throbber
Filed: October 24, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00034
`Patent 6,973,698
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ........................................................................ 2
`
`I.
`
`THE BOARD PROPERLY SET FORTH THE LEVEL OF
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`ARAI AND APPEL ‘770 RENDER CLAIM 1 UNPATENTABLE ............. 2
`
`A. Arai Discloses a Wiper Blade Having Contact Force Greater in
`a Center Section Than in at Least One End Section ........................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Appel ’770 Discloses a Wiper Blade Having a Center Section
`Curvature That Is Greater Than an End Section Curvature ................ 4
`
`Providing Arai With a Progressive Curvature of Appel ’770
`Was a Design Step Well Within the Grasp of a Person Having
`Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................................... 7
`
`III. BOSCH’S EVIDENCE OF PURPORTED SECONDARY
`CONSIDERATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME A
`FINDING OF OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`There Is No Nexus Between the ’698 Patent and Any Purported
`Commercial Success, and No Success Is Established ....................... 11
`
`Bosch’s Proffered “Evidence” of Skepticism and Unexpected
`Results Does Not Undercut Obviousness ......................................... 14
`
`There Is No Evidence of Failure by Others or Long-Felt Need........ 15
`
`Bosch’s Vague Claims of Industry Praise Are Insufficient .............. 17
`
`Bosch’s Fails to Show Copying by its Competitors ......................... 17
`
`Bosch’s Licensing “Evidence” Does Not Support
`Nonobviousness ................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`IV. SWANEOPOEL ANTICIPATES THE ‘698 PATENT ................................ 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Swanepoel Teaches a Contact Force Greater in the Center
`Section than in the End Sections ....................................................... 19
`
`Swanepoel Teaches a Force Distribution “Over an Entire
`Length” .............................................................................................. 21
`
`C.
`
`Swanepoel Inherently Teaches the Recited Force Distribution ........ 22
`
`V. ATTACKS ON DR. DAVIS’S CREDIBILITY ARE
`INSUPPORTABLE IN FACT AND LAW ................................................... 23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Consistent Statements of Dr. Davis Support His
`Credibility and Are Consistent with His Deposition Testimony ...... 23
`
`Prior Indefiniteness Opinions In District Court Proceedings Are
`Irrelevant to Dr. Davis’s Current Opinions In This Proceeding ....... 24
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 1
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Antor Media Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
`581 Fed. App’x 859 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................... 14, 17
`
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................................................. 21, 24
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................ 2, 18
`
`GraftTech Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Techs. Inc., No. 2015-1796
`No. 2015-1796,
`2016 WL 3357427, (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2016). ................................................... 11
`
`Grobler v. Apple Inc., No. 12-CV-01534-JST,
`2014 WL 1867043 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) ...................................................... 24
`
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 12, 14
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-
`1726, 2015-1727,
`2016 WL 5335500 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) ...................................................... 7
`
`I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc.,
`576 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cont’d
`
`Cases
`Jervis B. Webb Co. v. S. Sys., Inc.,
`742 F.2d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Page(s)
`
`K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH,
`567 F. App’x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 17
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................. 2, 9, 10, 11
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 10, 17
`
`In re Lundberg,
`280 F.2d 865 (C.C.P.A. 1960) .............................................................................. 2
`
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
`747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG,
`812 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Norgren v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`699 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 1
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 12, 16
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Pregis Corp. v. Kappos,
`700 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Tex. Instruments v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`988 F.2d 1165 (Fed.Cir.1993) ............................................................................ 16
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cont’d
`
`Cases
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 10, 12, 17
`
`Page(s)
`
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 11, 13
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)............................................................................ 23
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c) and (d), Petitioner certifies that the word
`
`count of Petitioner’s Reply in Support of the Petition (exclusive of any table of
`
`contents, table of authorities, listing of facts which are admitted, denied, or cannot
`
`be admitted or denied, certificate of service or word count, or appendix of exhibits)
`
`as measured by Microsoft Word is 5490 words.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits this Reply in further support of cancellation
`
`of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698 (the “’698 Patent”; Ex. 1001).
