`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS, LP
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEGO A/S
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01187
`Patent 8,894,066
`
`DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH B. KNIGHT IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGO A/S
`Ex. 2006
`Rubicon Communications, LP v. LEGO A/S
`IPR2016-01187
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Elizabeth B. Knight, hereby declare under penalties of perjury:
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and could
`
`and would testify to these facts under oath if called upon to do so.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for LEGO A/S in this case as an expert in
`
`the relevant art. I am being compensated for my work at the rate of $350.00
`
`per hour. No part of my compensation is contingent upon the outcome of
`
`this case.
`
`I possess the knowledge, skills, experience, training, and education to form
`
`an expert opinion and testimony in this case. I have over 25 years of work
`
`experience as an industrial designer, specializing in consumer product
`
`design at various companies, including Hasbro Inc. and Rubbermaid
`
`Commercial Products.
`
`I graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1979, with a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Industrial Design. See Curriculum Vitae, attached as
`
`Exhibit 2007.
`
`I have been an adjunct professor at Rhode Island School of Design, teaching
`
`design principles, toy design, and shoe design for 9 years. In particular, I
`
`have taught between 1998–2002 and 2013–2016.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the law on
`
`patent validity. Attorneys for LEGO A/S explained certain legal principles
`
`that I have relied upon in forming my opinions set forth in this report.
`
`I understand a patent claim examined before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`
`with the specification. I understand the interpretation must be consistent
`
`with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has
`
`been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent
`
`with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be consistent with the
`
`interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.
`
`9.
`
`I understand a patent claim is “anticipated” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b), if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
`
`expressly or inherently described, in a single patent reference or described in
`
`a single printed publication, more than one year prior to the date of
`
`application for patent in the United States.
`
`10.
`
`I understand a patent claim is “obvious” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
`
`if the differences between the claimed invention and a prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`11.
`
`I understand the framework for the objective analysis for determining
`
`obviousness involves (a) determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(b) ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art; (c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (d)
`
`examining objective evidence relevant to the issue of obviousness.
`
`ANALYSIS OF THE PATENT
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed, and am familiar with the subject matter of, the U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,894,066 (“the ’066 Patent”). The relevant field for the ’066 Patent is
`
`Industrial Design, which is the process of design applied to mass produced
`
`products.
`
`13. A person of ordinary skill in the art, to which the ’066 Patent pertains, has
`
`a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Design and at least two years of
`
`work experience in product design and a working knowledge of product
`
`development at the time of the invention. The type of problems encountered
`
`in Industrial Design and solutions to those problems require a designer with
`
`some level of work experience and understanding of mass production
`
`techniques and design for manufacturing.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`14. Although my qualification and experience exceed those of the hypothetical
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis is based
`
`on the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art of Industrial
`
`Design at the time of the invention — early 2006.
`
`15. Based on my experience, I have a good understanding of the capabilities of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to being a person of at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I have trained, supervised, and worked with many
`
`such persons over the course of my career.
`
`16. The ’066 Patent claims methods of facilitating user preference in creative
`
`design of a controller with a housing by providing a main casing configured
`
`to conformably fit around a portion of, and thereby receive, the housing and
`
`a set of building elements that are matable to one another and to a patterned
`
`surface portion of the casing. The building elements allow a user to build a
`
`customized replica of at least a portion of a play item and thereby transform
`
`the controller to a customized shape and appearance in accordance with the
`
`user’s preference.
`
`17. From my examination of the ’066 Patent, I confirm the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “housing” is “the exterior shell of the controller
`
`that covers the internal electronics of the controller.”
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`18. From my examination of the ’066 Patent, I confirm the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “casing” is “a structure that is separable from and
`
`covers one or more surfaces of the housing of the manual controller.”
`
`19. From my examination of the ’066 Patent, I confirm the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “conformably fit” is “joining of parts relying on
`
`matching forms and dimensions.”
`
`20. From my examination of the ’066 Patent, I confirm the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “mating” is “joining of building elements to the
`
`patterned surface using cylindrical bosses and recesses.”
`
`ANALYSIS OF THE PETITION AND CITED REFERENCES
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed, and am familiar with the subject matter of, Rubicon
`
`Communications, LP’s (“Rubicon”) Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`United States Patent No. 8,894,066 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42 and references cited therein, i.e., Building Robots, Philo’s Home
`
`Page, Gasperi’s Mindstorms Sensor Input Page, Shackelford, Anderson, and
`
`Xbox Forums.1
`
`
`1 By commenting on the cited references, I do not agree that the references are
`
`authentic nor prior art. In fact, Philo and Gasperi appear to be computer printouts
`
`from the “Wayback Machine,” which are not materials upon which I would rely in
`
`any analysis I would perform.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`22. Building Robots does not disclose a “casing” that “conformably fits” around
`
`a “housing” of a controller. Building Robots does not disclose any separable
`
`structure that conformably fits around the housing of the controller relying
`
`on matching forms and dimensions. At most, LEGO bricks assembled
`
`below and near Building Robots’ controller are building elements that are
`
`“mated” to the controller with the use of cylindrical bosses and recesses.
`
`23. Building Robots does not render obvious the ’066 Patent. The missing
`
`elements identified in the above paragraph 22 are not disclosed, taught, or
`
`suggested in any part of the reference. It would not be obvious under this
`
`reference to join the building elements to the housing of the controller
`
`relying on matching forms and dimensions, because they are, instead,
`
`“mated” using cylindrical bosses and recesses. As a result, Building Robots
`
`teaches away from a “casing” that “conformably fits” around the “housing”
`
`of the controller.
`
`24. Philo’s Home Page does not disclose a “casing” that “conformably fits”
`
`around a “housing” of a controller for similar reasons identified in
`
`paragraphs 22 and 23. The controller in Philo is “mated” to building
`
`elements, using cylindrical bosses and recesses, instead of relying on
`
`matching forms and dimensions. Philo does not disclose a separate structure
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`for “casing” — that is separable from and covers one or more surfaces of the
`
`“housing” of the manual controller.
`
`25. Building Robots and Philo in combination do not render obvious the ’066
`
`Patent. Similar to Building Robots, Philo does not disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest any of the missing elements identified in paragraph 24 above, such
`
`as a “casing” that “conformably fits” around the housing of the controller.
`
`Instead, it teaches away from the claimed invention of the ’066 Patent by
`
`disclosing only building elements that are “mated” to the controller with the
`
`use of cylindrical bosses and recesses.
`
`26. Gasperi’s Mindstorms Sensor Input Page does not disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest an actuator or motion sensor claimed in the ’066 Patent claims 2 and
`
`3. From the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in Industrial
`
`Design at the time of the invention, an actuator or motion sensor that detects
`
`its own movement has little in common with a sensor that detects movement
`
`of objects nearby. Gasperi discloses the latter, while the ’066 Patent claims
`
`the former.
`
`27. Shackelford does not disclose a “casing” that is separable from and covers
`
`one or more surfaces of the “housing” of the controller. Additionally,
`
`Shackelford does not disclose a “casing,” if any, that “conformably fits”
`
`around the “housing” relying on matching forms and dimensions. This is
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`because Shackelford does not disclose the structural relationship between
`
`what Rubicon proposes as “housing of the manual controller” and “casing.”
`
`28. Anderson does not disclose a “casing” that is separable from the “housing”
`
`of the controller, as the controller is shown to be enclosed within the
`
`“casing.” Anderson also does not disclose that Rubicon’s “casing,” if any,
`
`“conformably fits” around the “housing” relying on matching forms and
`
`dimensions.
`
`29. Xbox Forums does not render obvious the ’066 Patent, because it alludes to
`
`the idea of modifying Xboxes, not even suggesting the idea of modifying
`
`Xbox controllers, and does not enable a person of skill in the art to practice
`
`the idea. It does not disclose, teach, or suggests the type of modification
`
`suggested in Xbox Forums should be applied to controllers, nor how one
`
`skilled in the art could do so. As a person of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`idea of modifying controllers is not an obvious step from modifying an
`
`Xbox, because separate controllers are more intricate and must be able to be
`
`manipulated manually. Information to modify a controller would require
`
`more details and directives that would change the interface of play.
`
`30. Rubicon did not identify any evidence for the secondary considerations of
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`obviousness.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I reserve the right to offer opinions relevant to the validity of the ’066 Patent
`
`claims at issue andlor offer testimony in support of this Declaration.
`
`32.
`
`In signing this Declaration, I recognize that the Declaration will be filed as
`
`evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in this case. If required, I will appear for cross-
`
`examination at the appropriate time.
`
`33.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to
`
`be true, and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that
`
`willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`Dated:
`
`“O I Elk