`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`PRONG, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEOSHUA SORIAS,
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01317
`Patent 8,712,486 B2
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. ROBERT JOHN ANDERS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER SORIAS’ RESPONSE
`
`
`1
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.001
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Robert John Anders. I am the owner of Robert Anders, A
`
`Design Consultancy in Warwick, N.Y. My business address is 78
`
`Continental Road, PO Box 609, Warwick, N.Y. 10990-0609. I have been
`
`involved in the industrial design field for more than fifty (50) years. I am
`
`over eighteen (18) years of age and I would otherwise be competent to
`
`testify as to the matters set forth herein if I am called upon to do so at trial,
`
`hearing or deposition.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an industrial design expert witness by the Patent
`
`Owner Yeoshua Sorias (hereinafter “Sorias”) to opine on specific issues
`
`related to the Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-01317 addressing the
`
`validity of claims in United States Patent No. 8,712,486 to Sorias, et al.,
`
`issued on April 29, 2014 (hereinafter the “’486 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted a Declaration for related Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
`
`02897-WFK-SMG in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
`
`New York in which the Plaintiffs, Yeoshua Sorias and Zilicon Accessories,
`
`LLC brought action of patent infringement against National Cellular USA,
`
`Inc., Mark Grossman, Zeev Grosman, Yishai Z. Pliner, Lloyd Gladstone,
`
`Prong LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., and DOE’s 1 through
`
`10.
`
`2
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.002
`
`
`
`4. My background, education and qualifications are set forth in Section II
`
`II.
`
`5.
`
`below and in my Curriculum Vitae attached as Exhibit A to this Report.
`
`BACKGROUND, EDUCATION, AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I am a resident of Warwick, New York, I have been an Industrial Designer1
`
`for more than fifty (50) years, and have experience in both the practical and
`
`academic areas of the industrial design field, which is detailed in my
`
`Curriculum Vitae attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`6.
`
`In August of 2000, I retired as a tenured professor of industrial design from
`
`Pratt Institute, one of the largest and most prestigious schools of Art, Design
`
`and Architecture in the United States. I had been a member of the faculty at
`
`Pratt since 1988.
`
`7.
`
`Throughout my teaching career, I developed a wide variety of course
`
`materials related to industrial design and ergonomics. I authored nineteen
`
`(19) papers that were published and /or presented to professional societies
`
`and organizations. A listing of my publications is contained in Exhibit B.
`
`
`1 “Industrial Design (ID) is the professional service of creating products and systems
`that optimize function, value and appearance for the mutual benefit of both user and
`manufacturer. Industrial designers develop products and systems through collection
`analysis and synthesis of data guided by the special requirements of the client and
`manufacturer. They prepare clear and concise recommendations through drawings,
`models, and descriptions. Industrial designers improve as well as create, and they
`often work with multidisciplinary groups that include management, marketing,
`engineering and manufacturing specialists.” http://www.idas.org/education/what-is-
`industrial-design.
`
`3
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.003
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Among the many courses that I taught were those involving consumer
`
`product design as well as ergonomics, i.e., the relationship of people to both
`
`products and environments.
`
`8.
`
`I co-authored a syllabus and taught a course entitled Universal Design which
`
`emphasized the design of consumer products used by a broad spectrum of
`
`individuals, including those with a range of disabilities. The syllabus was
`
`sold nationally by the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA). This
`
`course emphasized the design of consumer products held and manipulated
`
`by hands, and some of the student work is depicted and discussed in
`
`Universal Design, Creative Solutions fort ADA Compliance. Roberta L.
`
`Null, Ph.D., Professional Publications, Inc. Belmont, CA. 1996. Pages
`
`111-113.
`
`9.
`
`I also lectured and/or taught Design at the following institutions:
`
`9.1. University of Southwestern Louisiana, School of Architecture,
`
`Lafayette, Louisiana;
`
`9.2. Miami University, Miami, Ohio;
`
`9.3. University of Industrial Arts, Helsinki, Finland;
`
`9.4. North Carolina State University;
`
`9.5. Department of Interior Design, Pratt Institute;
`
`4
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.004
`
`
`
`9.6. High School of Art & Design, Industrial Design Department, New
`
`York;
`
`9.7. Cooper Hewitt Museum, New York;
`
`9.8. University of Seville, Spain; and
`
`9.9. Department of Industrial Design, University of Essen, Essen,
`
`Germany.
