throbber
Page 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` -----------------------------x
` COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
` Petitioner,
` vs.
` ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
` Patent Owner.
`
` Case Nos.: IPR2016-00034
` IPR2016-00036
` IPR2016-00038
` IPR2016-00039
` IPR2016-00040
` IPR2016-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
` U.S. Patent No. 6,944,905
` U.S. Patent No. 6,292,974
` U.S. Patent No. 7,228,588
` U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
` U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`-----------------------------x
`VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS
` Thursday, July 7, 2016
` New York, New York
` REPORTED BY: Christina Diaz, CRR, RMR, CSR, CLR
` Job Number: 109888
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 1
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` July 7, 2016
` 9:10 a.m.
`
` Videotaped deposition of DR. GREGORY
` W. DAVIS, pursuant to notice, at the offices of
` Hughes Hubbard & Reed, One Battery Park Plaza,
` New York, New York, before Christina Diaz, a
` Certified Realtime and Registered Merit
` Reporter and Notary Public within and for the
` State of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 2
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
` SHEARMAN & STERLING
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 599 Lexington Avenue
` New York, NY 10022
` BY: MARK HANNEMANN, ESQ.
` PATRICK COLSHER, ESQ.
`
`
`
` HUGHES HUBBARD & REED
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` One Battery Park Plaza
` New York, NY 10004
` BY: JAMES KLAIBER, ESQ.
`
`
`
` ALSO PRESENT:
` MANUEL GARCIA, Videographer
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 3
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the
` start of media labeled number one
` of the video-recorded deposition of
` Dr. Gregory W. Davis in the matter
` of Costco Wholesale versus Robert Bosch
` LLC on July 7, 2016 at approximately
` 9:10 a.m.
` My name is Manuel Garcia. I am the
` legal video specialist from TSG
` Reporting, headquarters located at 737
` Third Avenue, New York, New York. The
` court reporter is Christina Diaz in
` association with TSG Reporting.
` Counsel, please introduce yourself.
` MR. HANNEMANN: Mark Hannemann and
` Patrick Colsher for the patent owner
` Bosch.
` MR. KLAIBER: James R. Klaiber,
` Hughes Hubbard & Reed, representing
` Costco Wholesale Corporation and
` Dr. Davis. With me is Danielle Rosen.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the
` court reporter please swear in the
` witness.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 4
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` G R E G O R Y D A V I S,
` having been duly sworn by a Notary
` Public, was examined and testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. HANNEMANN:
` Q. Dr. Davis, you signed a number of
` declarations related to some proposed inter
` partes reviews of Bosch windshield wiper
` patents, correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. When did you start considering the
` issues that you describe in those inter partes
` review declarations?
` A. I suppose it's about a year ago.
` Q. And who wrote the declarations?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` A. Well, in terms of physically typing,
` there were associates and various people, I
` believe, typing different aspects, but these
` are my declarations.
` Q. Can you explain that? Other people
` typed it, but they are your declarations?
` A. No. Other people typed portions.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 5
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` For example, I remember I had somebody do a
` claim chart. Kind of a claim comparison chart
` attached to one of the declarations. All the
` references and citations like that I usually
` leave the details of how to format that to
` other people, but basically I work like I
` normally do. I work with the attorneys. We
` met. We talked over issues. Would work on
` drafts and then kind of back and forth.
` Q. You say you worked on drafts. Did
` you write these declarations from scratch, or
` were you working with counsel?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` Go ahead.
` A. If you saw me type, you would
` understand I am not the fastest typist in the
` world. So often what I like to do is go off
` and talk through the ideas while somebody else
` is trying to capture those thoughts by typing,
` and then often we talk about ideas, and then
` we would -- so we would work on the draft, and
` then I would go -- usually go back on my own
` and review the draft and make some changes to
` the draft, and then often we would have other
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 6
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` telephone conversations. Things like that.
` (Costco Exhibit 1013 was introduced
` for identification)
` Q. Okay. Now, I have here a copy of
` one of your declarations. I am not sure if
` you are going to need to look at it or not.
` But I will -- I carried it all the way down
` here so...
` A. Yes. No, I would like to.
` Q. It's marked as Costco Exhibit 1013.