`
`In its Institution Decision (Paper No. 16) (the “Decision”), the Board insti-
`
`tuted trial on two grounds: (1) obviousness in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,807,326 to
`
`Arai (“Arai”; Ex. 1004) and U.S. Patent No. 4,028,770 to Appel (“Appel ’770”;
`
`Ex. 1006); and (2) anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 to Swanepoel (“Swa-
`
`nepoel”; Ex. 1009). In its response, the Patent Owner (“Bosch”) asks the Board to
`
`ignore the express teachings of Arai, Appel ’770, and Swanepoel based on inaccu-
`
`rate and misleading quotations, and makes a formalistic and meritless attack on the
`
`Board’s citations to U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 to Appel (“Appel ’551”; Ex. 1005)
`
`which Appel ’770 incorporates by reference. Bosch’s assertion that the subject
`
`matter claimed in the ’698 Patent is entitled to secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness is insufficient1 in light of the trivial or non-existent differences be-
`
`tween the challenged claim and the prior art of record.
`
`THE BOARD PROPERLY SET FORTH THE LEVEL OF ORDI-
`I.
`NARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The Board found that the prior art of record reflects an appropriate skill lev-
`
`1 On October 19, 2016, the Board (Paper No. 29) authorized Petitioner to file a mo-
`
`tion to strike the hearsay testimony of Wilfried Merkel submitted by Patent Owner.
`
`Petitioner’s motion is being submitted contemporaneously herewith.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`el, relying on the same case that Bosch now suggests supports a different outcome.
`
`See Decision, 22 (quoting Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)). Bosch is wrong in asserting that the statutory phrase “ordinary skill in the
`
`art” connotes merely a level of education or work experience. See Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper No. 26) (the “Response”), 1. A person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art “is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art,” In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and how to practice the subject
`
`matter disclosed in prior art patents, see, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Rous-
`
`sel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[B]oth the claimed and unclaimed
`
`disclosures in a prior art patent are [presumptively] enabled.”). Thus, the prior art
`
`of record reflects the baseline of knowledge and skill against which the non-
`
`obviousness of the challenged claims must be measured. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Tele-
`
`flex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007).
`
`II. ARAI AND APPEL ‘770 RENDER CLAIM 1 UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Arai Discloses a Wiper Blade Having Contact Force Greater in a
`Center Section Than in at Least One End Section
`
`The Institution Decision correctly held that Arai discloses structure falling
`
`within the limitation, “said contact force of said wiper strip being greater in said
`
`center section than in at least one of said two end sections.” Decision, 20. Bosch’s
`
`contrary assertion is inconsistent with both with the express disclosure of Arai and
`
`with the BPAI’s prior unappealed finding to that effect. Decision, 23 (citing
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`Ex. 1002 (File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698), 292; Arai, 3:73–4:3); see al-
`
`so Decision, 19–22. Having failed, during prosecution, to appeal the Board’s de-
`
`termination of this factual point, Bosch should not be allowed to re-litigate that
`
`point. See In re Lundberg, 280 F.2d 865, 872 (C.C.P.A. 1960) (claim held “un-
`
`patentable because insofar as it would require a reexamination of the identical is-
`
`sues raised in the prior case, because of inclusion of the same subject-matter as the
`
`prior claims, res judicata controls”).
`
`Even assuming that Bosch could now collaterally attack the Board’s prior
`
`unappealed finding that Arai discloses structure falling within the limitation, “said
`
`contact force of said wiper strip being greater in said center section than in at least
`
`one of said two end sections,” the “High Pressure” curve in Arai figure 7 (repro-
`
`duced below) plainly shows a contact pressure that is greater in the center section
`
`than in the end sections.
`
`
`
`Arai figure 7 expressly discloses the relationship between the larger central
`
`contact pressure and the smaller contact pressure in the tip region, and it is entirely
`
`proper to rely on drawings to show relationships between elements. See Ex. 1013
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`(Davis Decl.) ¶ 60 (citing Arai 3:48–4:8, figs. 7–8); Ex. 2002 (Davis Tr.), 14:18–
`
`20:9, 59:16–25;2 Jervis B. Webb Co. v. S. Sys., Inc., 742 F.2d 1388, 1397 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1984). Finally, even if Arai figure 7 shows only a “small” decrease in pressure
`
`from the center section to the end sections (see Response, 7–8), it is undisputed
`
`that such a decrease would be within the scope of the disputed claim. See Re-
`
`sponse, 9; ’698 Patent, 4:33–40.
