UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MEYER PRODUCTS, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, L.L.C.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01247
`
`Patent No. 6,928,757
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office Action
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`A. Materials Reviewed ............................................................................... 1
`
`B. Qualifications ........................................................................................ 2
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Proof................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 4
`
`C.
`
`The Obviousness Inquiry ...................................................................... 5
`
`III. THE BLOXDORF ’757 PATENT AND FILE HISTORY............................. 6
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................15
`
`V.
`
`THE CITED REFERENCES.........................................................................16
`
`A. Analysis of Pruss .................................................................................16
`
`B. Analysis of Keeler ...............................................................................22
`
`C. Analysis of Hetrick ..............................................................................29
`
`D. Analysis of Coates ...............................................................................32
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................36
`
`VII. ANALYSIS ON ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS OF THE
`CLAIMS OF THE BLOXDORF ’757 PATENT ..........................................40
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Pruss does not Anticipate Claim 18 (Ground 1) because Pruss
`Does Not Disclose that the Lift Frame, Plow Blade, and Motion
`Generating Device are Adapted to be Attached and Detached
`from a Vehicle as a Single Assembly ................................................. 41
`
`Pruss does not Anticipate Claim 18 (Ground 1) because the
`Entire Motion Generating Device is Not Attached and Detached
`Together with the Plow Blade and Lift Frame as a Single
`Assembly ............................................................................................. 42
`
`C. Keeler does not Anticipate Claim 18 (Ground 2) Because
`Keeler Does Not Disclose that the Lift Frame, Plow Blade, and
`Motion Generating Device are Adapted to be Attached and
`Detached from a Vehicle as a Single Assembly ................................. 43
`
`D.
`
`Evidence of Alleged Obviousness (Ground 3) Fails as to Claims
`1 and 4-7 Because Coates does not disclose an A-Frame ................... 46
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 2
`
`

`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Evidence of Alleged Obviousness (Ground 3) Fails as to Claim
`6 Because the Alleged Combination of Coates and Hetrick
`Does Not Include the Required Lift Frame, Trunnion, A-Frame,
`and Plow Blade Being Pivotally Connected ....................................... 51
`
`Obviousness Ground (Ground 3) Fails as to All Challenged
`Claims Because the Combination of Coates and Hetrick Fails to
`Disclose the Motion Generating Device Being Attachable to
`and Detachable From a Vehicle as One Assembly ............................. 52
`
`G. Obviousness Ground (Ground 3) Fails as to All Challenged
`Claims Because Meyer’s Alleged Reasoning to Combine
`Teachings of Coates in View of Hetrick not Supported by the
`Evidence as a Whole ........................................................................... 53
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................67
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`
`Description
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Alexander H. Slocum
`List of Materials Considered
`
`App.
`No.
`A
`B
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 4
`
`

`
`I, ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over eighteen years of age, have personal knowledge of the
`
`matters set forth herein, and each of them is true and correct.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP,
`
`counsel for Patent Owner Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C. (“Douglas”) in the
`
`above-referenced inter partes review proceeding, as an expert to assess the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,757 to Bloxdorf et al. filed by
`
`Petitioner Meyer Products, LLC (“Meyer”), in light of the Board’s December 9,
`
`2015 Decision instituting inter partes review. In particular, I have been asked to
`
`assess and offer my opinions on whether claim 18 is novel over Pruss (Ground 1);
`
`whether claim 18 is novel over Keeler (Ground 2); and whether claims 1, 4-7 and
`
`18 would have been obvious in light of Coates and Hetrick (Ground 3). I reserve
`
`the right to address any non-instituted grounds in the future, should it become
`
`necessary.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Materials Reviewed
`
`3.
`
`In forming my opinions set forth in this Declaration, I have studied
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,928,757 (“the ’757 patent”) and its prosecution history, including
`
`the cited prior art, the Petition for Inter Partes Review and all its attachments and
`
`exhibits filed by Meyer, the Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response filed by
`
`1
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Douglas, and the Board’s Decision instituting inter partes review. I have also
`
`reviewed the Deposition of Mr. Smith, the expert witness testifying on behalf of
`
`Meyer; and the Declaration of Mr. Gary Watson the former director of
`
`engineering, director of quality, assistant to the president and vice president at
`
`Douglas and current consultant to Douglas; as well as other evidence pertaining to
`
`Meyer’s commercial plows using the invention claimed in the Bloxdorf ’757
`
`patent. A full list of materials reviewed is annexed hereto as Appendix B.
`
`B. Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am a tenured full professor of Mechanical Engineering in the School
`
`of Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”). I received a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from MIT (1982), a Masters of
`
`Science in Mechanical Engineering from MIT (1983) and a Ph.D. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from MIT (1985). I joined the faculty of MIT in 1985.
`
`5.
`
`I have taught many courses in machine design which includes the
`
`design of steel structures. I authored the text book entitled “Precision Machine
`
`Design,” and the free online textbook “FUNdaMENTALs of Design”.
`
`6.
`
`Through many years of research, teaching, and consulting, I have
`
`gained extensive experience and expertise in machine design, mechanisms, and
`
`structural mechanics, as well as other disciplines in the field of mechanical
`
`2
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 6
`
`

