`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art ...................................................................... 1
`
`III. The combinations do not render obvious claims 1, 6, 9, or 10 of the ’823
`patent ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`Prohaska and one of Appel ’551, Hoyler, Kotlarski ’383 or Merkel
`do not teach or suggest the claimed “wind deflection strip” with
`divergent sides in claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 ............................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Conventional blades and beam blades are fundamentally
`different ....................................................................................... 4
`
`A POSITA would not have had reason to modify the
`complete beam blade solutions of Kotlarksi ’383 or Merkel ..... 6
`
`Prohaska recognized the disadvantages and discouraged use
`of a hollow spoiler....................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`The addition of either Kotlarski ’090 or Mathues does not teach or
`suggest the “binary component” of claim 6 ........................................ 11
`
`C.
`
`The objective indicia of non-obviousness ........................................... 12
`
`IV. Dr. Davis lacks credibility ............................................................................. 20
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page
`
`Cases
`Alco Standard Corp. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 808 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir.
`1986) ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................. 17
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................... 2, 12
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Leo Pharms. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................. 12, 13, 14
`
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................. 2
`
`In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ....................................................... 17
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 F. App’x 755 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................ 20
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................ 12
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Maersk Drilling
`USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 13
`
`Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 3902668 (Fed. Cir.
`July 19, 2016)...............................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Ex. 2007
`
`Ex. 2008
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`Ex. 2011
`
`Cross-reference key correlating exhibits across instituted
`inter partes review proceedings
`
`Deposition of Petitioner’s Declarant, Gregory Davis, dated
`July 7, 2016
`
`Declaration of Dr. Steven Dubowsky
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Steven Dubowsky
`
`April 15, 2010 Trial Transcript from Robert Bosch LLC v.
`Pylon Manufacturing Corporation in the District of
`Delaware, Case No. 08-542 (SLR)
`
`April 19, 2010 Trial Transcript from Robert Bosch LLC v.
`Pylon Manufacturing Corporation in the District of
`Delaware, Case No. 08-542 (SLR)
`
`Declaration of Martin Kashnowski
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,596,063
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,418,679
`
`Excerpt from Supplemental Initial Expert Report of Gregory
`Davis Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,675,434, 6,836,926 and
`6,973,698 in In the Matter of Certain Wiper Blades, Inv. No.
`337-TA-816 before the U.S. International Trade
`Commission
`
`Order No. 94 from In the Matter of Certain Wiper Blades,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S. International Trade
`Commission
`
`Ex. 2012
`
`[Not used; reserved]
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2013
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Excerpt from Declaration of Gregory Davis, Ex. 1013 in
`IPR 2016-00034
`
`Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC’s Amended Response to
`Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s First Set of
`Interrogatories (No. 1), dated June 2, 2015, in Robert Bosch
`LLC v. Alberee Products, Inc., in the District of Delaware,
`Case No. 12-574 (LPS)
`
`Exhibit 24 to Complaint in In the Matter of Certain Wiper
`Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S. International
`Trade Commission (claim charts)
`
`Exhibit 25 to Complaint in In the Matter of Certain Wiper
`Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816 before the U.S. International
`Trade Commission (claim charts)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Bosch”) submits this
`
`Patent Owner Response regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823 (“the ’823 patent”).
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 9, and 10 of the ’823 patent as
`
`to whether they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over GB 2,106,775 to
`
`Prohaska (“Prohaska”) and one of U.S. Patent No. 3,192,551 to Appel (“Appel
`
`’551”), DE 1,028,896 to Hoyler (“Hoyler”), PCT WO 99/02383 to Kotlarski
`
`(“Kotlarski ’383”), or PCT WO 99/12784 to Merkel (“Merkel”). The Board also
`
`instituted inter partes review of claim 6 of the ’823 patent as to whether it is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the above combinations further
`
`combined with either PCT WO 00/34090 to Kotlarski (“Kotlarski ’090”) or U.S.
`
`Patent No. 3,121,133 to Mathues (“Mathues”). For the reasons set forth herein,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should find the challenged claims
`
`not unpatentable.