`
`10.
`
`I was founder and Head of the Design Management Program at Pratt, which
`
`was the first and only graduate program in the United States awarding a
`
`master’s degree in design management. One of the courses I researched,
`
`taught and wrote about concerned what is commonly called the “design
`
`process”, or how new design concepts are nurtured, developed and managed
`
`from inception to actuality.
`
`11.
`
`I also created and was Head of the Graduate Arts & Cultural Management
`
`Program at Pratt. I had previously served as Acting Associate Dean of the
`
`School of Art and Design. In 1995 I was elected by my peers to a three-year
`
`term as President of the Academic Senate at Pratt Institute.
`
`12.
`
`I majored in Industrial Design at one of New York City’s elite public high
`
`schools and the largest high school in the United States, Brooklyn Technical
`
`High School.
`
`5
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.005
`
`
`
`13. After enrolling in Pratt Institute in 1950, I majored in industrial design.
`
`However, in 1952 during the Korean War, I had my student deferment (2S)
`
`canceled and I volunteered to serve in the United States Navy from 1952 to
`
`1956. After graduating from the U.S. Naval School of Photography, I was
`
`placed in the Electronics Division aboard the Amphibious Force Command
`
`Ship USS Mount McKinley (AGC-7), where I served briefly as an
`
`electronics technician, and took courses in basic electricity; basic electronics
`
`and basic radar. I subsequently transferred to the ship’s photo lab, and
`
`served as an aerial photographer (PHA/2) and a deep-sea diver (Diver/2). I
`
`then transferred to the Pacific Fleet Combat Camera Group as a scuba diver
`
`and underwater photographer (PHA/1).
`
`14. After four years of military service, I returned to Pratt Institute to complete
`
`my education and graduated in 1958 with a Bachelor of Industrial Design
`
`(BID) degree. At graduation, I was awarded the Industrial Design
`
`Department’s highest honor: the Dean’s Medal.
`
`15. After graduation from Pratt, I then spent thirty (30) years in the industrial
`
`design profession in a variety of senior design management positions, both
`
`as head of my own consultancies as well as serving as a senior design
`
`executive at two major corporations, Bristol-Myers Company and Revlon,
`
`Inc.
`
`6
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.006
`
`
`
`16. During my thirty years as a working industrial designer, I personally
`
`produced hundreds of technical drawings, as well as supervised dozens of
`
`designers producing an untold number of technical drawings which were
`
`used to fabricate, manufacture, assemble and install designed projects
`
`throughout the United States as well as in the following places:
`
`16.1. Bari, Italy;
`
`16.2. Beijing, People’s Republic of China;
`
`16.3. Cologne, Germany;
`
`16.4. Damascus, Syria;
`
`16.5. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania;
`
`16.6. Leningrad, USSR;
`
`16.7. London, England;
`
`16.8. Malmo, Sweden;
`
`16.9. Manchester, England;
`
`16.10. Milan, Italy;
`
`16.11. Nairobi, Kenya;
`
`16.12. Paris, France;
`
`16.13. Rome, Italy;
`
`16.14. Stockholm, Sweden;
`
`16.15. Tunis, Tunisia.
`
`7
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.007
`
`
`
`17. During my career, as a component of the overall design of projects, I have
`
`personally designed and specified electrical elements, such as:
`
`17.1. lighting fixtures;
`
`17.2. lighting circuits;
`
`17.3. electrical power circuits;
`
`17.4. telephone circuits; and
`
`17.5. audio/video circuits.
`
`18.
`
`I also designed a carrying case for professional photographers, manufactured
`
`by Nippon Kogaku, K.K., (Nikon) as well as protective carrying cases for
`
`still cameras and lenses and a separate line of protective cases for video
`
`cameras for Slik America, Inc.
`
`19. Since 1990, I have served as an Expert Witness in twenty-four (24) utility
`
`patents cases, some of which dealt with similar subject matter as the instant
`
`case. These were:
`
`19.1. Burton S. Rubin and Evo Pen, Inc. v. [The Henkel Group et al.]
`
`SDNY CV-11504 (JSR) Patent Infringement of: An Ergonomic Hand
`
`–Held Implement.
`
`19.2. Harvard Battery, Inc. v. [Symbol Technologies, Inc.] EDPA 2:06-CV-
`
`02702-CG Patent Infringement of: Batteries for a Handheld Scanner.