`
`B. Appel ’770 Discloses a Wiper Blade Having a Center Section Cur-
`vature That Is Greater Than an End Section Curvature
`
`Appel ’770 discloses a wiper blade comprising a “superstructure 16” that is
`
`formed in a generally arcuate or curvilinear shape to provide a “substantially uni-
`
`form wiping pressure of the wiper blade 18 against the associated windshield.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 3:14–18. The written description of this superstructure states in part: “As
`
`described in [Appel ’551], which patent is incorporated by reference in the descrip-
`
`tion portion of this specification, the aforesaid uniform pressure may be accom-
`
`plished by forming the superstructure 16 such that it assumes a generally arcuate
`
`configuration of a predetermined radius in a free form or state . . . .” Id. at 3:18–24
`
`(citing Appel ’551, Ex. 1005). The Decision identifies Appel ’770 as “Appel ’770,
`
`Ex. 1005)” and repeatedly cites to Exhibit 1005, which is Appel ’551 incorporated
`
`
`2 Bosch is incorrect that “[t]here is no technical testimony from Dr. Davis” regard-
`
`ing Arai’s force distribution teaching. Response, 5.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`by reference in Appel ’770. See, e.g., Decision, 20–21, 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`1:11–15, 25–28, 32–41, 3:9–22, 23–30, 31–36, 3:73–4:3).
`
`Appel ’551 figure 5, which is incorporated by reference in Appel ’770, is re-
`
`produced below:
`
`
`
`Referring to the above figure and its written description, the Institution Decision
`
`states in part: “As shown in Figure 5 of Appel ’770, the backbone 36a and rubber
`
`blade 37a have a free form circular arc curvature modified at the ends with some-
`
`what less curvature, . . . .” Decision, 5 (emphasis in original) (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`3:73–4:3). “We recognize that Appel ’770 refers to ‘uniform contact pressure.’
`
`Appel ’770 also discloses, however, that progressive pressure contact from ends to
`
`center can be achieved through various constructional approaches incorporating
`
`progressive dimensional variations in free form curvature.” Decision, 25 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 3:9–22, 31–36) (emphasis in original).
`
`Bosch does not dispute that the Appel ’770 disclosures cited in the Institu-
`
`tion Decision meet the limitation, “a concave curvature in said center section of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`carrying element is sharper than in said [end] sections thereof.” ’698 Patent,
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:20–22. Instead, Bosch asserts that the Board “mistakenly” cited Ap-
`
`pel ’551 disclosures that Appel ’770 incorporated by reference. Response, 10–15.
`
`That contention is meritless. The supposedly “mistaken” citations that Bosch refers
`
`to are correct citations to Exhibit 1005, which Appel ’770 incorporates by refer-
`
`ence as disclosing how to make the generally arcuate or curvilinear superstructure
`
`16 it depicts and describes. See Appel ’770, Ex. 1006, 3:18–30. Petitioner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Davis, has previously testified to that very point. See Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 28, 31; Ex.
`
`2002, 37:16–38:18. Bosch admits that Appel ’551 discloses a “parabolic form of
`
`free curvature in a spring,” (Response, 13–14 (quoting Appel ’551, 3:9–22, 31–
`
`36)), but omits, from its quotation of Appel ’770, its teachings regarding “progres-
`
`sive contact” and how a “particular radius of curvature” is dependent on other
`
`structural features and material properties. Appel ’551, 3:12.
`
`Bosch wrongly asserts that “Appel ’770 only incorporates Appel ’551 by
`
`reference for its uniform pressure distribution teachings.” Response, 15 (emphasis
`
`omitted). In fact, the portions of Appel ’770 quoted by Bosch identify with detailed
`
`particularity that Appel ’770 incorporates Appel ’551 for its teaching that “pro-
`
`gressive pressure contact from ends to center can be achieved through various
`
`constructional approaches incorporating progressive dimensional variations in free
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`form curvature.” Decision, 26 (emphasis in original).3 Cf. Husky Injection Molding
`
`Sys. v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-1726, 2015-1727, 2016 WL 5335500, at
`
`*8 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (citation omitted)) (“The incorporation standard relies
`
`only on the reasonably skilled artisan and his or her ability to deduce from lan-
`
`guage, however imprecise, what a host document aims to incorporate.”); see
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 28, 31; Ex. 2002, 37:16–38:18; Ex. 1103 (“Second Davis Decl.”)