`
`engineering. I have authored or co-authored about 100 papers in refereed journals,
`
`and present research results at refereed conferences often.
`
`7.
`
`I am listed as an inventor on over 100 United States patents. I am the
`
`sole inventor on U.S. Patent No. 4,821,436 entitled “Plow System,” which issued
`
`on April 18, 1989 and is cited in column 1 of the Bloxdorf ’757 patent.
`
`8.
`
`I have also served as an expert in several cases of patent litigation,
`
`including some before the PTAB.
`
`9.
`
`Having done research and teaching in mechanical engineering
`
`applications for most of my career, I have an extensive background and
`
`understanding of the principles and processes involved with the mechanics and
`
`dynamics related to snowplow assemblies.
`
`10. Over the past thirty-plus years and apart from my work in this case, I
`
`have reviewed hundreds of technical reports, as well as papers for journal
`
`publications involving hundreds of different designs and disclosures and hundreds
`
`of different patents. I have conducted a detailed analysis into the meaning of
`
`claims found in dozens of different patents involved in litigation, and have written
`
`about two dozen expert reports on matters related to patent litigation.
`
`11.
`
` My curriculum vitae, including a list of all my publications and the
`
`cases in which I have testified during the preceding four years, is attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 7
`
`

`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`12.
`
`I have been advised by counsel about the legal principles pertinent to
`
`the inter partes review process and an analysis of the validity of a United States
`
`patent based on obviousness, as summarized below. I have conducted my analysis
`
`in accord with these principles.
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Proof
`
`13.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, a claim’s
`
`patentability is evaluated on a preponderance of the evidence standard. In other
`
`words, Meyer must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that each individual
`
`claim is invalid as obvious.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated only if each and
`
`every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`
`described, in a single prior art reference. I also understand, however, that the fact
`
`that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not
`
`sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic; instead there
`
`must be a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
`
`determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the
`
`teachings of the applied prior art.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 8
`
`

`
`C.
`
`The Obviousness Inquiry
`
`15. According to 35 U.S.C. § 103: “A patent may not be obtained though
`
`the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of
`
`this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`the subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
`
`which the invention was made.”
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that the ultimate determination of obviousness
`
`is based on the following underlying factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between
`
`the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`17. To ascertain the scope of the prior art, one examines the field of the
`
`inventor’s endeavor, and the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: 1) whether the art is
`
`from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the
`
`references is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference
`
`still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
`
`involved. The purpose of both the invention and the prior art are important in
`
`5
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 9
`
`

`
`determining whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem the
`
`invention attempts to solve.
`
`18. A claim is not rendered obvious by a combination of references if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field would not have combined the elements
`
`in a way the claimed invention does, such as when they would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so at the time of the invention described
`
`in the patent, or when the references or the state of the knowledge teach away from
`
`the combination.
`
`19.
`
`In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, I
`
`understand that the question under the obviousness inquiry is not whether the
`
`differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`include commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others,
`
`unexpected results, initial industry skepticism, acceptance and praise in the field,
`
`market impacts of seemingly minor technical differences, and copying. Evidence
`
`of these factors must always be considered when present.
`
`III. THE BLOXDORF ’757 PATENT AND FILE HISTORY
`
`21. The Bloxdorf ’757 patent describes a snowplow mounting assembly
`
`10 with two principal elements: a mount frame 12 permanently or semi-
`
`6
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 10
`
`