`
`8
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.008
`
`
`
`19.3. LUSA Lighting Intl., Inc. v. [American Elex Corp.] CDCA SACV-07-
`
`674 DOC (MLGx) Patent Infringement of: A Lighting Fixture.
`
`19.4. [Otter Products, LLC] v. A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc. et al.,
`
`USITC 337-TA-780, Patent Infringement of: Cell Phone Cases.
`
`19.5. [Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.] v. Pass & Seymour, Inc. et al. USITC
`
`337-TA-776, Patent Infringement of: A Light Switch/Dimmer.
`
`19.6. Piao Shang Industry Co. v. [Acco Brands Corp. and Amazon.com,
`
`Inc.] CDCA 11-2639 PA (Ex), Patent Infringement of: A Telephone
`
`Cradle.
`
`20. Additionally, I have served in some additional cases concerned with
`
`intellectual property law that allowed me to gain insight into the subject
`
`matter at hand in the present case. These matters include:
`
`
`
`20.1. Apple Inc. v. [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.]
`
`(NDCA) and (ITC) in which during an eleven month period, I studied
`
`and examined in detail, a total of sixteen electronic devices such as
`
`cell phones, tablets and the like products.
`
`20.2. [Otter Products, LLC] v. A.G. Findings and Mfg. Co., Inc. et al.,
`
`USITC 337-TA-780, during a nine month period, I studied and
`
`examined in detail, a total of forty two protective cases for portable
`
`9
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.009
`
`
`
`electronic devices, such as cell phones and tablets marketed by a total
`
`of thirty commercial entities.
`
`21. Exhibit C attached hereto provides additional information regarding this
`
`work, and lists the cases wherein I testified as an expert in industrial design
`
`over the past four years.
`
`22.
`
`I am a member of:
`
`22.1. Industrial Designers Society of America #19785 (IDSA);
`
`22.2. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society #12595 (HFES);
`
`22.3. Architectural Woodworking Institute #30421 (AWI); and
`
`22.4. Materials Information Society #556055 (ASM).
`
`23. As a result of my knowledge, background, and experience, I am skilled in
`
`the art of industrial design, including those aspects relating to the design of a
`
`detachably integrated battery charger for mobile cell phones and like
`
`devices.
`
`24. My time in this matter is billed at a rate of $425.00 per hour, and my
`
`III.
`
`25.
`
`compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of this case.
`
`ISSUES ADDRESSED AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`I understand that the Petitioner argued a number of potential bases for
`
`invalidity of the ‘486 Patent and that the Board declared an inter partes
`
`review only with respect to some of those. I also understand that the Board
`
`10
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.010
`
`
`
`determined that none of the claims of the ‘486 patent were anticipated by
`
`any prior art and that the grounds for the inter partes review is based on
`
`obviousness. My opinion addresses certain specific issues relevant to the
`
`grounds on which the inter partes review was declared.
`
`26. My expert opinions are based upon my knowledge, background, and
`
`experience and my review of the materials listed below:
`
`26.1. U.S. Patent No. 8,712,486 to Sorias, et al. titled: Detachably
`
`Integrated Battery Charger For Mobile Cell Phones And Like
`
`Devices, filed Jan. 11, 2012 and issued Apr. 29, 2014 and its’ file
`
`history;
`
`26.2. Prong, Inc. Petition for Inter Partes Review, dated June 1, 2015;
`
`26.3. Preliminary Response By Patent Owner Under 37 C.F.R. to Prong,
`
`Inc.’s Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,712,486,
`
`dated September 11, 2015;
`
`26.4. Decision, Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, dated
`
`December 9, 2015.
`
`26.5. U.S. Patent No. 5,838,554 to Lanni titled: Small Form Factor Power
`
`Supply filed December 19, 1997 and issued November 17, 1998;
`
`11
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.011
`
`
`
`26.6. U.S. Patent No. 6,585,530 to Steiert et al. titled: Plug-In Power
`
`Supply With Miniaturized Primary Contact Means filed Jan. 18, 2002
`
`and issued July 1, 2003;
`
`26.7. U.S. Patent No. 5,780,993 to Tsang titled: Combination Battery
`
`Charger And Power Source For Electrically Powered Devices filed
`
`November 17, 1995 and issued July 14, 1998;
`
`26.8. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727;
`
`26.9. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1996 );
`
`26.10. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323-1324 (C.A.Fed.
