DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`
`Paper No. ______
`Filed: October 9, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,973,698
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,973,698
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 1
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Gregory W. Davis, hereby declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Petitioner Costco Wholesale
`
`Corporation (“Costco”) to review U.S. Patent 6,973,698 (“the ‘698 patent”), to
`
`describe the skill level in the art of the ‘698 patent as of April 1, 1998, as reflected
`
`in the patents and printed publications cited below, and to analyze whether, as of
`
`not later than April 1, 1998, the conception and making of the wiper blade for
`
`motor vehicle windows claimed in the ‘698 patent required more than ordinary
`
`skill in the art or involved more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions.
`
`2.
`
`In particular, I have been asked to provide comments concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 3,192,551, U.S. Patent No. 4,028,770, U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,325,564, and German Published Patent Application No. DE 2 313
`
`939.
`
`3.
`
`In performing my analysis I have considered the claims of the ‘698
`
`patent, any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art patents
`
`and printed publications cited below, and the level of ordinary skill in the art of the
`
`‘698 patent as of not later than April 1, 1998, which I understand is the filing date
`
`of the German application to which the ‘698 patent claims priority.
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 2
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my resume is attached as Appendix A.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Michigan – Ann Arbor in 1991. My thesis was directed to automotive engineering.
`
`Prior to this, I received a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from Oakland University (1986) and a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1982). I am a registered
`
`professional engineer in the state of Michigan.
`
`6.
`
`As shown in my resume, most of my career has been in the field of
`
`automotive engineering. I have held positions in both industry and academia
`
`relating to this field. After receiving my Masters degree, I began work at General
`
`Motors. At General Motors I had several assignments involving automotive
`
`design. I held positions in advanced engineering and manufacturing. Over the
`
`course of my years at General Motors, I was involved in all aspects of the vehicle
`
`design process, from advanced research and development to manufacturing. I also
`
`worked on several different technologies while at General Motors including
`
`various mechanical components and subsystems of vehicles.
`
`7.
`
`After leaving General Motors, I finished my Ph.D. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor. My thesis was directed
`
`to automotive engineering including the design and development of systems and
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 3
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`models for understanding combustion in automotive engines. Upon completion of
`
`my Ph. D., I joined the faculty of the U.S. Naval Academy where I led the
`
`automotive program in mechanical engineering. As part of my responsibilities
`
`while at the Academy, I managed the laboratories for Internal Combustion Engines
`
`and Power Systems. Additionally, I served as faculty advisor for the USNA
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). During this time I served as project
`
`director for the research and development of hybrid electric vehicles. This included
`
`extensive design and modifications of the powertrain, chassis, and body systems.
`
`While at the Naval Academy, I also taught classes in mechanical engineering at
`
`Johns Hopkins University.
`
`8.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of Lawrence Technological University
`
`where I served as Director of the Master of Automotive Engineering Program and
`
`Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The master's
`
`program in automotive engineering is a professionally oriented program aimed at
`
`attracting and educating practicing engineers in the automotive industry. In
`
`addition to teaching and designing the curriculum for undergraduate and graduate
`
`students, I also worked in the automotive industry closely with Ford Motor
`
`Company on the development of a hybrid electric vehicle. I served as project
`
`director on a cooperative research project to develop and design all aspects of a
`
`hybrid electric vehicle. While in many instances we used standard Ford
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 4
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`components, we custom designed many automotive subsystems. In addition to the
`
`powertrain system, we designed and developed the exterior body of the vehicle. In
`
`the course of this development, we custom designed a wiper blade system that
`
`would work appropriately with the body modifications desired for the hybrid
`
`electric vehicle. Not only did we select the appropriate location, structures, and
`
`design of the wiper system, we also custom designed a wiper blade appropriate for
`
`placement and performance with the vehicle in order to correct a performance
`
`(chatter) issue created by the body modifications. During the course of this nearly
`
`two year project, we created a unique wiper blade system for use on our hybrid
`
`electric vehicle, which was based on the Ford Taurus. We also did analytical and
`
`actual testing of the systems. During my time at Lawrence Tech, I served as
`
`advisor for 145 automotive graduate and undergraduate project students. Many of
`
`the graduate students whom I advised were employed as full time engineers in the
`
`automotive industry. This service required constant interaction with the students
`
`and
`
`their automotive companies which
`
`included
`
`the major automotive
`
`manufacturers (Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, etc.) along with many
`
`automotive suppliers.