`
`permanently attached to a vehicle 14 and a snowplow assembly 16 removably
`
`attachable to the mount frame 12. Ex. 1001 at 1:61-64, 2:8-10. The snowplow
`
`assembly 16 has a lift frame 46, an A-frame 50, a plow blade 74, a trunnion 48 and
`
`a motion generating device, all attachable and detachable from the mount frame 12
`
`on the vehicle 14 as a single assembly.
`
`22. At the time of the invention of the Bloxdorf ’757 patent in 1999, the
`
`sale and use of plows with a snowplow assembly having a lift frame, A-frame,
`
`plow blade and motion generating device all attachable and detachable from the
`
`mount frame 12 on the vehicle as a single unit was common on light trucks (e.g.,
`
`1/2 ton trucks). Watson Decl. at ¶ 16.
`
`23. Fig. 2A in the ’757 patent shows the snowplow assembly 16 detached
`
`from the vehicle 14.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 11
`
`

`
`24. Fig. 2B shows the snowplow assembly 16 releaseably secured with
`
`latch hooks 88 to the front of the vehicle 14.
`
`
`
`25. The snowplow assembly 16 in the Bloxdorf ’757 patent includes a
`
`trunnion 48 located between the lift frame 46 and the A-frame 50 and is part of the
`
`detachable assembly unit. Id. at 2:8-12. Prior art detachable snowplow assemblies
`
`did not include the trunnion 48, nor the advantages associated with the trunnion 48
`
`such as permitting the single assembly, particularly when removed from the
`
`vehicle, to “self level” such that the mounting portions stay level for accurate
`
`drive-in alignment on uneven terrain. Fig. 3B illustrates the configuration of the
`
`snowplow assembly 16 with the trunnion 48.
`
`8
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`26. The trunnion 48 is pivotally connected to the lift frame 46 and affords
`
`pivoting movement about a transverse, horizontal axis 64 as shown in Fig. 3B,
`
`above. The back bar 70 of the A-frame 50 in turn is secured to the trunnion 48 with
`
`a bolt 66 that defines a longitudinal, horizontal axis 68. Consistent with the
`
`customary meaning of the term A-frame, the ’757 patent indicates that the back bar
`
`70 of the A-frame 50 is secured to the trunnion 48 and the snowplow blade 74 is
`
`secured to the front end of the A-frame 50. Ex. 1001 at 4:61-67.
`
`27. When the piston rod 60 lifts the A-frame 50, both the A-frame 50 and
`
`the trunnion 48 pivot about the transverse, horizontal axis 64. On the other hand,
`
`9
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 13
`
`

`
`A-frame 50 pivots about the longitudinal, horizontal axis 68 relative to the trunnion
`
`48 and lift frame 46 to adjust the tilt or roll of the snowplow blade 74 in order to
`
`accommodate a sideways slant in the terrain when the plow blade 74 is lowered.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:14-19.
`
`28. The snowplow blade 74 also pivots about vertical axis 76 at the front
`
`of the A-frame 50 in order to adjust the direction the snowplow blade 74 is facing,
`
`e.g., to push snow to one side of the road. Ex. 1001 at 5:1-9. Hydraulic adjusters 77
`
`are used to rotate the snowplow blade 74, fix its position and provide structural
`
`support for the plowing of snow. Ex. 1001 at 5:1-14.
`
`29. Accordingly, as shown in Fig. 3B of the Bloxdorf ’757 patent, three
`
`(3) pivot axes are identified: a transverse, horizontal axis 64; a vertical axis 76; and
`
`a longitudinal, horizontal axis 68.
`
`30.
`
`It is my opinion that the use of an A-frame 50 is significant in terms
`
`of transferring the load on the plow blade 74 to the trunnion 48 and lift frame 46
`
`and subsequently to the mount frame 12 on the vehicle. The horizontal load from
`
`the plow blade 74 is transferred to the apex of the A-frame 50 and to the hydraulic
`
`adjusters 78. These loads transfer from the apex along the side bars of the A-frame,
`
`and from the hydraulic adjusters to the side bars of the A-frame, to the outer
`
`portion of the back bar 70 on the A-frame 50. The significance of pivoting the A-
`
`frame about the trunnion is that the plow loads are transmitted rearward through
`
`10
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 14
`
`

