DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`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 6,836,926
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,836,926
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 1
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`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 6,836,926 (“the ‘926 patent”), to
`
`describe the skill level in the art of the ‘926 patent as of July 9, 1999, as reflected
`
`in the patents and printed publications cited below, and to analyze whether, as of
`
`not later than July 9, 1999, the conception and making of the wiper blade claimed
`
`in the ‘926 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. 5,325,564 to Swanepoel (Ex. 1005), U.S. Patent No. 5,485,650 to
`
`Swanepoel (Ex. 1006), U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 to Appel (Ex. 1008), German
`
`Published Patent Application 2 313 939 (Exs. 1009, 1010), U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,881,214 to Palu (Ex. 1011), U.S. Patent No. 4,063,328 to Arman (Ex. 1012), and
`
`German Patent Publication 1 028 896 to Hoyler (Exs. 1013, 1014).
`
`3.
`
`In performing my analysis I have considered the claims of the ‘926
`
`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
`
`‘926 patent as of not later than July 9, 1999, which I understand is the earliest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 2
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`filing date of the German applications to which the ‘926 patent claims priority.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 3
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`to automotive engineering including the design and development of systems and
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 4
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`hybrid electric vehicle. While in many instances we used standard Ford
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 5
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`University, formerly General Motors Institute. Acting in these capacities, I develop
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 6
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`colleague, I have worked on
`
`the correlation between
`
`the computational
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 7
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`of the documents referenced herein. More specifically, I have reviewed U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,836,926 (“the ‘926 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. 5,325,564 to Swanepoel (“the ‘564 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,485,650 to Swanepoel (“the ‘650 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 to Appel
`
`(“the ‘551 patent” or “Appel”), German Published Patent Application 2 313 939
`
`(“DE ‘939”), U.S. Patent No. 3,881,214 to Palu (“Palu”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,063,328 to Arman (“Arman”), and German Patent Publication 1 028 896 to
`
`Hoyler (“Hoyler”) and/or certain other prior art references identified below, in
`
`combination with the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`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 July 9, 1999, the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ‘926 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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 8
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`using spring steel to support a wiper blade):
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 to Swanepoel (“the ‘564 patent”),
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,485,650 to Swanepoel (“the ‘650 patent”),
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 to Appel (“the ‘551 patent” or “Appel”),
`
` German Published Patent Application 2 313 939 (“DE ‘939”),
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,881,214 to Palu (“Palu”),
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,063,328 to Arman (“Arman”), and
`
` German Patent Publication 1 028 896 to Hoyler (“Hoyler”).
`
`16. As of not later than July 9, 1999, 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. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products Inc. et al.,
`
`Civil Action No. 12-574-LPS (consolidated with Civil Action No. 14-142-LPS),
`
`currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`(the “Delaware Action”), attorneys for the Patent Owner have asserted that the
`
`‘926 Patent claim term, “Izz is a moment of inertia of a cross sectional profile
`
`around a z-axis perpendicular to an taxis, which adapts along with the support
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 9
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`element (12), and perpendicular to a y-axis”, should be construed by the court as a
`
`legal matter to mean: “Izz is a moment of inertia of a cross sectional profile around
`
`a z-axis perpendicular to an s-axis which adapts along with the support element,
`
`and perpendicular to a y-axis, calculated by the formula Izz=(d*b3)/12.”
`
`18. The Patent Owner’s proposed legal construction of “Izz” in the ‘926
`
`Patent, quoted above, is not how the ‘926 Patent defines the term “Izz” and is not,
`
`in my opinion, how a person skilled in the art would understand the term Izz in the
`
`context of the ‘926 Patent. I have been asked to assume, however, for purposes of
`
`this inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, that the term “Izz” has the meaning that
`
`the Patent Owner’s attorneys have asserted that it has in the Delaware Action.
`
`That proposed legal interpretation is set forth in paragraph 17, above. To
`
`emphasize: I do not believe that the Patent Owner’s attorneys’ proposed definition
`
`of the claim term “Izz” is correct but for purposes of analysis in this IPR
`
`proceeding, I assume that the term “Izz” has the meaning that the Patent Owner’s
`
`attorneys have asserted that it has.
`
`VI. OPINIONS
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, if the ‘926 Patent is interpreted as the Patent Owner
`
`has said it should be interpreted in the Delaware Action, each of claims 1 to 3 of
`
`the ‘926 patent describes subject matter that, as a whole, would have been obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘926 patent as of not later than
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 10
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`July 9, 1999. My reasoning for my opinion is set forth in the analysis below.
