Paper No. ______
`Filed: 10/9/2015 8:39 PM
`
`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 6,292,974
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,292,974
`
`1
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 1
`
`
`Filed: 10/9/2015 8:39 PM
`
`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 6,292,974
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 6,292,974
`
`1
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 1
`
`
`
`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 6,292,974 (“the ‘974 patent”), to
`
`describe the skill level in the art of the ‘974 patent as of July 9, 1998, as reflected
`
`in the patents and printed publications cited below, and to analyze whether, as of
`
`not later than July 9, 1998, the conception and making of the wiper blade for motor
`
`vehicle windows claimed in the ‘974 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.K.
`
`Patent Application No. GB 2,106,775, U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551, German Patent
`
`No. DE 1,028,896 and U.S. Patent No. 3,418,679.
`
`3.
`
`In performing my analysis I have considered the claims of the ‘974
`
`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
`
`‘974 patent as of not later than July 9, 1998.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`A copy of my resume is attached as Appendix A.
`
`2
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Michigan – Ann Arbor in 1991. My thesis was directed to automotive engineering.
`
`Prior to this, I received a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from Oakland University (1986) and a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1982). I am a registered
`
`professional engineer in the state of Michigan.
`
`6.
`
`As shown in my resume, most of my career has been in the field of
`
`automotive engineering. I have held positions in both industry and academia
`
`relating to this field. After receiving my Masters degree, I began work at General
`
`Motors. At General Motors I had several assignments involving automotive
`
`design. I held positions in advanced engineering and manufacturing. Over the
`
`course of my years at General Motors, I was involved in all aspects of the vehicle
`
`design process, from advanced research and development to manufacturing. I also
`
`worked on several different technologies while at General Motors including
`
`various mechanical components and subsystems of vehicles.
`
`7.
`
`After leaving General Motors, I finished my Ph.D. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor. My thesis was
`
`directed to automotive engineering including the design and development of
`
`systems and 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
`
`3
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 3
`
`
`
`led the automotive program in mechanical engineering. As part of my
`
`responsibilities while at the Academy, I managed the laboratories for Internal
`
`Combustion Engines and Power Systems. Additionally, I served as faculty advisor
`
`for the USNA Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). During this time I served
`
`as project director for the research and development of hybrid electric vehicles.
`
`This included extensive design and modifications of the powertrain, chassis, and
`
`body systems. While at the Naval Academy, I also taught classes in mechanical
`
`engineering at Johns Hopkins University.
`
`8.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of Lawrence Technological University
`
`where I served as Director of the Master of Automotive Engineering Program and
`
`Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The master's
`
`program in automotive engineering is a professionally oriented program aimed at
`
`attracting and educating practicing engineers in the automotive industry. In
`
`addition to teaching and designing the curriculum for undergraduate and graduate
`
`students, I also worked in the automotive industry closely with Ford Motor
`
`Company on the development of a hybrid electric vehicle. I served as project
`
`director on a cooperative research project to develop and design all aspects of a
`
`hybrid electric vehicle. While in many instances we used standard Ford
`
`components, we custom designed many automotive subsystems. In addition to the
`
`powertrain system, we designed and developed the exterior body of the vehicle. In
`
`4
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 4
`
`
`
`the course of this development, we custom designed a wiper blade system that
`
`would work appropriately with the body modifications desired for the hybrid
`
`electric vehicle. Not only did we select the appropriate location, structures, and
`
`design of the wiper system, we also custom designed a wiper blade appropriate for
`
`placement and performance with the vehicle in order to correct a performance
`
`(chatter) issue created by the body modifications. During the course of this nearly
`
`two year project, we created a unique wiper blade system for use on our hybrid
`
`electric vehicle, which was based on the Ford Taurus. We also did analytical and
`
`actual testing of the systems. During my time at Lawrence Tech, I served as
`
`advisor for 145 automotive graduate and undergraduate project students. Many of
`
`the graduate students whom I advised were employed as full time engineers in the
`
`automotive industry. This service required constant interaction with the students
`
`and
`
`their automotive companies which
`
`included
`
`the major automotive
`
`manufacturers (Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, etc.) along with many
`
`automotive suppliers.
`
`9.
