Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 116
`
`Gupta
`Exhibit 3
`
`CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA EXHIBIT 2206
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`IPR2016-01361
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 116
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:11-CV-03855-RLV
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CANON, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`COLOR IMAGING, INC. and
`GENERAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL
`CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 5
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ............................................................. 6
`A.
`MATSUSHITA ‘407 ................................................................................................... 6
`B.
`YOSHIKI ‘079 ........................................................................................................... 8
`C.
`KAWAMURA ‘208 .................................................................................................. 10
`D.
`KATO ‘795 ............................................................................................................. 13
`E.
`UI ‘574 .................................................................................................................. 16
`F.
`MATSUOKA ‘806 .................................................................................................... 18
`G.
`SUNDBERG ‘990 ..................................................................................................... 25
`H.
`HILTON ‘966 .......................................................................................................... 28
`ANTICIPATION .............................................................................................................. 29
`OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 30
`A.
`RUSSELL ‘163, HILTON ‘966, AND SUNDBERG ‘990 ARE ANALOGOUS PRIOR ART 30
`B.
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE ..................................................................................... 42
`C.
`OVERVIEW OF WHY THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID FOR OBVIOUSNESS ...... 46
`1.
`Container Body ......................................................................................... 47
`2.
`Cap ............................................................................................................ 47
`3.
`Driving Member........................................................................................ 54
`4.
`Releasing Tab............................................................................................ 59
`5.
`Pushing Member ....................................................................................... 60
`ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIM ELEMENTS ..................................................................... 61
`1.
`Claim 24: “a hollow cylindrical driving member that has a slot formed
`therein, which slot extends in a circumferential direction and defines a
`plurality of interior surfaces of the hollow cylindrical member” ............. 62
`Claim 24: “a hollow cylinder that is substantially concentric with the
`hollow cylindrical driving member” ......................................................... 66
`Claim 24: “(ii) a sealing member provided at the one axial end portion of
`said container body, said sealing member being movable relative to said
`container body in an axial direction of said container body” ................... 67
`Claim 24: “ii-i) a sealing portion provided at a side adjacent said container
`body and configured to seal said opening when said sealing member and
`said container body are in a first position relative to one another, said
`opening becoming unsealed by relative movement of said sealing member
`and said container body away from one another from the first position to a
`second position relative to one another” ................................................... 76
`Claim 24: “ii-ii) a coupling portion provided at a side remote from said
`container body and configured and positioned to receive a rotational
`driving force” ............................................................................................ 78
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 24: “ii-ii-i) a supporting portion provided on said sealing portion,
`said supporting portion being elastically displaceable in an inward
`direction toward the axis of said container body and elastically restorable
`in an outward direction away from the axis of said container body” ....... 85
`Claim 24: “ii-ii-ii) an engaging portion provided at a free end of said
`supporting portion, said engaging portion configured and positioned to (a)
`displace in an inward direction with said supporting portion as said
`engaging portion enters the hollow cylindrical driving member and (b)
`engage with the slot of the hollow cylindrical driving member when said
`supporting portion elastically restores in an outward direction” .............. 88
`Claim 24: “ii-ii-ii-i) a rotational force receiving portion capable of being
`abutted in a circumferential direction of the hollow cylindrical driving
`member by at least a portion of a first interior surface of the hollow
`cylindrical driving member defined by the slot to receive a rotational drive
`force from the hollow cylindrical driving member to rotate said container
`body” ......................................................................................................... 92
`Claim 24: “ii-ii-ii-ii) a locking portion capable of being abutted in an axial
`direction of the hollow cylindrical driving member by at least a portion of
`a second interior surface of the hollow cylindrical driving member defined
`by the slot to prevent the sealing member from moving in the axial
`direction of said container body when said container body moves away
`from the hollow cylindrical driving member, thus causing the relative
`movement of said sealing member and said container body from the first
`position, in which said opening is sealed, to the second position, in which
`said opening is unsealed” .......................................................................... 96
`Claim 24: “ii-ii-iii) a displacing force receiving portion provided at a
`position closer to said container body than said engaging portion, said
`displacing force receiving portion configured and positioned to receive a
`force from the hollow cylinder and cause said supporting portion to
`elastically displace in an inward direction, wherein a radially outermost
`part of said displacing force receiving portion is more remote from a
`rotation axis of said coupling portion than a radially outermost part of said
`engaging portion.”................................................................................... 101
`Claim 25: “wherein said coupling portion includes a plurality of
`supporting portions, each of which has an engaging portion and a
`displacing force receiving portion, and wherein said supporting portions
`are arranged discretely in a rotational direction of said coupling portion.”