`
`VII. THE ‘926 PATENT
`
`20. For reference in my analysis of the prior art, I will now summarize the
`
`disclosure of the ‘926 patent.
`
`21. The ‘926 patent, which is titled “Wiper blade for windshields,
`
`especially automobile windshields, and method for the production thereof,” names
`
`Peter De Block as its sole inventor.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that the ‘926 patent is based upon an
`
`international patent application, Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) Application
`
`No. PCT/DE00/02168, which was filed by Bosch on July 6, 2000. It is also my
`
`understanding that the PCT application claims priority to German patent
`
`documents 199 31 856, 199 31 857, and 199 31 858 dated July 9, 1999, and
`
`German patent document 100 32 048 dated July 5, 2000. I understand that on
`
`January 4, 2005 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted issuance of the ‘926
`
`patent.
`
`23. The ‘926 patent relates to a wiper blade having a support element with
`
`a substantially constant thickness and width, wherein the support element’s profile
`
`satisfies a certain mathematical formula. As issued, the ‘926 patent includes one
`
`independent claim and ten additional dependent claims.
`
`24. Claim 1 recites the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 11
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`1. A wiper blade for windows, comprising:
`at least one support element (12), a wiper strip (14), and a connecting
`device (16) for a wiper arm (18), wherein the support element (12) is
`an elongated, flat bar to which the wiper strip (14) and the connecting
`device (16) are attached, wherein the support element (12) has a cross
`
`sectional profile in which (cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:1838)(cid:2870)
`48∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053) (cid:3407)0.009,
`
` where Fwf is an actual contact force exerted on the wiper blade by the
`wiper arm (18) in condition when it is pressed against a window, L is a
`length of the support element (12), E is an elasticity modulus of the
`support element (12), and Izz is a moment of inertia of a cross sectional
`profile around a z-axis perpendicular to an taxis, which adapts along
`with the support element (12), and perpendicular to a y-axis, wherein
`the support element (12) has a substantially rectangular cross sectional
`profile (40), with a substantially constant width b and a substantially
`constant thickness d.
`
`
`25. Claim 2 recites:
`
`2. The wiper blade according to claim 1, wherein
`
`(cid:2872)(cid:2876)∗(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301) (cid:3407)0.005.
`(cid:3007)(cid:3298)(cid:3281)∗(cid:3013)(cid:3118)
`
`
`
`
`
`26. Claim 3 recites:
`
`3. The wiper blade according to claim 1, wherein the support
`element (12) is comprised of at least two individual bars (42, 44)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 12
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`and wherein widths (b1, b2) of the individual bars (42, 44) add up
`to a total width b.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Swanepoel ‘564 (Ex. 1005)
`
`1.
`It is my understanding that U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 (“Swanepoel
`
`27.
`
`‘564” or “the ‘564 Patent”), entitled “Windscreen Wiper Blade with Curved
`
`Backing Member,” issued July 5, 1994 to Adriaan R. Swanepoel. (Ex. 1005.)
`
`28.
`
`I have performed certain exemplary calculations using the disclosures
`
`of the Swanepoel ‘564 patent.
`
`a)
`
`Exemplary Calculation: Example 1
`
`29.
`
`It is possible to use the wiper blade dimensions found in Example 1 of
`
`the Swanepoel ‘564 patent to evaluate the integral for the lateral deflection angle γ
`
`set forth in Column 6, Lines 16 to 39 of the ‘926 Patent, which results in the
`
`mathematical relation claimed in Claims 1-3.
`
`30. The equation given at Column 6, Line 35 of the ‘926 Patent contains a
`
`typographical error. The correct equation includes the square of the term (L/2 – s):
`
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3505) (cid:1868)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)
`2∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)
`(cid:2868)
`
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871).
`
`For uniform loading and constant width and thickness, integration of the right side
`
`of this equation results in the deflection angle relationship claimed in the ‘926
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 13
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`Patent,
`
`(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:1838)(cid:2870)
`48∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835) .
`
`31. To the extent that the width and thickness of the Swanepoel example
`
`blades vary along the longitudinal coordinate s, the values of the moment of inertia
`
`I are no longer constant but instead are functions of s. In these cases, the integral
`
`term on the right side of the equation must be evaluating using the functional
`
`relationship of I with respect to the longitudinal coordinate, s.
`
`32.