`
`II. Level of ordinary skill in the art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’823
`
`patent (“POSITA”) would have had either an undergraduate degree in mechanical
`
`engineering or a similar discipline, or several years of experience in the field of
`
`wiper blade manufacture and design. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 16–19.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that “the level of skill level [sic] in the art of the ’823
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`patent included at least the ability to make the subject matter disclosed in [the prior
`
`art in Petitioner’s grounds],” that “the level of skill level [sic] in the art also
`
`included the ability to make predictable use of the materials and components
`
`described above according to their established functions,” and that “[a] person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have the education and experience in mechanical
`
`engineering to have knowledge of the information deployed in these patents and
`
`printed publications.” Paper 1, Petition (“Pet.”) at 25–26. Petitioner is wrong,
`
`confusing the “content of the prior art” Graham factor and the “level of skill in the
`
`art” Graham factor. While the prior art can reflect the level of skill, the point of
`
`identifying the level of skill is to avoid hindsight and add objectivity to the
`
`obviousness analysis. “Skill in the art does not act as a bridge over gaps in
`
`substantive presentation of an obviousness case, but instead supplies an important
`
`guarantee of objectivity in the process.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Compressing the content of the prior art and the skill of the
`
`ordinary artisan into a single factor renders tautological the analysis of the scope of
`
`the prior art—including the analysis of whether and how references would be
`
`combined. It essentially assumes the sought-for result.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`III. The combinations do not render obvious claims 1, 6, 9, or 10 of the ’823
`patent
`A.
`
`Prohaska and one of Appel ’551, Hoyler, Kotlarski ’383 or Merkel
`do not teach or suggest the claimed “wind deflection strip” with
`divergent sides in claims 1, 6, 9, and 10
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Hoyler or Appel ’551 does not teach or suggest
`
`the claimed “wind deflection strip,” let alone one with “two sides . . . that diverge
`
`from a common base point . . . as seen in a cross section,” as required by claims 1,
`
`6, 9, and 10 of the ’823 patent. Pet. at 35, 39. Petitioner also acknowledges that
`
`neither Kotlarski ’383 nor Merkel teaches or suggests the claimed “wind deflection
`
`strip” that has “two sides . . . that diverge from a common base point . . . as seen in
`
`a cross section.” Pet. at 28, 32. Petitioner contends that this limitation is taught by
`
`the hollow-shaped conventional spoiler shown in Prohaska’s Figure 3, and that it
`
`would have been obvious to add this conventional spoiler onto the beam blade of
`
`Appel ’551, Holyer, Kotlarksi ’383, or Merkel. But, it is apparent that Petitioner’s
`
`conclusory assertions improperly invoke hindsight reasoning and “rel[y] on [the
`
`’823 patent] itself as [its] roadmap for putting . . . pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’
`
`together.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Putting aside its conclusory nature, Petitioner’s assertion fails for three
`
`additional reasons: (1) the fundamental differences between conventional and
`
`beam blades; (2) a POSITA would not have had reason to modify the complete
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`beam blade solutions of Kotlarski ’383 or Merkel; and (3) the disadvantages
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`mentioned by Prohaska of its hollow-shaped Figure 3 conventional spoiler would
`
`have led a POSITA to avoid using it, particularly given the highly sensitive beam
`
`blade.
`
`1.
`
`Conventional blades and beam blades are fundamentally
`different
`
`Petitioner incorrectly treats conventional and beam blade technology as
`
`interchangeable. While conventional and beam blades are superficially similar in
`
`that they are both wiper blades, they are, in actual fact, fundamentally different
`
`such that a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine conventional and
`
`beam blade teachings at the time of the invention of the ’823 patent. Ex. 2003 at
`
`¶¶ 21–25, 58–61, 65–67, 73–74, 83.
`
`Conventional blades—dating back to the 1940’s—use a number of brackets
`
`(or yokes) at multiple levels to capture the wiper strip at a number of spaced-apart
`
`attachment points to the wiper strip. Ex. 2003 at ¶ 21; see also, e.g., Ex. 2008,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,596,063. In conventional blades, the downward force is
`
`transferred through the attachment points to the wiper strip. Ex. 2003 at ¶ 21; see
`
`also, e.g., Ex. 2009, U.S. Patent No. 3,418,679.
`
`However, this conventional blade design results in a number of
`
`disadvantages, for example, (1) the superstructure fails to evenly distribute the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`pressure applied by the wiper arm, resulting in pressure points on the rubber
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`wiping element and thus an uneven wipe; (2) when exposed to extreme weather,
`
`the pressure-distributing frame of the conventional blades tends to become clogged
`
`by ice and snow, which renders the blade rigid and impairs its performance; (3)
`
`they did not meet the aesthetic requirements of purchasers; and (4) their high
`
`profile causes wind lift issues and driver visibility problems. Ex. 2003 at ¶ 22.
`
`Beam blade patents—as known to a POSITA at the time of the ’823
`
`patent—sought to solve these problems by, among other things, eliminating the
`
`yokes. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 21–23, 83. In a beam blade, the wiper arm pressure is
`
`distributed by a spring-elastic support element over the entire length of the wiper
`
`strip. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 58, 65, 73, 83. A beam blade’s wiping performance—
`
`including its force distribution characteristic—is thus greatly affected by even
`
`small changes in its structure, especially if additional components are attached to
`
`the beam. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 58, 65, 73, 83. Thus, the conventional thinking at the
`
`time was to avoid any additional components on a beam blade, making the beam
`
`perform the best. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 58, 65, 73, 83.
`
`This is further evidenced by the failure in the marketplace of a competitor’s
`
`beam-blade product, the Trico Innovision wiper blade, which did not include a
`
`flexible spoiler. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 7.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA would not have had reason to modify the
`complete beam blade solutions of Kotlarksi ’383 or Merkel
`
`Merkel and Kotlarski ’383 both disclose a beam blade with a solid spoiler
`
`that is formed as a part of the wiper strip. Ex. 1009 at 2:11–14; Ex. 1004 at 1:66–
`
`2:4.1 A POSITA would not have found it obvious to modify Merkel or Kotlarski
`
`’383 to replace the part of the wiper strip formed as a spoiler with the separate-
`
`piece spoiler of Prohaska’s conventional blade. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 74, 83. First, both
`
`Merkel and Kotlarski ’383 disclose a complete beam blade solution, and Petitioner
`
`provides no reason for a POSITA to modify their elements. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 74, 83;
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 F. App’x 755, 759 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“Such a change to a reference’s ‘principle of operation’ is unlikely to motivate a
`
`person of ordinary skill to pursue a combination with that reference.”). Second,
`
`cutting off the spoiler part of the wiper strip and adding in its place the
`
`conventional blade spoiler from Prohaska Figure 3 would have required changes to
`
`the wiper strip, the support element, and the spoiler attachment mechanism—and,
`
`none of the proposed prior art references teach what those changes would be. Ex.
`
`2003 at ¶¶ 74, 83.
`
`
`1 As in the petition, citations to Merkel and Kotlarski ’383 are to their U.S.
`
`counterparts. See Pet. at 20–21 nn.2–3.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`3.
`
`Prohaska recognized the disadvantages and discouraged use
`of a hollow spoiler
`
`Prohaska recognized that “[b]ecause the back 31 of the resilient strip is
`
`developed as a hollow member with about triangular cross-section, there is a
`
`hollow space between the surfaces 21 and 22 which possibly migh[t] be
`
`disadvantageous.” Ex. 1005 at 3:3–6 (emphasis added). Recognizing the
`
`potential disadvantages, Prohaska taught that:
`
`This disadvantage is avoided in a wiper element
`according to Figure 6 in that the head 11 includes
`inclined surface 18 which closely rests against back 31 of
`a flexible strip 20 and is lapped over by it. The back 31
`of the flexible strip is on both sides elongated beyond the
`inclined surface 18 of the head 11 of the wiper element
`10 and forms the wind deflector surface 21. In this case
`the somewhat smaller, downwardly directed elongation
`23 is to be exposed to the air stream. The pressure
`exerted by the air stream on the back 31 of the flexible
`strip 30 can especially effectively be transmitted to head
`11 of the wiper element due to the close fit of the parts,
`so that the tendency of their being lifted is dim[in]ished.
`The air behind the wiper element 10 can be carried away
`via the elongation 22.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 3:7–22 (emphasis added). A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`disadvantage mentioned in Prohaska is that the hollow shape of the Figure 3
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`spoiler would lead to aerodynamically excited, degrading vibrations—which would
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`disturb wiping ability and lead to premature failure. Ex. 2003 at ¶ 66. And, thus, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that Prohaska taught away from using the Figure
`
`3 hollow spoiler at all. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 66, 73, 83.
`
`Dr. Davis agrees regarding the perceived disadvantages of using the
`
`Prohaska hollow spoiler, and also acknowledges that further stiffening of the
`
`spoiler would be needed:
`
`Q. Now, the Prohaska patent says that the hollow space in the
`spoiler that’s integral with the flexible strip in Figure 3 might
`possibly be disadvantageous, correct? And I am looking at
`page -- page numbered 3 at the top in the left-hand column at
`the top around line 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. KLAIBER: Object to the form.
`
` A. Yes. It says it might possibly be disadvantageous. So it’s kind
`of one of the design trade offs that you would be making is that
`you could make something like that, and it would certainly be
`lighter, but there could be a bit of a tradeoff there.
`
`Q. What would the tradeoff be?
`
`A. That potentially it could be less structurally rigid so that it could
`potentially -- you would have to look at whether that hollow
`space would still allow it to perform its function so that it
`wouldn’t deform, let’s say, under load. Things like that.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`Q. So am I correct that a windshield wiper designer looking at the
`Prohaska patent would know that they should make the spoiler
`in Figure 3 out of a material that is rigid enough so it wouldn’t
`deform under load?
`
`MR. KLAIBER: Objection to form.
`
`A. I mean, I suppose that could be one way you could do it, but it
`would be one of your considerations is to make sure that it’s
`strong enough. That’s why I said they said it might be
`disadvantageous.
`
`Q. Now, am I correct that the Prohaska patent describes the
`flexible strip to which you previously referred as stiffening the
`wiper element?
`
`MR. KLAIBER: Object as to form.
`
`Q. I am looking at what it says in column -- page 1, line -- around
`line 50.
`
`A. (Witness reviewing document). So they are talking about the
`wiper element itself, the rubber wiper element, which, as we
`know, is pretty floppy, let’s say, if it’s not hooked up. You
`could use this flexible strip to help provide some of the
`structure to give that wiping element shape.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 113:15–115:14.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`As discussed above, conventional and beam blades are fundamentally
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`different, and beam blades are highly sensitive, such that a slight alteration will
`
`significantly impact beam blade performance. Therefore, a POSITA would have
`
`thought that aerodynamically excited, degrading vibration problems relating to a
`
`hollow spoiler—discussed above—would be at least as problematic in a sensitive
`
`beam blade as in Prohaska’s conventional blade. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 66, 73, 83.
`
`Indeed, the conventional wisdom at the time of the invention of the ’823
`
`patent was to avoid adding anything that might have altered the beam blade and,
`
`thus, its effectiveness, especially the additional engineering of stiffening
`
`structures2 that would have been required to combat the “deform[ation]” or
`
`“flopp[iness]” expected in a hollow spoiler. Accordingly, a POSITA would not
`
`have thought to add Prohaska’s Figure 3 conventional spoiler onto the beam blade
`
`of Merkel or Kotlarski ’383—let alone had any expectation of success. Ex. 2003
`
`at ¶¶ 65–67, 73, 83.
`
`Accordingly, the proffered combinations do not render obvious claims 1, 6,
`
`9, or 10 of the ’823 patent.
`
`
`2 Prohaska teaches that its spoiler will stiffen the wiper blade. Ex. 1005 at 1:65–
`
`67.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`B.
`
`The addition of either Kotlarski ’090 or Mathues does not teach
`or suggest the “binary component” of claim 6
`
`Claim 6 of the ’823 patent (which depends from unchallenged claim 5)
`
`requires that the claimed spoiler is “a binary component whose longitudinal area
`
`provided with the claw-like extensions is made of a harder material than a
`
`longitudinal area lying closer to the base point,” and further “that a transition from
`
`the harder longitudinal area to the softer longitudinal area occurs near the wall.”
`
`Petitioner first contends that the “retainer” of Kotlarski ’090 has a different
`
`hardness than the “spoiler” of Kotlarksi ’090. Pet. at 51. However, even assuming
`
`that the retainer and spoiler are of different hardnesses, Kotlarski ’090 fails to
`
`disclose the claim limitation because Kotlarski ’090 does not disclose any
`
`individual element made of “a binary component” material with two different
`
`hardnesses. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 80, 86; see generally Ex. 1020. At most, Kotlarski
`
`’090 discloses two separate elements, but not the claimed “a binary component.”