`
`the angled legs of the A ultimately directly back to the frame to avoid putting
`
`significant bending moments on the transverse bar that holds the pivot pin. This
`
`increases robustness and decreases the amount of steel needed and hence weight
`
`and cost. Although it may seem a fine point, this non-obvious point is critical for
`
`robust design and none of the prior art recognizes this.
`
`31.
`
` As mentioned, the back bar 70 of the A-frame 50 is secured to the
`
`trunnion 48 with a bolt 66 that enables the A-frame 50 to pivot about the
`
`longitudinal, horizontal axis 68, but the ends of the trunnion 48 also bear the load
`
`from the ends of the back bar 70 of the A-frame 50, which receive loads from the
`
`angled legs of the A-frame. In other words, the horizontal (plowing) load is
`
`transmitted from the back bar 70 of the A-frame 50 to the trunnion 48 at the outer
`
`ends of the trunnion 48 near its connection to the lift frame 46. With this design,
`
`there is virtually no horizontal load transferred between the back bar 70 of the A-
`
`frame 50 and the trunnion 48 at the location of the bolt 66. Thus, using an A-frame
`
`50 to direct the plow blade load to near the plow attachment points on the truck is
`
`an important design feature in my opinion because otherwise, the lift frame, and
`
`ultimately the vehicle frame, would be susceptible to damage due to weakness
`
`created by the pivot in the trunnion 48 and higher bending moments as the load
`
`bearing location moves away from the point of connection between the trunnion
`
`and the lift frame.
`
`11
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 15
`
`

`
`32. By incorporating the longitudinal, horizontal pivot axis 68, the blade
`
`74 naturally pivots independently of the lift frame 46 as it is lowered onto the
`
`ground surface such that it is supported at both ends, i.e., supported at two spaced
`
`points along the width of the blade 74. Ex. 1001 at 7:55-60.
`
`33.
`
`In my experience, the plow blade on many snowplow assemblies will
`
`roll somewhat because of torsional loads and tolerances and wear between parts on
`
`the plow and mounting system. The plow described in the Bloxdorf ’757 patent
`
`eliminates the torsional load on the A-frame in the direction of the longitudinal,
`
`horizontal pivot axis 68 and enables the plow blade 74 to roll or tilt side to side
`
`more than plows without the trunnion 48.
`
`34.
`
`I agree, based on my study and analysis, that one of the issues with
`
`removably attachable snowplow assemblies is the alignment of the attachment
`
`equipment on the right side and the left side of the snowplow assembly 16 with the
`
`mount frame 12. Ex. 2008 Watson Decl. at ¶ 18. Even when the stand is set
`
`properly, the snowplow assembly may move or settle when the vehicle is pulled
`
`away to park the snowplow assembly. This settling makes realignment difficult
`
`when it is later desired to reattach the snowplow assembly to the vehicle. Id.
`
`35. The Bloxdorf ’757 patent solves this long standing problem by
`
`allowing the plow blade to settle completely prior to detaching the plow. Ex. 1001
`
`at 7:42-8:12; Ex. 2008 Watson Decl. at ¶ 19-20.
`
`12
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 16
`
`