`
`9.
`
`Currently, I am employed as a Professor of Mechanical Engineering
`
`& Director of the Advanced Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) at Kettering
`
`University, formerly General Motors Institute. Acting in these capacities, I develop
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 5
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`curriculum and teach courses in mechanical and automotive engineering to both
`
`undergraduate and graduate students. Since coming to Kettering, I have advised
`
`over 90 undergraduate and graduate theses in automotive engineering. Further, I
`
`actively pursue research and development activities within automotive engineering.
`
`This activity requires constant involvement with my students and their sponsoring
`
`automotive companies which have included not only those mentioned above, but
`
`also Bosch, Nissan, Borg Warner, FEV, Inc., U.S. Army Automotive Command,
`
`Denso, Honda, Dana, TRW, Tenneco, Navistar, and ArvinMeritor. I have
`
`published over 50 reviewed technical articles and presentations involving topics in
`
`automotive engineering. Automotive and mechanical engineering topics covered in
`
`these articles include mechanical design and analysis of components and systems,
`
`vehicle exterior design including aerodynamics, thermal and fluid system design
`
`and analysis, selection and design of components and sub-systems for optimum
`
`system integration, and system calibration and control. I have also chaired or co-
`
`chaired sessions in automotive engineering at many technical conferences
`
`including sessions involving materials applications and development in automotive
`
`engineering. Additionally, while acting as director of the AERL, I am responsible
`
`for numerous laboratories and undergraduate and graduate research projects, which
`
`include a computational wiper blade design effort and laboratory. With my
`
`colleague, I have worked on
`
`the correlation between
`
`the computational
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 6
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`environment and the experimental results for presentations to the automotive
`
`industry.
`
`10.
`
`I also serve as faculty advisor to the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`International (SAE) Student Branch and Clean Snowmobile Challenge and am also
`
`very active in SAE at the national level. I have served as a director on the SAE
`
`Board of Directors, the Engineering Education Board, and the Publications Board.
`
`Further, I have chaired the Engineering Education Board and several of the SAE
`
`Committees.
`
`11.
`
`I also actively develop and
`
`teach Continuing Professional
`
`Development (CPD) courses both for SAE and directly for corporate automotive
`
`clients. These CPD courses are directed to automotive powertrain, exterior body
`
`systems, and include extensive aerodynamic considerations. These courses are
`
`taught primarily to engineers who are employed in the automotive industry.
`
`12. Finally, I am a member of the Advisory Board of the National
`
`Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology at the University of Idaho. In
`
`addition to advising, I also review funding proposals and project reports of the
`
`researchers funded by the center.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`In preparing for this Declaration, I have analyzed and considered all
`
`of the documents referenced herein. More specifically, I have reviewed U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 7
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`No. 6,973,698 (“the ‘698 patent”) in detail, along with its file history and and prior
`
`art documents cited therein. I have also reviewed prior art references, including
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551, U.S. Patent No. 4,028,770, U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564, and German Published Patent Application No. DE 2
`
`313 939.