`
`1999);
`
`26.11. Sample Prong PocketPlug devices for iPhone 5;
`
`26.12. Sample Prong PocketPlug devices for iPhone 4; and
`
`26.13. Sample Squirl case for iPhone 6.
`
`IV. WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF APPLICABLE LAWS
`
`27. While I have acquired a working knowledge of patent law through classes I
`
`have taken, through seminars that I have attended, and from having served
`
`as an industrial design expert witness during the past twenty five (25) years,
`
`I am not an expert in patent law. In rendering my opinions, I am advised as
`
`follows:
`
`12
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.012
`
`
`
`27.1. I understand that for a utility patent to be granted, the claimed
`
`invention must have novelty, utility and nonobviousness.
`
`27.2. I understand that an issued patent is presumed to be valid.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that in the examination of the ‘486 patent, the Patent and Trial
`
`Appeal Board made a preliminary decision that suggested the ‘486 patent
`
`may be found to be invalid for “Obviousness”. I understand the following:
`
`28.1. Obviousness. 35 U.S.C. § 103. This section requires that “(a) 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
`
`difference 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 of the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`
`28.2. The Board cited KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007) as the primary basis for determining obviousness and also cited
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1996 ) “the question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`
`determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
`
`13
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.013
`
`
`
`art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`
`of nonobviousness.”
`
`V.
`
`DEFINITION OF A DESIGNER OR PERSON OF ORDINARY
`
`SKILL IN THE ART
`
`29. My understanding is that the Board has held that the person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. (Paper 10 at 18). A
`
`designer or person of ordinary skill in the art to the design aspects of the
`
`prior art would have a background in industrial design with several years of
`
`experience in designing product configurations.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`30. As part of my analysis, I am considering whether certain products fall within
`
`the scope of the claims.
`
`31.
`
`In an inter partes review, my understanding is that claim terms are construed
`
`under a broadest reasonable interpretation. My understanding of the
`
`construction of certain limitations set forth in the claims of the ’486 patent is
`
`set forth below. The remaining limitations are given their ordinary meaning.
`
`32.
`
`“Main body plane”
`
`32.1. I understand that the Board has construed the term “main body plane”
`
`as “the largest (main) plane of the body of the charger (or prongs).” I apply
`
`this construction in my analysis.
`
`14
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.014
`
`
`
`33.
`
`“generally flat body with a substantially uniform thickness dimension”
`
`33.1. I understand that the Board has construed this limitation as “a body
`
`that is for the most part flat and has a thickness that is generally uniform
`
`throughout.” I apply this construction in my analysis.
`
`34.
`
`“a connection structure formed integrally with the main body, the
`
`connection structure extends from the main body and is configured to
`
`grasp onto and hold the charger secured to the mobile device”
`
`34.1. My understanding is that this limitation should be construed as a
`
`means-plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C § 112(6). I understand
`
`that a means-plus-function limitation is construed to be the structure
`
`disclosed in the patent which corresponds to the recited function, and
`
`equivalents to those structures.
`
`34.2. I understand that this construction is addressed in the declaration of
`
`Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander III (“the McAlexander Declaration”) and that
`
`the corresponding structure disclosed in the ‘486 patent includes left and
`
`right resilient panels which are configured to either allow the mobile device
`
`to be slid therebetween or to be forcefully snapped onto the back side of the
`
`mobile device and which grasp and hold the side walls of the mobile device.
`
`34.3. While I am applying this construction in my analysis, my conclusions
`
`would not change if this limitation were construed more broadly.
`
`15
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.015
`
`
`
`35.
`
`“Charger plug”
`
`35.1. My understanding is that a “charger plug” in the context of an
`
`electrical device would be understood to be the male portion of an electrical
`
`fitting that is configured to be inserted into a female socket in a device to be
`
`charged.
`
`35.2. I further understand that this construction is addressed in the
`
`McAlexander Declaration.
`
`35.3. While I am applying this construction in my analysis, my conclusions
`
`would not change if this limitation were construed more broadly.
`
`
`
`VII. U. S. PATENT NO. 5,838,554 TO LANNI
`
`36. U. S. Patent No. 5,838,554 to Lanni is titled: Small Form Factor Power
`
`Supply. The goal of the invention is “… to provide and improve small form
`
`factor power supply that is resistant to liquids and/or is programmable to
`
`supply power for a variety of different devices, which obviates for practical
`
`purposes, the above-mentioned limitations.” (Lanni, 2:27-31).