`
`36. The Bloxdorf ’757 patent indicates that the snowplow assembly 16
`
`with the trunnion 48 does not normally shift when the vehicle 14 is backed away to
`
`park the snowplow assembly 16 because the blade 74 and lift frame 46 have
`
`already settled by virtue of the longitudinal, horizontal pivot axis 68 and the stands
`
`96. Ex. 1001 at 8:2-7. Accordingly, when the vehicle returns to the parked
`
`snowplow assembly 16, the horns 42 on the snowplow should be already aligned
`
`with the receivers 22 on the vehicle mount 12, and the mount 12 can readily be
`
`driven back onto the horns 42 on the snowplow assembly 16. Id. at 8:7-12.
`
`37. None of the prior art recognizes the realignment problem that was first
`
`identified and recognized to be an issue with removably attachable snowplow
`
`assemblies by the inventors of the Bloxdorf ’757 patent.
`
`38. An additional advantage of the ability of the blade 74 to pivot about
`
`the longitudinal, horizontal axis 68 during the operation is that the blade tends to
`
`hug the ground surface better to provide a cleaner scrape if the road is substantially
`
`uneven and more uniform plow blade cutting edge wear. Ex. 1001 at 8:13-17.
`
`39. The ’757 patent disclosed the existence of prior art including pivoting
`
`structures and removable structures, including my own patent, U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,821,436.
`
`40.
`
` The ’757 patent also referred to the prior art Watson patent (U.S.
`
`5,125,174, Ex. 1006) and indicated that it was known in the art to utilize a latch
`
`13
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 17
`
`

`
`mechanism in order to secure the snowplow assembly to the mount at the front of
`
`the vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 1:34-42. The Watson patent is an example of a releasably
`
`attachable snowplow assembly that may suffer from the realignment problem
`
`described above.
`
`41. The ’757 patent also referred to the Coates patent (U.S. 3,605,906, Ex.
`
`1005) as disclosing a snow plow that is capable of rotating about a longitudinally
`
`extending axis as well as a transversely extending axis perpendicular to the
`
`direction of travel. Ex. 1001 at 1:24-28. U.S. Patent Nos. 3,822,751 and 4,821,436
`
`were also addressed as disclosing snowplows that may be rotated about at least two
`
`axes. Ex. 1001 at 1:30-33. The structure of the plow in Coates and the other
`
`disclosed plows with rotating structures, however, is substantially different from
`
`that described in the ’757 specification and claims, and is not suited for use on a
`
`removably attachable snowplow assembly 16 having a lift frame, A-frame, motion
`
`generating device and plow, as the USPTO correctly recognized in allowing the
`
`’757 patent.
`
`42. Kost (U.S. 6,354,024, Ex. 1004) and Hetrick (U.S. 4,236,329, Ex.
`
`1007) also were cited during prosecution of the Bloxorf ’757 patent.
`
`43. Significantly, none of the prior art, including Hetrick and Coates,
`
`suggests that allowing the plow blade to pivot along a longitudinal, horizontal axis
`
`14
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 18
`
`

`
`would solve the realignment problem associated with removably attachable
`
`snowplow assemblies.
`
`44.
`
`It is my opinion that the USPTO Examiner properly found that the
`
`prior art did not suggest that the use of a trunnion would solve the realignment
`
`issue that the invention in Bloxdorf ’757 patent is intended to address.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`45. Meyer’s expert, Mr. Smith, gave the following opinion: “… [A]
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e. 1999), is a
`
`person with a degree in mechanical engineering, equivalent work
`
`experience, or a combination of educational and work experience in the
`
`relevant field. Ex. 1019 ¶ 20.
`
`46.
`
`I do not agree with the opinion that Mr. Smith expressed in his
`
`Declaration regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (Ex. 1019 ¶ 20) and neither did Mr. Smith during his deposition.
`
`Ex. 2006 Smith Dep. at 70:2-72:18. Notably, Meyer’s Petition does not
`
`reference any standard for the level of one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention of the ’757 patent.
`
`47.
`
`In his declaration, Mr. Smith took the position that a person
`
`with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and no experience working in the
`
`relevant field should be considered to be one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`15
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 19
`
`

`
`time of the invention. In light of my experience designing snowplows and
`
`my experience in the field of structural mechanics generally, it is my opinion
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art of designing snowplows at the time of the
`
`invention (1999) would have had at least some experience in designing and
`
`testing snowplows or similar outdoor machinery (e.g., for farming, forestry,
`
`construction, mining, or petroleum industries) beyond obtaining a B.S. in
`
`mechanical engineering or equivalent. During his deposition, Mr. Smith
`
`indicated that one of ordinary skill in the art of designing snowplows at the
`
`time of the invention (1999) would need some experience with snowplows
`
`beyond a B.S. in mechanical engineering or equivalent. Ex. 2006 Smith Dep.
`
`at 72:8-15.
`
`48.
`
`In light of my education, my familiarity and experience with
`
`snowplow design and structural mechanics in general, I am a person of at
`
`least ordinary skill in the art of the ’757 patent and was a person of at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’757 patent at the time of the invention (1999).
`
`V.
`
`THE CITED REFERENCES
`
`A. Analysis of Pruss
`
`49.
`
`I reviewed U.S. Patent No. 2,139,625, titled “Plow,” and
`
`naming Hugo E. Pruss as the inventor and understand that this is the “Pruss”
`
`16
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 20
`
`

`
`reference asserted by Meyer to anticipate the Bloxdorf ’757 patent. Ex.
`
`1002.
`
`50. The Pruss reference shows alternative embodiments of a plow
`
`permanently or removably secured to a vehicle. See, Ex. 1002 at Title; p.1, c.
`
`1, ll. 1-11.
`
`51. The Pruss reference discloses the attachment of a diagonal plow
`
`blade 31 and its supporting frame to a vehicle. Ex. 1002 at p. 1, c. 1, ll. 5-6;
`
`p. 1, c. 2, ll. 18-45; p. 2, c. 1, ll. 35-37. The Pruss reference discloses a
`
`tiltable, transverse bolster 18/55 mounted to an antiquated chassis 10 of a
`
`vehicle 11 with attachment plates 13, 13’/57, 57’. Id. at, e.g., Fig. 6; p. 2, c.
`
`2, ll. 41-70. Pruss addresses difficulties, which at the time, made it
`
`impractical to mount the plow frame to the sprung chassis of the vehicle. Id.
`
`at p. 1, c. 2, ll. 5-17.
`
`52. The plow blade 31 is mounted to its frame, which in turn is
`
`mounted to the tiltable, bolster 18/55. During operation of the plow,
`
`horizontal thrust or load is transmitted from the frame to the bolster 18/55
`
`and from the bolster 18/55 to the abutment plates 13, 13’/57, 57’ mounted on
`
`the chassis 10. Id. at p. 3, c. 2, l. 75-p. 4, c. 1, l. 18. As shown in Fig. 1 of the
`
`Pruss reference, a rigid tower 20 is mounted to the abutment plates 13, 13’
`
`braced by tie rods 21, 21’.
`
`17
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 21
`
`

`
`53.
`
` In the Pruss reference, a hydraulic ram 36 used to lift the plow
`
`blade 31 is secured to the rigid tower 20 on one end and to ribs 37/37’
`
`extending from the back of the plow blade 31 on the other end. Id. at p. 3, c.
`
`1, ll. 40-49. It appears from Figs. 1 and 2 that the ram 36 is connected to the
`
`ribs 37/37’ with cable.
`
`54. The ram 36 is operated by a hand or motor driven pump 38
`
`preferably operated from the vehicle cab and connected to the ram 36 with
`
`fluid pressure transmitting tubing 39. Id. at p. 3, c. 1, ll. 50-54.
`
`55. A cable 40 (with turnbuckle and spring) is connected between
`
`the tower 20 and the plow frame 30 (Fig. 1). Id. at p. 3, c. 1, l. 62-p. 3, c. 2, l.
`
`4. The purpose of the cable 40 is to carry the weight of the frame, so the
`
`weight is not carried through the components used to attach and detach the
`
`plow to and from the vehicle 11.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 22
`
`

