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
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,836,926
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 1 
`III. 
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103 ............................ 3 
`IV.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 3 
`V. 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged under 37
`U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ................... 3 
`A.  Claims for Which Review is Requested - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............. 3 
`B.  Statutory Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ......................... 3 
`VI.  Summary of the ’926 Patent and the Challenges ............................................ 4 
`A.  Prosecution and Issuance of the ‘926 Patent ............................................... 12 
`B.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 18 
`VII.  Overview of Prior Art .................................................................................... 20 
`A.  U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 (“Swanepoel ‘564”) (Ex. 1005) ........................ 21 
`B.  U.S. Patent No. 5,485,650 (“Swanepoel ‘650”) (Ex. 1006) ........................ 23 
`C.  U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 (“Appel”) (Ex. 1008) ........................................ 24 
`D.  German Published Patent Application 2 313 939 (“DE ‘939”) (Exs. 1009,
`1010)..................................................................................................................... 25 
`E.  U.S. Patent No. 3,881,214 (“Palu”) (Ex. 1011) ........................................... 27 
`F.  U.S. Patent No. 4,063,328 (“Arman”) (Ex. 1012) ....................................... 28 
`G.  German Patent Publication 1 028 896 (“Hoyler”) (Exs. 1013, 1014) ......... 29 
`VIII.  Detailed Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability .................................. 30 
`A.  Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 30 
`1.  Obviousness ............................................................................................. 30 
`2.  Level of Skill in the Art ........................................................................... 31 
`B.  Claims 1-3 .................................................................................................... 32 
`1.  Claim 1 Is Unpatentable ........................................................................... 32 
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTEs REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT No. 6,836,926
`
`a)  Ground #1 .............................................................................................. 32 
`a) Ground #1 ............................................................................................ ..32
`b)  Ground #2 .............................................................................................. 41 
`b) Ground #2 ............................................................................................ ..4l
`2.  Claim 2 Is Unpatentable ........................................................................... 49 
`2. Claim 2 Is Unpatentable ......................................................................... ..49
`3.  Claim 3 Is Unpatentable ........................................................................... 50 
`3. Claim 3 Is Unpatentable ......................................................................... ..5O
`IX.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 53 
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... ..53
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`“Swanepoel ‘564”
`1006
`“Swanepoel ‘650”
`1007
`“Beer & Johnston”
`1008
`“Appel”
`1009
`“DE ‘939”
`1010
`
`1011
`“Palu”
`1012
`“Arman”
`1013
`“Hoyler”
`1014
`
`1015
`“Davis Decl.”
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,926
`
`Certified file history for U.S. Patent No. 6,836,926
`
`October 10, 2014 Proof of Service filed by Patent Owner
`in Civil Action No. 12-574-LPS (consolidated)
`Robert Bosch LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`filed Apr. 24, 2015 in Civil Action No. 12-574-LPS
`U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,485,650
`
`Ferdinand P. Beer & E. Russell Johnston, Jr., Mechanics
`of Materials (2d ed. 1992)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551
`
`German Published Patent Application 2 313 939
`
`English translation of German Published Patent Applica-
`tion 2 313 939 (Ex. 1009)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,881,214
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,063,328
`
`German Patent Publication 1 028 896
`
`English translation of German Patent Publication 1 028
`896 (Ex. 1013)
`Declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Costco”) requests inter
`
`partes review of Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001). This petition demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail in proving, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that Claims 1-3
`
`of the ‘926 Patent encompass subject matter that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) in view of prior art that the Office did not have or did not fully consider
`
`during prosecution. Claims 1-3 of the ‘926 Patent should accordingly be canceled.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`Real Party-in-Interest: Costco is the real party-in-interest seeking IPR.
`
`Related Matters: The ‘926 Patent is asserted 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 Dis-
`
`trict of Delaware. U.S. Patents No. 6,292,974, No. 6,523,218, No. 6,530,111, No.
`
`6,553,607, No. 6,611,988, No. 6,668,419, No. 6,675,434, No. 6,944,905, No.