`
`¶¶ 8–11.
`
`Contrary to Bosch’s suggestion, the disclosure of Appel ’770 is not limited
`
`to wiper blade superstructures that have a perfectly constant or “uniform” radius of
`
`curvature. Response, 17 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 54). None of the portions of Appel ’770
`
`cited by Bosch support limiting its disclosure in this way. Id.; Appel ’770, 2:64–65
`
`(“generally curvilinear or arcuate” superstructure), 3:14–24 (same), 3:30–35 (“ra-
`
`dius of curvature” dependent on material properties); see Ex. 2002, 49:13–52:11.
`
`C.
`
`Providing Arai With a Progressive Curvature of Appel ’770 Was
`a Design Step Well Within the Grasp of a Person Having Ordi-
`nary Skill in the Art
`
`Bosch asserts that it would have been non-obvious to make an Arai wiper
`
`with a center section whose concave curvature was “sharper than in said [end] sec-
`
`3 The Board’s citation to “Ex. 1006, 3:9–22; 31–36” appears to be the one citation
`
`that might be characterized as “mistaken”; in other portions of the decision the
`
`Board cites to these portions of Exhibit 1005, rather than Exhibit 1006.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`tions” as disclosed in Appel ’770, because such curvature would have defeated
`
`Arai’s stated objective of a “uniform” pressure distribution. Response, 16–20. That
`
`argument is unsupported, incorrect, and contrary to the prior unappealed finding of
`
`the Board.
`
`To begin, the Board previously found that Arai discloses a wiper blade hav-
`
`ing a contact force greater in the center section than in the end sections. See Ex.
`
`1004, 3:48–51, fig. 7. Challenged claim 1 is written in broad terms and encom-
`
`passes any pressure differential between “center” and “end” sections of a wiper
`
`blade, including that disclosed in Arai figure 7 reproduced above.
`
`Second, Arai and Appel ’770 both teach that varying the pre-curvature of a
`
`wiper blade is one way to vary the force distribution received from a wiper arm.
`
`Given the pressure distribution disclosed in Arai figure 7, the Appel ’770 provided
`
`a clear reason to use the means claimed in the ’698 Patent, namely, lessening the
`
`curvature in the end regions of the wiper support. As the Board stated,
`
`pel ’770’s disclosure that progressive pressure contact from ends to center can be
`
`achieved through various constructional approaches incorporating progressive di-
`
`mensional variations in free form curvature . . . provides a rationale for a person of
`
`ordinary skill to modify Arai so that the combined structure has progressive pres-
`
`sure contact from ends to center.” Decision, 26 (emphasis in original). Bosch does
`
`not dispute the Board’s finding that Appel ’770 discloses “various constructional
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`approaches incorporating dimensional variations in free form curvature” (id. at 25),
`
`apart from its quibble with the Board’s reliance on Appel ’551 disclosures incorpo-
`
`rating Appel ’770 by reference.
`
`Third, Bosch’s assertion that Costco and the Board have engaged in imper-
`
`missible “hindsight” analysis is incorrect. Response, 17–18. As noted above, the
`
`Board states that the express teachings of Appel ’770—not addressed by Bosch—
`
`would have provided a rationale for a person of ordinary skill to include Appel
`
`’770’s parabolic curvature in Arai’s backbone. Id.; Decision, 26. And, as Bosch
`
`admits, the “goal” of both Arai and Appel ’770 was the application of relatively
`
`uniform pressure across the length of the wiper (Response, 7, 15), providing an ad-
`
`ditional reason to combine these references to improve wiping quality. See Peti-
`
`tion, 40; Ex. 1013 ¶ 54, Ex. 2002, 16:2–18:23; Ex. 1013 ¶ 60–61. Furthermore,
`
`modifying Arai’s backbone to include the parabolic curvature of Appel ’770 would
`
`merely be a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; see Second Davis Decl. ¶ 12.