`
`Petitioner then contends that Mathues discloses this limitation. However,
`
`while Mathues discloses a wiper strip made with progressively different hardnesses
`
`in different parts of the wiper strip to improve wiping quality, it does not disclose a
`
`spoiler made of a “binary component whose longitudinal area provided with the
`
`claw-like extensions is made of a harder material than a longitudinal area lying
`
`closer to the base point” or further “characterized in that a transition from the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`harder longitudinal area to the softer longitudinal area occurs near the wall.” Ex.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`2003 at ¶¶ 80, 86; see generally Ex. 1019. Mathues does not disclose or suggest a
`
`spoiler that has two discrete hardnesses in its upper part and its attachment part (its
`
`“claw-like extensions”), respectively. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 80, 86; see generally Ex.
`
`1019.
`
`Accordingly, the proffered combinations do not render obvious claim 6 of
`
`the ’823 patent for this additional reason.
`
`C. The objective indicia of non-obviousness
`“The objective indicia of non-obviousness play an important role as a guard
`
`against the statutorily proscribed hindsight reasoning in the obviousness analysis.”
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 3902668, at *5 (Fed. Cir. July
`
`19, 2016); see also Leo Pharms. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“[O]bjective indicia of nonobvious are crucial in avoiding the trap of hindsight
`
`when reviewing, what otherwise seems like, a combination of known elements.”).
`
`“‘[E]vidence of secondary considerations may often be the most probative and
`
`cogent evidence in the record.’” WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *5 (quoting
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983); and citing
`
`Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`and Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966)).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Objective considerations may include, for example, long-felt but unresolved
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`need, industry praise and awards, failure of others, commercial success, licensing,
`
`unexpected results, and copying. WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *7; Transocean
`
`Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Leo. Pharms., 726 F.3d at 1358–59. All of these
`
`considerations are implicated with respect to the challenged claims. And, while
`
`there must be a nexus between the objective evidence and the merits of the claimed
`
`invention, the nexus is presumed, where, as here, “the patentee shows that the
`
`asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘is the
`
`invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *6.
`
`“Conventional” wiper blades were long known in the art prior to the
`
`invention at issue here. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 2; Ex. 2003 at ¶ 21. However, such
`
`conventional blades have a number of disadvantages compared to what are now
`
`commonly referred to as “beam” or “flat” wiper blades. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 2; Ex. 2003
`
`at ¶¶ 22–23. For example, conventional blades can be clogged with ice and snow,
`
`which can cause the blade to freeze and stick and lead to banding, which can result
`
`in poor visibility. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 2; Ex. 2003 at ¶ 22. They are also prone to
`
`wearing unevenly, with the portion of the wiper strip underneath the pressure
`
`points wearing first, which can lead to streaking and poor visibility. Ex. 2007 at ¶
`
`2; Ex. 2003 at ¶ 22. All of these problems with conventional wiper blades were
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`well known in the industry, but solutions to these problems were not. Ex. 2007 at ¶
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`2; Ex. 2005 at 271:4–22.
`
`While beam blades were described in paper patents long before the invention
`
`at issue here, (Ex. 2003 at ¶ 23), there were no commercially viable beam blades
`
`prior to 2002, when, after significant engineering difficulties, Bosch satisfied the
`
`above-described unresolved long-felt need by introducing a wiper blade called
`
`Aerotwin into the automotive aftermarket, first in Europe and then in the United
`
`States, (Ex. 2007 at ¶ 3, Ex. 2005 at 346:16–348:2).3 The Aerotwin was the first
`
`commercially successful beam blade in the United States aftermarket, and was
`
`given a number of awards, including both the Pace award and the Automechanika
`
`award. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 3; Ex. 2005 at 239:6–16.4 The Pace award, in particular,
`
`
`3 WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *7 (“Evidence of a long felt but unresolved need
`
`tends to show non-obviousness because it is reasonable to infer that the need would
`
`have not persisted had the solution been obvious.”); Leo Pharms., 726 F.3d at
`
`1359.
`
`4 WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *10, *12 (“Evidence that the industry praised a
`
`claimed invention or a product which embodies the patent claims weighs against
`
`an assertion that the same claim would have been obvious. . . . Demonstrating that
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`described the use of a flexible spoiler on the Aerotwin blade. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 3; Ex.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`2005 at 337:10–23.