`
`Currently, I am employed as a Professor of Mechanical Engineering
`
`& Director of the Advanced Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) at Kettering
`
`University, formerly General Motors Institute. Acting in these capacities, I develop
`
`curriculum and teach courses in mechanical and automotive engineering to both
`
`undergraduate and graduate students. Since coming to Kettering, I have advised
`
`5
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 5
`
`
`
`over 90 undergraduate and graduate theses in automotive engineering. Further, I
`
`actively pursue research and development activities within automotive engineering.
`
`This activity requires constant involvement with my students and their sponsoring
`
`automotive companies which have included not only those mentioned above, but
`
`also Bosch, Nissan, Borg Warner, FEV, Inc., U.S. Army Automotive Command,
`
`Denso, Honda, Dana, TRW, Tenneco, Navistar, and ArvinMeritor. I have
`
`published over 50 reviewed technical articles and presentations involving topics in
`
`automotive engineering. Automotive and mechanical engineering topics covered in
`
`these articles include mechanical design and analysis of components and systems,
`
`vehicle exterior design including aerodynamics, thermal and fluid system design
`
`and analysis, selection and design of components and sub-systems for optimum
`
`system integration, and system calibration and control. I have also chaired or co-
`
`chaired sessions in automotive engineering at many technical conferences
`
`including sessions involving materials applications and development in automotive
`
`engineering. Additionally, while acting as director of the AERL, I am responsible
`
`for numerous laboratories and undergraduate and graduate research projects, which
`
`include a computational wiper blade design effort and laboratory. With my
`
`colleague, I have worked on
`
`the correlation between
`
`the computational
`
`environment and the experimental results for presentations to the automotive
`
`industry.
`
`6
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 6
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I also serve as faculty advisor to the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`International (SAE) Student Branch and Clean Snowmobile Challenge and am also
`
`very active in SAE at the national level. I have served as a director on the SAE
`
`Board of Directors, the Engineering Education Board, and the Publications Board.
`
`Further, I have chaired the Engineering Education Board and several of the SAE
`
`Committees.
`
`11.
`
`I also actively develop and
`
`teach Continuing Professional
`
`Development (CPD) courses both for SAE and directly for corporate automotive
`
`clients. These CPD courses are directed to automotive powertrain, exterior body
`
`systems, and include extensive aerodynamic considerations. These courses are
`
`taught primarily to engineers who are employed in the automotive industry.
`
`12.
`
`Finally, I am a member of the Advisory Board of the National
`
`Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology at the University of Idaho. In
`
`addition to advising, I also review funding proposals and project reports of the
`
`researchers funded by the center.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`13.
`
`In preparing for this Declaration, I have analyzed and considered all
`
`of the documents referenced herein. More specifically, I have reviewed U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,292,974 (“the ‘974 patent”) in detail, along with its file history and prior art
`
`documents cited therein. I have also reviewed prior art references, including U.K.
`
`7
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 7
`
`
`
`Patent Application No. GB 2,106,775, U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551, German Patent
`
`No. DE 1,028,896 and U.S. Patent No. 3,418,679.
`
`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, 1998, the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ‘974 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:
`
`(cid:120) U.K. Patent Application No. G.B. 2,106,775 (“Prohaska”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 (“Appel”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`(cid:120) German Patent Publication No. 1,028,896 (“Hoyler”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 3,418,679 (“Barth”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`16. As of not later than July 9, 1998, the level of skill level in the art also
`
`included the ability to make predictable use of the devices and materials described
`
`above according to their established functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have the education and experience in automotive design, automotive
`
`8
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 8
`
`
`
`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 1, 2 and 8 of the ‘974 patent describes
`
`subject matter that, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ‘974 patent as of not later than July 9, 1998. My
`
`reasoning for my opinion is set forth in the analysis below.
`
`VI.
`
` BACKGROUND OF THE PERTINENT TECHNOLOGY
`
`18.
`
`The subject matter of the ‘974 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.
`
`9
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 9
`
`
`
`Barth, Fig. 1
`
`20.
`
`The yokes on conventional style wiper blades have long used flexible
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 10
`
`
`
`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 ‘974 patent.
`
`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 ‘974 patent is directed to an improvement for wiper blades to
`
`avoid the disadvantages of prior art wiper blades listed below:
`
`25.