`
`37. The Petitioner argues that Lanni teaches a charging device with a main body
`
`that is “a generally flat body with a substantially uniform thickness
`
`dimension” as recited in claims 2 and 3 of the ‘486 patent. (Petition at 27-
`
`28,47). The Petitioner also argues that Lanni teaches that its main body
`
`16
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.016
`
`
`
`“could be entirely flat with a completely uniform thickness”. (Petition at
`
`27). As explained below, neither position is correct.
`
`37.1. Lanni discloses that a charger circuit could be mounted in a plastic
`
`container of a “right parallelepiped of approximately 2.85 x 5.0 x 0.436
`
`inches.” (Id., at 2:65-66). Based solely on this isolated statement, the
`
`Petitioner has concluded that this is actually a disclosure of a main body that
`
`is “entirely flat with a completely uniform thickness”. (Petition at 27).
`
`While an ideal mathematical definition of a right parallelepiped is a
`
`rectangular prism, the Petitioner has read this disclosure out of context of the
`
`rest of the patent and ignored the physical realities of the disclosure in
`
`Lanni.
`
`38. Lanni generally says that a charging circuit could be housed in an injection
`
`molded plastic housing with dimensions of 2.85 x 5.0 x 0.436 inches without
`
`undue heating. (Lanni, 7:47-55). However, this general disclosure merely
`
`discloses the overall size of the housing without addressing any issues
`
`related to surface features. The actual configuration of a case 300 shaped as
`
`a “right parallelepiped of approximately 2.85 x 5.0 x 0.436 inches” is set
`
`forth at Col. 7:44-Col. 10:4 and Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C of Lanni. This
`
`embodiment does not include embedded AC prongs, a point which the
`
`17
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.017
`
`
`
`Board recognized in its Decision instituting this inter partes review.
`
`(Decision at p. 16).
`
`39. One issue addressed in the Lanni patent is the need to remove heat from the
`
`charging circuit and prevent the outside of the housing from getting so hot
`
`that someone picking it up could get burned. (E.g., Lanni, 7:57-58 – the
`
`surface temperature should not exceed 120 degrees).
`
`40. For the plug-less charger configuration shown in Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5C,
`
`Lanni explains that louvers and other openings are required on the housing
`
`and that they “must…provide sufficient air circulation” to allow for
`
`adequate cooling of the charger. (Id. at 8:19-35). Lanni further teaches that
`
`these louvers must be on both the top and bottom surfaces of the charger to
`
`allow for adequate air circulation regardless of the side on which the
`
`charger is resting. (Id. at 8:23-25, 35-38).
`
`41. Figure 5A of Lanni shows the top of case 300 with louvers 304 formed in it.
`
`18
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.018
`
`
`
`
`
`42. Figure 5B is a partial cross-section of Fig. 5A running top to bottom of Fig.
`
`5A with one embodiment of the louvers 304 and also showing thin layer
`
`306 which Lanni teaches is added to cover the openings 304 leading into
`
`the interior of the case.
`
`
`
`43. As explained in Lanni, the width of openings 304 can be selected based on
`
`the operating environment. The preferred width is from 3 to 5 mm. (Id. at
`
`9:26-38). The louvers shown in Fig. 5B are much deeper than they are wide.
`
`44. Figure 5C is a partial cross section of Fig. 5A running top to bottom of Fig.
`
`5A with an alternative embodiment of the louvers:
`
`19
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.019
`
`
`
`
`
`45. Rather than having open louvers, in this configuration the surface is covered
`
`with ridges 312 and depressions 314. (Id. at 9:41-43). Similar to the width
`
`of the louvers in Fig. 5b, the disclosed width of the depressions 314 is from
`
`3 to 5 mm. (Id. at 9:53-55). For this width, based on the illustrated figure
`
`the height of the ridges would be about 1 mm.
`
`46. This embodiment shows what Lanni means when it discloses a housing that
`
`is a right parallelepiped having the specified dimensions. Rather than being
`
`entirely flat with a completely uniform thickness as Petitioner has suggested
`
`is disclosed in Lanni by the simple reference to a housing shaped like a
`
`right parallelepiped, the front of the housing is a heavily corrugated surface,
`
`not a flat one, punctuated with trenches or furrows. The back of the
`
`housing, while not shown, would have a similar surface given Lanni’s
`
`teaching that it too requires louvers.