`
`Fourth, Bosch’s attempts to characterize Arai as teaching away from both a
`
`contact force and a curvature that are greater in its center section than in its end
`
`sections, as well as limiting Appel ’770 to “uniform” curvature, are merely rehash-
`
`es of its individual attacks on those references. Response, 18–19. Bosch’s under-
`
`standing is inconsistent with the express teachings of Arai and Appel ’770 as well
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`as the BPAI’s decision. See discussion supra p. 2–7.
`
`Finally, Bosch argues that the purported “flip over” problem discussed in the
`
`’698 Patent is not addressed by Arai or Appel ’770, suggesting that the identifica-
`
`tion of this problem is the invention. Response, 19–20 (citing Leo Pharm. Prods.,
`
`Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude
`
`Med., Inc., 381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). But the problem the ’698 Patent ad-
`
`dresses need not be the problem that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[A]ny need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by
`
`the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
`
`claimed.”) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-
`
`Surgery, Inc., 774 F.3d 968, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-preferred embodiment di-
`
`rected to different purpose contributing to obviousness).
`
`As discussed above, persons of ordinary skill in the art interested in con-
`
`structing a wiper faced with solving the problem of providing relatively uniform
`
`pressure distribution would have had reason to modify Arai’s backbone with Appel
`
`’770’s parabolic curvature to improve pressure distribution and wiping quality.
`
`And, as stated in the BPAI’s opinion and in the Decision, Arai inherently discloses
`
`a wiper that would flip over as described in the ’698 Patent and recited in previous-
`
`ly-rejected application claim 5. Ex. 1002, 293; Decision, 24.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`III. BOSCH’S EVIDENCE OF PURPORTED SECONDARY CONSID-
`ERATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME A FINDING OF OB-
`VIOUSNESS
`
`“Weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima
`
`facie case of obviousness.” W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626
`
`F.3d 1361, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Here, where the inventions represented no more
`
`than ‘the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established func-
`
`tions,’ the secondary considerations advanced by [Bosch] are inadequate to estab-
`
`lish nonobviousness as a matter of law.” Id. (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
`
`A. There Is No Nexus Between the ’698 Patent and Any Purported
`Commercial Success, and No Success Is Established
`
`A “nexus” is established where there is proof that a “marketed product em-
`
`bodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them . . . . Brown & William-
`
`son Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis
`
`added) (citation omitted).
`
`Bosch “submitted the same evidence in each of the inter parties reviews”
`
`Nos. IPR2016-00034, -00036, -00038, -00039, -00040, and -00041, which “un-
`
`dermines its commercial success arguments” because the ’698 Patent and those
`
`that are the subject of the other five IPRs are “directed to different inventions.”
`
`GraftTech Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Techs. Inc., No. 2015-1796 No. 2015-1796,
`
`2016 WL 3357427, at *5 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2016).
`
`Because Bosch’s own evidence indicates that there are features, purportedly
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`present in the allegedly successful Aerotwin and Icon wiper products but either
`
`“unclaimed” in the ’698 Patent,4 see Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d
`
`1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006), or resulting from the flat-springs “known in the prior
`
`art,” Ethicon, 812 F.3d at 1034, there can be no nexus between the ’698 Patent and
`
`any alleged success. See Response, 21.
`
`Bosch relies on its employee, Martin Kashnowski, to link (1) its products’
`
`“flexible spoiler with diverging legs” and “end caps” and (2) his recollection that
`
`Bosch allegedly “tested these products extensively before releasing them and
`
`found them “quiet in operation,” to the supposed “great customer demand for these
`
`products.” Response, 24–25; Ex. 2007 (Kashnowski Decl.) ¶ 6. But the ‘698 Patent
`
`does not discuss “diverging legs” or “end caps” at all (see generally Ex. 1001).
`
`And Mr. Kashnowski’s “conclusory assertion that, in his opinion, the sales of the
`
`[products] derive from” the results of these features or tests “is insufficient” to
`
`show nexus. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As explained by Mr.
`
`David Peck, an engineer with more than 15 years of experience in the wiper indus-
`
`try, wiper products are routinely tested before their market release, and wiper noise
`
`is caused by many sources, “the design of the motor, the design of the motor link-
`
`age clearances, the rubber selection of the wiping element, and the tendency of the
`
`4 Bosch alleges that features of these products are claimed in a multitude of other
`
`patents. See Ex. 2014, 3–4.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`wiper to enter a failed wiping mode (e.g., chatter),” all of which must be addressed
`
`to make a quiet system. Ex. 1100 (“Peck Decl.”) ¶¶ 19. In view of this, Mr. Kash-
`
`nowski’s testimony suggests a lack of nexus between its products and the ’698 Pa-
`
`tent.