`
`In Example 1 of the Swanepoel ‘564 patent (see Column 5, Line 50 to
`
`Column 6, Line 54) the width is equal to 11 mm at the center and 6 mm at the tips,
`
`which can be parameterized as
`
`(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1875)(cid:1861)(cid:1856)(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:3404) (cid:4674)(cid:4666)(cid:2874)(cid:2879)(cid:2869)(cid:2869)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870) (cid:1871)(cid:3397)11(cid:4675) mm.
`(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:1861)(cid:1855)(cid:1863)(cid:1866)(cid:1857)(cid:1871)(cid:1871)(cid:3404) (cid:4674)(cid:4666)(cid:2868).(cid:2870)(cid:2870)(cid:2879)(cid:2869).(cid:2870)(cid:2877)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)1.29(cid:4675) mm.
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)
`
`See Ex. 1005, 5:58-63. The thickness is equal to 1.29 mm at the center and 0.22
`
`mm at the tips, which can be parameterized as
`
`See Ex. 1005, 5:58-63.
`
`33. Example 1 of Swanepoel ‘564 discloses the length of the support
`
`element L is 450 mm. See Ex. 1005, 5:59.
`
`34. Example 1 of Swanepoel ‘564 discloses the elasticity modulus of the
`
`support element E is 207 X 109 N/m2 (207,000 N/mm2). See Ex. 1005, 5:58.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 14
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`35. Swanepoel ‘564 discloses that F, the “downforce applied to the wiper
`
`by the wiper arm” (Ex. 1005, Column 4, Line 56) is 6.3 N. (Ex. 1005, Column 6,
`
`Line 66; see also Column 7, Line 46 (F=6.3N).
`
`36. Substituting these parameterizations into the equation for the moment
`
`of inertia
`
`and the equation for γ
`
`”(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053)”(cid:3404) (cid:1835)(cid:3052)(cid:3052)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404) 112(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:2871)(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3505) (cid:1868)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)
`2∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
`(cid:2868)
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3505) (cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`2(cid:1838)∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
` (cid:3404) (cid:3505) (cid:4666)6.3 (cid:1840)(cid:4667) (cid:3436)(cid:4666)450 (cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:3440)(cid:2870)
`12
`2
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:2871)(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`
`2 (cid:4666)450 (cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)∗(cid:4666)207,000 (cid:1840)(cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:2870)(cid:4667)
` (cid:3404) (cid:3505) (cid:4666)6.3 (cid:1840)(cid:4667) (cid:3436)(cid:4666)450(cid:4667)2 (cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:3440)(cid:2870)
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`∗12
`2 (cid:4666)450(cid:4667)∗(cid:4666)207,000 (cid:1840)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)11(cid:3432)(cid:2879)(cid:2871)(cid:3428)(cid:4666)0.22(cid:3398)1.29(cid:4667)
`∗ (cid:3428)(cid:4666)6(cid:3398)11(cid:4667)
`(cid:1838)/2
`(cid:1838)/2
`
`and using L=450 mm, Fwf=6.3 N, and E =207,000 N/mm2 results in the integral
`
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)1.29(cid:3432)(cid:2879)(cid:2869) (cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`
`37.
`
`I have calculated the above integral by numerical integration, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 15
`
`

`
`have found that it is approximately equal to 0.002 radians.
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`Exemplary Calculation: Example 2
`b)
`In Example 2 of the Swanepoel ‘564 patent, the total blade length L is
`
`38.
`
`440 mm (see ‘564 Patent, Column 6, Line 67.)
`
`39. As in the previous example, the width is equal to 11 mm at the center
`
`and 6 mm at the tips. (‘564 Patent, Column 7, Lines 10-11).
`
`40. Unlike the previous example, however, the thickness is equal to 1.15
`
`mm at the center and 0.43 mm at the tips. (‘564 Patent, Column 7, Lines 6-8.)
`
`Additionally, Example 2 of Swanepoel ‘564 states that that the thickness is
`
`constant for 45 mm at each tip. (‘564 Patent, Column 7, Line 9.)
`
`41.
`
`In Example 2, F, the “downforce applied to the wiper by the wiper
`
`arm” (Ex. 1005, Column 4, Line 56) is 6.3 N. (Ex. 1005, Column 6, Line 66).
`
`42.
`
`In Example 2, the modulus of elasticity E is 207 X 109 N/m2 (207,000
`
`N/mm2). (Ex. 1005, 7, Line 4).
`
`43. Therefore the 440 mm blade has a thickness that is variable form the
`
`blade’s center to L1 = 175 mm from the center, and then constant from L1 to L2 =
`
`220 mm.