`................................................................................................................. 106
`Claim 30: “wherein said supporting portion is made of a plastic material”
`................................................................................................................. 108
`THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ................................ 109
`E.
`RESPONSE TO “ADDITIONAL COMMENTS” ......................................................... 110
`VI.
`VII. OTHER TOPICS ............................................................................................................ 111
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 116
`Raam/§L3§;8>%§%1'
`‘619T3 1$31§1iAJ.E.?1>?z?1¥6'1%&°%‘£.%c?Z1i1‘§1N<§"ed 1°’1°’14 Page 5 °f 115
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Dr. Brian Springett and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`defendants Color Imaging, Inc. and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) to provide assistance in the above captioned matter, which I understand to be
`
`related to alleged infringement of certain claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,647,012 (the “’012
`
`Patent”), entitled “Sealing Member, Toner Accommodating Container and Image Forming
`
`Apparatus.”
`
`2.
`
`On May 12, 2014, I submitted my first expert report in this case titled Expert
`
`Report of Dr. B. E. Springett Regarding Invalidity of United States Patent No. 7,647,012
`
`(“Springett Invalidity Report”).
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Sturges submitted his Expert Report of Robert H. Sturges, Jr., Ph.D., PE
`
`Regarding the Validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,012 (“Sturges Invalidity Report”) on June 16,
`
`2014. I have carefully reviewed the Sturges Invalidity Report and it does not change my
`
`opinions as expressed in my Springett Invalidity Report. The absence of comment on any
`
`statement in the Sturges Invalidity Report is not to be taken as agreement with any such
`
`statement.
`
`4.
`
`My qualifications, a list of cases that I have testified in during the previous four
`
`years, and a statement of my compensation to be paid for this case are set forth in my Springett
`
`Invalidity Report ¶¶4-10.
`
`5.
`
`I have considered all materials I considered for my Invalidity Expert Report,
`
`and all materials cited in Dr. Sturges’s report.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 7 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`6.
`
`Although I am not a lawyer, I have been advised by counsel that legal standards
`
`applied by Dr. Sturges in the Sturges Invalidity Report are not correct. A discussion of those
`
`legal standards is provided below.
`
`7.
`
`In his discussion of obviousness, Dr. Sturges states: “I understand that if a
`
`proposed combination of references does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations of a claim,
`
`the combination cannot render the claim obvious.” Sturges Invalidity Report at p. 6, ¶15. This
`
`statement is misleading because it is incomplete. Also, it is incorrectly applied by Dr. Sturges.
`
`8.
`
`To show obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, it is not
`
`necessary that the combination actually disclose each and every claim limitation. Rather, the
`
`focus is whether the prior art provides enough information such that a person applying routine
`
`skill would find the claimed invention obvious from the prior art. Obviousness may be found
`
`where a common sense alternative design choice is available, but not actually disclosed in the
`
`prior art.
`
`9.
`
`The proper analysis is whether the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art, familiar with all that the prior art discloses, would have found it obvious to make a
`
`structure corresponding to what is claimed.
`
`10.
`
`This error particularly manifests itself in Dr. Sturges’s discussion (for 135
`
`pages) of the individual prior art references in isolation, without considering the prior arts’
`
`teaching as a whole in light of the creativity and common sense of a person of ordinary skill. See
`
`Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 29-145, ¶47-420.
`
`11.
`
`Dr. Sturges does not once use the phrase “common sense” in his Invalidity
`
`Report.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 8 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`12.
`
`Dr. Sturges’s “Overview of the Asserted Prior Art” is a mere regurgitation of
`
`material from the prior art references without any analysis of what they teach to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In this analysis, I consider the scope and content of the prior art as well
`
`as the teaching of the prior art with reference to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Springett
`
`Invalidity Report at p. 16-17, ¶37-39.
`
`13.