`
`Bosch also submits that its purported solution to unspecified “engineering
`
`difficulties” led to the introduction of the Aerotwin product, and that the Icon
`
`product had “fewer part numbers” that, in turn, overcame a “disadvantage” of the
`
`Aerotwin product. Response, 21, 23 (citations omitted). Again, Bosch’s own evi-
`
`dence indicates a lack of nexus between its products and the challenged claims of
`
`the ‘698 Patent.
`
`The evidence submitted by Bosch fails to establish that its Aerotwin and
`
`Icon products actually practice the ’698 Patent. First, Bosch simply alleges, with-
`
`out explanation, that the Aerotwin and three different “Generation[s]” 5 of Icon
`
`products “have practiced and continue to practice” the ’698 Patent, along with
`
`claim charts that are not discussed by any of its declarants. Response, 24;
`
`Ex. 2014, 3–4; Ex. 2015, 33–57; Ex. 2016, 30–43. It is well-established that “mere
`
`attorney argument” relating to commercial success “is not evidence that can sup-
`
`5 Bosch does not distinguish among these three generations of “ICON” products or
`
`describe how they relate to “the Icon blade” discussed in its response and in the
`
`declaration of Mr. Kashnowski. Response, 19 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`port a finding of nonobviousness.” W. Union, 626 F.3d at 1372 (citation omitted).
`
`“The lack of nexus between the claimed subject matter and the commercial success
`
`. . . of the [Bosch products] renders [Bosch’s] proffered objective evidence unin-
`
`formative to the obviousness determination.” Pregis Corp. v. Kappos, 700 F.3d
`
`1348, 1355–56 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
`
`Even if Bosch had shown a nexus between its wiper products and the ‘698
`
`Patent, Mr. Kashnowski’s testimony—Bosch’s only evidence on the issue—fails to
`
`establish commercial success. Response, 17–18, 21 (citations omitted). Mr. Kash-
`
`nowski’s “merely stating—with no supporting figures or data—that the [Aerotwin]
`
`. . . was successful . . . is insufficient on its own to establish that the [Aerotwin] has
`
`been a ‘commercial success.’” MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 747
`
`F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And Mr. Kashnowski submits only “bare sales
`
`numbers” for Bosch’s Icon product that “provide[] no indication of whether this
`
`represents a substantial quantity in this market.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d at 140. Ac-
`
`cordingly, Mr. Kashnowski’s testimony is “insufficient because it does not estab-
`
`lish that either product is . . . commercially successful.” Arlington Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 581 Fed. App’x 859, 867 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`B.
`
`Bosch’s Proffered “Evidence” of Skepticism and Unexpected Re-
`sults Does Not Undercut Obviousness
`
`Bosch suggests, based on the testimony of Dr. Dubowsky and Mr. Wilfried
`
`Merkel, one of its former employees, that persons of ordinary skill in the art were
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00034
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`skeptical regarding the invention claimed in the ’698 Patent. Response, 24 (cita-
`
`tions omitted). As noted above (see note 1 supra), Patent Owner failed to make Mr.
`
`Merkel available for deposition and accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Peti-
`
`tioner’s Motion to Strike submitted simultaneously herewith, the Board should not
`
`give this testimony any weight.
`
`In any event, their statements do not appear to relate in any way to the cur-
`
`vature and force distributions described in the challenged claim. Id. As explained
`
`by Dr. Davis, and set forth supra pp. 7–10, a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`expected the force distributions and curvatures described in Arai and Appel ’770 to
`
`work as described. Second Davis Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. 1013 ¶ 54; Ex. 2002, 16:2–18:23.
`
`Accordingly, Bosch’s submissions relating to skepticism and surprise are merely
`
`“conclusory testimony from [an expert],” see I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F.
`
`App’x 982, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and are “lacking in detail and . . . support in the
`
`record” that fails to “undercut[] [the] conclusion [of obviousness]” of the chal-
`
`lenged claim of the ’698 Patent. Norgren v. Int’l Trade Comm

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket