UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`JOHNSON SAFETY, INC.,
`Petitioner, v.
`VOXX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7, 245,274
`Filing Date: May 15, 2003
`Issue Date: July 17, 2007
`
`Title: HEADREST MOUNTABLE VIDEO SYSTEM
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01070
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL NRANIAN
`
`I, Michael Nranian, declare as follows:
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1)
`
`Voxx International, Inc. (“Voxx”) retained me as an independent expert
`
`consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I am being
`
`compensated at my standard rate of $350.00 per hour for the time I spend. No part of my
`
`compensation depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2)
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 7,245,274 (the “`274
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’274 Patent is directed to a “headrest mountable video system” and
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`issued on July 17, 2007, and was filed on May 15, 2003 as application 10/438,724. The ’274
`
`Patent describes a video system capable of playing various types of digital media, coupled to a
`
`headrest of a vehicle, with the video system allowing for a screen to pivot away from a base unit.
`
`See Ex. 1001, 3:3–5, 3:15–20, 3:28–34.
`
`3)
`
`I base the statements in this Declaration on the information available to me as of
`
`the date I signed this Declaration. To ensure that my opinions are complete and accurate, I
`
`reserve the right to supplement or amend this report if additional facts and information that affect
`
`my opinions become available. Specifically, the information included the `274 Patent, the
`
`10/438,724 Application, and the declaration Mr. Tranchina, and all the filings in IPR2016-
`
`01070.
`
`4)
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend the Declaration or opinions in response
`
`to additional discovery or other events, or to rebut expert reports submitted by JSI. If the PTAB
`
`further addresses additional claim construction issues, I intend to reconsider the proceeding and
`
`amend my opinions in accordance with the PTAB’s guidance on interpreting the claim terms.
`
`Qualifications
`
`5)
`
`I summarize my qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`Declaration below and provide full details in my Curriculum Vitae attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Exhibit A also includes a list of the cases in which I have testified at deposition, hearing, or trial
`
`during the past four years. I have not had any publications that have been released to the public
`
`in the last ten years.
`
`6)
`
`I base the opinions stated in this Declaration on my own personal knowledge and
`
`professional judgment; if called as a witness, I am prepared to testify competently about them.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`7)
`
`My academic background is in engineering. I received a Bachelor of Science
`
`Degree in Chemical Engineering from Wayne State University in 1984. I received a Master of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering from Wayne State University in 1991. I received another
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree from Wayne State University in 1993, this time in Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering. I also received a Juris Doctor Degree from Wayne State University in
`
`1999. I also received a Master of Business Administration from the University of Michigan in
`
`2002. I also am a licensed Professional Engineer, Certified Project Management Professional, as
`
`well as a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt certified through the American Society for Quality and the
`
`International Quality Federation.
`
`8)
`
`In a recent previous position, I worked as a contractor for the U.S. Army, for the
`
`Chief Scientist’s Office, in the Tank and Automotive Research, Development and Engineering
`
`Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan. My recent position is in computer engineering science
`
`and technology and cyber security for U.S. Army ground system vehicles at this same location.
`
`9)
`
`Prior to my employment with the Army, I worked as a design engineer and
`
`engineering manager in the automotive industry from 1985 to 2007. This included experience at
`
`Ford, General Motors, and Allied Signal. I worked at Allied Signal from 1992 to 1993, General
`
`Motors from 1993 to 1995, and Ford Motor Company from 1985 to 1992, and from 1995 to
`
`2007.
`
`10) While at Allied Signal and General Motors I worked as a Senior Project Engineer,
`
`where my work included the design and development of automotive vehicle electrical systems
`
`and architectures, electrical and data communication protocols, vehicle system and component
`
`level diagnostics and parameter information retrieval from vehicle modules and systems, safety
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`and airbag sensing systems and electrical systems, sensor fusion technologies and assessments,
`
`safety component and system diagnostics, user and occupant audio and visual interfaces and
`
`displays, electromechanical/transducer and accelerometer based sensing systems, and the
`
`associated warnings and displays for the above. This also included vehicle crash and safety
`
`system component and system development, as well as electrical system architectures including
`
`message, data, status, and warning prioritization and the transmission and display of information
`
`to vehicle users and occupants across different types of communication channels (including
`
`CAN, LIN, and other vehicle network architectures and busses). My responsibilities included
`
`vehicle hardware and software, mounting, storage, and packaging of displays and user interfaces,
`
`positioning of displays and diagnostic information transmittal, attachments, removal, and
`
`replacement of displays and information systems, vehicle safety, human machine interfaces, and
`
`vehicle interface design. I conducted numerous system and component evaluations, laboratory
`
`tests, supplier and technology assessments, quality and reliability evaluations, as well as barrier
`
`and sled tests, and developed corporate standards and specifications, design validation plans and
`
`reports and failure modes and effects analyses to design and develop automotive systems, the
`
`diagnostics of these systems, as well as the associated information and warning displays. My
`
`responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,
`
`ECE regulations, Industry Standards, Corporate Standards, and Due-Care Requirements
`
`11) My areas of my work included seats, vehicle interiors, headliners, displays and
`
`diagnostics, occupant kinematics and ergonomics, sensors, display of information, warnings, and
`
`diagnostics, as well as vehicle crash performance and occupant injury mitigation, active and
`
`passive sensing systems which can be used in the vehicle interior or exterior, including the
`
`design and development of sensing components and systems that incorporate electromagnetic
`Page 4 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`
`
`

`

`wave sensing (including but not limited to vision, camera, radar, LIDAR, infrared ultraviolet,
`
`and night vision) as well as acoustical sensing. Areas of my work also specifically included
`
`automotive vehicle safety systems, airbags, seatbelts, interior and exterior occupant protection
`
`systems, sensing systems, electrical systems and architectures, electrical and data communication
`
`protocols, vehicle system diagnostics, warnings, vision systems, occupant and infant/child seat
`
`sensing and detection systems, out of position occupant detection, electrical and safety system
`
`diagnostics, occupant ergonomic evaluations, user and occupant audio and visual interfaces and
`
`displays, infrared, vision, camera, sonar, acoustic, radar, LIDAR, sensing and detection
`
`technologies and systems.
`
`12)
`
`I conducted numerous system and component evaluations, laboratory tests,
`
`supplier and technology assessments, quality and reliability evaluations, as well as developed
`
`design validation plans and reports and failure modes and effects analyses to design and develop
`
`automotive safety, seat, and automotive interior occupant injury mitigation systems, sensing, and
`
`electrical systems, including the integration of sensor fusion technologies, and the components
`
`and systems for information and diagnostics storage and communication and retrieval, computer,
`
`microprocessor and interface architectures, and automotive electrical system architectures and
`
`communication protocols. I also ran numerous crash and sled tests involving automotive interior
`
`system testing, development, and design.
`
`13) My responsibilities also included technology assessments and proper supplier and
`
`sourcing evaluation and selection, quoting and bidding, and the overall source selection for
`
`numerous technologies. My responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with Federal
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, ECE regulations, Industry Standards, Corporate Standards, and
`
`Due-Care Requirements.
`
`14)
`
`I worked on the development of airbag, automotive interior, seat, and seat belt
`
`systems, occupant kinematic evaluation, vehicle crash performance in frontal, side, rear, and
`
`rollover accidents, occupant injury mitigation, occupant sensing and infant/child seat detection
`
`systems, including infrared, RFID, vision, camera, laser, LED, acoustical-ultrasonic, capacitance,
`
`inductance, seat weight sensing, and other types of sensing technologies. I also worked on
`
`sensing systems for various automotive applications, including sensor fusion technologies, for
`
`image and object detection, discrimination, and identification and the appropriate status
`
`notifications to vehicle drivers and occupants. My work included analyses involving statistical
`
`information from NASS and FARS databases. Also, for example, General Motors applied for
`
`and was granted a Statutory Invention Registration for rear facing infant seat occupant detection
`
`using a technology that I conceived and developed.
`
`15) While at Ford, my experience included working as a Product Design Engineer, a
`
`Technical Specialist, a Design Analysis Engineer, and an Engineering Manager. My work
`
`included the design and development of automotive vehicle electrical systems and architectures,
`
`electrical and data networks and the related communication protocols and interfaces, user and
`
`occupant audio and visual interfaces and displays, vehicle system diagnostics and fault codes,
`
`crash pulse storage and diagnostics retrieval systems from vehicle modules, systems parameter
`
`information retrieval from vehicle modules, and the associated warnings and displays for the
`
`above. My work included vehicle hardware and software, mounting, storage, and packaging of
`
`information displays, and the positioning, attachment, removal, and replacement of information
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`displays, warnings as well as the associated vehicle safety, human machine interfaces, and
`
`vehicle interface design. My work included the design and development of these systems to
`
`meet vehicle crashworthiness and crash performance requirements and occupant injury
`
`mitigation. My work also involved systems utilizing monitoring, and detection technologies, as
`
`well as electromechanical/transducer and accelerometer based sensing systems. I conducted
`
`numerous system and component evaluations, laboratory tests, supplier and technology
`
`assessments, quality and reliability evaluations, as well as barrier and sled tests, and I developed
`
`corporate specifications, standards, design guidelines, design validation plans and reports and
`
`failure modes and effects analyses. I worked with data storage and retrieval, data
`
`communication and critical parameter storage, collision parameter storage and retrieval through
`
`electrical networks and interfaces for automotive safety systems assessment related to occupant
`
`protection and injury mitigation. My responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with
`
`Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, ECE regulations, Corporate Standards, Industry
`
`Standards, and Due-Care Requirements. I also conducted extensive field event analyses,
`
`forensic investigations, vehicle inspections, accident reconstructions, and determined causation
`
`and root cause analyses for hundreds of automotive accidents to provide information for
`
`improvement of designs for automotive safety systems. My work included the design and
`
`development of automotive safety systems and components for various different types of
`
`automotive applications including interior seating and trim systems and components, as well as
`
`displays, and the display of information, diagnostics, and warnings. This also extensively
`
`involved the testing and development of systems and components for active and passive safety,
`
`vehicle diagnostics, status, displays, and warnings to the driver and vehicle occupants, as well as
`
`the development of vehicle electrical system architectures including message, data, status, and
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`warning prioritization and the transmission and display of information to vehicle users and
`
`occupants across different types of communication channels (including CAN and other vehicle
`
`network architectures and busses). This also extensively involved active and passive sensing
`
`systems which can be used in the vehicle interior or exterior, including systems that incorporate
`
`electromagnetic wave sensing (including but not limited to vision, camera, radar, LIDAR,
`
`infrared, ultraviolet, and night vision), as well as acoustical, automotive, sensing and electrical
`
`systems and architectures, electrical and data communication protocols, as well as the
`
`appropriate notifications to vehicle drivers, occupants, and service personnel.
`
`16)
`
`I worked extensively on vehicle system diagnostics and fault codes analyses,
`
`information and diagnostics communication and retrieval from vehicle modules and systems,
`
`vehicle parameter information communication and retrieval from vehicle modules, sensor fusion
`
`technologies assessments and integration, vision systems, image and object detection and
`
`identification, occupant and infant/child seat sensing systems, occupant and out of position
`
`occupant sensing and detection, critical parameter communication storage and retrieval,
`
`warnings, occupant ergonomic evaluations, user and occupant audio and visual interfaces and
`
`displays, vehicular compatibility analyses and assessments, storage and communication of
`
`critical parameter information related to automotive vehicle systems as well as the interfaces
`
`involved in communication and retrieval of this information. This included communication of
`
`sensor and vehicle information through automotive vehicle computer, microprocessor, and
`
`electrical systems and architectures, electrical and data communication protocols and interfaces,
`
`vehicle electrical networks and network interfaces. I developed and authored the design
`
`verification plans and reports and failure modes and effects analyses for automotive systems and
`
`components. I also developed the testing specifications and requirements, and directed how
`Page 8 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`
`
`

`

`these tests are to be performed, as well as the standards and requirements for acceptable
`
`performance. I worked with numerous external suppliers for these systems and components, to
`
`ensure proper system performance to the testing requirements and specifications. I conducted
`
`numerous sled and crash tests, and I also conducted design, testing, analyses, and crash testing to
`
`ensure overall system and component level performance.
`
`17) During my career as an engineer and manager in the automotive industry, with
`
`both OEMs and the supply base, I developed specifications and requirements, and also oversaw
`
`tier one, tier two, and sub-suppliers, as well as their manufacturing operations and facilities, to
`
`ensure compliance to these requirements. (I am also a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt certified
`
`through the ASQ and IQF.) Part of my responsibilities included ensuring durability and
`
`reliability of component and system performance over long term vehicle. I have extensive
`
`experience in establishing standards and requirements, testing, design, and development of
`
`automotive systems and components, as well as compliance to standards, requirements, and
`
`specifications, including all production validation testing, in-process testing, and also for
`
`ensuring durability and reliability over long-term vehicle life. This includes the extensive
`
`testing, design, and development that is especially critical for safety systems that will potentially
`
`be relied upon to mitigate occupant injury or death in an accident, and also to ensure proper
`
`system performance for Out of Position (OOP) occupants (including infants, children, and
`
`occupants of all sizes and in various positions).
`
`18)
`
`Subsequent to my employment at Ford, I worked as a Systems Engineer for
`
`Raytheon and General Dynamics, where I developed defense systems for military vehicles.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`19)
`
`In my current positions as a contractor and now as a civilian employee for the U.S
`
`Army, as well as my positions with General Dynamics and Raytheon, my responsibilities include
`
`working with internal scientists, researchers and technical staff, as well as outside collaborators
`
`and universities, to develop technologies, innovation, and inventions for the protection of our
`
`soldiers and the enhancement of our soldiers’ survivability in military vehicles. My work
`
`includes vehicle hardware and software, mounting, storage, and packaging of information
`
`displays and monitors, mounting, tilting, slanting, positioning, of displays and monitors,
`
`attachments, removal, and replacement of displays and monitors, and occupant and user
`
`accessibility of displays and monitors. My work also involves, when appropriate, the safe and
`
`efficient storage of displays and monitors so as not to interfere with other mission system
`
`requirements, as well as the associated appropriate designs for vehicle occupant safety, human
`
`machine interfaces, (touch screens, controls, and visual perception), and vehicle interface design.
`
`20) My responsibilities include cyber system technologies and security, as well as
`
`seats and vehicle interior systems, interior occupant injury mitigation components and systems,
`
`computers, displays, and camera and vision systems, human interface displays, acoustic,
`
`ultrasonic, IR, radar, night vision, and electromagnetic wave sensing, sensor information
`
`discrimination and identification, robotic systems, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detection
`
`and injury mitigation systems, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
`
`Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems development, 360 degree surveillance, active
`
`and passive safety system development and occupant injury mitigation.
`
`21)
`
`This also includes 360 degree visual situational awareness systems including
`
`electro-optical (e.g., CMOS, CCD) sensors, thermal viewers, and scalable machine interfaces
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`using various operating systems, geographic information systems, image enhancement and
`
`recognition, image and object detection discrimination and identification, augmented displays
`
`with friend and foe target enhancement for location and identification, GPS and mapping
`
`location systems (including the use of differential GPS, pseudolites, repeaters, base stations,
`
`relays), mobile data terminals, split-screen augmented information and visual displays and
`
`controllers, on-board vehicle displays as well as soldier handheld devices, and the transfer of this
`
`information across satellite systems to command centers to soldiers and vehicles in the field, as
`
`well as the real-time communication of this information across command systems through
`
`satellite, cellular, radio frequency, wireless mediums, and related techniques.
`
`22)
`
`I am a co-inventor on U.S. Patent No. 8,860,159 Spintronic Electronic Device and
`
`Circuits, which, among other novel features, describes and claims an antenna and associated
`
`circuitry for detection of radio frequency waves (e.g., a beam of microwave energy), using a
`
`spintronic electronic apparatus having a multilayer structure that can operate in large amplitude,
`
`out-of-plane magnetization precession regime, which, depending on the circuit structure, can be
`
`adjustably biased and used to detect low frequency microwave RF signals that exceed a
`
`predetermined threshold current and have a frequency lower than a predetermined level.
`
`23)
`
`I have extensive experience with different types of automotive and vehicle data
`
`and communication interfaces and systems, including computer, microprocessor, touchscreens,
`
`wireless and physical hardware electrical and system architectures as well as the associated
`
`displays and monitors (human machine interface – HMI) for interface with the user.
`
`24)
`
`I am a member of the Project Management Institute, American Society for
`
`Quality, International Quality Federation, and the Forensic Expert Witness Association.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`25) Although I have a law degree and I am an attorney registered with the USPTO, I
`
`have not been asked to opine on any legal issues and I will offer no legal opinion. The legal
`
`standards I relied upon in my preparation of this report were provided to me by, and including
`
`during, discussions with counsel for Voxx.
`
`26)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that an element is inherently disclosed only if the
`
`missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and
`
`would be so recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The mere fact that a certain
`
`thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
`
`27)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that for a prior art reference to be anticipating it
`
`must be enabling to one having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that prior art is defined by the patent statutes. It
`
`includes various categories of information. It is my understanding that a printed publication is
`
`prior art with regard to a claimed device if it was published more than one year prior to the
`
`application date for the patent in question, or if it was published before the date of invention.
`
`29)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is invalid if a system that
`
`would otherwise fall within the scope of the claim was in use by others in the United States
`
`before the invention date, or if it was in public use or on sale in the United States more than one
`
`year prior to the patent application date.
`
`30)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is invalid if another person
`
`conceived of the claimed invention before the invention date of the patent applicant, and that
`
`other person did not abandon, suppress or conceal his invention.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`31)
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claim would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”) at the time the invention was made.