`
`In 2005, Bosch introduced the Icon wiper blade to the United States
`
`aftermarket. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 5. The Icon blade was a beam blade designed for use in
`
`more applications with fewer part numbers than the Aerotwin blade. Ex. 2007 at ¶
`
`5. The Icon blade was subject to praise and commercial success: (1) the demand
`
`from Bosch customers for the Icon blade was considerably high, even though it
`
`was more expensive than conventional blades; and (2) customers expressed a great
`
`deal of excitement for the Icon blade. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 5; Ex. 2005 at 270:14–271:3.5
`
`Both the Aerotwin blade6 and the Icon blade practice the challenged claims.
`
`Ex. 2014 at 3 (identifying products and patents); Ex. 2015 at 33–57, 59–62
`
`(Aerotwin claim charts); Ex. 2016 at 30–43, 45–48 (Icon claim charts); Ex. 2007 at
`
`
`an invention has commercial value, that it is commercially successful, weighs in
`
`favor of its non-obviousness.”).
`
`5 WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *10, *12 (“[I]f there is evidence of industry praise
`
`in the record, it weighs in favor of the nonobviousness of the claimed invention. . .
`
`. Demonstrating that an invention has commercial value, that it is commercially
`
`successful, weighs in favor of its non-obviousness.”).
`
`6 The Aerotwin is also referred to as the Bosch “OE” blade. Ex. 2014 at 3.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`¶ 6; Ex. 2005 at 234:25–235:4, 249:25–250:5, 252:17–254:21, 353:22–354:1,
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`359:12–360:4; Ex. 2006 at 698:19–699:22.
`
`Both blades include a flexible spoiler with diverging legs mounted on the
`
`top of the blade, as well as plastic end caps. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 6; Ex. 2005 at 234:25–
`
`235:4, 249:25–250:5, 252:17–254:21, 359:12–360:4; Ex. 2006 at 698:19–699:22.
`
`This top-mounted spoiler totally ran against the grain of conventional wiper
`
`understanding. Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 22–25, 58–60, 65, 73, 77, 79. Adding structures to
`
`a sensitive beam blade, especially structures that raise the profile, would not have
`
`been expected to work and would have been expected to cause lift-off problems.
`
`Ex. 2005 at 388:23–391:8; Ex. 2003 at ¶¶ 22–25, 58–60, 65, 73, 77, 79.7 Bosch
`
`tested these products extensively before releasing them. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 6. One
`
`aspect tested was noise. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 6. The Bosch beam blades were quiet in
`
`operation, including when the wiping direction changes and the wiper strip flips
`
`from one side to the other. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 6. These features were part of the reason
`
`for the great customer demand for these products. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 6; Ex. 2005 at
`
`
`7 WBIP, 2016 WL 3902668, at *10 (“If industry participants or skilled artisans are
`
`skeptical about whether or how a problem could be solved or the workability of the
`
`claimed solution, it favors non-obviousness.”).
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`270:14–271:3. Both products solved many of the problems associated with
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`conventional blades. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 6.
`
`Further, the commercial success of the Icon product was in contrast to the
`
`failure of a competitor’s beam-blade product, the Trico Innovision wiper
`
`blade. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 7; Ex. 2005 at 250:6–251:7.8 The Trico product was
`
`introduced in 2004, after the Aerotwin but before Icon, and it failed in the
`
`marketplace. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 7; Ex. 2005 at 250:6–251:7. Notably, the Trico
`
`
`8 In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent
`
`Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1082–83 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Evidence is particularly
`
`probative of obviousness when it demonstrates both that a demand existed for the
`
`patented invention, and that others tried but failed to satisfy that demand.”); In re
`
`Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding nonobviousness where the
`
`evidence demonstrated a failure of others to provide a feasible solution to a
`
`longstanding problem); Alco Standard Corp. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 808 F.2d 1490,
`
`1500 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (affirming a nonobviousness finding where the evidence
`
`showed that the relevant industry had searched for more than a decade for a
`
`reliable solution and that major manufacturers in the industry had tried but failed to
`
`develop such a solution).
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`product included neither a flexible spoiler nor end caps. Ex. 2007 at ¶ 7; Ex.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`2005 at 250:6–251:7.
`
`Bosch’s sales figures are