`
`6,973,698, No. 7,228,588, No. 7,293,321, No. 7,484,264, No. 7,523,520, No.
`
`7,941,891, No. 8,099,823, No. 8,272,096, and No. 8,544,136 have also been as-
`
`serted in this consolidated civil action. The ‘926 Patent was previously asserted in
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Ningbo Xinhai Aiduo Automobile Wiper Blade Manufactory
`
`Co., No. 2:14cv1855 (D. Nev.), Robert Bosch LLC v. Trico Prods. Corp., No. 12-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`cv-437 (N.D. Ill.), Robert Bosch LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corp. et al.,
`
`No. 11-14019 (E.D. Mich.), Robert Bosch LLC v. Jiujiang Yada Traffic Equipment
`
`Co. et al., No. 2:11cv1762 (D. Nev.), Robert Bosch LLC v. UL Enterprises LLC et
`
`al., No. 1:11cv2437 (N.D. Ill.), Robert Bosch LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing
`
`Corp. et al., No. 2:10-cv-1924 (D. Nev.), Robert Bosch LLC v. ADM 21 Co. et al.,
`
`No. 2:10-cv-1930 (D. Nev.), and In re Certain Wiper Blades, Investigation No.
`
`337-TA-816 (U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n). Costco is concurrently petitioning for IPR
`
`of U.S. Patents No. 6,944,905, No. 6,973,698, No. 7,228,588, No. 7,484,264, No.
`
`8,099,823, No. 6,292,974, and No. 8,544,136, which are also asserted in the Dis-
`
`trict of Delaware matter. Petitioner is not aware of any other current judicial or
`
`administrative matters that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this pro-
`
`ceeding.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information: The following desig-
`
`nates lead counsel, backup counsel, and service information for the Petitioner. Peti-
`
`tioner consents to electronic service.
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Richard M. Koehl
`Reg. No. 54,231
`Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel. (212) 837-6062
`
`Fax (212) 422-4726
`richard.koehl@hugheshubbard.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`James R. Klaiber
`Reg. No. 41,902
`Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
`One Battery Park Plaza
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel. (212) 837-6125
`
`Fax (212) 422-4726
`james.klaiber@hugheshubbard.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103
`The required fees are submitted herewith. If any additional fees are due at
`
`any time during this proceeding, the Office may charge such fees to Deposit Ac-
`
`count No. 083264.
`
`IV. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘926 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from re-
`
`questing inter partes review of the ‘926 Patent. This petition is being filed less than
`
`one year after Petitioner was first served with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`the ‘926 Patent. See Oct. 10, 2014 Proof of Service (Ex. 1003).
`
`V.
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged under
`37 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2)
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`Petitioner seeks cancellation of Claims 1, 2, and 3.
`
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`Ground #1. Claims 1-3 encompass subject matter that is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 5,485,650 (“Swanepoel ‘650”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`in view of U.S. Patents No. 3,192,551 (“Appel”) (Ex. 1008), U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,325,564 (“Swanepoel ‘564”) (Ex. 1005), German Published Patent Application 2
`
`313 939 (“DE ‘939”) (Exs. 1009, 1010), U.S. Patent No. 3,881,214 (“Palu”) (Ex.
`
`1011), or U.S. Patent No. 4,063,328 (“Arman”) (Ex. 1012), and the knowledge of a
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Ground #2. Claims 1-3 encompass subject matter that is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 (“Swanepoel ‘564”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`in view of Appel (Ex. 1008), Swanepoel ‘650 (Ex. 1006), DE ‘939 (Exs. 1009,
`
`1010), Palu (Ex. 1011), or Arman (Ex. 1012), and the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`The asserted grounds are not redundant because Swanepoel ‘650, Swanepeol
`
`‘564, Appel, DE ‘939, Palu, and Arman each disclose different variants of wiper
`
`apparatus.