`
`47.
`
`In the embodiment of Fig. 5, the case might have a maximum thickness of
`
`0.436 inches but the thickness when considered across its surface varies
`
`considerably across that surface due to the louvers.
`
`20
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.020
`
`
`
`48. As noted above, the embodiment of Fig. 5A-5C is a configuration that has
`
`no embedded plug. The configuration of Lanni with an embedded AC plug
`
`is shown in Figs. 42-46 and it is this embodiment on which the Petitioners
`
`rely. The front and back of this embodiment is shown in Figs. 42 and 43:
`
`
`
`
`
`49. As clearly shown in Figs. 42 and 43, both sides of the battery charger are
`
`heavily corrugated with cooling louvers. In the area of the louvers, the
`
`surface is broken with about 50% of the area being made of the trenches or
`
`furrows that form the louvers. There is no specific explanation for these
`
`louvers other than the discussion of them in the context of the embodiment
`
`21
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.021
`
`
`
`of Figs. 5A-5C, which teaches the importance of having cooling louvers on
`
`both sides of a plug-less charger.
`
`50. Claims 2 and 3 of the ‘486 patent require that the main body of the charger
`
`be “a generally flat body with a substantially uniform thickness dimension”,
`
`a limitation which the Board has construed to be “a body that is for the most
`
`part flat and has a thickness that is generally uniform throughout.” One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not consider Lanni to teach a charger that met
`
`this limitation.
`
`51. Considering the impact of the louvers on the charger shown in Figs. 42-46,
`
`one of skill in the art would not consider this to be a main body that is “for
`
`the most part flat”. Instead, both sides of the charger are heavily corrugated
`
`with a series of trenches or furrows created by the cooling louvers. While
`
`Lanni does teach that the widths of the louvers could be varied from the
`
`preferred 3-5mm (Id. at 9:35-38 and 9:54-58), doing this would presumably
`
`not alter the overall corrugated surface but would instead just change the
`
`number of louvers in a given area.
`
`52.
`
`In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the charger of
`
`Figs. 42-46 to have “a substantially uniform thickness dimension”. Instead,
`
`the thickness repeatedly varies by the depth of the louvers when considered
`
`22
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.022
`
`
`
`laterally across the louvers. This effect is magnified if the louvers on the
`
`front and back line up, which they appear to do.
`
`53.
`
`In addition to louvers, this configuration of Lanni includes a prominent
`
`bulge on one side towards the top where the plug is located. Measurements
`
`of the general depth of the charger as depicted along the side of the device
`
`in the figures indicate that the thickness in the region of the bulge is about
`
`40% greater than the thickness in the lower portion of the charger.
`
`54. Lanni does not provide a discussion about the purpose of the bulge. My
`
`understanding is that Mr. McAlexander has explained that this bulge acts as
`
`a standoff to prevent the plug side of the charger from being pressed flat
`
`against a wall when plugged in to ensure that there is air circulation on that
`
`side of the charger. The bulge also provides physical space to mount the
`
`rotating plug.
`
`55.
`
`I note that when discussing the plug-less version of the charger in Fig. 5,
`
`Lanni teaches that both sides of the charger should have louvers so that air
`
`can circulate around whichever side is up. (Id. at 8:35-38). I further note
`
`that as shown in Fig. 46, when a battery is mounted on the charger, it is
`
`pressed against the charger and appears to cover all of the cooling louvers on
`
`that side. This would be analogous to a plug-less charger having that side
`
`face-down on a table.
`
`23
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.023
`
`
`
`56. Considering just the impact of the bulge on the shape of the charger, one of
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not consider Figs. 42-46 of Lanni to disclose
`
`in a charger with “a generally flat body with a substantially uniform
`
`thickness dimension”, as construed by the Board to be “a body that is for the
`
`most part flat and has a thickness that is generally uniform throughout.”
`
`The body is not generally flat. Instead, it is stepped with a substantial and
`
`prominent bulge. In addition, the bulge occupies about one quarter of the
`
`surface on the charger and this area is about 40% thicker than in the non-
`
`bulging area. This is a significant difference and one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not consider this to be a thickness that is generally uniform
`
`throughout.
`
`57. Thus, one of skill in the art would not consider Lanni to teach “a generally
`
`flat body with a substantially uniform thickness dimension” as required by
`
`claims 2 and 3. This conclusion applies when considering the louvers or the
`
`bulge individually.
