARCHITECTURAL OPENINGS” (“884 patent”).
`
`3. My previous declaration in this inter partes review dated July 16,
`
`2014, at Exhibit 1009 (my “2014 Declaration”) provides helpful explanation of my
`
`credentials and experience, the relevant technology, and my opinions with respect
`
`to the 884 patent.
`
`4.
`
`In this declaration, I will address only those issues necessary to reply
`
`to and rebut arguments or issues newly raised in Patent Owner’s Response filed on
`
`May 4, 2015 (Paper 9) (“Response”), and the Expert Declaration of John A. Corey,
`
`P.E. (Exhibit 2001) (“Corey Declaration”) in support thereof.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me,
`
`including the 884 patent, the prior art references and information discussed in this
`
`declaration and my previous declaration, other references specifically identified in
`
`this declaration and my previous declaration, and the Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`filed May 4, 2015, including the Declaration of John A. Corey and all other
`
`exhibits. I also rely upon my own experience and expertise in the relevant
`
`technologies and systems. If additional information becomes available, I reserve
`
`the right to continue my investigation and study.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`6.
`
`For the purpose of this Declaration, I have been asked by Petitioner’s
`
`counsel to provide facts and my opinions in response to specific arguments and
`
`evidence raised by Patent Owner in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`7.
`
`In my opinion, experience with so-called “hard” window coverings is
`
`not necessary to qualify a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such window
`
`coverings are combinations of basic, well-known mechanical components, which
`
`are found in typical undergraduate mechanical engineering curricula.
`
`8.
`
`In my opinion, claim 7 is invalid as obvious over Cohn (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 2,390,826) (Ex. 1006) in view of Strahm (U.S. Patent No. 3,327,765) (Ex.
`
`1003).
`
`9.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention claimed in claim 7 of the 884 patent would recognize that Strahm teaches
`
`a suitable means to stop and maintain the height of the window covering in Cohn,
`
`and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the mechanical knowledge
`
`to implement the brake of Strahm in the system of Cohn.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`10. Further, I find nothing so complex in either Cohn or Strahm as to
`
`render the technologies disclosed therein incompatible, nor do I find that either of
`
`those references would have taught away from the combination for the purpose of
`
`claim 7.
`
`11.
`
`I agree with the PTAB’s conclusion that the disclosures of Cohn and
`
`Strahm “provide sufficient support for Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have considered Strahm’s friction brake a suitable means for
`
`stopping and maintaining Cohn’s venetian blind” and that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have “found implementation of Strahm’s friction brake in Cohn’s
`
`device to be nothing more than a predictable variation of Cohn’s pawl stops 43.”
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`A. Education and Work Experience
`12. A more detailed explanation of my educational and work credentials
`
`is provided in Paragraphs 16 through 23 of my 2014 Declaration in Exhibit 1009
`
`and in my CV, which was included in Attachment A to Exhibit 1009. But to
`
`highlight a few key qualifications, I received a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1967. I also received
`
`a Master’s degree (M.S.) and a Doctorate degree (D.Eng.) in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1968 and 1971,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`13.
`
`I spent nearly 40 years educating engineering students about
`
`mechanical design. As a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, I regularly taught
`
`mechanical design courses at the University of Colorado beginning in 1974,
`
`including Component Design, Design for Manufacturability, Invention and
`
`Innovation, and hands-on mechanical design project courses at the undergraduate
`
`and graduate levels. It was my responsibility to teach engineering students how to
`
`describe and apply fundamental machine elements to many types of mechanical
`
`systems. I also reviewed several textbooks relating to component design.
`
`14.
`
`In short, I spent my career educating engineering students about
`
`fundamental design components and how to design mechanical systems utilizing
`
`these components. The arrangement claimed in claim 7 of the 884 patent is an
`
`example of a simple mechanical system utilizing basic design components, such as
`
`a basic spring motor and a basic one-way friction brake.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`15. Mr. Corey argued in his declaration “that the person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the 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.” (Exhibit 2001 at ¶ 26.) I disagree.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`16. The 884 patent does not disclose or claim particularly sophisticated or
`
`complex mechanical components, and I do not believe that experience specific to
`
`development of so-called “hard” window coverings and their components would
`
`be necessary to understand these basic mechanical elements, which are taught to
`
`undergraduate mechanical engineering students. Any accredited mechanical
`
`engineering program in the United States teaches these basic mechanical elements,
`
`and anyone trained in mechanical arts would understand and use various
`
`interchangeable combinations of these elements for a given design problem.
`
`17.
`
`In any event, the components Mr. Corey refers to in his declaration,
`
`such as “metal and molded plastic parts, including rails, caps, handles, pulleys,
`
`cords, and the like” are not unusual, and represent some of the very components
`
`that would have been known to those trained in the mechanical arts. (Exhibit 2001,
`
`¶26).
`
`V. CLAIM 7 IS INVALID AS OBVIOUS OVER COHN IN VIEW OF
`STRAHM
`18.
`
`In Patent Owner’s Response filed on May 4, 2015, Patent Owner
`
`contended with respect to Cohn and Strahm that “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not have known to combine the two sets of teachings.” (Paper 9, pg. 22).
`
`For example, Patent Owner argued that the language in Cohn stating that “[t]he
`
`blind may be stopped and maintained at any desired height…by suitable means”
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`provides no instructions for integrating the mechanism described in Strahm into the
`
`disclosure of Cohn. (See Paper 9, pg. 21; Ex. 1006, pg. 3, right col., lines 1-4). I
`
`disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments.
`
`19. Based on the teachings of Cohn and Strahm, I opined in my 2014
`
`Declaration that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to integrate
`
`Strahm’s mechanism into Cohn’s design and how to do so. See Exhibit 1009,
`
`¶¶139-142 and ¶164 where I explained in detail why the teachings in Cohn and
`
`Strahm would cause a person of ordinary skill in the art combine them.
`
`20.
`
`I explained that the disclosures of Cohn and Strahm are in the same
`
`technical field of window blinds and shades of the 884 patent. I also explained that
`
`Cohn and Strahm relate to mechanisms that extend and retract a window covering.
`
`Id. ¶¶139-141 and ¶164.
`
`21.
`
`In my 2014 Declaration, I further explained that the technology
`
`disclosed in Cohn and Strahm addresses the same technical challenges of
`
`controlling the rotation of a rotating shaft that raises and lowers a window covering
`
`(e.g., a blind or shade) so that the window covering can be reliably raised and
`
`lowered by a user to remain in the intended position. Cohn and Strahm employ
`
`comparable and commonly known mechanical components and mechanisms that
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`could have been easily combined or interchanged by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the 884 patent. Id. ¶142.
`
`22.
`
`In further response to Patent Owner’s arguments in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, there are additional reasons for combining Cohn and Strahm in the way
`
`presented in the Petition. Specifically, Cohn’s blind is raised and lowered using a
`
`horizontal, rotatable shaft coupled to a lifting mechanism including a spring motor.
`
`(Ex. 1009, ¶141; Ex. 1006, p. 1, right column, lines 27-36, p. 2, left column, lines
`
`8-11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a horizontal,
`
`rotatable shaft – including the shaft disclosed in Cohn – could be slowed or
`
`stopped using some form of braking mechanism. (See Exhibit 1009, ¶¶141, 171).
`
`And that is precisely what Cohn suggests: that any “suitable means” may be used
`
`to stop and maintain the height of the blind. (Ex. 1006, pg. 3, right column, lines
`
`1-3; Ex. 1009, ¶¶141, 171; Paper 1, p. 58).
`
`23. Cohn’s choice of “suitable means” was a set of centrifugal pawl stops
`
`that allowed rotation of the shaft when they were released, but one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that there were a multitude of suitable brakes that
`
`could be employed to limit or control rotation of the shaft in Cohn. (Ex. 1006, pg.
`
`3, right column, lines 1-24, Fig. 11; Paper 7, pgs. 2, 20-21). Cohn does not limit
`
`the braking mechanism to pawl stops. And a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`would have the basic mechanical understanding to try some suitable brake
`
`configuration and would understand how to implement it.
`
`24. As would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time, one example brake configuration would have been a one-way friction
`
`brake (as taught by Strahm). A one-way friction brake is a mechanical device that
`
`resists rotation in one direction (either slowing or stopping it), while more easily
`
`allowing rotation in the other direction. (Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 47-48). A typical way to
`
`achieve this function is with two components: a one-way clutch coupled to a bi-
`
`directional friction brake. (Id.). Strahm provided an example of this kind of one-
`
`way friction brake. And it is functionally identical to the one-way friction brake in
`
`the 884 patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 33, 84, 100, 101, 110, 112, 157).
`
`25.
`
`I agree with the Board’s conclusion that the disclosures of Cohn and
`
`Strahm “provide sufficient support for Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have considered Strahm’s friction brake a suitable means for
`
`stopping and maintaining Cohn’s venetian blind” and that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have “found implementation of Strahm’s friction brake in Cohn’s
`
`device to be nothing more than a predictable variation of Cohn’s pawl stops 43.”
`
`(Paper 7, pg. 20).
`
`26. Specifically, Strahm disclosed what is sometimes called a wrap spring
`
`clutch to provide the one-way rotation aspect of a one-way friction brake. (See,
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`e.g., Ex. 1009, ¶¶110). In Strahm, springs 21 and/or 30 have directions of winding
`
`(called “hand”) that allow rotation in one direction but not the other. (See Ex.
`
`1003, col. 2, lines 45-53 (“The hand of winding of the spring 21 is such that the
`
`same tightens and clamps the sleeve 19 and gear 18 when the sleeve 19 rotates to
`
`the hand corresponding to a raising of the blind…; when the spring 21 opens, it can
`
`slip as the sleeve 19 is driven in the opposite direction … corresponding to a
`
`lowering of the blind”); Id., col. 3, lines 25-32 (“The spring 30 forms a one-way
`
`coupling between the sleeves 19 and 32 and is wound in a sense such that there is a
`
`rigid connection between the sleeves 32 and 19 when the sleeve 19
`
`rotates…corresponding to a lowering of the blind, whereas the coupling slips when
`
`the sleeve 19 rotates…corresponding to the blind being raised.”); Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 83,
`
`100-101, 110, 141, 157, 171). The springs 21 and/or 30 engage when lowering the
`
`blind, and slip when the blind is raised.
`
`27. The friction brake aspect of Strahm arises from conical washers 33
`
`and 36 that frictionally engage the wall 34 when the sleeve 32 is rotated. (Ex.
`
`1003, col. 3, lines 15-25 (“The sleeve 32 has a shoulder 32’ and two conical
`
`washers or the like 33 are axially clamped between the shoulder 32’ and the left-
`
`hand surface of a transverse wall 34…. A screwthreaded ring 35 screwed on the
`
`sleeve 32 forms a shoulder for two conical washers or the like 36 which are
`
`clamped axially between the ring 35 and the right-hand surface of the wall 34. The
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`ring 35 is so screwed on the sleeve 32 as to considerably compress the conical
`
`washers 33, 36 forming a friction brake between the stationary wall 34 and the
`
`rotatable sleeve 32.”); see Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 100, 110, 157, 171).
`
`28. The combination of the above-described springs and washers in
`
`Strahm creates the one-way friction brake, which is operatively connected to the
`
`rotating output (rotating shaft 4 of Strahm) to provide a braking force that opposes
`
`the rotation of the rotating shaft 4 in one direction and permits the rotating shaft 4
`
`to rotate freely in the other direction, providing controlled operation of the blind.
`
`(Ex. 1003, col. 1, lines 28-34 (“brake which operates to brake the rate of descent of
`
`the blind, so that it can be lowered in a controlled manner, but which is
`
`automatically released during raising of the blind”); id., col. 3, lines 11-35
`
`(describing the friction brake and the one-way coupling); id., col. 4, lines 31-33;
`
`id., Fig. 6; Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 83, 110, 157, 171; Paper 1, pg. 27, 29-30, 50-54).
`
`29. Accordingly, because Strahm’s brake was one known mechanism for
`
`controlling movement of a blind, Strahm’s brake satisfies the “suitable means”
`
`desired in Cohn, which also highlights the importance of controlled movement.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1006, pg. 3, right column, lines 33-36) (“flow of power will be even
`
`and uniform…to preclude any possibility of the blinds raising too fast.”).
`
`Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Strahm as an
`
`obvious suitable means of braking in Cohn.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`30. But Patent Owner has now argued that “the brake in Strahm is not a
`
`‘suitable means’ for stopping and maintaining the blind ‘at any desired height’”
`
`and that “Strahm teaches away from that function.” (Paper 9, pg. 23). Patent
`
`Owner’s expert adopted this opinion, adding that Cohn’s suggestion of adding a
`
`mechanism to stop the blind is incompatible with Strahm’s disclosure of slowing
`
`the descent of a blind. (Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 40-46). I disagree with Patent Owner and
`
`Patent Owner’s expert.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention of the subject matter claimed in claim 7 would have interpreted
`
`Strahm’s disclosure as encompassing a brake that can altogether stop the blind at a
`
`desired height. This is so at least because there is nothing in Strahm that limits
`
`Strahm’s disclosure to a brake that cannot fully stop the blind from moving.
`
`Accordingly, Strahm does not teach away from stopping the rotation of a rotatable
`
`shaft or stopping and maintaining a blind at a desired height.
`
`32. Whether Strahm’s brake slows or stops the blind depends upon the
`
`friction characteristics of washers 33, 36, and the wall 34 and how tightly the
`
`washers 33, 36 are forced together against the wall 34, as described above. It is a
`
`matter of basic physics that if the friction applied by Strahm’s brake is greater than
`
`the weight of the blind, the blind will stay in its desired position.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`33.
`
`In other words, it is my opinion that Strahm broadly discloses a one-
`
`way friction brake that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be able
`
`to, or to be easily configured to, halt movement of a rotatable shaft and therefore
`
`maintain a blind at a desired height, thereby rendering obvious the combination of
`
`Strahm into Cohn.
`
`34.
`
`It is further my opinion that even if Strahm’s system is deemed to
`
`exclude a brake that allows for maintaining the blind at a given position (which in
`
`my opinion is not the case), one of ordinary skill in the art would still look to
`
`Strahm for the braking arrangement and calibrate it to be a suitable means for
`
`stopping a blind, such as the blind in Cohn. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would look to the screwthreaded ring 35 of Strahm, which “is so screwed on
`
`the sleeve 32 as to considerably compress the conical washers 33, 36, forming a
`
`friction brake” and would simply tighten or loosen the screwthreaded ring 35
`
`depending on the desired friction for calibrating motion of a blind. (Ex. 1003, col.
`
`3, lines 22-24). Because Cohn seeks a “suitable means” to maintain the position of
`
`the blind, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the mechanism in
`
`Strahm, adjusted it, and used it in the mechanism of Cohn. This was all within the
`
`purview and capabilities of a mechanical engineer at the time of the invention
`
`described in claim 7.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`35.
`
`I also disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that “the braking
`
`mechanism of Strahm is not compatible with Cohn based on complexity alone.”
`
`(Paper 9, pg. 22). I disagree because the mechanisms disclosed in Cohn, Strahm,
`
`the 884 patent, and other references I have reviewed for this proceeding are (and
`
`were, at the time of the invention claimed in claim 7 of the 884 patent) all basic
`
`combinations of known components with specific functions.
`
`36. A person of ordinary skill in the art (including any mechanical
`
`engineer) would be aware of these basic components and their utility for specific
`
`mechanical tasks, including springs, washers, rotating shafts, and lift cords, and the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would know how to apply each of these
`
`functional components to a given problem. (See Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 31-32, 34.)
`
`Accordingly, I find nothing so complex in either Cohn or Strahm as to render them
`
`incompatible for at least the purpose of demonstrating the obviousness of claim 7
`
`of the 884 patent.
`
`37.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that Strahm discloses the suitable means to
`
`stop and maintain the blind at a desired position and, therefore, Strahm provides an
`
`obvious means for opposing the rotation of Cohn’s rotating output for the reasons
`
`expressed in my previous declaration and further elaborated above in response to
`
`Patent Owner’s new arguments. (See, e.g., Paper 1, pg. 58-59; Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 82,
`
`141, 157-58, 171).
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`38.
`
`In addition, it is important to note that the 884 patent later discloses
`
`and attempts to claim a one-way friction brake mechanism similar to what Strahm
`
`previously disclosed. Specifically, although the 884 patent recites a one-way
`
`friction brake in the claims, the 884 patent actually describes and schematically
`
`illustrates a one-way clutch mechanism that is in series with a friction brake
`
`mechanism, and it terms this combination as a one-way friction brake module
`
`(e.g., variable or manually adjustable). (Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 33, 47, 68-69, 71).
`
`39.
`
`In the 884 patent, for example, the toothed drive 932 shown in Figure
`
`183B functions as the one-way clutch, engaging the brake when the blind is
`
`lowered, but not when it is raised. (Ex. 1009, ¶33, 47, 68-69, 71; Ex 1001, Figure
`
`183B). This is functionally equivalent to the wrap spring clutch disclosed in
`
`Strahm. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 69, 110, 171).
`
`40. And in the 884 patent, like in Strahm, a friction brake slows and/or
`
`stops the motion of the blind. In the 884 patent, an example friction brake is
`
`shown in Figure 183B, formed from brake drum 926 and brake shoe 928, which is
`
`forced against the brake drum 926 by a compression spring 942. The combination
`
`of toothed drive 932, for example, and the brake drum 926 and brake shoe 928
`
`forms the 884 patent’s claimed one-way friction brake.
`
`41.
`
`I therefore disagree with the Patent Owner’s arguments and I maintain
`
`my opinion that the system in claim 7 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention over Cohn in view of Strahm. (Ex. 1009,
`
`¶¶110, 141, 157-58, 164,171-173).
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. CARLSON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`CASE IPR2014-01175 (U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,884)
`
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made in this declaration are based on my
`
`own knowledge and are true based on information and belief, and that all
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like
`
`are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and such
`
`willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent
`
`issuing thereon.
`
`The contents of this declaration are true under penalty of perjury of the laws
`
`of the United States.
`
`Executed July 23, 2015 in Boulder, Colorado.
`
`
`/Lawrence E. Carlson/
`
`LAWRENCE E. CARLSON, D. ENG.
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Norman Int., Ex. 1013
`Norman Int. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.
` IPR2014-01175
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