`
`56. Abutment plates 13/13’ are bolted to the chassis frame 11. Ex. 1002 at
`
`p. 2, c. 2, ll. 46-47. The rigid tower 20 is mounted to the abutment plates 13/13’.
`
`Id. at l. 71.
`
`57. The Pruss reference at p. 4, c. 1, ll. 19-36, describes the attachment
`
`and detachment of the plow to the vehicle in groups of component parts rather than
`
`as a single assembly as required by claims 1, 4-7 or claim 18 in the ’757 patent.
`
`58.
`
` The Pruss reference also describes two ways of attaching and
`
`detaching the components of the plow to the vehicle. With respect to the first way,
`
`the Pruss reference, Ex. 1002, at p. 4, c. 1, ll. 19-26 states as follows:
`
`When it is desired to detach the plow and frame from the vehicle it is
`
`only necessary to pull out the pins 16 and 29 and to disconnect the
`
`cable connections depending from the tower 20. The bolster 18,
`
`together with the journals 22, bearings 23, and plates 24, may then be
`
`slid downwardly and out of engagements with the plates 13-13’ and
`
`the bars 25.
`
`59. According to the first removal process, pin 16 of Fig. 6 and pin 29
`
`shown in Fig. 4 are disconnected to remove the plow blade 31, along with the
`
`struts 26, 26’ and the bolster 18, journals 22, bearings and plates 24 from the
`
`vehicle 11. The cable 40 must be disconnected, the hydraulic ram 36 must be
`
`disconnected from the tower 20, and the hydraulic hose must be disconnected from
`
`the ram 36 to completely remove the plow. The abutment plates 13/13’, tower 20,
`
`19
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 23
`
`

`
`tie rods 21, and hydraulic pump 38 (Fig. 5) remain on the vehicle 11.
`
`60. The Pruss reference describes the second way of removing the plow at
`
`p. 4, c. 1, ll. 26-31:
`
`Alternatively, the pins 16 may be left in position and only the pins 29
`
`removed, the struts 26 and the bars 25 being then lifted out of
`
`engagement with the plates 24. The plates 13-13’ may then be readily
`
`unbolted from the truck chassis.
`
`61.
`
`In this second way of removing the plow, the pins 29 are removed, but
`
`pin 16 attaching the bolster 18 to the bars 14 and abutment plates 13/13’ is not
`
`removed. Once the pins 29 (Fig. 4) are removed, the bars 25 and struts 26 are lifted
`
`to detach the plow from the vehicle. Again, cable 40 has to be disconnected, the
`
`hydraulic ram 36 must be disconnected from the tower 20, and the hydraulic hose
`
`must be disconnected from the ram 36 to completely remove the plow. At this
`
`point in the process, the abutment plates 13/13’, the tower 20, the tie rods 21 and
`
`the hydraulic pump 38 remain on the vehicle.
`
`62. Then, if desired, the abutment plates 13/13’ can be unbolted and the
`
`abutment plates and the tower 20 removed. This step could not be accomplished
`
`without significant time and effort because the Pruss reference is clear that the
`
`tower 20 is separately attached and intended to remain on the vehicle and because
`
`it must be securely attached to the vehicle to lift and lower the plow blade 31. Ex.
`
`1002 at p. 2, c. 2, ll. 71-74.
`
`20
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics
`IPR2015-01247
`
`Exhibit 2007
`Page 24
`
`

`
`63.
`
`I agree with Mr. Smith that the tower 20 remains on the vehicle 11 in
`
`Pruss when the abutment plates 13/13’ are left attached to the vehicle 11. Ex. 2006
`
`at 154:2-157:1. I also agree with Mr. Smith that Pruss does not disclose skipping
`
`the pin removing step and trying to unbolt the abutment plates 13/13’ without
`
`removing the pins and attempting to remove the abutment plates 13/13’ along with
`
`the tower 20, plow frame and blade all in one step. Id.
`
`64.
`
` The forces of gravity on the plow components preclude attachment
`
`and detachment of the plow, struts, plates, tower and tie rods together as a single
`
`assembly. Mr. Smith acknowledges that similar gravity forces precluded removal
`
`of various components as a unit in plows that he designed. Ex. 2006 at 148:24-
`
`149:14.
`
`65.
`
`In my opinion, the weight of the plow frame 30 and other components
`
`in the Pruss reference supported by the tower 20 and the abutment plates 13/13’