`
`This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single reference,
`
`the claim can still be invalid for obviousness. In other words, if the claim is nothing more than a
`
`combination of known elements found in the prior art that yields a predictable result; then,
`
`therefore, the claim is obvious.
`
`32)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that “For over half a century, the Court has held
`
`that a ‘patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their
`
`respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what already is known in the field of its monopoly
`
`and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.’ This a principle reason for declining to
`
`allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`33)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that obviousness may depend on a single prior
`
`art reference, or the combination of two or more references; thus, a claim may be invalid even if
`
`each and every limitation is not disclosed in a single reference. I have been further informed by
`
`counsel that when obviousness relies on the combination of two or more references, there must
`
`be some suggestion or motivation to combine the references, and that this suggestion to combine
`
`may be found explicitly or implicitly within the reference themselves, from the knowledge
`
`generally available to a person having ordinary skill in the art, or from the nature of the problem
`
`to be solved.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`34)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is
`
`invalid if the differences between the prior art and the claim would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`35)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that it is impermissible to use the claimed
`
`invention itself as a blueprint for piecing together elements in the art. In other words, it is
`
`impermissible to use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among disclosures in the prior
`
`art to reconstruct the claimed invention.
`
`36)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a reference that “teaches away” cannot
`
`render a patent claim obvious. I have also been informed by counsel that a reference “teaches
`
`away” if a person having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would be led in a
`
`different direction from the path taken by the applicant.
`
`37)
`
`I understand that, for a finding of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
`
`differences between the claims and the prior art must be such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`38)
`
`I understand that an obviousness determination is based on: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`39) Objective evidence of non-obviousness may include, for example: (1) a long felt
`
`but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the claimed invention; (2) commercial
`
`success of processes and products covered by the claims; (3) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`invention; (4) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the
`
`patent by others; and (6) deliberate copying of the invention. There must be a relationship
`
`between any such evidence and the invention. Contemporaneous and independent invention by
`
`others is a secondary consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`40) Any of the following rationales are acceptable justifications to conclude that a
`
`claim would have been obvious: (1) the claimed invention is simply a combination of prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (2) the claimed invention is a
`
`simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) the
`
`claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar devices or methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (4) the claimed invention was “obvious to try” (i.e., choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success); and (5)
`
`there is some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would have led a person
`
`having ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art references to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention.
`
`41)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the test for written description requires an
`
`objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification by a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must clearly allow a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to understand and recognize that the applicant invented what is claimed.
`
`42)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the written description must actually or
`
`inherently disclose each and every claim element. It is not sufficient that undisclosed subject
`
`matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`43)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that negative claim limitations can lack written
`
`description support. I have further been informed by counsel that negative claim limitations are
`
`adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant
`
`limitation.
`
`44)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent is invalid for inadequate written
`
`description unless the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those
`
`skilled in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
`
`date.
`
`45)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that for the specification to meet the enablement
`
`requirement, it must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the
`
`claimed subject matter without undue experimentation.
`
`46)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that whether undue experimentation is required
`
`depends on a number of factors, including: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the
`
`amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4)
`
`the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art,
`
`(7) the predictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.
`
`47)
`
`I have been informed by counsel that while a specification need not disclose what
`
`is well known in the art, the knowledge within the ordinary skill in the art only serves the
`
`purpose of supplementation and is not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 48
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2003
`IPR2016-01070
`
`

`

`48) As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the field that someone would have had at the time the claim was made. In deciding the level of
`
`ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
`a. the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`b. the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`c. the sophistication of the technology.
`
`49) Using these factors, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) in May of
`
`2003 would possess a Bachelor of Science in electrical, or mechanical engineering, and/or have
`
`some experience in connection with consumer automotive electronics and the basic principles
`
`and processes used in automotive design at the time. Based on these factors, I consider myself to
`
`be at least a POSITA, both currently and at the time of the invention.
`
`50)
`
`I understand in inter partes review proceedings, claim terms are to be construed
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction, and that claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`
`the entire disclosure. Additionally, the “appropriate context” to read a claim term includes both
`
`the specification and the claim language itself. If a term is “used differently by the inventor,” he
`
`may provide a special definition if he does so with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” I also understand that a claim should be cancelled in an inter partes review if the
`
`Board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is anticipated or obvious.
`
`51)
`
`Claim terms of an unexpired patent in inter partes review are given the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that
`Page 17 of 48
`Patent Owner