`
`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