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions, I considered and relied upon the contents of
`
`the patents and printed publications identified below. In interpreting and
`
`explaining the contents of these patents and printed publications, I have also relied
`
`on my own education, including knowledge of basic engineering practices in the
`
`industry, my background, and my experience in the automotive industry.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`15. As of not later than April 1, 1998, the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ‘698 patent included at least the ability to make the subject matter disclosed
`
`in the following patents and printed publications and to make predictable uses of
`
`the elements they disclose according to their established functions (for example,
`
`using spring steel to support a wiper blade):
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 ("Appel '551") (Ex. 1006).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,028,770 ("Appel '770") (Ex. 1005).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 ("Arai") (Ex. 1004).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 ("Swanepoel '564") (Ex. 1009).
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 8
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
` German Published Patent Publication No. 2 313 939 ("DE '939") (Exs. 1007
`
`(original), 1008 (translation)).
`
`16. As of not later than April 1, 1998, the level of skill level in the art also
`
`included the ability to make predictable use of the devices and materials described
`
`above according to their established functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have the education and experience in mechanical engineering to have
`
`knowledge of the information deployed in these patents and printed publications.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, claim 1 of the ‘698 patent describes subject matter
`
`that, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art of the ‘698 patent as of not later than April 1, 1998. My reasoning for my
`
`opinion is set forth in the analysis below.
`
`VI.
`
` THE ‘698 PATENT
`
`18. For reference in my analysis of the prior art, I will now summarize the
`
`disclosure of the ‘698 patent.
`
`19. The '698 patent, which is titled "Wiper blade for motor vehicle
`
`windows," is based upon an international patent application, Patent Cooperation
`
`Treaty ("PCT") Application No. PCT/DE1998/003721. It is my understanding that
`
`the PCT application was filed by Bosch on December 18, 1998. The PCT
`
`application claims priority to German Patent Application No. DE/19814610 which
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 9
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`was filed on April 1, 1998 and names Thomas Kotlarski as the sole inventor. A
`
`national phase application was entered in the U.S. by Bosch on December 1, 1999.
`
`On December 13, 2005 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted issuance of
`
`the '698 patent. As issued, the '698 patent includes one independent claim and no
`
`dependent claims. This sole Claim 1 recites the following:
`
`1. A wiper blade for a wiping device of a motor vehicle for wiping
`a window of the motor vehicle, comprising an elongated wiper
`strip placeable against the window, and an elongated spring-elastic
`carrying element disposed on a side of the wiper strip remote from
`the window, said spring-elastic carrying element extending
`parallel to an axis of elongation of said wiper strip to distribute a
`contact force against the window over an entire length of said
`wiper strip, said wiper strip having a center section and two end
`sections, said contact force of said wiper strip being greater in said
`center section than in at least one of said two end sections, said
`spring-elastic carrying element has on a side thereof oriented
`toward the window a concave curvature that is sharper than the
`sharpest curvature of a spherically curved window in a region of a
`wiping field that can be swept across by said wiper blade and a
`concave curvature in said center section of the carrying element is
`sharper than in said sections thereof.
`
`VII. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The Decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed the file history of the ‘698 patent.
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 10
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`21.
`It is my understanding that the application for the ‘698 patent was the
`
`subject of an appeal during prosecution to the Board of Patent Appeals and
`
`Interferences (“BPAI”). On May 28, 2003, the BPAI issued a decision that (1)
`
`affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of appealed application claims 5 through 7, 9
`
`through 11, and 14 as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 to Arai, (2)
`
`affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of application claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 to Arai in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,028,770 to Appel, and (3) reversed the Examiner’s rejection of
`
`application claims 9 through 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,028,770 to Appel, as evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 to
`
`Arai. (See Ex. 1002 at 289-97.)
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art
`
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 (“Arai”) (Ex. 1004)
`22. U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 to Arai (“Arai” or “the ‘326 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1004) is entitled “Backing Member in Wiperblade of Windshield Wiper” and
`
`issued on February 28, 1989.
`
`23.
`
`I understand the BPAI’s decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection
`
`of appealed application claims 5 through 7, 9 through 11, and 14 as anticipated by
`
`the Arai ‘326 Patent, to mean that the BPAI found that each and every element of
`
`application claims 5 through 7, 9 through 11, and 14 of the ‘926 patent could be
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 11
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`found explicitly or inherently in the Arai ‘326 Patent.
`
`24. The chart below compares application claims 5 and 8 at the time they
`
`were before the BPAI (see Ex. 1002, pages 262-63) with issued Claim 1 of the
`
`‘698 Patent.
`
`Application Claims 5 and 8,
`REJECTED by the BPAI
`5. A wiper device for motor vehicles,
`comprising a driven wiper arm and a
`wiper blade connected to said wiper
`arm, said wiper arm moving said wiper
`blade back and forth across the window
`of a motor vehicle
`laterally
`to a
`longitudinal space of the window and
`loading said wiper blade in relation to
`the window,
`said wiper blade including an
`elongated wiper strip placeable
`against the window, and
`an elongated spring-elastic carrying
`element disposed on a side of said
`wiper strip remote from the window
`and having connecting means for
`connecting said wiper arm thereto,
`said spring-elastic carrying element
`extending parallel to an axis of
`elongation of said wiper strip to
`distribute a contact force applied by
`said wiper strip under the action of said
`wiper arm against the window over an
`entire length of said wiper strip,
`said wiper strip having a center
`section and two end sections,
`said contact force of said wiper strip
`being greater in said center section
`than in at least one of said two end
`sections,
`
`
`
`Issued Claim 1 of the ‘698 Patent
`
`1. A wiper blade for a wiping device
`of a motor vehicle for wiping a
`window
`of
`the motor
`vehicle,
`comprising
`
`
`an elongated wiper strip placeable
`against the window, and
`
`an elongated spring-elastic carrying
`element disposed on a side of the
`wiper strip remote from the window,
`
`said spring-elastic carrying element
`extending parallel to an axis of
`elongation of said wiper strip to
`distribute a contact force against the
`window over an entire length of said
`wiper strip,
`
`said wiper strip having a center
`section and two end sections,
`said contact force of said wiper strip
`being greater in said center section
`than in at least one of said two end
`sections,
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 12
`
`

`
`Issued Claim 1 of the ‘698 Patent
`
`
`[No such limitation in issued Claim 1]
`
`[Not applicable to issued Claim 1.]
`
`said spring-elastic carrying element
`has on a side thereof oriented toward
`the window a concave curvature that
`is sharper than the sharpest
`curvature of a spherically curved
`window in a region of a wiping field
`that can be swept across by said wiper
`blade and a concave curvature in said
`center section of the carrying element
`is sharper than in said sections
`thereof.
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`Application Claims 5 and 8,
`REJECTED by the BPAI
`
`said wiper strip having a wiper lip
`adapted to contact the window and is
`constructed such that it tilts over in
`reversal positions in wiping direction of
`said wiper blade in a region of a reduced
`contact force and continues to tilt in a
`region of a greater contact force against
`the window.
`8. The wiper device according to claim
`5, wherein
`said spring-elastic carrying element
`has on a side thereof oriented toward
`the window a concave curvature that
`is sharper than the sharpest
`curvature of a spherically curved
`window in a region of a wiping field
`that can be swept across by said wiper
`blade and a concave curvature in said
`center section of the carrying element
`is sharped than in said sections
`thereof.
`
`
`
`25. As can be seen in the chart above, the limitations of issued Claim 1
`
`had comparable limitations in application claim 5. But the BPAI found that Arai
`
`anticipated application claim 5. Therefore the Arai patent must also have
`
`anticipated each comparable limitation in issued Claim 1. Further, the BPAI found
`
`that Arai in view of Appel ‘770 rendered application claim 8 obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, this combination also renders the comparable
`
`claim limitation in issued claim 1 obvious.
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 13
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,028,770 (“Appel ‘770”) (Ex. 1005) and
`U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 (“Appel ‘551”) (Ex. 1006)
`26. The disclosure of the ’698 Patent states (Column 1, lines 34 to 39):
`
`In a known wiper blade of this type (German patent 12 47 161), in
`order to produce as uniform as possible a pressure loading of the
`wiper blade against a flat window over its entire length, a number
`of embodiments of the carrying element are provided.
`
`27.
`
`I have reviewed the German patent 12 47 161 cited in the ‘698 Patent.
`
`(Exs. 1010 (original), 1011 (translation).) I understand that it has the same inventor
`
`as and is related to U.S. Patents nos. 4,028,770 and U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551.
`
`28. U.S. Pat. No. 4,028,770, entitled “Windshield Wiper Assembly,”
`
`issued June 14, 1977 to Walter D. Appel (Ex. 1006). It is my understanding that
`
`the Appel ‘770 patent incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 3,192,551. (See
`
`Appel ‘770 – Column 3, lines 18 to 20.)
`
`29. U.S. Pat. No. 3,192,551, entitled “Windshield Wiper Blade
`
`Assembly,” issued July 6, 1965 to Walter D. Appel (Ex. 1005) (hereafter “the ‘551
`
`Patent” or “Appel ‘551”). I understand that the Appel ‘551 patent and the German
`
`patent 12 47 161 cited in the ‘698 Patent both claim priority to a May 21, 1962
`
`patent application. (Exs. 1005, 1010.)
`
`30. Among other features, the Appel ‘770 patent (which incorporates by
`
`reference the Appel ‘551 patent) discloses a spring-elastic carrying element having,
`
`on a side oriented toward the window, a concave curvature that is sharper than the
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 14
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`sharpest curvature of a spherically curved window in a region of a wiping field that
`
`can be swept across by said wiper blade, and having a concave curvature in the
`
`center section of the carrying element that is sharper than in its end sections.
`
`31. For example, the '770 Patent discloses:
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 3,192,551, issued July 6, 1965, discloses a
`windshield wiper blade assembly having a one-piece resilient
`backbone member or superstructure fabricated of a suitable
`resilient, metallic material and designed such that uniform wiping
`pressure is exerted along the entire length of an associated wiper
`blade by means of a wiper arm acting at a central point along the
`superstructure. The uniform wiping pressure is achieved by
`forming the wiper superstructure in a curvalinear manner with a
`radius of curvature less than that of the windshield to be traversed
`thereby, together with varying the width and/or thickness of the
`superstructure member from a maximum through the central arm
`attachment point to a minimum at the opposite ends thereof, with
`the width and/or thickness and degree of curvature being
`proportioned or correlated with the modulus of elasticity, load and
`length of the blade, so as to assure for the desired uniform wiping
`pressure.
`
`('770 Patent, Column 1, lines 6-24.)
`
`[T]he superstructure 16 is formed in a generally arcuate or
`curvalinear shape, as best seen in FIG. 1, whereby to provide a
`substantially uniform wiping pressure of the wiper blade 18
`against the associated windshield. As described in U.S. Pat. No.
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 15
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`3,192,551, which patent is incorporated by reference in the
`descriptive portion of this specification, the aforesaid uniform
`pressure may be accomplished by forming the superstructure 16
`such that it assumes a generally arcuate configuration of a
`predetermined radius in a free form or state so that as the
`superstructure 16 is moved normally toward the windshield
`surface, the opposite ends of the associated blade would make
`initial contact, with progressive contact being made by the blade
`with the windshield from the ends thereof toward the center as
`increasing pressure is applied at the center. The particular radius
`of curvature is, of course, dependent upon the length, thickness,
`width and modulus of elasticity of the material from which the
`superstructure 16 is fabricated, and for a given modulus of
`elasticity, relatively thinner or narrower sections will require
`relatively greater deflection.