`
`Prior art wiper blades exhibited:
`
`(cid:131) a reduced contact pressure so that proper wiping was no
`
`longer possible at high vehicle speeds “wind lift,”
`
`(cid:131) undesirable noise, and/or
`
`(cid:131) excessively high stress on the drive components and on the
`
`rubber of the wiper at low vehicle speeds.
`
`Id., 1:24-51.
`
`11
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 11
`
`
`
`26.
`
`The ‘974 patent purports to solve these prior art disadvantages by
`
`providing a spoiler to reduce wind lift at high speeds; thus also reducing the need
`
`for increasing wiper blade contact pressure, which can lead to undesirable noise
`
`and excessive stress on the drive components. (Id., Col. 1, l. 58 to Col. 2, l. 10).
`
`27.
`
`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,
`
`the Prohaska reference, 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 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, p. 1, ll. 8-16).
`
`28.
`
`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).
`
`29.
`
` 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
`
`12
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 12
`
`
`
`conventional wiper blades when trying to solve the problem of wind lift in flat-
`
`spring blades.
`
`VII. THE ‘974 PATENT
`
`30.
`
`For reference in my analysis of the prior art, I will now summarize the
`
`disclosure of the ‘974 patent.
`
`31.
`
`The ‘974 patent, which is titled “Glass Wiper Blade for Motor
`
`Vehicles,” is based upon an international patent application, Patent Cooperation
`
`Treaty (“PCT”) Application No. PCT/DE98/01893. It is my understanding that the
`
`PCT application was filed by Bosch on July 9, 1998. The PCT application claims
`
`priority to German Patent Application No. DE/19736368 which was filed on
`
`August 21, 1997 and names Wilfried Merkel, Wolfgang Leutsch and Thomas
`
`Kotlarski as inventors. A national phase application was entered in the U.S. by
`
`Bosch on June 11, 1999. On September 25, 2001 the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office granted issuance of the ‘974 patent. As issued, the ‘974 patent includes one
`
`independent claim. Claim 1 recites the following:
`
`1. A wiper blade for windows of motor vehicles, comprising a
`curved, band-shaped, spring-elastic support element which
`distributes a pressure applied by a wiper arm and has a concave
`and a convex surface which defines corresponding planes; an
`elongated rubber-elastic wiper strip placeable on a window to be
`wiped and mounted to said concave surface of said support
`element which faces the window, substantially longitudinally
`13
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 13
`
`
`
`parallel to said concave surface; a connection device provided for
`a wiper arm and arranged directly on a convex side of said support
`element; and a component which is separate from said wiper strip
`and is mounted directly to the convex surface of said support
`element so as to form a leading-edge face extending in a
`longitudinal direction of the support element and forming, as seen
`crosswise to its longitudinal extension, an acute angle with a plane
`which extends parallel to a plane formed by said convex surface.
`
`32.
`
`There are 2 pertinent independent claims of the ‘974 patent (claims 2
`
`and 8) that recite the following:
`
`Claim 2. A wiper blade as defined in claim 1, wherein said
`leading-edge face is disposed on a face of said support element
`which faces away from the window.
`
`Claim 8. A wiper blade as defined in claim 1, wherein said
`leading-edge face extends at least nearly over an entire length of
`the wiper blade.
`
`33.
`
`I have reviewed the file history of the ‘974 patent.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS
`
`34.
`
`In light of the teachings of the prior art discussed below as understood
`
`by a person having ordinary skill in the art, each of claims 1, 2 and 8 of the ‘974
`
`patent describes subject matter that, as a whole, would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘974 patent as of not later than July 9,
`
`14
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 14
`
`
`
`1998.
`
`35. As discussed above the ‘974 patent purports to solve the following
`
`disadvantages of prior art wipers:
`
`36.
`
`The ‘974 patent is directed to an improvement for wiper blades to
`
`avoid the disadvantages of prior art wiper blades listed below:
`
`(cid:120) Prior art wiper blades exhibited:
`
`(cid:131) a reduced contact pressure so that proper wiping was no
`
`longer possible at high vehicle speeds “wind lift,”
`
`(cid:131) undesirable noise, and/or
`
`(cid:131) excessively high stress on the drive components and on the
`
`rubber of the wiper at low vehicle speeds.