`
`The references include at least the following elements of the asserted claims: “A
`
`toner supply container detachably mountable to an assembly of an electrophotographic imaging
`
`forming apparatus . . . . said toner supply container comprising: i) a container body configured to
`
`contain toner and rotatable about an axis thereof, said container body including an opening
`
`provided at one axial end portion thereof and configured to permit discharge of toner contained
`
`in said container body . . . .”
`
`A. Matsushita ‘4071
`U.S. Patent 5,218,407 to Matsushita, filed April 17, 1992 (Matsushita ‘407) is
`14.
`
`an early patent that dates a decade before the alleged priority date of the ‘012 Patent. In
`
`background, Matsushita ‘407 notes that, at the time, an expensive service call was necessary to
`
`manually refill a copier machine with toner. Matsushita ‘407 at 1:18-34. Matsushita ‘407
`
`proposes an automated system to detect how much toner remains in the developing unit of the
`
`electrophotographic imaging system (“EIS”) and, if toner is low, actuating a supply means for
`
`delivering toner from a toner bottle to the developing unit. Id. at 1:37-2:24.
`
`15.
`
`Figure 4 shows the toner bottle 141 (referred to as the “toner container” or
`
`“developer supply unit”). Id. at 5:27-29. The toner bottle 141 is a cylinder with an opening 146
`
`
`1 This section is in rebuttal to Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 17-18.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 9 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`for toner. Id. at 5:40-42. A helical ridge 143 pushes the toner to the opening 146 when the toner
`
`bottle 141 is rotated. Id. at 5:36-42.
`
`16.
`
`Figure 5 shows the toner bottle 141 in the EIS. The drive portion 180 rotates a
`
`drive shaft 182 that engages with the toner bottle at concavity 152 (also shown in Figure 4
`
`above). Id. at 6:8-9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 10 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`17.
`
`When the drive portion activates, the rotation of the toner bottle 141 and helical
`
`ridge 143 push the toner towards the opening 146. As the toner bottle 141 rotates, the toner
`
`drops down cavity 170, where a transport mechanism carries the toner to the developing unit. Id.
`
`at 6:29-37.
`
`B.
`
`18.
`
`Yoshiki ‘0792
`
`U.S. Patent 6,765,079 to Yoshiki, filed July 24, 1996 (Yoshiki ‘079) discloses a
`
`simple and effective method for an EIS to engage with a toner bottle. (The figures are copied
`
`from Japanese Laid-Open Patent Publication No. HEI 7-20705, January 1995.) The diagrams
`
`below show that “the toner bottle with a cap on the opening portion is mounted in the mounting
`
`holder and the cap is removed automatically from the opening portion by using a collet chuck
`
`which is interrelated with the bottle mounting operation.” Yoshiki ‘079 at 1:62-67.
`
`
`2 This section is in rebuttal to Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 9-11.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 11 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`19.
`
`
`The collet chuck 10 forms a collar around the tab portion 6 of the cap 5.
`
`Yoshiki ‘079 at 2:17-36. A force then causes the collet chuck to clamp the tab 6. Id. at 2:28-36.
`
`While holding the tab portion 6 of the cap 5, the collet chuck 10 moves the cap 5, creating
`
`opening 3 such that toner can flow out of the toner bottle 1. Id. at 2:36-42.
`
`20.
`
`As shown in the figures above, Yoshiki ‘079 also discloses a cylindrical toner
`
`bottle that can be rotated to drive out toner. Yoshiki ‘079 states: “in the cylindrical portion of the
`
`bottle body 2, a guide groove 7 is formed spirally to guide the toner contained in the bottle body
`
`2 toward the opening portion 3 by rotation of the toner bottle 1.” Id. at 2:12-16.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 12 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`21.
`
`Once the toner bottle is empty of toner, the collet chuck automatically moves
`
`the reverse direction to place the cap 5 back over the opening 3. Id. at 2:48-52.
`
`22.
`
`Yoshiki ‘079 suggests an alternative to the collet chuck. The patent states:
`
`“although it has been described in the aforementioned embodiments that the cap is removed and
`
`held in cap-opened position by clamping the cap by the chuck, the cap may be screwed into the
`
`bottle body and it may be moved to and held in the cap-opened position by rotating the cap.” Id.
`
`at 8:56-61.
`
`23.
`
`The novelty disclosed in Yoshiki ‘079 is rotation of the cap and an attached
`
`toner scraping member 20 to improve toner fluidity and keep the toner flowing out of the
`
`opening 3. However, because the bottle must rotate in order to drive toner out, the effect of the
`
`toner scraping member 20 is achieved by holding the cap fixed, and allowing the toner bottle to
`
`rotate around the cap and toner scraping member. Id. at 6:24-30.
`
`24.
`
`Yoshiki ‘079 envisions that this basic automation of unsealing and re-sealing
`
`the toner bottle cap could be used in a wide variety of copiers: “because the kind of toner that
`
`can be used is not limited, it becomes possible to adopt a toner supply unit equipped with a cap
`
`removing mechanism in a wide variety of image forming apparatuses.” Id. at 6:36-40.
`
`C.
`
`25.
`
`Kawamura ‘2083
`
`U.S. Patent 6,298,208 to Kawamura, filed January 21, 2000 (Kawamura ‘208).
`
`Like Yoshiki ‘079, Kawamura ‘208 discloses a cylindrical toner bottle. The body 2 is formed
`
`with a spiral groove 25 that drives the toner to outlet 34 when rotated. Kawamura ‘208 at 3:60-
`
`63.
`
`
`3 This section is in rebuttal to Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 11-13.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 13 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`26.
`
`Cap portion 3 is shown with cutaway detail in Figure 4, below. There are two
`
`hollow cylindrical parts: an outer sleeve 31 and inner sleeve 32. Id. 3:64-67. When the toner
`
`bottle is installed, the inner sleeve is rotated to align the toner outlet 37 with the toner outlet 34 in
`
`the outer sleeve. Id. at 5:8-17. Then the EIS locks both hollow cylindrical sleeves into place.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 14 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`27.
`
`When the body 2 engages with cap 3, the mouth 24 of the body abuts the seal
`
`33. Id. at 4:30-34. The hook 26 (i.e., an engaging and locking portion) on the mouth 24 is
`
`locked in place by lugs 35 on the outer sleeve 31 (i.e., a portion of an interior surface of a hollow
`
`cylindrical driving member), such that the body can still rotate with respect to the cap. Id. at
`
`4:34-36. This locking mechanism is shown below in Figure 7:
`
`28.
`
`An end view of the outer sleeve shows that there are four lugs 35 in the outer
`
`
`
`sleeve of the cap 3:
`
`29.
`
`Once installed, the EIS rotates the toner bottle via drive transmitting means 4,
`
`shown in Figure 3, causing the body 2 to rotate. Id. at 5:19-23. As in Yoshiki ‘079, this rotation
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 15 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`carries toner along the internal spiral grooves and to the outlets 37 and 34. Kawamura ‘208 at
`
`5:24-29. Kawamura ‘208 notes that the drive transmitting means 4 “may be formed integrally
`
`with or separate from the body 2, as desired.” Id. at 7:6-8.
`
`D.
`
`30.
`
`Kato ‘7954
`
`Dr. Sturges argues that Kato ‘795 is not prior art. Even if that is so, Kawamura
`
`‘208 is very similar to Kato ‘795 and the arguments I have made regarding Kato ‘795 generally
`
`apply to Kawamura ‘208, as discussed below.
`
`31.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0044795, to Kato, filed October 12,
`
`2001 (Kato ‘795), like Yoshiki ‘079 and Kawamura ‘208, discloses a cylindrical toner bottle 11
`
`with a spiral groove that drives the toner to outlet 29 (“toner supply port”) when rotated. Kato
`
`‘795 at ¶29. Figure 1 below shows the bottle 11 before insertion into the EIS, where cap 15 seals
`
`the outlet 29 and stopper 17 holds the cap in place.
`
`
`4 This section is in rebuttal to Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 13-15.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 16 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`32.
`
`Figure 2 below shows the bottle 11 without the cap and Figure 3 shows the cap
`
`
`
`by itself.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 17 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The bottle has “latching claws” 31a and 31b near the upper end of the body. Id.
`
`at ¶29. The inner surface of the cap 15 has two circular grooves, 45 and 46 (i.e., a portion of an
`
`interior surface of a hollow cylindrical driving member), such that the latching claws 31a and
`
`31b (i.e. engaging portions) can fit into the grooves. Id. at ¶31. The shape of the grooves locks
`
`the cap from sliding off the bottle, but allow the cap to slide down. Id. at ¶38. The bottle arrives
`
`with the claws engaged with the second groove 46. Id. at ¶37. The stopper 17 prevents the cap
`
`from sliding down. Id. This engagement mechanism is similar to how the mouth 24 is locked in
`
`place by lugs 35 in Kawamura ‘208.
`
`34.
`
`The bottle is loaded into the EIS by first removing the stopper 17. Id. at ¶40.
`
`Then the toner bottle is pressed firmly into the EIS by the user, causing the latching claws 31a
`
`and 31b to release from the second groove 46, the cap to slide down, and the latching claws to
`
`engage with the first groove 45. Id. at ¶41. This causes the opening 51 in the cap to match the
`
`opening 29 in the bottle, although the cap can still rotate with respect to the bottle and the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 18 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`opening 29. Id. Next the EIS latches to a notch 49 on the cap 15, to stop the cap from rotating.
`
`Fingers in the EIS hook on the projections 28a and 28b to rotate the bottle 11. Id. at ¶42. This is
`
`similar to how the inner sleeve is rotated to align the toner outlet 37 with the toner outlet 34 in
`
`the outer sleeve in Kawamura ‘208, after which the EIS locks both hollow cylindrical sleeves in
`
`place.
`
`E.
`
`35.
`
`Ui ‘5745
`
`U.S. Patent 5,966,574 to Ui, filed December 21, 1998 (Ui ‘574), like the
`
`previously discussed prior art, Yoshiki ‘079, Kawamura ‘208, and Kato ‘795, also discloses a
`
`cylindrical toner bottle 5 with a spiral rib 7 that drives the toner to outlet 6 when rotated. Ui ‘574
`
`at 1:20-27. The Figure below shows the toner bottle 5 engaged with the toner delivery apparatus
`
`of the EIS 100:
`
`
`
`
`5 This section is in rebuttal to Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 15-17.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 19 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`36.
`
`The Figure below shows a view of the toner bottle 5 and engaging portion of the
`
`EIS.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`When the toner bottle 5 is inserted into the EIS, two claw pieces 12 in the EIS
`
`engage with two grooves 8 in the top surface of the toner bottle 5. Id. at 5:10-18. The driving
`
`source 15 (shown in Figure 1), then drives the rotor 11, rotating the claw pieces 12 and the toner
`
`bottle 5. Id. at 5:19-28. The rotation causes the toner to ride up the spiral rib 7 (shown in Figure
`
`1), out the delivery port 6 when the delivery port faces downward in its rotation, and into the
`
`toner reservoir section 1 of the EIS. Id. at 5:29-36. See also Id. at 6:36-44, 8:49-54, 11:24-52.
`
`38.
`
`The seal member 19 of the EIS is not rotated. There is a “through-hole” 20 for
`
`the toner to fall from the delivery port 6, through the hole 20 of the seal member 19, and into the
`
`toner reservoir section 1 of the EIS. Id. at 11:41-52.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 20 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`F. Matsuoka ‘8066
`Dr. Sturges points out that U.S. Patent 5,903,806 to Matsuoka, filed July 30,
`39.
`
`1997 (Matsuoka ‘806) “appears very similar” to a Japanese patent application that was before the
`
`examiner and discussed in columns 1 and 2 of the ‘012 Patent. Sturges Invalidity Report at p. 20
`
`¶37. That discussion of the Japanese patent application in the ‘012 Patent is cursory. Also, I am
`
`informed that the Japanese patent application is not mentioned in the examiner’s discussion of
`
`prior art in her Notice of Allowance for the ‘012 Patent (see CAN 0000057 at 0000744).
`
`40.
`
`Like the previously discussed prior art, Yoshiki ‘079, Kawamura ‘208, Kato
`
`‘795, and Ui ‘574, Matsuoka ‘806 also discloses a cylindrical toner bottle 30 with a “spiral
`
`protruded groove” that drives the toner to opening 321. Matsuoka ‘806 at 1:20-27. Figure 4(d)
`
`below shows the toner bottle (“cartridge”) 30 and cap (“fixed cover”) 32:
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Element 33 is an “expandable bellows” that seals the opening 321 of the cap 32.