`In addition
`to
`forming
`the
`superstructure
`in
`the aforesaid arcuate configuration,
`it
`is
`contemplated that the width of the body 22 thereof may be tapered
`from a maximum width at the center thereof to a minimum width
`at the opposite ends thereof
`
`('770 Patent, Column 3, lines 14-66.)
`
`32. For example, the Appel '551 Patent, which is also incorporated by
`
`reference into the Appel ‘770 patent, discloses a spring-elastic carrying element
`
`that has on a side thereof oriented toward the window a concave curvature that is
`
`sharper than the sharpest curvature of a spherically curved window. For example
`
`('551 Patent at Column 1, line 23-34):
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 16
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`A single spring support element is provided as a backbone to
`which is mounted a conventional flexible rubber wiping blade.
`Which together operate to distribute a centrally applied actuating
`arm pressure load relatively uniformly along the length of the
`wiper blade
`throughout variations
`in windshield contours
`traversed by the wiper. Preferably the resilient backbone member
`is adapted for actuating arm attachment at or near the center and is
`constructed of spring metal or other resilient material bowed with
`a free contour surface having a radius of curvature less than that of
`the windshield traversed by the wiper assembly ...
`
`Also for example (Column 3, line 63 through Column 4, line 17):
`
`With reference to FIGS. 4-6 a spring backbone element 36 of the
`type illustrated in FIGS. 2a-2c may be adapted to carry a
`conventional rubber wiping blade 37 by providing a slot 38
`extending almost throughout the length and terminating just short
`of the end 39 for accommodating a flanged rib 40 of the rubber
`blade projecting there through. The sides of the backbone may be
`sprung apart to facilitate attachment of the rubber blade 70 before
`actuating arm attachment clip 41 is secured thereto by rivets 42
`providing a permanent assembly for retaining the rubber blade 37
`in position. As shown in FIG. 5 the backbone 36a and rubber
`blade 37a have a free form circular arc curvature modified at the
`ends with somewhat less curvature, adapted to provide uniform
`contact pressure along the length of contact with a flat windshield
`43 when fully depressed by the actuating arm (not shown). The
`reduced curvature at the ends departing from a true circular arc
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 17
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`may be required where, as in this embodiment, the parabolic sides
`terminate at each end with a finite width rather than a point. The
`theoretically proper curvature at such ends would be intermediate
`the parabolic curvature shown in FIG. 1 incident to a spring cross
`section of uniform width and thickness and the circular curvature
`shown in FIG. 2 incident to parabolic sides meeting at a point at
`either end; however, as a practical compromise the provision of a
`circular curvature terminating somewhat short of straight end
`portions has been found satisfactory due to the ability of the
`rubber wiper blade to compensate for a limited degree of
`nonuniform spring load.
`
`33. The '551 Patent also discloses having a curvature greater in the center
`
`than at the ends.
`
`As shown in FIG. 5 the backbone 36a and rubber blade 37a have a
`free form circular arc curvature modified at the ends with
`somewhat less curvature, adapted to provide uniform contact
`pressure along the length of contact with a flat windshield 43
`when fully depressed by the actuating arm (not shown). The
`reduced curvature at the ends departing from a true circular arc
`may be required where, as in this embodiment, the parabolic sides
`terminate at each end with a finite width rather than a point.
`
`('551 Patent at Column 3, Line 73 to Column 4, Line 7.)
`
`The theoretically proper curvature at such ends would be
`intermediate the parabolic curvature shown in FIG. 1 incident to a
`spring cross section of uniform width and thickness and the
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 18
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`circular curvature shown in FIG. 2 incident to parabolic sides
`meeting at a point at either end; however, as a practical
`compromise the provision of a circular curvature terminating
`somewhat short of straight end portions has been found
`satisfactory due to the ability of the rubber wiper blade to
`compensate for a Limited degree of nonuniform spring load.
`
`('551 Patent at Column 4, Lines 8-17)
`
`3.