`
`VI. Summary of the ’926 Patent and the Challenges
`The ‘926 Patent discloses and claims certain mathematical relationships (in-
`
`volving the contact forces Fwf between the wiper blade and the wiper arm, the elas-
`
`ticity modulus E of a support element associated with the wiper arm, and a moment
`
`of inertia Izz) in wiper blades that make use of a stressed “support element,” rather
`
`than a yoke structure, to apply the wiping element to the window. These alleged
`
`relationships purportedly avoid the “rattling of the wiper blade across the win-
`
`dow—the so-called slip stick effect” in this type of wiper blade. See ‘926 Pat. (Ex.
`
`1001), 2:2-6.
`
`In known prior art wiper blades of this type, the support element “replaces
`
`the costly support bracket design that has two spring strips disposed in the wiper
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`strip, which is the kind used in conventional wiper blades.” Id., 1:21-24. A support
`
`element wiper blade design is also shown in Figure 1 of the ‘926 Patent:
`
`
`
`‘926 PATENT, FIGURE 1
`
`Instead of a conventional wiper blade’s yoke structure, here “an appropriate curva-
`
`
`
`ture” is created in the support element so that:
`
`the ends of the wiper strip, which is placed completely against the win-
`dow during the operation of the wiper blade, are loaded in the direction of
`the window by the support element, which is then under stress, even when
`the curvature radii of spherically curved vehicle windows change in every
`wiper blade position. The curvature of the wiper blade must therefore be
`slightly sharper than the sharpest curvature measured in the wiping zone
`of the window to be wiped.
`
`Id., 1:14-21.
`
`The improved wiper blade purportedly described and claimed by the ‘926
`
`Patent allegedly prevents “the rattling of the wiper blade across the window—the
`
`so-called slip stick effect” in this type of blade. See id., 2:2-6. According to the
`
`‘926 Patent,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`It is . . . advantageous if the wiper blade is designed so that the lateral de-
`flection of the ends of the wiper blades, which lag behind during opera-
`tion, does not exceed a lateral deflection angle of a particular magnitude.
`From the quantity discovered for this angle, important parameters can
`then be derived for the wiper blade, which have a simple relation to one
`another and which, in this relation, should not exceed an upper limit of
`0.009. With the aid of this relation and the upper limit indicated, cross
`sectional profiles for the support element can be very simply determined,
`which then produce a favorable wiping result.
`
`Id., 2:6-20 (emphases added). A lateral deflection angle of 0.009 radians corre-
`
`sponds to 0.5 degrees. Further improvement is allegedly obtained if the claimed
`
`lateral deflection angle relationship does “not exceed an upper limit of 0.005” radi-
`
`ans (i.e., 0.3 degrees). See id., 2:26-31.
`
`The details of these allegedly “important parameters,” and their application
`
`to the principal embodiments, are disclosed at column 5, line 6 to column 9, line
`
`49. There the ‘926 Patent identifies “the angle γ” as the relationship that must be
`
`optimized to achieve a favorable wiping quality “particularly due to rattle preven-
`
`tion,” and in particular seeks to optimize the lateral deflection angle γ so that it
`
`“does not exceed the value 0.5º (=0.009 rad) and in particular, 0.3º (=0.005 rad).”
`
`See id., 6:46-50. The ‘926 Patent applies known formulas for the mechanics of ma-
`
`terials, and makes certain estimates concerning the relationships between the side-
`
`to-side lateral forces and the up-and-down forces applied to the wiper blade, in or-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`der to arrive at an equation that links the wiper blade’s physical properties and
`
`forces with the desired value of γ. See id., 5:43-6:57. The equation is:
`
`(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:1838)(cid:2870)
`48∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053) (cid:3407)0.009,
`
`and “in particular <0.005.” See id., 2:45-57. The challenged claims explicitly recite
`
`this estimate for the angle γ in the claim language.
`
`The ‘926 Patent’s detailed derivation of its estimate for γ makes use of the
`
`embodiment shown for example in Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the ‘926 Patent. The
`
`general features of this embodiment can be seen in Figures 1 and 3 reproduced be-
`
`low.
`
`As explained at column 4, lines 27 to 40, Figure 1 shows a wiper blade 10,
`
`with an elongated, spring elastic support element 12, for a wiper strip 14. The sup-
`
`port element 12 and wiper strip 14 are connected to each other with their longitu-
`
`dinal axes parallel. A connecting device 16 can detachably connect the wiper blade
`
`10 to a driven wiper arm 18 on the body of the motor vehicle. An elongated rubber
`
`elastic wiper strip 14 is disposed on the underside of the support element 12 orient-
`
`ed towards a window 15.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`
`
`Figure 3 shows another view of the wiper strip 14 disposed on the lower band sur-
`
`face of a support element 12 and oriented towards window 15. See ‘926 Pat., 5:6-
`
`10. A contact force (arrow 24) pressure the wiper blade/lip against the surface of
`
`the window, tilting the wiper lip 28 into a drag position. See id., 2:16-31. When the
`
`wiper blade reverses, it causes the wiper lip 28 to execute an up-and-down motion
`
`and tilt over. See id., 2:32-41.
`
`The alleged improvements of the ‘926 Patent that purportedly mitigate rat-
`
`tling of the wiper blade during reversal (the “slip-stick effect”), see id., 2:3-7, are
`
`determined using the coordinate system established in Figure 6.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`
`
`An s-coordinate, which follows the curvature of the support element 12, is shown
`
`as a coordinate in Figure 6, and the y- and z-coordinates are perpendicular to it. Id.,
`
`“which is favorable for a wiping operation,” the bending moment is
`
`and consequently,
`
`,
`
`5:47-50. If the wiper blade 10 is now pressed with a force (cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033) (arrow 24) against a
`window 26, a certain force distribution (cid:1868)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) is produced, which produces a bend-
`ing moment (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) that is maximal in the center of the support element 12. See id.,
`5:50-55. The ‘926 Patent asserts that, for a contact force distribution (cid:1868)(cid:3404)(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)/(cid:1838),
`(cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1868)∗(cid:4672)(cid:3261)(cid:3118)(cid:2879)(cid:3046)(cid:4673)(cid:3118)(cid:2870)
`(cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:4672)(cid:3261)(cid:3118)(cid:2879)(cid:3046)(cid:4673)(cid:3118)(cid:2870)(cid:3013) .
`moment (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) over its entire length “is somewhat less than the moment calculated
`
`See id., 5:55-6:5. For an outwardly decreasing contact force distribution, which the
`
`‘926 Patent asserts “is particularly suitable for tilting wiper lips over,” the bending
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`for a contact force distribution.” (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3407)(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:4672)(cid:3261)(cid:3118)(cid:2879)(cid:3046)(cid:4673)(cid:3118)(cid:2870)(cid:3013) .
`
`See id., 6:6-15.
`
`Critically, the ‘926 Patent unambiguously links the up-and-down contact
`
`force distribution, which is applied to the wiper blade, to the wiper blade’s side-to-
`
`side lateral moment by making an explicit assumption about the relationship be-
`
`tween the bending moment (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) and the lateral moment. Specifically, “[i]f one
`then assumes that a friction value (cid:2020) for a dry window is approximately 1, the lat-
`eral moment during operation is equal to the bending moment (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667),” which can be
`related to the preset force distribution (cid:1868)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) as shown above. See id., 6:16-19.
`gle (cid:2011) to be inferred from the bending moment (cid:1839). In the standard terminology of
`the mechanics of materials, when (cid:2011)(cid:4666)(cid:1876)(cid:2868)(cid:4667) is the deflection angle at a point x0 on the
`beam, (cid:1831)(cid:4666)(cid:1876)(cid:2868)(cid:4667) is the elasticity at point x0, (cid:1835)(cid:4666)(cid:1876)(cid:2868)(cid:4667) is the moment of inertia at point x0,
`and (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1876)(cid:2868)(cid:4667) is the bending moment at point x0, the lateral bending angle (cid:2011) at a dis-
`(cid:2011)(cid:4666)(cid:1876)(cid:4667)(cid:3404) (cid:1516)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871).
`(cid:3051)(cid:2868)
`(cid:3014)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667)
`(cid:3006)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667)∗(cid:3010)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667)
`
`The ‘926 Patent asserts that this assumption permits the lateral bending an-
`
`tance x from the center/origin may be determined by integration:
`
`See, e.g., Ferdinand P. Beer & E. Russell Johnston, Jr., Mechanics of Materials p.
`
`531 (2d ed. 1992) (“Beer & Johnston”) (Ex. 1007 at 13). But the ‘926 Patent as-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`serts that under its assumption linking the up-and-down contact force distribution
`
`to the side-to-side motion, the lateral deflection angle integral at the ends of a beam
`
`of length L becomes:
`
`See ‘926 Pat., 6:23-30.
`
`,
`
`(cid:2011)(cid:3404) (cid:1516)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871).
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`(cid:3014)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667)(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301)
`The ‘926 Patent then inserts the value of (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667) previously obtained as
`(cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1868)∗(cid:4672)(cid:3261)(cid:3118)(cid:2879)(cid:3046)(cid:4673)(cid:3118)(cid:2870)
`so that “a simple estimate for the angle (cid:2011) is obtained” by the relationship
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871). [sic1]
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:1516)
`(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667) (cid:4672)(cid:3261)(cid:3118)(cid:2879)(cid:3046)(cid:4673)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`(cid:2870)∗(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301)
`
`(cid:2872)(cid:2876)∗(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301)(cid:3404) (cid:3007)(cid:3298)(cid:3281)∗(cid:3013)(cid:3118)(cid:2872)(cid:2876)∗(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301).
`(cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:3043)∗(cid:3013)(cid:3119)
`
`See id., 6:31-39. The ‘926 Patent asserts that integration yields
`
`See id., 6:40-44.
`
`The ‘926 Patent further asserts that “the invention is based on the knowledge
`
`
`1 This equation printed in the ‘926 Patent appears to have a typographical error
`
`arising from the substitution for (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667). Correcting the typographical error gives the
`relationship as (cid:2011)(cid:3407) (cid:1516)
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871), which is consistent with the subsequent
`(cid:3043)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667) (cid:4672)(cid:3261)(cid:3118)(cid:2879)(cid:3046)(cid:4673)(cid:3118)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`(cid:2870)∗(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301)
`
`evaluation of the definite integral in the disclosure.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`that a favorable wiping quality, particularly due to rattle prevention, is achieved if
`
`the angle γ does not exceed the value 0.5º (=0.009 rad) and in particular, 0.3º
`
`(=0.005 rad).” Id., 6:46-50. “As a result, a simple relation can be deduced” be-
`
`tween the up-and-down contact force, the geometric distributions of the wiper
`
`tion angle (cid:2011), namely:
`
`blade, and (implicitly) the side-to-side properties of the wiper blade lateral deflec-
`
`(cid:1832)(cid:3050)(cid:3033)∗(cid:1838)(cid:2870)
`48∗(cid:1831)∗(cid:1835)(cid:3053)(cid:3053)(cid:3407)0.009,
`
`and “in particular <0.005.” See id., 6:49-58; see also id., Figs. 6, 7. This equation
`
`explicitly appears in the text of the contested claims of the ‘926 Patent.
`
`Prosecution and Issuance of the ‘926 Patent
`
`A.
`The application which led to these claims, Application No. 09/786,852, was
`
`filed on March 9, 2001 and claimed priority to German patent application no. 199
`
`31 856.5, filed July 9, 1999. Ex. 1002 at 3-40, 128-78. The U.S. application was
`
`accompanied by a preliminary amendment that cancelled all previous claims and
`
`included new Claims 19-36. Id. at 234-43. Among the claims in this simultaneous
`
`amendment, application claims 19, 20, and 22 ultimately resulted in those Claims
`
`1, 2, and 3 of the ‘926 Patent at issue here. Id. at 2.
`
`In a September 10, 2003 office action, the Examiner rejected claims 19-36
`
`on multiple grounds. See id. at 284-95. Claims 19 and 20 received several rejec-
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`tions under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2). See id. at 289-91. In addition, application claims
`
`19-21 and 23-24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 5,485,650 (“Swanepoel ‘650”) (Ex. 1006 herein). See Ex. 1002 at 291-92.
`
`Claims 19-21, 23-24, 28, 30, 31, and 33-36 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,325,564 (“Swanepoel ‘564”) (Ex. 1005
`
`herein). See Ex. 1002 at 292-93. The Examiner further rejected claim 25 as un-
`
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Swanepoel ‘564 in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,045,838, and also rejected claims 22, 27, and 35 as unpatentable over Swa-
`
`nepoel ‘650 in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 (“Appel”) (Ex. 1008 herein). See
`
`Ex. 1002 at 293-94.
`
`The applicant’s February 10, 2004 response to the office action amended the
`
`specification and claims. See id. at 306-32. Application claim 19, for example, was
`
`amended to import a limitation requiring that “the support element (12) has a sub-
`
`stantially rectangular cross sectional profile (40), with a substantially constant
`
`width b and a substantially constant thickness d” from former application claim 21.
`
`See id. at 313.
`
`The applicant’s February 10, 2004 response also sharply disputed the appli-
`
`cation of the Swanepoel ‘650 and Swanepoel ‘564 references to the ‘926 Patent.
`
`With Swanepoel ‘650, for example, the applicant argued:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`This reference relates to the lateral rigidity of a spring bar for a wiper
`blade. Accordingly, the force noted in column 3, lines 38-41 of 1 N also
`presses parallel to the Z axis – that is, parallel to the windshield. This is
`not the force that presses the wiper arm onto the wiper blade. Since this
`force is neither disclosed nor suggested in Swanepoel ‘650, this reference
`cannot be viewed as anticipatory of the present invention as defined in
`claim 19.
`
`Id. at 325. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the applicant’s argument was, at
`
`a minimum, incorrect. Contrary to the applicants’ assertion that the lateral rigidity
`
`did not relate to “the force that presses the wiper arm onto the wiper blade,” the
`
`‘926 Patent unambiguously links the up-and-down contact force distribution that
`
`presses the wiper arm onto the wiper blade to the wiper blade’s lateral mechanical
`
`properties. Indeed, the ‘926 Patent explicitly assumes that “a friction value µ for a
`
`dry window is approximately 1,” i.e., that the contact force distribution can be
`
`converted to a lateral force such that “the lateral moment during operation is equal
`
`to the bending moment (cid:1839)(cid:4666)(cid:1871)(cid:4667), which in particular is a result of the preset force dis-
`
`tribution p(s).” See ‘926 Pat., 6:16-19.
`
`The applicant also argued that Swanepoel ‘650 “fails show or suggest the
`
`substantially constant width and thickness of the present invention” because it
`
`“shows and describes a wiper blade whose spring contact tapes continuously from
`
`the center to the tips.” See Ex. 1002 at 327. Petitioner respectfully submits that this
`
`argument also was mistaken inasmuch as the ‘926 Patent asserts that “the invention
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`is based on the knowledge that a favorable wiping quality, particularly due to rattle
`
`prevention, is achieved if the angle γ does not exceed the value 0.5º (=0.009 rad)
`
`and in particular, 0.3º (=0.005 rad).” ‘926 Pat., 6:45-50. As shown in more detail
`
`below in Section VII.B, evaluation of (cid:2011)(cid:3404) (cid:1516)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`
`(cid:3014)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667)(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301)
`
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871) for the Swanepoel ‘650
`
`blade results in values of γ of less than 0.5º (=0.009 rad) and in particular, less than
`
`0.3º (=0.005 rad). Moreover, as shown in more detail below, it would have been
`
`obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, confronted with the problem of
`
`easily manufacturing support structures for a wiper blade, to make such structures
`
`of substantially constant width and thickness as shown for example in Appel,
`
`Hoyler, DE ‘939, or elsewhere in the state of the prior art.
`
`The applicant made similar arguments against the Swanepoel ‘564 reference,
`
`asserting that the disclosures of properties shown in Example 2 of Swanepoel ‘564
`
`would lead to “values between 0.0009 (center) and 0.016 (ends) . . . . Thus, the
`
`wiper blade of example 2 of Swanepoel ‘564 lies outside the range of the present
`
`application.” See Ex. 1002 at 328. Petitioner respectfully submits that here, too, the
`
`applicant’s argument was inaccurate. The ‘926 Patent asserts that “the invention is
`
`based on the knowledge that a favorable wiping quality, particularly due to rattle
`
`prevention, is achieved if the angle γ does not exceed the value 0.5º (=0.009 rad)
`
`and in particular, 0.3º (=0.005 rad).” ‘926 Pat., 6:45-50. As shown in more detail
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
` (cid:1856)(cid:1871) for the Swanepoel ‘564
`
`below in Section VII.A, evaluation of (cid:2011)(cid:3404) (cid:1516)
`(cid:3013)/(cid:2870)(cid:2868)
`
`(cid:3014)(cid:4666)(cid:3046)(cid:4667)(cid:3006)∗(cid:3010)(cid:3301)(cid:3301)
`
`blade results in values of γ of less than 0.5º (=0.009 rad) and in particular, less than
`
`0.3º (=0.005 rad) claimed. Moreover, to the extent that the applicant again argued
`
`that “Swanepoel ‘564 teaches the practitioner to design wiper blades with outward-
`
`ly increasing spring bars. . . . Again, no constant thickness and width is provided,”
`
`see Ex. 1002 at 328, Petitioner respectfully submits that the applicant was again
`
`incorrect for the same reasons discussed with respect to the Swanepoel ‘650 refer-
`
`ence.
`
`The applicant also made similar arguments concerning application claims 25
`
`and 35, which are not immediately germane to the instant petition but involved ob-
`
`viousness combinations advanced by the Examiner. See Ex. 1002 at 329.
`
`On April 8, 2004, the applicant submitted a further amendment to applica-
`
`tion claim 19, see Ex. 1002 at 333-45, adding language to specify that the force Fwf
`
`is exerted on the wiper blade by the wiper arm (18) “in condition when it is pressed
`
`against a window.” See id. at 335.
`
`On May 21, 2004, the Examiner issued a final rejection, finding that applica-
`
`tion claims 19, 20, 22, 25, and 28-37 were allowed. See id. at 348-55. In explaining
`
`the reasons for allowance, the Examiner accepted the applicant’s arguments distin-
`
`guishing the Swanepoel ‘650 and Swanepoel ‘564 references from these claims,
`
`stating:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`None of the prior art made of record includes a wiper blade comprising a
`support element, wiper strip, wiper arm, the cross sectional profile in
`which there is a value less than 0.009 and less than 0.005, or less than 0.5º
`and less than 0.3º, and in where the force is an actual contact force exerted
`on the wiper blade by the wiper arm in condition when it is pressed
`against a window. The “force” of Swanepoel is the force to straighten the
`support element.
`
`Further, none of the prior art made of record includes a support element
`having a curvature along a coordinate which follows a span of the support
`element, having values such that a second derivative of the curvature as a
`function of this coordinate being proportional to a contact force distribu-
`tion, wherein the contact force distribution decreases toward at least one
`end. Swanepoel discloses the opposite, in that the contact force distribu-
`tion increases toward at least one end (Column 1 Lines 23-28). Also, none
`of the prior art includes that the contact force distribution is greater in a
`region approximately halfway between a center and an end of the wiper
`blade than it is at the end of the wiper blade.
`
`Id. at 353 (emphases in original). The Examiner also specifically accepted each of
`
`the applicant’s arguments distinguishing the Swanepoel references, finding that
`
`(a) the 1 N force in Swanepoel ‘650 is “not the force that presses the wiper arm on-
`
`to the blade”, (b) Swanepoel ‘650 and Swanepoel ‘564 each fail to show or suggest
`
`a substantially constant width and thickness, (c) the wiper blade of Swanepoel ‘564
`
`“lies outside of the range provided in the present application,” and (d) “Swanepoel
`
`‘564 does not provide substantially constant width and thickness.” (See id. at 353-
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,926
`
`54 (emphasis in original).) Finding these arguments “persuasive,” “the rejection
`
`has been withdrawn.” See id. at 354.
`
`In response to the f