`
`Id., 1:24-51. Each of these disadvantages, however, had already been addressed in
`
`the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`U.K. Patent No. GB 2,106,775 (“Prohaska”) (Exhibit 1004)
`
`37. U.K. Patent No. GB 2,106,775, entitled “Wiper blade assembly
`
`comprising spoiler,” published on April 20, 1983. Hans Prohaska and Alfred
`
`Kohler are listed on the face of the document as inventors. (Ex. 1004).
`
`38.
`
`Prohaska is directed to wiper blades whose airfoils or spoilers can be
`
`connected with a wiper in a simple way that would also counter the lifting force
`
`15
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 15
`
`
`
`that occurs when vehicles drive at high speeds. These spoilers ensure reliable
`
`contact between the wiper and windscreen. (Prohaska, p. 1, ll. 8-16, 1l. 38-42).
`
`Prohaska explains that a variety of spoilers have emerged in response to the
`
`problem of wind-lift, but these spoilers all had disadvantages:
`
`Thus the spoilers to be attached to the yoke or to be inserted in
`it can only be secured thereon in a relatively complicated way
`and, moreover, the connecting points are subject to considerable
`wear and do not look very nice. The other embodiment known
`from [a prior art specification] including a spoiler formed out of
`the wiper element might not be stable enough to act against the
`air stream in all cases, bcause [sic] of the rubber-elastic
`materials normally used for the production of wiper elements.
`Moreover, as far as technology is concerned, the production of
`such a wiper element might be very difficult and therefore
`expensive.
`
`(Id. at p. 1, ll. 25-37).
`
`39.
`
`To overcome these disadvantages, Prohaska describes a wiper blade
`
`having a supporting structure for holding a wiper made of rubber-elastic material, a
`
`flexible strip extending over almost the entire length of the wiper element to stiffen
`
`it, and a spoiler formed or attached on the flexible strip “[t]o maintain contact
`
`pressure in use.” (Id., p. 1, ll. 43-52, p. 2, ll. 56-58). In several examples,
`
`illustrated in the figures of the ‘974 patent, the spoiler forms an integral part with
`
`the flexible strip. (id. at p. 2, ll. 71-75; Figures 1-3 and 5-6).
`16
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 16
`
`
`
`40. Considering the Prohaska reference described above, it would have
`
`been immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the triangular
`
`cross-section described and illustrated in Figures 1-3 and 5-6 would counter wind-
`
`lift.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 (“Appel”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`41. U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551, entitled “Windshield Wiper Blade
`
`Assembly,” issued on July 6, 1965. Walter D. Appel is listed on the face of the
`
`document as the inventor. (Ex. 1005).
`
`42.
`
`The wiper blade improvement described in the Appel reference is a
`
`simplified spring wiper blade backbone construction that is flexible and adaptable
`
`to efficient wiping of variable curvatures, as well as relatively flat portions, of
`
`vehicle windshields, without requiring the use of the yoke structure found on
`
`conventional wiper blades. (Appel, Col. 1, ll. 11-15).
`
`43.
`
`Specifically, as seen in Figure 7 below, a “rubber wiper blade and
`
`attaching means in which a spring backbone element 45 similar to that of FIGS. 4-
`
`6 has a modified rubber blade 46 attached by bonding at 47.” (Id. at Col. 4, ll. 19-
`
`22). Figures 1 and 5 of Appel also describe and illustrate these features and are
`
`similarly reproduced below showing the curved, band shape spring-elastic support
`
`element:
`
`17
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 17
`
`
`
`Appel Fig. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appel Fig. 7
`
`Appel Fig. 5
`
`3.
`
`DE 1,028,896 (“Hoyler “) (Exhibit 1006)
`
`44. German Patent No. 1,028,896, entitled “Wiper Bar for Windshield
`
`Wipers,” issued on April 24, 1958. Alfred Hoyler is listed on the face of the
`
`document as an inventor. (Ex. 1006).
`
`45.
`
`The Hoyler reference describes a wiper bar for windshield wipers that
`
`improves the following disadvantages of prior art wiper blades: 1) prior art wiper
`
`blades that use multiple parts develop noise during operation, particularly at the
`
`inversion points of the wiping motion; 2) wiper blades that use elastic inserts for
`
`noise reduction are ground over time by wear and tear, in the winter the joints lock
`
`18
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 18
`
`
`
`up by icing and the metal parts become unsightly due to weathering; and, 3) other
`
`wiper blades were inflexible and could not be adapted to wipe a curved windshield
`
`surface.
`
`B.
`
`46.
`
`Claim 1 Is Obvious in View of the Prior Art
`
`In my opinion the Appel and Hoyler references each describe the
`
`recited limitations of claim 1 of the ‘974 patent for curved, band-shaped, spring-
`
`elastic support elements that distribute pressure applied by a wiper arm and have
`
`concave and convex surfaces in which an elongated rubber-elastic wiper strip to be
`
`placed on a window that is mounted to the concave surface of the support element.
`
`47.
`
`It is my opinion that attaching a spoiler to a particular wiper design is
`
`a rudimentary design task well within the reach of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art of windshield wipers. The means of attachment is not a problem for which an
`
`invention is required, but merely the presentation of an elementary step in the
`
`mechanical design process. Other artisans were presented with the same geometry
`
`and made the same design choice, as depicted below.
`
`Appel - Figure 5
`
`19
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 19
`
`
`
`Hoyler - Figure 1
`
`Prohaska - Figure 6
`
`48.
`
`For example, combining the triangular spoiler of Prohaska with the
`
`support element of Appel or Hoyler meets each and every limitation of Claim 1 of
`
`the ‘974 patent and describes not only predictable results, but the exact same
`
`results that are disclosed in the Prohaska, Appel and Hoyler references:
`
`(cid:120) a wiper blade that conforms to the curvature of any windshield,
`
`(cid:120) a wiper blade that counters liftoff tendency or wind lift,
`
`(cid:120) a wiper blade that distributes force evenly over the windshield,
`
`(cid:120) a wiper blade that reduces noise buildup, and that prevents excessively high
`
`stress or wear and tear on the drive components and on the rubber of the
`20
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 20
`
`
`
`wiper at low vehicle speeds.
`
`49.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that the features of Claim 1 of the ‘974
`
`patent are no more than a predictable use and aggregation of elements that existed
`
`in the prior art. These elements were merely combined according to the functions
`
`that the prior art Prohaska, Appel and Hoyler references describe and address the
`
`same disadvantages that the inventions contained within those references were
`
`created to solve.
`
`50. A person of skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
`
`teachings of the Prohaska reference with either the Appel reference and/or the
`
`Hoyler reference because each reference teaches a way to predictably solve known
`
`problems. Hoyler, as noted above, states that one of the disadvantages of prior art
`
`blades is that they “develop noise during operation,” and Hoyler seeks to overcome
`
`this problem by eliminating the lever bar comprising multiple parts-often called the
`
`yoke assembly. Instead Hoyler uses a support element “graduated profile bar with
`
`elastic metal strips” (Hoyler, Col. 1). Appel, offers offers alternative support
`
`element designs, which are pre-curved curved to distribute the wiper arm force on
`
`curved windshields. The Prohaska reference solves a different problem than that of
`
`either the Appel or Hoyler references and a person of skill in the art would have
`
`combined these teachings to arrive at a superior wiper blade to that of either
`
`21
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 21
`
`
`
`Prohaska alone or Appel or Hoyler alone.
`
`51. Claims 1 of the ‘974 patent describes subject matter that would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘974 patent well
`
`before July 9, 1998.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 2 Is Obvious in View of the Prior Art
`
`52. Claim 2 of the ‘974 patent is dependent on claim 1. For the reasons
`
`stated above, it is my opinion that the claim 1 elements of claim 2 of the ‘974
`
`patent are obvious. Claim 2 further requires a the wiper blade of claim 1 wherein
`
`the leading-edge face [36] is disposed on a face [30] of said support element which
`
`faces away from the window. (‘974, Col. 3, ll. 22-25 and Figure 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘974 patent - Figure 3
`
`
`
` Prohaska - Figure 3
`
`53.
`
`The Prohaska reference describes that the leading-edge face 21 of the
`
`spoiler is disposed on the face (31) of the support member above the wiper which
`22
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 22
`
`
`
`faces away from the window. This results in the leading-edge face 21 facing away
`
`from the window as depicted below in Figures 3 and 6 of Prohaska.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Prohaska - Figure 3
`
`
`
` Prohaska - Figure 6
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, both the Prohaska reference and the ‘974 patent are
`
`describing the exact same thing.
`
`55. Both the Prohaska reference and the ‘974 patent also describe that this
`
`feature is beneficial because it results in uniform contact pressure between the
`
`wiper and the windshield and counters liftoff tendency or wind lift.
`
`56.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that the features of Claim 2 of the ‘974
`
`patent are no more than a predictable use and aggregation of elements that existed
`
`in the prior art. The additional element of claim 2 was merely combined according
`
`to the function that the prior art Prohaska reference describes and resolves the same
`
`23
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 23
`
`
`
`disadvantage that the ‘974 patent purports to address. As discussed above, a
`
`person of skill in the art would have had reason to combine the Prohaska reference
`
`with either the Appel and/or Hoyler reference.
`
`57. Claim 2 of the ‘974 patent describes subject matter that would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘974 patent well
`
`before July 9, 1998.
`
`D.
`
`Claim 8 Is Obvious in View of the Prior Art
`
`58. Claim 8 of the ‘974 patent is dependent on claim 1. For the reasons
`
`stated above, it is my opinion that the claim 1 elements of claim 8 of the ‘974
`
`patent are obvious. Claim 8 further requires a wiper blade as defined in claim 1,
`
`wherein said leading-edge face [36] extends at least nearly over an entire length of
`
`the wiper blade. (‘974 patent, Col. 2, ll. 40-42, Col. 3, ll. 22-32, and Figure 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘974 patent - Figure 3
`
`
`
` Prohaska - Figure 6
`
`24
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 24
`
`
`
`59.
`
`The Prohaska reference describes that “the spoiler [21] extends over
`
`the entire length of the wiper element, this results in a uniform contact pressure
`
`between wiper blade and pane when the laterally striking air stream is well used.”
`
`(Prohaska, p. 1, ll. 97-100, and Figure 6).
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, both the Prohaska reference and the ‘974 patent
`
`describe a spoiler leading face edge that extends at least nearly over the entire
`
`length of the wiper blade.
`
`61. Both the Prohaska reference and the ‘974 patent also describe that this
`
`feature is beneficial because it results in uniform contact pressure between the
`
`wiper and the windshield and counters liftoff tendency or wind lift.
`
`62.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that the additional required feature of Claim
`
`8 of the ‘974 patent is no more than a predictable use and aggregation of elements
`
`that existed in the prior art. The additional element of claim 8 was merely
`
`combined according to the function that the prior art Prohaska reference describes
`
`and resolves the same disadvantage that the ‘974 patent purports to address. As
`
`discussed above, a person of skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
`
`Prohaska reference with either the Appel or Hoyler reference.
`
`63. Claim 8 of the ‘974 patent describes subject matter that would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ‘974 patent well
`
`before July 9, 1998.
`
`25
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 25
`
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION
`
`64.
`
` I reserve the right to elaborate and/or amend the opinions expressed
`
`herein in response to positions taken by Robert Bosch LLC and by experts retained
`
`on its behalf. To amplify what is stated above, where necessary, and especially in
`
`view of information not presently known to me or new information presented by
`
`Robert Bosch LLC’s experts prior to the Board’s decision, I reserve the right to
`
`supplement and/or amend this declaration should additional information be brought
`
`to my attention during the course of this proceeding.
`
`65.
`
`I declare further that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true.
`
`I, DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: __Oct. 9, 2015_______
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Gregory W. Davis
`
`
`
`26
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 26
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Costco Exhibit 1008, p. 27
`
`
`
`Gregory W. Davis, Ph.D., P.E.
`Department of Mechanical Engineering
`Kettering University
`formerly known as
`GMI Engineering & Management Institute
`1700 University Ave.
`Flint, MI 48504
`(810) 309-9886/dr.gregory.w.davis@gmail.com
`
`Education & Credentials
`(cid:105) Ph. D. in Mechanical Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1991
`Thesis: "Comprehensive Diagnostic Software for Engine Cycle Analysis"
`(cid:105) Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Oakland University, 1986
`(cid:105) Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
`1982
`
`(cid:105) Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan, License # 35473
`
`Professional Experience
`Fall 1997
`Professor of Mechanical Engineering & Director-Advanced Engine Research
`to Present
`Laboratory (AERL), Kettering Universit
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