`
`Id. at 7:22-31. It unseals the bottle by compressing to the right. The cutaway view below shows
`
`the cap attached to the body 31, such that the bellows creates a seal between the cap opening and
`
`the bottom of the cap 324. (Paddles around the bellows for agitating the toner are shown in
`
`Figure 4(d) but not Figure 5(c).) The bellows is fixed to the bottom of the cap 324 with welding
`
`or adhesive. Id. at 7:44-48. In this cutaway view, it should be apparent that as the bellows is
`
`
`6 This section is in rebuttal to Sturges Invalidity Report at pp. 18-20.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 21 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`pushed from the opening of the cap and compressed to the right, the toner can flow from the
`
`bottle.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Another view of the bellows is shown in Figure 7(a) below (top portion; the
`
`bottom portion, Figure 7(b), is part of the EIS). Figure 7(a) isolates the bellows 33 from the cap
`
`32 and body 31. It is apparent that without the bellows, there is no seal on the bottle. The toner
`
`can flow past the bottom of the cap 324 and around the paddles 323. The bellows creates a seal
`
`once inserted flush against the opening of the cap and the bottom of the cap 324.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 22 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`43.
`
`Figure 7(b), the bottom portion of the above figure, shows the mechanism in the
`
`EIS that engages with the bottle 30, the rotary power transmitting member 44. Id. at 7:65-8:1.
`
`This element pushes back the bellows 33 on the bottle as it is inserted, unsealing it and allowing
`
`toner to flow into the EIS.
`
`44.
`
`The rotary power transmitting member 44 also has its own twin of the bellows
`
`33: the cover 45 and spring 46. Id. at 8:1-4. These two elements seal the opening 441. This is
`
`shown in the modified version of Figure 8(b), below. The Figure showing the rotary power
`
`transmitting member has been modified to add the cover 45 and spring 46 in red.
`
`Springett Diagram #1
`
`
`
`45.
`
`As stated above, the rotary power transmitting member 44 is part of the EIS. As
`
`shown by the broken line in Figures 7(a) and 7(b), above, the bottle engages with the rotary
`
`power transmitting member (on the right side of Springett Diagram #1). Toner then flows
`
`through opening 441 and into a port for receiving toner into the EIS (from right to left in
`
`Springett Diagram #1). As shown in Springett Diagram #1 above, the cover and spring seal the
`
`opening 441. As the bottle is inserted, the cover and spring are compressed to the left back flush
`
`against the opening, such that toner can flow out.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 23 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`46.
`
`The method of engaging the bottle with the EIS, such that the bellows on the
`
`bottle and the cover and spring in the rotary power transmitting member are both unsealed, is
`
`shown in Figures 9(a), 9(b), 10(a), 10(b), and 11.
`
`47.
`
`Figure 9(a), below, shows the bottle 30 (right) and rotary power transmitting
`
`member 44 (left). The positioning portion 326 of the bottle (also visible in Figure 5(c), above) is
`
`just touching the hollow cylindrical portion 447 (also visible in Springett Diagram #1, above).
`
`Bellows 33, as well as cover 45 and spring 46, are still in sealed positions. Id. at 8:60-9:2.
`
`48.
`
`Figure 9(b), below, shows the bottle moving to the left, such that the positioning
`
`portion 326 of the bottle is inside the hollow cylindrical portion 447. Bellows 33, as well as
`
`cover 45 and spring 46, are still in sealed positions. Id. at 9:3-16.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 24 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Note that hollow cylindrical portion 447 (i.e., a portion of an interior surface of
`
`a hollow cylindrical driving member) includes engagement projections 448, which engage with
`
`similar projections 327 on the positioning portion 326. Id. at 8:45-53, 9:6-11. The fin-like
`
`projections 327 are shown clearly in Figure 17(a), a portion of which is shown below. See also
`
`Id. at Figures 5(a), 5(b). These projections prevent independent rotational movement between
`
`the rotary power transmitting member 44 and bottle 30. Id. As a result, when the rotary power
`
`transmitting member rotates, the cap 32 and body 31 also rotate. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-03855-AT Document 297-6 Filed 10/10/14 Page 25 of 116
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. B. E. SPRINGETT REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,647,012
`
`
`50.
`
`Figure 10(a), below, shows the bottle actually engaging with the rotary power
`
`transmitting member 44. At point 331, the bellows has engaged with the ring-shaped recess
`
`portion 446 of the rotary power transmitting member 44. Id. at 8:40-45, 9:20-23.
`
`51.
`
`Figure 10(b