`
`24
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.024
`
`
`
`58. The absence of this feature is magnified when the impact of the prominent
`
`corrugations on the front and back of the charger is combined with the
`
`prominent bulge on the charger.
`
`
`
`VIII. THE STEIERT AND TSANG REFERENCES
`
`59. U. S. Patent No. 6,585,530 to Steiert, et al. discloses a plug in power supply
`
`with AC prongs that fold into recesses formed on the lateral edge of the
`
`charger.
`
`60. U. S. Patent No. 5,780,993 to Tsang describes a charger for a standard
`
`United Kingdom outlet having AC prongs folding in opposite directions
`
`(towards each other) and laying in channels along one side the charger.
`
`61. Claim 10 of the ‘486 patent requires that “in the stowed position, the AC
`
`prongs lie flat with their respective main bodies being flush with an outer
`
`surface of a back side of the main body of the charger.”
`
`62. According to its ordinary meaning, when two surfaces are flush, they are
`
`even or level with each other.
`
`63. Petitioner has cited to Figs. 4A-4C of the Steiert patent and the
`
`corresponding disclosure in the patent. (e.g., Petition at p. 46). As shown
`
`by annotated figures, when the prongs are stowed, they are not flush as the
`
`claim requires. Instead, the prongs are recessed relative to the surface as
`
`25
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.025
`
`
`
`shown in Fig. 4B or, if the surface is treated as the one underneath the
`
`prongs, raised relative to the surface as shown in Fig. 4C:
`
`
`
`This is true for all of the embodiments of Steiert.
`
`64. Likewise, in Tsang, the AC prongs 100, 102 and the grounding prong 104
`
`are all recessed relative to the surface as shown in annotated Fig. 9:
`
`65.
`
`In addition, in the Tsang reference, the AC prongs are rigidly connected to a
`
`
`
`plug and the prongs must fold flat in the same direction.
`
`
`
`IX. THE PRONG POCKET PLUG DEVICE
`
`66.
`
`I have examined samples of the Prong Pocket Plug for the iPhone 5 and the
`
`iPhone 4 and taken measurements of these devices.
`
`67. As set forth in detail in my claim chart, which I understand is Patent
`
`Owner’s Exhibit 2041, it is my opinion that the Pocket Plug falls within the
`
`scope of at least the addressed claims of the ‘486 patent and that these
`26
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.026
`
`
`
`claims are generally co-extensive with the Pocket Plug since this device is
`
`essentially nothing more than thin form-factor mobile cell phone charger
`
`case that has an integrated charger and flat folding AC plugs.
`
`
`
`X.
`
`68.
`
`THE SQUIRL DEVICE
`
`I have examined a sample of the Squirl case and taken measurements of this
`
`device.
`
`69. As set forth in detail in my claim chart, which I understand is Patent
`
`Owner’s Exhibit 2042, , it is my opinion that the Squirl case falls within the
`
`scope of at least the addressed claims of the ‘486 patent.
`
`
`
`XI. CONCLUSION
`
`70.
`
`I HEREBY DECLARE under penalty of perjury that all statements made
`
`herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine and imprisonment, or both, under 18
`
`27
`
`
`U.S.C. §1001.
`
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.027
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert John Anders
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.028
`
`
`
`Re spectful ly submitted,
`
`Dated:
`
`Robert John Anders
`
`28
`
`Sorias EX. 2092 Pg.029
`
`
`
` Expert Report of Robert John Anders
`
`Curriculum Vitae:
`
`
`
`
`Robert John Anders
`78 Continental Road
`PO Box 609
`
`Warwick, N. Y. 10990-0609
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A 1
`
`Voice: 845-987-8674
`Fax:
`845-987-8675
`Cell:
`845-987-6534
`email:
`rjanders@msn.com
`
`
`
`Robert Anders, A Design Consultancy
`P. O. Box 609
`
`
`
`Warwick, N.Y., 10990-0609
`
`
`
`Owner of consultancy
`involved with industrial
`design.
`
`
`
`Pratt Institute
`Design Management and Arts &
`Cultural Management Programs
`
`
`
`Pratt Institute
`Department of Industrial Design
`
`
`
`EMPLOYMENT:
`
`
`
`Professor/
`Program Head
`
`
`Professor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Created two new graduate
`programs.
`
`Taught undergr
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