` Its title includes "Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent 6,973,698," and that exhibit
` number comes from the IPR caption 2016-34.
` So...
` (Handing).
` A. Thank you.
` (Costco Exhibit 2001 was introduced
` for identification)
` Q. Dr. Davis, in the background there
` while you orient yourself, let's also make of
` record an exhibit -- one-page exhibit we have
` pre-marked as Bosch Exhibit 2001.
` For the record, we prepared
` this table that's Bosch Exhibit 2001 in an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 7
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` effort to keep all of the exhibit numbers from
` the various IPRs straight. I will try and ask
` questions in a way that there is no ambiguity
` about what exhibits we are talking about, but
` just in case, we have this table, and we will
` go back and figure it out.
` So the declaration that is
` Exhibit -- marked as Exhibit 1013, do you
` recognize that document, Dr. Davis?
` A. Yes. It appears to be my
` declaration with regard to the '698 patent.
` Q. Okay. Terrific.
` MR. KLAIBER: Counsel, for the
` record, this document was prepared in
` color, but the version you have given him
` is in black and white. So I think there
` are portions of this that refer to things
` being highlighted in different colors.
` So if we get to that, if we're
` talking about that, you know, it may be
` necessary for you to produce one that's
` in color, or we will have to sort of work
` through that portion.
` MR. HANNEMANN: Yes. That makes
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 8
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` sense, and if we run into that, we will
` have to make it clear on the record. The
` other thing we can do is -- I am not sure
` whether substituting an exhibit is
` necessary under these circumstances, but
` if we need to, we will make sure we have
` the color in the record for the board.
` MR. KLAIBER: I just want to make
` the record clear.
` MR. HANNEMANN: No, no. Thank you.
` BY MR. HANNEMANN:
` Q. So, Dr. Davis, in this declaration,
` when you're talking about your background, and
` I am looking at paragraph -- the end of
` paragraph 9, which bridges pages 6 and 7 of
` your declaration. Again, you can look at it
` or not. You write, "I have worked on the
` correlation between the computational
` environment and the experimental results for
` presentations to the automotive industry."
` Did you ever publish any papers
` describing this work that is in the phrase
` that I read?
` A. No. That effort is currently on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 9
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` hold.
` Q. Okay. So what is that effort?
` A. I was working with one of my
` colleagues to develop -- he is a computational
` person, and he was interested in trying to
` develop some correlations between his
` computational work and some of the applied
` work, and I'm director of our advanced engine
` research laboratory. I run a lot of our
` automotive programs.
` And so we were starting early in the
` stages of developing experimental facilities
` so that we could capture the experimental side
` so that he could then work, and we could work
` together on the correlation.
` Q. And what correlation are you
` referring to?
` A. Wiper blades. Specifically things
` like pressure distribution across the
` windshield at various positions. You know,
` effective arm force. Different design ideas.
` Q. And what are you and he correlating?
` A. He is -- again, he develops a lot of
` models to develop predictive capability to try
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 10
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` and predict what pressure distribution that he
` would expect to see for different designs.
` And so I was working on the
` experimental side to try and develop the
` ability to capture the experimental data so
` that we could see how well the correlations --
` how well they matched up.
` Q. So when you -- first of all, did you
` reach -- did you have any observations about
` how well they matched up?
` A. As you probably know, a lot of the
` equipment is relatively expensive. We have
` some bucks for body in white vehicles, that we
` were using that I acquired, and we were
` working with various different industry
` partners on the experimental side in the labs,
` and, unfortunately, due to lots of this
` litigation, all that has been put on hold.
` The partners were going to donate some of the
` equipment for me.
` Q. And the reason you are doing the
` work is that you don't know how well the
` predictions from the computer simulation will
` compare to the actual results; is that right?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 11
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` A. Always there is some question as to
` how well different models will compare with
` the actual experimental side.
` Q. In your declaration, you talk about
` several different patents. One of them you
` refer to as Exhibit 1004, the Arai patent
` which ends in the numbers '326. I am going to
` hand you an exhibit that is marked 1004.
` Am I correct that that's the Arai
` patent that you were talking about, for
` example, in paragraph 22 on page 11 of your
` declaration, Exhibit 1013?