`
`44. The definite integral for γ can be integrated in parts: evaluated in the
`
`center, from s = 0 to s = L1 = 175 mm, and at the ends, from s = L1 = 175 mm to s
`
`= L2 = 220 mm. The angle of deflection γ can thus be calculated as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 16
`
`

`
`where
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871)(cid:3397) (cid:3505) (cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3505) (cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871),
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)
`(cid:3013)(cid:2869)
`2(cid:1838)∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:3032)(cid:3041)(cid:3031)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
`2(cid:1838)∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:3030)(cid:3047)(cid:3045)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3013)(cid:2869)
`(cid:2868)
`(cid:1835)(cid:3404) "(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053)"(cid:3404) (cid:1835)(cid:3052)(cid:3052)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404) (cid:2869)(cid:2869)(cid:2870)(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:2871)(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667), and
`(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:4688)(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:1861)(cid:1855)(cid:1863)(cid:1866)(cid:1857)(cid:1871)(cid:1871) (cid:1858)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1865) (cid:1855)(cid:1857)(cid:1866)(cid:1872)(cid:1857)(cid:1870) (cid:1872)(cid:1867) 175 (cid:1865)(cid:1865) (cid:3404) (cid:3428)(cid:4666)0.43(cid:3398)1.15(cid:4667)
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)1.15(cid:3432)(cid:1865)(cid:1865)
`175
`(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:1861)(cid:1855)(cid:1863)(cid:1866)(cid:1857)(cid:1871)(cid:1871) (cid:1858)(cid:1870)(cid:1867)(cid:1865) 175 (cid:1865)(cid:1865) (cid:1872)(cid:1867) 220 (cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:3404) 0.43 (cid:1865)(cid:1865)
`(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1875)(cid:1861)(cid:1856)(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:3404) (cid:4674)(cid:4666)(cid:2874)(cid:2879)(cid:2869)(cid:2869)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870) (cid:1871)(cid:3397)11(cid:4675) mm.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`I have substituted the above equations and constants into the integral
`
`equation and evaluated it numerically.
`
`46.
`
`I have found that in the case of Example 2 γ is equal to approximately
`
`0.002 radians, less than the claimed maximums of 0.005 and 0.009.
`
`Swanepoel ‘650 (Ex. 1006)
`
`2.
`It is my understanding that U.S. Patent No. 5,485,650 (“Swanepoel
`
`47.
`
`‘650” or “the ‘650 Patent”), entitled “Windscreen Wiper Blade with Elongated,
`
`Curved Backbone,” issued January 23, 1996 to Adriaan R. Swanepoel. (Ex. 1006.)
`
`48.
`
`I have performed certain exemplary calculations using the disclosures
`
`of the Swanepoel ‘650 patent.
`
`Exemplary Calculation
`a)
`49. The Swanepoel ‘650 patent describes an exemplary wiper blade of
`
`length L = 450 mm and explains that “the lateral displacement of the tip in the Z
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 17
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`direction is 0.28mm” when subjected to a 1N force. See Ex. 1006, 3:29-41. When
`
`analyzing this situation, an appropriate effective moment of inertia for the support
`
`element can be determined using standard mechanics equations found, for
`
`example, in the textbook by Beer and Johnston, Jr., Mechanics of Materials, 2nd
`
`Ed., 1992, p. 716 (Ex. 1007 at 16):
`
`50. Here the maximum deflection is
`
`
`
`(cid:1877)(cid:3040)(cid:3028)(cid:3051)(cid:3404) (cid:3398)(cid:1842) (cid:3013)(cid:3119)(cid:2871) (cid:3006) (cid:3010),
`wiper’s tips) (225 mm); and E is the modulus of elasticity (207∗10(cid:2877) (cid:1840)/(cid:1865)(cid:2870)). (See
`
`where ymax is the maximum lateral displacement (0.28mm); P is the force (1 N); L
`
`is half the length of the wiper blade (the length from the connector to one of the
`
`Ex. 1006, 3:29-38.)
`
`51. The maximum deflection equation can be solved for an effective value
`
`of I as:
`
`(cid:1835)(cid:3404) (cid:3398)(cid:1842) (cid:1838)(cid:2871)/ 3 (cid:1831) (cid:1877)(cid:3040)(cid:3028)(cid:3051)
`= - (1 N) (225 mm) 3 / 3 (207∗10(cid:2877) (cid:1840)/(cid:1865)(cid:2870)) (-0.28 mm)
`
`= 65.51 mm4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 18
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`This effective value of I may be used as the value for “Izz”. Typical values for a
`
`force F= 6.3 N (as disclosed in Swanepoel ‘564, Column 6, Line 66; see also
`
`Swanepoel ‘564, Column 7, Line 55 and Column 8, Line 35) may be used as the
`
`value for Fwf, in the equation of Claims 1-3 of the ‘926 Patent:
`
`(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:1838)(cid:2870)
`48∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053) .
`L = 450mm and E = 207∗10(cid:2877) (cid:1840)/(cid:1865)(cid:2870) as explained above.
`(cid:2872)(cid:2876)∗(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301) = 0.002 radians,
`(cid:3007)(cid:3298)(cid:3281)∗(cid:3013)(cid:3118)
`
`52.
`
`I have performed this calculation using these values and have found
`
`that the result is
`
`that is, a lateral deflection angle of 0.002 radians, well within the range of less than
`
`0.005 radians specified in Claims 1-3 of the ‘926 Patent.
`
`Exemplary Calculation
`b)
`53. Alternatively, it is possible to use the wiper blade dimensions found in
`
`the example given in the disclosure of the Swanepoel ‘650 patent and insert them
`
`into the equation for the lateral deflection angle γ. To the extent that the width and
`
`thickness of the Swanepoel example blades vary along the longitudinal coordinate
`
`s, the values of the moment of inertia I are no longer constant but instead are
`
`functions of s.
`
`54.
`
`In the example given in the Swanepoel ‘650 patent, the width is equal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 19
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`to 11 mm at the center and 6 mm at the tips, which can be parameterized as
`
`(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1875)(cid:1861)(cid:1856)(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:3404) (cid:4674)(cid:4666)(cid:2874)(cid:2879)(cid:2869)(cid:2869)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870) (cid:1871)(cid:3397)11(cid:4675) mm.
`(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1872)(cid:1860)(cid:1861)(cid:1855)(cid:1863)(cid:1866)(cid:1857)(cid:1871)(cid:1871)(cid:3404) (cid:4674)(cid:4666)(cid:2868).(cid:2870)(cid:2870)(cid:2879)(cid:2869).(cid:2870)(cid:2877)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)1.29(cid:4675) mm.
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)
`
`mm at the tips, which can be parameterized as
`
`See Ex. 1006, 3:30-35. The thickness is equal to 1.29 mm at the center and 0.22
`
`See Ex. 1006, 3:30-35.
`
`55. Substituting these parameterizations into the equation for the moment
`
`of inertia
`
`and the equation for γ
`
`”(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053)”(cid:3404) (cid:1835)(cid:3052)(cid:3052)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404) 112(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:2871)(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3505) (cid:1868)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)
`2∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
`(cid:2868)
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3505) (cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033) (cid:4672)(cid:1838)2(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`2(cid:1838)∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)
` (cid:3404) (cid:3505) (cid:4666)6.3 (cid:1840)(cid:4667) (cid:3436)(cid:4666)450 (cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:3440)(cid:2870)
`2
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`
`2 (cid:4666)450 (cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:4667)∗(cid:4666)207,000 (cid:1840)(cid:1865)(cid:1865)(cid:2870)(cid:4667)
`
`and using the same values of L, Fwf, and E as in Exemplary Calculation No. 1
`
`results in the integral
`
`12
`(cid:1854)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:2871)(cid:1856)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1015, p. 20
`
`

`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`
`
` (cid:3404) (cid:3505) (cid:4666)6.3 (cid:1840)(cid:4667) (cid:3436)(cid:4666)450(cid:4667)2 (cid:3398)(cid:1871)(cid:3440)(cid:2870)
`(cid:3013)(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`∗12
`2 (cid:4666)450(cid:4667)∗(cid:4666)207,000 (cid:1840)(cid:4667)
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)11(cid:3432)(cid:2879)(cid:2871)(cid:3428)(cid:4666)0.22(cid:3398)1.29(cid:4667)
`∗ (cid:3428)(cid:4666)6(cid:3398)11(cid:4667)
`(cid:1871)(cid:3397)1.29(cid:3432)(cid:2879)(cid:2869) (cid:1856)(cid:1871)
`(cid:1838)/2
`(cid:1838)/2
`have found that it is approximately equal to 0.002 radians.
`
`56.
`
`I have calculated the above integral by numerical integration, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 (“Appel”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`3.
`It is my understanding that U.S.