`DE 2 313 939 (“DE ‘939”) (Exs. 1007, 1008)
`34. German Published Patent Application 2 313 939 (hereafter “DE
`
`‘939”), entitled “Wiper assembly for cleaning round, convex panes,” was
`
`published September 26, 1974 from an application naming Ursel Eckhart as an
`
`inventor (Exs. 1007 (original), 1008 (translation)).
`
`35. The DE ‘939 patent application discloses “a wiper assembly for
`
`cleaning round, convex panes, particularly headlight diffusers, having a wiper arm
`
`and a rubber wiping strip which is . . . supported at only one point on the wiper
`
`arm, and is made rigid by a spring rail arranged in a plane which is parallel to the
`
`wiper plane, wherein this spring rail is convex in this plane and is elastically
`
`resilient only perpendicular to this plane.” (Ex. 1008 at 3.)
`
`36. DE ‘939 explains that rubber wiping strips of prior art assemblies had
`
`“been suspended on a support bracket system,” so that the wiper arm “is pressed by
`
`a spring force against the pane to be cleaned, and this contact force is transmitted
`
`by the support bracket system to multiple points on the rubber wiping strip.” (Id.at
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 19
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`4.) But “another known approach is to insert a spring rail into the rubber wiping
`
`strip, said spring rail being convex in a plane which is parallel to the surface being
`
`cleaned, according to the outer contour of the headlight.” (Id.)
`
`37. But according to the DE ‘939 patent application, it had been found
`
`that “edge regions” of highly convex panes “are not adequately cleaned because
`
`the contact pressure of the rubber wiping strip against the pane to be cleaned is too
`
`low on the ends thereof.” (Id. at 4.) The DE ‘939 patent application proposed to
`
`solve this problem via a wiper assembly “in which the rubber wiping strip is
`
`pressed against the pane with sufficient pressure, over the entire length thereof,
`
`even in the case of highly convex panes,” that is, by pretensioning a spring rail so
`
`that it is “curved in a plane perpendicular to the wiping direction when it is not
`
`stressed.” (Id.at 4-5.) “In one advantageous implementation of the invention, the
`
`curvature of the spring rail in the plane perpendicular to the wiping direction has a
`
`smaller curve radius than the curvature of the pane to be cleaned.” (Id. at 5.) In that
`
`the wiping strip is pressed by a spring force against the pane to be
`cleaned by the arm which is attached primarily in the middle of
`the wiping strip. The required contact pressure is applied in the
`middle of the rubber wiping strip by the elastic wiper arm, while
`in the end region the contact pressure depends on the extent to
`which the spring rail is pretensioned when it is not stressed.
`
`case:
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1013, p. 20
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,698
`(Id.)
`
`38. Figures 1-4 of DE ‘939 further disclose specific embodiments. (Exs.
`
`1007, 1008.) In particular, DE ‘939 discloses that the radius of curvature of the
`
`spring rail must be less than that of the outer contour of the window pane:
`
`In Fig. 1, the rubber wiping strip is indicated by 10, which has a
`relatively rigid spine 11, wherein grooves 13 and 14 are
`constructed in the same on both sides thereof, open toward the
`edges over the entire length thereof, such that a thin-walled bar 15
`is formed between these two grooves. Further cross-bars, as well
`as the wiping lip 16, connect to this bar 15 in the known manner.
`The flat spring rail 17, with a rectangular cross-section, has a slot
`18 in the middle which extends almost over the entire length of
`the spring rail 17. The bar 15 of the rubber wiping strip 10 is
`inserted into this slot 18 as shown particularly in Fig. 1, such that
`the spring rail lies in the grooves 13 and 14. The slot is expanded
`on the ends 19, thereby simplifying the insertion of the rubber
`wiping strip.
`
`It can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4 in particular that the spring rail is
`curved in two planes when not stressed. In a first plane parallel to
`the pane to be cleaned, the spring rail has a curvature which
`matches the outer contour of the pane. Perpendicular to