` A. (Witness reviewing document).
` I believe so.
` (Costco Exhibit 1006 was introduced
` for identification)
` Q. I will also hand you an exhibit
` that's marked 1006. My question for you is
` whether this is the patent that you describe
` in paragraph 28 of your declaration, the Appel
` patent ending in the patent number '770.
` A. (Witness reviewing document).
` Yes. I believe so.
` Q. Now, it's your opinion, I think,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 12
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` that Claim 1 of the '698 patent -- if you need
` the patent, let me know because I am sure we
` have a copy of it. But it's your opinion that
` Claim 1 of the '698 patent is invalid for
` obviousness; is that correct?
` A. Well, are you looking specifically
` at the chart that -- what portion of my
` document?
` Q. Well, no. I was just asking whether
` that was your opinion.
` A. Okay. I thought maybe you were
` going to talk about the board's kind of
` rejection of claims 5 and 8.
` Q. No. We will start easy.
` Do you think that Claim 1 of the
` '698 patent is invalid for obviousness?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And, in particular, do you think
` that it's invalid for obviousness because of
` the Arai patent and the Appel '770 patent
` taken together?
` A. Yes. I believe the board of
` appeals, the Patent Board of Appeals found
` that claims 5 and 8 were rejected. They
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 13
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` affirm the rejection of the examiner, if I
` remember correctly. And if you look at the
` combination of claims 5 and 8 as I show on
` pages 12 and 13 of my report, that all the
` claim elements, the individual claim elements
` of Claims 5 and 8, which were rejected and
` affirmed as rejected by the board, are what
` issued as Claim 1.
` Q. So the first question is: When, as
` in what year, was the invention described in
` Claim 1 of the '698 patent obvious in view of
` Appel '770 and Arai?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` You can answer.
` A. I am not sure I understand your
` question.
` Q. Okay. Did you give in your
` declaration any opinion that -- any opinion
` about obviousness of Claim 1 of the '698
` patent resulting from Appel '770 in
` combination with Arai?
` A. I think I pointed out that the
` Patent Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of
` claims 5 and 8, which contain the elements
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 14
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` found in Claim 1.
` Q. Did you give any other opinion about
` the obviousness of Claim 1 in the '698 patent
` resulting from Appel '770 in combination with
` Arai?
` A. Yes. I believe if we look at
` paragraph 25, you can see I say, "As can be
` seen in the chart above, the limitations of
` issued Claim 1 had comparable limitations in
` application Claim 5, but the BPAI found that
` Arai anticipated application Claim 5.
` Therefore, the Arai patent must also have
` anticipated each comparable limitation in
` issued Claim 1.
` "Further, the BPAI found that Arai
` in view of Appel '770 rendered application
` Claim 8 obvious to one of ordinary skill in
` the art. Therefore, this combination also
` renders the comparable claim limitation in
` issued Claim 1 obvious."
` Q. Do you believe that you gave a
` complete answer to the previous question?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` A. As I understood it, I believe so.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 15
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` Q. Okay. Am I correct that your
` declaration marked as Exhibit 1013 doesn't
` present any technical opinions about the Arai
` patent except for comments about the board
` decision to which you just referred?
` MR. KLAIBER: Object to the form.
` You can answer.
` A. I believe if we go on to page 31 of
` my report, I have a further discussion of the
` combination of Arai with Appel or "apple"
` '770.
` Q. Okay. Does looking at that section
` of the declaration that you just found change
` any of the answers you have given so far?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` You can answer.
` A. (Witness reviewing document).
` I don't think so.
` Q. And just to be super clear, this
` declaration, Exhibit 1013, doesn't contain any
` statement of an opinion by you about the force
` distribution teachings one of skill in the art
` would have found in the Arai patent, correct?
` MR. KLAIBER: Object to the form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 16
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` But go ahead.
` A. (Witness reviewing document).
` I believe Arai, as I mention in
` paragraph 52, that, "Both Arai and Appel '770
` are directed toward wiper blades for wiping
` the window of a vehicle. Arai teaches
` reducing the number of pivotable connections
` and complexity of the wiper blade."
` And then I said, "See Exhibit 1004,
` column 11, lines 12 to 33, column 2, lines 3
` to 8." "Thus Arai recognized the advantages
` of minimizing the number of connecting points
` to reduce costs, while still maintaining good
` wiping quality. Yet Arai recognized that the
` change in force at the wiper blade tips in
` response to changes in wiper blade arm force
` affected wiper quality."
` And I pointed out some other
` examples from Exhibit 1004. Figure 7 and 8.
` And then, of course, then if you look at Appel
` or "Apple" '770, it discloses that "The
` backbone members of the type disclosed in the
` Appel '551 (which is incorporated in Appel
` '770 by reference), which have a connection
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 17
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` 'at a central point' of the wiper blade,
` achieve relatively uniform wiping pressure
` distribution by appropriate curvature and/or
` changes in width/thickness of the backbone or
` support element."
` So clearly, Arai is interested in
` achieving and maintaining good wiping quality,
` which is a function of the pressure
` distribution across the blade, but Arai also
` looked at the advantages of trying to minimize
` the number of connecting points while still
` maintaining a good pressure distribution to
` achieve the wiping quality, and, of course,
` then the combination with Appel '770, Appel is
` kind of going the next step which is
` eliminating the yoke structure in its entirety
` and developing a pressure distribution without
` the use of that yoke structure.
` Q. Are you finished?
` A. So Arai definitely is interested in
` the pressure distribution in order to maintain
` good wiping quality.
` Q. Are you finished with your answer?
` A. I believe so.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 18
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` Q. You mentioned a yoke and also talked
` about Arai recognizing the advantages of
` minimizing the number of connecting points.
` Did Arai teach the use of a single
` connecting point?
` A. No. If we look on the cover of the
` face of Arai, you will see that what it tried
` to do is minimize the yoke structure to reduce
` the cost, and so they were trying to minimize
` that yoke structure and using the backing
` member to help distribute the force of the
` pressure across the blade.
` So again, specifically, if we wanted
` to look at the description in the prior art,
` column 1, begin let's say line 24, "When the
` force is transmitted from the yoke member to
` the wiper blade through a small number of
` locations, it is difficult to obtain uniform
` pressure distribution, and the yoke member
` including a multiple number of mutually
` pivotally connected yoke elements is
` complicated in construction and is expensive.
` "So the present invention has been
` made in view of the circumstances
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 19
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` aforementioned and aims to provide a backing
` member for enabling uniform pressure
` distribution along the length of the blade
` rubber."
` So clearly, Arai is interested in
` trying to maintain a uniform or relatively
` uniform pressure distribution to maintain good
` wiping quality.
` Q. Let's talk about wiper blade
` curvature for a moment and what I would like
` to discuss with you is the opinion that you
` give in the last clause of paragraph 53 of the
` exhibit marked 1013. That's the clause that's
` at the top of page 33.
` It begins, "And also to have a
` concave curvature in its center section that
` is sharper than in its end sections."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Now, the first question is I
` want to make sure that I am reading this
` correctly. You have some citations at the end
` of the paragraph there to Arai column 1, some
` lines, and Appel '770, column 1 and column 3,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 20
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` some lines, Figure 1.
` Is it your opinion that those
` citations -- that the cited portion of these
` documents teaches one of skill in the art the
` desirability of having a wiper blade that is
` -- that has concave curvature in its center
` section that is sharper than concave curvature
` in its end sections?
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` But you can answer.
` A. Well, if we go to column 1, starting
` on line 60 of the Arai patent, it says, "The
` curvature is preferably small at opposite end
` portions and is large at the central portion.
` Further, the curvature at the longitudinally
` central portion may be opposite sense or
` downwardly convex."
` And it shows two embodiments. If we
` look in Figure 5 and Figure 6, and they are
` showing that in Figure 6 was a modified
` backing member, so it was a different member
` than was described in Figure 5, and if we look
` at the description regarding Figure 5 on
` column 3 starting at lines 28, Figure 5 --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 21
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` Q. Wait a minute, Doctor. I asked you
` about column 1, lines 60 to 63 in Arai, which
` is the only citation to Arai that you have in
` that clause that we are talking about, and
` really my only question was whether I'm
` understanding correctly that the citations
` that you have given at the end of paragraph 53
` are, in your view, a basis for an opinion that
` Arai and Appel each teach a wiper blade with a
` concave curvature in the center section that
` is sharper than in its end sections.
