DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`
`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 6,944,905
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,944,905
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 1
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`
`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 6,944,905
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,944,905
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 1
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`
`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 6,944,905 (“the ‘905 patent,”
`
`attached as Ex. 1001 to Costco’s petition) to describe the skill level in the art of the
`
`‘905 patent as of May 29, 2000, as reflected in the patents and printed publications
`
`cited below, and to analyze whether, as of not later than May 29, 2000, the
`
`conception and making of the wiper blade claimed in the ‘905 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 the
`
`references listed below, which I understand are attached as exhibits to Costco’s
`
`petition.
`
`Exhibit(s)
`1003
`
`Description
`U.K. Patent No. GB 2,106,775 to Prohaska et al.(“Prohaska”)
`
`1004
`
`1010
`
`German Patent No. DE1028896 to Hoyler (“Hoyler”), with
`translation
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0014828 to Egner-
`Walter et al. (Egner-Walter)
`1011, 1012 German Patent Publication No. DE 19736368 to Merkel et al.;
`U.S. Patent No. 6,292,974 to Merkel et al. (“Merkel”)
`German Patent Publication. No. DE 10000373 to Eckhardt et al.
`(“Eckhardt”), with translation
`
`1013
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 2
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`Exhibit(s)
`1014
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 4,976,001 to Wright et al. (“Wright”)
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`3.
`
`U.K. Patent No. GB 2346318A to Lumsden et al.(“Lumsden”)
`
`U.S. Patent 3,418,679 to Barth et al. (“Barth”)
`
`In performing my analysis I have considered the claims of the ‘905
`
`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
`
`‘905 patent as of not later than May 29, 2000, which I understand is the filing date
`
`of the earliest German application to which the ‘905 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
`iii
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 3
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`Motors. At General Motors I had several assignments involving automotive
`
`design. I held positions in advanced engineering and manufacturing. Over the
`
`course of my years at General Motors, I was involved in all aspects of the vehicle
`
`design process, from advanced research and development to manufacturing. I also
`
`worked on several different technologies while at General Motors including
`
`various mechanical components and subsystems of vehicles.
`
`7.
`
`After leaving General Motors, I finished my Ph.D. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor. My thesis was directed
`
`to automotive engineering including the design and development of systems and
`
`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
`iv
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 4
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`where I served as Director of the Master of Automotive Engineering Program and
`
`Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The master’s
`
`program in automotive engineering is a professionally oriented program aimed at
`
`attracting and educating practicing engineers in the automotive industry. In
`
`addition to teaching and designing the curriculum for undergraduate and graduate
`
`students, I also worked in the automotive industry closely with Ford Motor
`
`Company on the development of a hybrid electric vehicle. I served as project
`
`director on a cooperative research project to develop and design all aspects of a
`
`hybrid electric vehicle. While in many instances we used standard Ford
`
`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
`v
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 5
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`advisor for 145 automotive graduate and undergraduate project students. Many of
`
`the graduate students whom I advised were employed as full time engineers in the
`
`automotive industry. This service required constant interaction with the students
`
`and
`
`their automotive companies which
`
`included
`
`the major automotive
`
`manufacturers (Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, etc.) along with many
`
`automotive suppliers.
`
`9.
`
`Currently, I am employed as a Professor of Mechanical Engineering
`
`& Director of the Advanced Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) at Kettering
`
`University, formerly General Motors Institute. Acting in these capacities, I develop
`
`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,
`vi
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 6
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`vehicle exterior design including aerodynamics, thermal and fluid system design
`
`and analysis, selection and design of components and sub-systems for optimum
`
`system integration, and system calibration and control. I have also chaired or co-
`
`chaired sessions in automotive engineering at many technical conferences
`
`including sessions involving materials applications and development in automotive
`
`engineering. Additionally, while acting as director of the AERL, I am responsible
`
`for numerous laboratories and undergraduate and graduate research projects, which
`
`include a computational wiper blade design effort and laboratory. With my
`
`colleague, I have worked on
`
`the correlation between
`
`the computational
`
`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
`vii
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 7
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`systems, and include extensive aerodynamic considerations. These courses are
`
`taught primarily to engineers who are employed in the automotive industry.
`
`12. Finally, I am a member of the Advisory Board of the National
`
`Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology at the University of Idaho. In
`
`addition to advising, I also review funding proposals and project reports of the
`
`researchers funded by the center.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`In preparing for this Declaration, I have analyzed and considered all
`
`of the documents referenced herein. More specifically, I have reviewed the ‘905
`
`patent in detail, along with its file histories and the prior art documents cited
`
`therein. I have also reviewed prior art references, including the following prior art
`
`references submitted as exhibits to Costco’s petition, which are incorporated by
`
`reference into this declaration:
`
`
`Exhibit(s)
`1003
`
`Description
`U.K. Patent No. GB 2,106,775 to Prohaska et al.(“Prohaska”)
`
`1004
`
`1010
`
`German Patent No. DE1028896 to Hoyler (“Hoyler”), with
`translation
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0014828 to Egner-
`Walter et al. (Egner-Walter)
`1011, 1012 German Patent Publication No. DE 19736368 to Merkel et al.;
`later issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,292,974 to Merkel et al.
`(“Merkel”).
`German Patent Publication. No. DE 10000373 to Eckhardt et al.
`(“Eckhardt”), with translation
`
`1013
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 8
`
`
`
`DAVIS DECL.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,944,905
`Exhibit(s)
`1014
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 4,976,001 to Wright et al. (“Wright”)
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.K. Patent No. GB 2346318A to Lumsden et al.(“Lumsden”)
`
`U.S. Patent 3,418,679 to Barth et al. (“Barth”)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions, I considered and relied upon the contents of
`
`the patents and printed publications identified and discussed 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 May 29, 2000, the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ‘905 patent included at least the ability to make the subject matter disclosed
`
`in the following patents and printed publications and to make predictable uses of
`
`the elements they disclose according to their established functions (for example,
`
`using spring steel to support a wiper blade): Prohaska, Hoyler, Egner-Walter,
`
`Merkel, Eckhardt, Wright, and Lumsden (Exs. 1003-1004 and 1010-1015).
`
`16. As of not later than May 29, 2000, 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 automotive design,
`
`automotive manufacture, or mechanical engineering to have knowledge of the
`
`information deployed in these patents and printed publications.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, each of claims of the ‘905 patent that I was asked to
`
`
`
`10
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`consider (claims 13, 17, and 18) encompasses subject matter that, as a whole,
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘905
`
`patent as of not later than May 29, 2000. The reasoning for my opinions are set
`
`forth in the analysis below.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE PERTINENT TECHNOLOGY
`
`18. The subject matter of the ‘905 patent relates to windshield wiper
`
`technology. Windshield wipers have existed since the late 1800s. Their purpose is
`
`to clean, for example, rain, snow, debris, etc., from the windshield of a vehicle
`
`while it is in motion. Thus, it enables the driver and occupants of the vehicle to
`
`clearly see the path ahead of them.
`
`19. One common type of windshield wiper is constructed in what is
`
`commonly referred to as a yoke-style structure to distribute the wiper arm force
`
`along the wiper blade. This type of wiper blade is also called a conventional-style
`
`blade. An example of this style can be found in U. S. patent 3,418,679 to Barth et
`
`al. (Barth) from 1966, shown below.
`
`Barth, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`20. The yokes on conventional style wiper blades have long used flexible
`11
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`rails—strips of metal—to aid in distributing the force along the wiper blade. The
`
`figures from the Barth patent below clearly show the metal rails-“metallic spring
`
`members (20)” disposed in a groove of the rubber wiping element. Along with the
`
`yokes, these metal strips support and contain the rubber wiper element.
`
`
`
`Barth, Fig. 2
`
`21. As shown above, conventional-style wiper blades use claws to
`
`connect the yokes to the wiper blade. These claws cross the outside edge of the
`
`metal strips and may slide with respect to the blade to allow proper distribution of
`
`the force during operation on windshields.
`
`22. Another style of wiper blade eliminates the use of yokes. This style of
`
`wiper blade is often called a flat-, or beam-style blade. An example beam-style
`
`blade is shown below in Figures 1 and 2 of the ‘905 patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In both yoke style and beam style wiper blades the metal strips
`
`distribute the load or pressure along the length of the wiper blade. The pre-curved
`
`metal strips in flat-spring blades are stiffer than those of conventional-style blades;
`
`thus, allowing the elimination of the yokes.
`
`24. The ‘905 patent is directed to an improvement for wiper blades,
`
`namely a “wind deflection strip,” also often called a spoiler or airfoil. The ‘905
`
`patent describes a wiper blade attachment that “so that the airflow-induced
`
`tendency of the wiper blade to lift up from the window that occurs at high driving
`
`speeds is counteracted by a force component toward the window.” (‘905 patent,
`
`1:27-31).
`
`25. Spoilers on windshield wipers are not a new idea. They were added to
`
`windshield wipers to deal with the well-known problem of wind lift. For example,
`
`Prohaska (filed in 1982) described the problem:
`
`“As is known the air stream striking the wiper blade laterally
`produces a lifting force at the supporting structure and at the wiper
`element which is effective in a direction away from the pane to be
`
`
`
`13
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`cleaned. Thus the contact pressure of the wiper element on the
`pane is diminished, so that the wiping pattern deteriorates and the
`wiper blade may be lifted at high vehicle speeds. This is not
`admissible on grounds of security.
`
`(Prohaska at p. 1, ll. 8-16).
`
`26. The use of spoilers was also well known: “The practice shows that
`
`spoilers closely arranged to the windscreen are most effective against the attacking
`
`air stream.” (Id, p. 1, ll. 19-21)
`
`27. The incidence of oncoming air to a wiper blade poses the same
`
`problem for traditional as well as flat-spring wiper blades. It is therefore my
`
`opinion, that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to
`
`conventional wiper blades when trying to solve the problem of wind lift in flat-
`
`spring blades.
`
`VII. THE ‘905 PATENT
`
`28. For reference in my analysis of the prior art, I will now summarize the
`
`disclosures of the ‘905 patent.
`
`The ‘905 patent discloses and claims a windshield wiper assembly that
`
`comprises three basic elements, namely: (i) a flexible spring support element, (ii) a
`
`wiper strip, and (iii) a triangular wind deflector. The ‘905 patent acknowledges
`
`that prior art windshield wiper apparatus incorporated these three elements (Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:6-40, citing DE 19736368 (Ex. 1011) (later issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`6,292,974 to Merkel et al. (“Merkel”) (Ex. 1012))). Figure 1 of the ‘905 patent,
`
`disclosing a flexible spring support element, a fluted wiper strip, a fluted triangular
`
`wind deflector positioned above the support element, a fluted wiper arm connector,
`
`and fluted end caps, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`(‘905 patent (Ex. 1001) at 3: 60-4:21; 4:48-51; 5:3-9).
`
`The ‘905 patent states that prior art wind deflectors, being solid, were costly,
`
`heavy, stiff, and required “a more powerful drive system as well as a more
`
`expensive design of the reciprocating mechanism connected to this drive unit.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at col. 1 lines 40-48). As a solution to these problems, the ‘905 patent
`
`discloses and claims wiper apparatus comprising a hollow wind deflector strip and
`
`having the general configuration depicted below:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Application and Grant
`
`29. The ‘905 patent is titled “Wiper Blade for Cleaning Screens in
`
`Particular on Motor Vehicles.” It is my understanding that the application that led
`
`to the ‘905 patent, Application No. 10/048,202, was filed in the U.S. on February
`
`28, 2002 and claimed priority to International Application No. PCT/DE01/01304
`
`filed April 4, 2001, which itself claimed priority to German patent applications
`
`filed May 29 and September 26, 2000. See Ex. 1001 (cover). It is also my
`
`understanding that on September 20, 2005 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`granted issuance of the ‘905 patent. Id.
`
`30.
`
`I have reviewed the file history of the ‘905 patent (Ex. 1005 to
`
`Costco’s petition).
`
`B. Claims
`
`31. As issued, the pertinent claims of the ‘905 patent include the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`16
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`13. A wiper blade for cleaning windows, comprising:
`
`a band-like, elongated, spring-elastic support element (12),
`wherein a lower band surface (13) oriented toward the window
`(22) has an elongated, rubber-elastic wiper strip (14), which can
`be placed against the window, disposed on it so that the
`longitudinal axes of these two parts are parallel and wherein an
`upper band surface (11) of the support element has a wind
`deflection strip (42) disposed on it, wherein the wind deflection
`strip extends in a longitudinal direction of the support element
`(12), is provided with an attack surface (54) oriented toward the
`main flow of the relative wind, and is made of an elastic material,
`wherein the wind deflection strip (42, 142, 242) has two diverging
`legs (44, 46), viewed in transverse cross section, wherein the two
`diverging legs are connected to each other at a common base (48)
`and wherein free ends of the two diverging legs oriented toward
`the window (22) are supported on the support element, and the
`attack surface (54) is embodied on the outside of the one leg (44),
`wherein the upper band surface (11) of the support element (12),
`in its middle section, includes a wiper blade part (15) for
`connecting the wiper blade (10) to a reciprocally driven wiper arm
`(16) and is supported, wherein an end cap (38) is respectively
`disposed at both ends of the support element (12), and wherein a
`section (40) of the wind deflection strip (42) is disposed between
`and in contact with each respective end cap (38) and the device
`piece (15).
`
`17. A wiper blade for cleaning windows, comprising:
`
`
`
`17
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`a band-like, elongated, spring-elastic support element (12), whose
`lower band surface (13) oriented toward the window (22) has an
`elongated, rubber-elastic wiper strip (14), which can be placed
`against the window, disposed on it so that the longitudinal axes of
`these two parts are parallel and whose upper band surface (11) has
`a wind deflection strip (42) disposed on it, which extends in the
`longitudinal direction of the support element (12), is provided
`with an attack surface (54) oriented toward the main flow of the
`relative wind, and is made of an elastic material, wherein the wind
`deflection strip (42, 142, 242) has two diverging legs (44, 46),
`viewed in transverse cross section, which are connected to each
`other at a common base (48) and whose free ends oriented toward
`the window (22) are supported on the support element, and the
`attack surface (54) is embodied on the outside of the one leg (44),
`wherein the upper band surface (11) of the support element (12),
`in its middle section, the wiper blade part (15) of a device, which
`is for connecting the wiper blade (10) to a reciprocally driven
`wiper arm (16), is supported, wherein an end cap (38) is
`respectively disposed at both ends of the support element (12),
`wherein a section (40) of the wind deflection strip (42) is disposed
`between each respective end cap (38) and the device piece (15),
`and wherein the end caps (38) are provided with a flute (68),
`which extends in a projection of the flute of the attack surface (54)
`of the wind deflection strip.
`
`18. A wiper blade for cleaning windows, comprising:
`
`
`
`18
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`a band-like, elongated, spring-elastic support element (12), whose
`lower band surface (13) oriented toward the window (22) has an
`elongated, rubber-elastic wiper strip (14), which can be placed
`against the window, disposed on it so that the longitudinal axes of
`these two parts are parallel and whose upper band surface (11) has
`a wind deflection strip (42) disposed on it, which extends in the
`longitudinal direction of the support element (12), is provided
`with an attack surface (54) oriented toward the main flow of the
`relative wind, and is made of an elastic material, wherein the wind
`deflection strip (42, 142, 242) has two diverging legs (44, 46),
`viewed in transverse cross section, which are connected to each
`other at a common base (48) and whose free ends oriented toward
`the window (22) are supported on the support element, and the
`attack surface (54) is embodied on the outside of the one leg (44),
`wherein the upper band surface (11) of the support element (12),
`in its middle section, the wiper blade part (15) of a device, which
`is for connecting the wiper blade (10) to a reciprocally driven
`wiper arm (16), is supported, wherein an end cap (38) is
`respectively disposed at both ends of the support element (12),
`and wherein a section (40) of the wind deflection strip (42) is
`disposed between each respective end cap (38) and the device
`piece (15), and the wiper blade part (15) of the connecting device
`is provided with a flute (70), which extends in a projection of the
`flute of the attack surface (54) of the wind deflection strip (42).
`
`32.
`
`I note that claims 17 and 18 include all the limitations of claim 13,
`
`with insubstantial differences (e.g., punctuation, clause structure, exclusion of
`
`
`
`19
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`reference numerals, etc.). In addition to the limitations of claim 13, claim 17
`
`includes, as its last clause, the phrase “and wherein the end caps (38) are provided
`
`with a flute (68), which extends in a projection of the flute of the attack surface
`
`(54) of the wind deflection strip.” Similarly, in addition to the limitations of claim
`
`13, claim 18 includes the phrase, as its last clause, “and the wiper blade part (15) of
`
`the connecting device is provided with a flute (70), which extends in a projection
`
`of the flute of the attack surface (54) of the wind deflection strip (42).”
`
`
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS
`
`33.
`
`In light of the teachings of prior art as understood by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ‘905 patent as of May 29, 2000, each of the pertinent
`
`claims of the ‘905 patent would have been obvious.
`
`A. Claim 13 Would Have Been Obvious Over Prohaska and Hoyler
`
`34. With regard to Claim 13, Prohaska (Ex. 1003) teaches a “wiper blade
`
`for cleaning windows.” (Prohaska, 1:5-7 (“This invention concerns a wiper blade
`
`for windscreen cleaning installations on vehicles, especially on motor vehicles.”)).
`
`Similarly, Hoyler (Ex. 1004) teaches that its “invention relates to a wiper bar for
`
`windshield wipers… .” (Hoyler, Col. 1, l. 1).
`
`35. Prohaska also teaches “a band-like, elongated, spring-elastic support
`
`element,” in the form of flexible strip 30, which may be formed of flexible steel
`
`strips. (Prohaska, Figs. 1 & 3, p. 1, ll. 43-52, p. 2, ll. 56-58, p. 4, ll. 1-7). Similarly,
`20
`
`
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Hoyler discloses longitudinal springs 5, also termed elastic metal strips. (Hoyler
`
`Col. 2, l. 4; Fig. 1).
`
`36. Prohaska teaches “a lower band surface …oriented toward the
`
`window … has an elongated, rubber-elastic wiper strip, … which can be placed
`
`against the window, disposed on it so that the longitudinal axes of these two parts
`
`are parallel,” disclosing that on a lower band surface of its flexible strip 30, a wiper
`
`element 10, made of rubber-elastic material, sits against the windshield and
`
`extends parallel to the longitudinal axis. (Prohaska, Fig. 3, P. 1 ll. 43-61, p. 2, ll.41-
`
`55, p. 4, ll.1-7). Similarly, Hoyler discloses that springs 5 are inserted into slots so
`
`that wiper lip 4, which contacts the glass, is parallel to the springs. (Hoyler, Col. 2;
`
`Fig. 1).
`
`37. Prohaska teaches “an upper band surface ...of the support element has
`
`a wind deflection strip … disposed on it,” disclosing that on the upper belt surface
`
`(back 31) of its flexible strip 30, a wind deflection strip (spoiler 20) having an
`
`incident “wind deflector surface 21 . . . exposed to the air stream.” (Prohaska, Fig.
`
`3, p. 1, ll. 51-52, p. 2, ll. 125-129, p. 4, ll. 1-7).
`
`38. Prohaska discloses a “wind deflection strip” (spoiler 20) that “extends
`
`in the longitudinal direction” of its “support element” (flexible strip 30). (Prohaska,
`
`p. 1, ll. 97-100, p. 2, ll. 56-58, p. 2, ll. 67-70).
`
`39. Prohaska discloses an “attack surface” that is “oriented toward the
`
`
`
`21
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`main flow of the relative wind” (“wind deflector surface 21 . . . exposed to the air
`
`stream”) located at the exterior of one side of its spoiler 20. (Prohaska, Fig. 3, p. 2,
`
`ll. 125-129).
`
`40. Prohaska discloses that its wind deflection strip (spoiler 20) may be
`
`made of “an elastic material,” i.e. flexible plastic. (Prohaska, p. 3, ll. 108-114).
`
`41. Prohaska discloses a wind deflection strip (spoiler 20) having “two
`
`diverging legs” in the form of wind deflector surfaces 21 and 22 that diverge from
`
`a “common base point” as seen in “transverse cross section,” for example, in
`
`Figure 3. (Prohaska, p. 2, l. 125 – p. 3, ll. 5).
`
`42. Prohaska discloses that its “free ends of the two diverging legs
`
`oriented toward the window” (wind deflector surfaces 21 and 22) are “supported”
`
`by the back 31 of its “support element,” flexible strip 30. (Prohaska, p. 2, l. 125 –
`
`p. 3, l. 5, Fig. 3).
`
`43. Prohaska discloses an “attack surface” 21 located at the “outside of
`
`the one leg” (the exterior of one side of its spoiler 20). (Prohaska, Fig. 3, p. 2, ll.
`
`125-129).
`
`44. With regard to claim 13’s recitation of “wherein the upper band
`
`surface … of the support element, … in its middle section, includes a wiper blade
`
`part … for connecting the wiper blade … to a reciprocally driven wiper arm … and
`
`is supported,” Prohaska discloses a support structure including clawed yokes for
`
`
`
`22
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`connecting the wiper blade to the wiper arm. (Prohaska, p. 1, ll. 42-52, 101-112; p.
`
`2, ll. 80-86, Fig.1).
`
`45. As to claim 13’s requirement for “an end cap … respectively disposed
`
`at both ends of the support element,” Prohaska discloses clawed yokes connected
`
`to the wiper blade at various working points. (Prohaska, p. 1, ll. 101-112; p. 2, ll.
`
`80-86, Fig.1). Hoyler discloses end caps (clamps 6) disposed at the ends of spring
`
`5. (Hoyler at 2; Fig. 1).
`
`46. Prohaska expressly teaches retrofitting existing wiper blades by
`
`clipping a spoiler to a flexible strip. (Prohaska at p. 1, ll. 68-70). In my view it
`
`would have been well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify the elongations 32, 33 of Prohaska to clip to the springs 5 of Hoyler in
`
`order to implement this teaching.
`
`47.
`
`In this case, among the “known problem[s]” was that heavier moving
`
`components (1) caused a higher level of stress on drive elements, (2) required more
`
`powerful drive elements for fast wiping speeds, and (3) were costly due to the
`
`amount of material needed to produce such components. See Hoyler, col. 2.
`
`48.
`
`In my view, it would have been immediately apparent to a person of
`
`ordinary skill that the triangular cross-section of Prohaska would counter wind-lift
`
`while the hollow cross-section would reduce stiffness, increase material savings,
`
`and be lighter than a spoiler with a solid cross-section.
`
`
`
`23
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`49. Prohaska expressly teaches that spoiler may be arranged to be located
`
`between the “working points” for attaching the wiper blade to the wiper arm
`
`(Prohaska, p. 1, ll. 101-112), and discloses that the spoiler may contact the
`
`structures used to attach the wiper blade to the spoiler (Id. at p. 2, ll. 76-86, Fig. 1).
`
`In my view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`place the spoiler of Prohaska between and in contact between Hoyler’s central
`
`connection hump and the respective end cap “clamps.”
`
`50. Accordingly, it is my view that wiper blade recited by claim 13 of the
`
`‘905 patent is a combination of old elements each acting in the way that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would expect, and therefore it is my view that such a
`
`person would have found that combination obvious in view of Prohaska and
`
`Hoyler.
`
`B. Claim 17 Would Have Been Obvious Over Prohaska and Hoyler
`
`51. As noted above, claim 17 of the ‘905 patent includes, with
`
`insubstantial differences, the limitations of claim 13, but also requires that “the end
`
`caps … are provided with a flute, … which extends in a projection of the flute of
`
`the attack surface … of the wind deflection strip.” Prohaska (Ex. 1003) discloses
`
`that the spoiler wind deflector surface 21 may be slightly curved forward, i.e.
`
`forming a flute, and shows yoke elements having fluted surfaces extending parallel
`
`to the longitudinal direction of the fluting in the spoiler. (Prohaska p. 2, ll. 99-109,
`
`
`
`24
`
`Costco Exhibit 1007, p. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 2; see also Id., Fig. 4). Hoyler (Ex. 1004) discloses end caps (clamps 6)
`
`having curved, concave (i.e. fluted) surfaces extending in the longitudinal direction
`
`of the wiper blade. (Hoyler at p. 2, Fig. 1, Cross-section C-C).
`
`52. As was well-known long before the German application filing date of
`
`the ‘905 patent, a triangular wind deflection strip may be formed to have a fluted
`
`surface. (See, e.g., Merkel, 3:4-14 (Ex. 1012), Fig. 4; Wright, 11:25-42, Fig. 29
`
`(Ex. 1014)).
`
`53.
`
`In my view, a perso
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