` You can answer how you want, of
` course, and I can't stop you, but the first
` thing was just to make sure I am understanding
` correctly what those citations are for.
` MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
` You can answer.
` Q. What's your opinion about this?
` A. Well, again, when I was writing this
` report, of course, I studied these patents,
` the prior art. I studied them in their
` entirety not just in sound snippets. So I
` would try and bring examples from the patent
` to illustrate my opinion in my declaration,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 22
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` but, of course, I had studied the entire
` patent at that point in time pretty
` thoroughly.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So I am not quite through here.
` MR. KLAIBER: Yes.
` A. So, of course, I would have looked
` at the description for Figure 5 in addition to
` that portion that is cited in my declaration.
` So if we look at column 3, starting at line
` 28, the description of Figure 5, "Figure 5
` shows a side-view of the backing member 3 at
` no-load condition. The curvature is gradually
` decreased at longitudinally opposite end
` portions, 3A and 3A, and the rigidity against
` bending is large at and adjacent to the pivot
` connections 8 prime and 9 prime and is small
` at opposite end portions 3A and 3A and at the
` central portion 3B.
` "Thus the pressure distribution
` along the length of the blade rubber is
` uniform, and the wiper blade can follow the
` curved windshield."
` So when it's describing Figure 5, it
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 23
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` is clearly talking about curvature at the ends
` being less than curvature at the central
` portion of that embodiment in Figure 5.
` Figure 6 is a different description,
` a different choice, if you will, in which they
` change some of, if I recall correctly, the
` rigidity of that backing member, and they
` change the profile shown in Figure 6.
` So basically, I think it was clear
` to me that Arai did recognize having a concave
` curvature in its center section that is
` sharper in its end sections because it clearly
` talked about that.
` Now, I will look at Appel now and
` look at the citations I have here.
` Q. Just tell me, Doctor, when you are
` ready for the next question.
` A. Okay. I am still looking at Appel
` because I think you asked me to explain those
` citations as well. Am I correct?
` Q. Whenever you are ready for the next
` question, let me know. In the meantime, I
` will listen attentively.
` A. (Witness reviewing document).
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 24
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` So on the Appel '770, in column 1,
` line 6 through 24, it refers to the Appel '551
` patent, which I happen to know pretty well
` too. I have seen that as well and clearly in
` the Appel '551 patent, it actually shows
` figures of greater curvature in the center of
` the support element than in the ends.
` And it talks, again, just like Arai,
` about trying to maintain a uniform wiping
` pressure and about how the radius of curvature
` should be less than the windshield you are
` trying to wipe. And yes, here is the '551
` patent, and you can see that I believe in
` Figure 1, in particular, they talk about the
` curvature in the center section being greater
` than the end sections.
` (Costco Exhibit 1005 was introduced
` for identification)
` Q. For the record, the document you are
` looking at right now, Doctor, is marked Costco
` Exhibit 1005, and this is the Appel '551
` patent to which you were referring, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So let me try to ask you a -- just a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Robert Bosch Exhibit 2002 - Page 25
`COSTCO (Petitioner) v. ROBERT BOSCH (Patent Owner)
`IPR2016-00034; IPR2016-00036; IPR2016-00038;
`IPR2016-00039; IPR2016-00040; IPR2016-00041
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` G. Davis
` couple more questions about the curvature.
` First, if you look at the Arai patent, please,
` the '326 Arai patent, which is marked as
` Exhibit 1004, I believe, and if you could look
` at the paragraph in that patent that is in
` column 1 from line 60 to line 63. Line 59 1/2
` to 62 1/2.
` A. Yes.
` Q. 63 1/2. Something like that.
` Right?
` A. Yes. So it's approximately line 60
` to 63?
` Q. Approximately, yes. And for the
` record, it's the paragraph that begins, "The
` curvature is preferably small." So if you
` could take a look at that paragraph and let me
` know when you have read it.
` A. (Witness reviewing docume

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket