UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`DAKTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OLAF SOOT DESIGN, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case No.: To be assigned
`Patent 6,520,485
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM B. GORLIN, P.E., S.E.
`
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,520,485
`(CLAIMS 21, 23-24, AND 26-28)
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`Daktronics, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1004
`
`1 of 151
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS......................................................................................2
`III. COMPENSATION, PRIOR TESTIMONY, AND RELATIONSHIP TO
`THE PARTIES.........................................................................................................7
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS..................................................................................8
`A. Claim Construction ............................................................................................8
`B. Anticipation......................................................................................................10
`C. Obviousness .....................................................................................................11
`
`V. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART................................13
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................13
`A. Winch and Hoist Technology – Prior Art to the ’485 Patent ..........................14
`
`Geiss.....................................................................................................18
`1.
`Barnet...................................................................................................19
`2.
`Fajtak....................................................................................................21
`3.
`Bittner...................................................................................................23
`4.
`Herdman...............................................................................................25
`5.
`Atwood.................................................................................................25
`6.
`Izenour .................................................................................................27
`7.
`B. The ’485 Patent ................................................................................................28
`C. Examination History of the ’116 Application and ’485 Patent .......................31
`D. Construction of Claim Terms...........................................................................33
`E. Motivation to Combine References .................................................................35
`
`VII. DETAILED OPINIONS..............................................................................40
`A. Claims 27 and 28 are Anticipated or Rendered Obvious by Geiss .................41
`
`Claim 27...............................................................................................41
`1.
`Claim 28...............................................................................................48
`2.
`B. Claims 27 and 28 are Obvious Over Barnet in View of Herdman..................48
`
`i
`
`2 of 151
`
`

`
`1.
`Claim 27...............................................................................................49
`Claim 28...............................................................................................58
`2.
`3. Motivation to Combine........................................................................59
`C. Claims 27 and 28 are Obvious Over Geiss in View of Barnet or Bittner .......61
`
`Claim 27...............................................................................................61
`1.
`Claim 28...............................................................................................71
`2.
`3. Motivation to Combine........................................................................72
`D. Claims 27 and 28 are Obvious Over Fajtak in View of Atwood or Herdman 74
`
`Claim 27...............................................................................................75
`1.
`Claim 28...............................................................................................84
`2.
`3. Motivation to Combine........................................................................85
`E. Claims 21, 23-24, and 26 are Obvious Over Geiss in View of Bittner ...........87
`
`Claim 21...............................................................................................87
`1.
`Claim 23...............................................................................................98
`2.
`Claims 24 and 26 .................................................................................99
`3.
`4. Motivation to Combine......................................................................101
`F. Claims 21, 23-24, and 26 are Obvious Over Barnet in View of Geiss and
`Bittner..................................................................................................................101
`
`Claim 21.............................................................................................101
`1.
`Claim 23.............................................................................................115
`2.
`Claims 24 and 26 ...............................................................................117
`3.
`4. Motivation to Combine......................................................................119
`G. Claims 21, 23-24, and 26 are Obvious Over Barnet in View of Herdman and
`Bittner..................................................................................................................119
`
`Claim 21.............................................................................................119
`1.
`Claim 23.............................................................................................126
`2.
`Claims 24 and 26 ...............................................................................127
`3.
`4. Motivation to Combine......................................................................129
`H. Claims 21, 23-24, and 26 are Obvious Over Fajtak in View of Atwood or
`Herdman..............................................................................................................129
`
`ii
`
`3 of 151
`
`

`
`1.
`Claim 21.............................................................................................129
`Claim 23.............................................................................................138
`2.
`Claims 24 and 26 ...............................................................................140
`3.
`4. Motivation to Combine......................................................................142
`I. Claims 24, 26 and 28 are Obvious for All the Reasons Stated Above, and in
`Further View of Izenour .....................................................................................142
`
`Izenour ...............................................................................................143
`1.
`2. Motivation to Combine......................................................................145
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................147
`
`iii
`
`4 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`I, William B. Gorlin, hereby state the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Blank Rome LLP on behalf of Petitioner
`
`Daktronics, Inc. to provide technical assistance related to the filing of Petitions for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,520,485 (“the ’485 patent”). I am
`
`working as a private consultant on this matter and the opinions presented here are
`
`my own. In providing my opinions expressed below, I rely upon my education, my
`
`experience, and the documents cited herein.
`
`2.
`
`I provide this Declaration in support of a petition filed by Petitioner
`
`with respect to the ’485 patent. While the ’485 patent addresses relatively simple
`
`technology, the claims are long and provide combinations of known elements.
`
`Petitioner challenges Claims 21, 23-24, and 26-28.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration I have had discussions with counsel for
`
`Petitioner on whom I rely for matters of patent law. I reviewed documents,
`
`including those referred to below. I provide below my opinions and explanations
`
`regarding issues of the validity of certain claims of the ’485 patent. I have worked
`
`with counsel to prepare this Declaration and do confirm that the statements herein
`
`accurately reflect my understanding and opinions.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the documents cited
`
`herein. This Declaration sets forth the bases and reasons for my opinions,
`
`1
`
`5 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`including the additional materials and information relied upon in forming those
`
`opinions and conclusions.
`
`5.
`
`This Declaration is based upon information currently available to me.
`
`I reserve the right to continue my investigation and analysis, which may include a
`
`review of documents and information not yet produced. I further reserve the right
`
`to expand or otherwise modify my opinions and conclusions as my investigation
`
`and study continue, and to supplement my opinions and conclusions in response to
`
`any additional information that becomes available to me.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am the Vice President and Entertainment Division Chief of the
`
`McLaren Engineering Group at M.G. McLaren, P.C. (“McLaren”).
`
`7.
`
`I am a civil/structural engineer with over 27 years of experience in the
`
`areas of structural analysis and design of scenic, entertainment and amusement
`
`structures, staging, rigging, buildings, show action equipment, and other
`
`frameworks. In this capacity, I have overseen thousands of projects involving show
`
`action equipment, stage sets, theatrical rigging, entertainment venues, roller
`
`coasters and other amusements, and architectural theming.
`
`8.
`
`I obtained a Masters of Engineering in Civil Engineering from Cornell
`
`University in 1986. I also previously obtained a Bachelor of Science in Civil
`
`Engineering from Cornell University in 1985.
`
`2
`
`6 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`9.
`
`I am registered as a professional engineer in the states of New York,
`
`New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
`
`Idaho, Iowa, Washington, Wyoming and Montana. I am registered as a
`
`professional structural engineer in the states of Nevada, Utah, Illinois and Hawaii.
`
`I have been certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board, and I am a
`
`Structural Steel & Bolting Special Inspector as certified by the International Code
`
`Council.
`
`10. My workplace responsibilities have included management of an
`
`entertainment engineering division at a major engineering firm, implementing
`
`structural engineering design at several firms, manual and computerized analysis of
`
`engineered structures, project development and coordination, client relations,
`
`detailing, shop drawing review, field inspections, field investigations, review of
`
`code requirements, and specifications writing.
`
`11.
`
`I have been Vice President at M. G. McLaren, P.C. in West Nyack,
`
`New York since January 2000. From March 1996 to December 1999, I was a
`
`Chief Structural Engineer at Scenic Technologies, Inc., in Las Vegas, Nevada and
`
`New Windson, NY. Prior to that, I was a Consulting Structural Engineer in Salt
`
`Lake City, Utah from January 1995 to January 1997. From June 1995 to
`
`December 1995, I worked as a Structural Engineer for the Newberry Engineering
`
`Division of the Franklin Company in Salt Lake City, Utah. Prior to that, from
`
`3
`
`7 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`February 1992 to January 1995, I was a Structural Engineering Manager/Project
`
`Engineer for Arrow Dynamics, Inc. in Clearfield, Utah. I started my career in this
`
`field working as a Structural Engineer for Thune Associates Consulting Engineers,
`
`P.C., in New Canaan, Connecticut from July 1986 to December 1991.
`
`12.
`
`I have worked on engineering and design projects at various theaters,
`
`including the Metropolitan Opera, the Winter Garden Theater, the Little Shubert
`
`Theater, Longacre Theater, Schoenfeld and Jacobs Theaters, Studio 54 Theater,
`
`Delacorte Theater, and on various Broadway Theaters, all in New York, New
`
`York; the San Francisco Opera in San Francisco, California; the Orange County
`
`Performing Arts Center in Costa Mesa, California; the Sunset Center Theater in
`
`Carmel, California; the LDS Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah; the Hanna
`
`Theater in Cleveland, Ohio; and the Holland Performing Arts Center in Omaha,
`
`Nebraska.
`
`13.
`
`In addition to the above-listed theaters, I have worked on a large
`
`number of productions, events, and stages in various other theaters, casinos, and
`
`entertainment venues. For a more complete listing of representative work, please
`
`refer to the copy of my curriculum vitae, which has been marked as Exhibit 1003.
`
`14.
`
`I have worked with, for, and alongside several major engineering
`
`firms in the entertainment industry, including J. R. Clancy and Stage Technologies,
`
`Inc.
`
`4
`
`8 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`15.
`
`I have also worked alongside with Mr. Olaf Soot (“Soot”), the listed
`
`inventor on the ’485 patent. I understand Mr. Soot to be the owner of Olaf Soot
`
`Design LLC, the named Patent Owner in this matter. My work alongside Mr. Soot
`
`includes the following: as an employee of McLaren I was involved in the
`
`evaluation of support of stage wagons for the Metropolitan Opera in New York,
`
`New York, in 2009-2010, while Mr. Soot had been hired to evaluate the existing
`
`stage wagons; as an employee of McLaren, I was involved with the evaluation of
`
`dead haul batten winches for the Metropolitan Opera in New York, New York, in
`
`2009 and as part of the assessment we reviewed prior reports prepared by Mr.
`
`Soot; as an employee of Scenic Technologies, I was involved with the engineering
`
`of a production of “Star Trek: The Experience” in 1996-97, for which Mr. Soot
`
`produced a schematic design for a mechanical effect. Scenic Technologies later
`
`developed and constructed its own version of the effect.
`
`16.
`
`I am active in several professional organizations in various capacities,
`
`including the American Society for Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineers
`
`Association of New York (where I was the Director from 2003-05), the Village of
`
`Briarcliff Planning Board (2004-09), the Cornell Society of Engineers, and the
`
`Professional Lighting and Sound Association (“PLASA”) North America, where I
`
`am the Chairman of the Performer Flying Task Group, and a member of the
`
`Rigging Working Group and the Temporary Structures Task Group.
`
`5
`
`9 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`17.
`
`I have regularly attended trade shows and industry conventions that
`
`relate to the entertainment engineering industry, including having attended the Live
`
`Design International (LDI) Convention annually and the United States Institute for
`
`Theatre Technology (USITT) Convention annually; and also the International
`
`Association for Amusement Parks (IAAPA) Convention and the PLASA Focus
`
`Conference from time to time.
`
`18.
`
`I have authored several publications relating to entertainment
`
`engineering, including a chapter on “Structural Behavior” in the forthcoming book
`
`entitled Entertainment Rigging for the 21st Century, and an article entitled
`
`“Emerging Standard for Aerial Performance Rigging” for the 2014 Circus
`
`Educators Conference in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
`
`19.
`
`I have lectured and given guest lectures at a variety of institutions
`
`relating to entertainment engineering, including to Technical Theater Students at
`
`Yale University, in a Lightweight Entertainment Structures class at New Jersey
`
`Institute of Technology, in a “Structural Engineering for Theater” class at State
`
`University of New York at Purchase, and an “Entertainment Engineering” seminar
`
`at Cornell University.
`
`20.
`
`I have been featured as a panelist on several panels relevant to the
`
`entertainment engineering industry, including an “Alternative Theatre Career
`
`Paths: Engineering” panel at the U.S. Institute for Theatre Technology Conference;
`
`6
`
`10 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`a panel on “Structural Issues in a Motorized World” at the North American Theater
`
`Engineering and Architecture Conference; and several times at a “Design of
`
`Entertainment Devices and Structures” lecture at the Annual National Convention
`
`of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
`
`21. A complete listing of my publications is included in my curriculum
`
`vitae (Exhibit 1003). This listing includes a list of the publications I have authored
`
`or co-authored in the previous ten years.
`
`III. COMPENSATION, PRIOR TESTIMONY, AND RELATIONSHIP TO
`THE PARTIES
`
`22.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of two hundred ninety dollars ($290)
`
`per hour for the time I spend studying materials and issues associated with this
`
`matter and for the time I spend providing testimony. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon the outcome of this matter. I expect to be reimbursed for
`
`reasonable expenses associated with travel, including lodging, ground
`
`transportation, and other expenses incurred in connection with this matter.
`
`23.
`
`I have not testified as an expert at trial or by deposition in the last four
`
`years.
`
`24.
`
`I own no stock in Daktronics, Inc. or Olaf Soot Design, LLC and am
`
`aware of no other financial interest I have with those companies or their affiliates.
`
`7
`
`11 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`25.
`
`I am not an attorney and do not expect to offer any opinions regarding
`
`the law. However, I have been informed of certain legal principles relating to
`
`standards of patentability that I relied on in reaching the opinions set forth in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`A.
`
`26.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`It is my understanding that a patent publication includes a
`
`“specification” that contains a written description of the invention, and of the
`
`manner and process of making and using it.
`
`27.
`
`It is my further understanding that this specification must conclude
`
`with one or more “claims” particularly pointing out and distinctly listing the
`
`subject matter that the inventor regards as the invention.
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that these claims define the metes and bounds
`
`of the subject matter over which protection is sought.
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that when construing the terms used in patent
`
`claims, these terms must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as they
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and consistent with the
`
`patent specification.
`
`8
`
`12 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the claim terms must also be consistent with the interpretation that one skilled in
`
`the art would reach.
`
`31.
`
`It is my understanding that the transitional term “comprising” must be
`
`interpreted to be inclusive or open-ended, and does not exclude additional,
`
`unrecited elements or method steps.
`
`32. When a claim term explicitly uses the words “means” or “step” and
`
`includes functional language, it is my understanding that that claim term is
`
`presumed to be of the “means-or-step-plus-function” variety, to which certain rules
`
`apply.
`
`33.
`
`Specifically, it is my understanding that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of a “means-or-step-plus-function” claim term is the structure,
`
`material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed
`
`function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that the specification of a patent, including the
`
`figures, claims and charts, serves as intrinsic evidence of the meaning of terms and
`
`phrases in patent claims.
`
`35.
`
`It is also my understanding that the “prosecution history” or “file
`
`history” of a patent (i.e., the record of its prosecution before the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”)), while not literally within the patent document, serves
`
`9
`
`13 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction in construing patent claims
`
`in proceedings before the PTO.
`
`36.
`
`I further understand that sources other than the intrinsic evidence may
`
`be used in interpreting patent claim terms. Such extrinsic evidence may include
`
`technical dictionaries, treatises, articles, the experience of those skilled in the art
`
`and other information outside the patent and its prosecution history.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that for an applicant to obtain a patent, the applicant must
`
`demonstrate that a claimed invention is novel and nonobvious.
`
`38.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, I also understand that invalidity
`
`relates only to patents, patent applications, and printed publications available to the
`
`public before the filing of the application for patent leading to the ’485 patent.
`
`B.
`
`39.
`
`Anticipation
`
`It is my understanding that “anticipation,” or lack of novelty, is one
`
`basis that may render claims invalid. A claim is anticipated if each and every
`
`claim element is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art
`
`reference. In order for there to be anticipation, the claimed invention must be
`
`shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim. I understand that extrinsic
`
`evidence may be used to explain but not expand the meaning of terms and phrases
`
`used in the reference relied upon as anticipatory of the claimed subject matter.
`
`10
`
`14 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`C.
`
`40.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that even if a claim is not anticipated, an invention that
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the filing of
`
`the application for invention is not patentable. I understand that obviousness is
`
`determined by considering several factors, including: the state of the art at the time
`
`the invention was made; the level of ordinary skill in the art; and differences
`
`between what is described in the art and the claims at issue. Objective evidence
`
`relevant to the issue of obviousness may include evidence of commercial success,
`
`long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. The weight
`
`to be given any objective evidence is made on a case-by-case basis.
`
`41.
`
`It is my understanding that the following is a non-exhaustive list of
`
`rationales that may support the obviousness of an invention:
`
`a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`b) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way;
`
`d) Applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`11
`
`15 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`e) Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`42.
`
`It is my understanding that the motivation to combine prior art
`
`references may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, or in the nature of the problem to be solved.
`
`43.
`
`Specifically, it is my understanding that an implicit motivation to
`
`combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a
`
`whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the
`
`combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for
`
`example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more
`
`durable or more efficient.
`
`12
`
`16 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`44.
`
`It is my further understanding that the motivation to combine
`
`references may be found in the nature of the problem to be solved where prior art
`
`references are directed to precisely the same problem of underpinning slumping
`
`foundations.
`
`V.
`
`A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`45. According to the ’485 patent, the alleged invention disclosed therein
`
`is “directed to raising and lowering objects, in particular, objects such as theater
`
`scenic elements, suspended from fly sets, by failsafe motorized means.” Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, ll. 4-5. The ’485 patent discloses a motorized fly system, winch, drum and
`
`carriage combination. As such, it is my opinion that the claims of the ’485 patent
`
`are directed to a person with a working knowledge of winches, and more
`
`specifically winches employed in theater settings. Such a person may possess a
`
`master’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, or a bachelor’s
`
`degree in such a discipline and five or more years of industry experience, or ten or
`
`more years of industry experience with exposure to winch technology and its
`
`design and application for theater stage and set design.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`46.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’485 patent are directed to motorized fly
`
`system winch, drum and carriage combinations to move objects and scenery. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 12, l. 51-col. 13, l. 31, col. 13, ll. 38-42, col. 15, l. 29-col. 16, l. 16. In
`
`13
`
`17 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`certain claims, the ’485 patent designates that its winch will be used in a facility
`
`such as a theater. As will be seen from the discussion below, the ’485 patent adds
`
`nothing to the art that was not already available or obvious.
`
`A. Winch and Hoist Technology – Prior Art to the ’485 Patent
`
`47.
`
`The ’485 patent is directed to winch and hoist technology, and
`
`particularly to winches that are used in theaters to move objects and scenery.
`
`Moving objects and scenery via winch has been performed for hundreds of years
`
`using variations on block and tackle arrangements originally used on sailing
`
`vessels. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, col. 1, ll. 29-31 (“[f]or literally centuries there has
`
`been a standardized type of construction that is used almost universally . . . for
`
`raising and lowering the scenery.”). In a basic example, a pulley suspended from a
`
`ceiling or beam above a stage is used to lift objects via a rope connected to the
`
`object. The rope would be secured over a pulley (or sheave or loft block) and
`
`would be redirected by the pulley to the object. The application of force, whether
`
`manually by a stage technician or mechanically by use of counterweights or
`
`winches, pulls the rope to make the object move vertically.
`
`48. Motorized winches have long been known to lift objects and scenery.
`
`See, e.g., TOSHIRO OGAWA, THEATRE ENGINEERING AND STAGE
`
`MACHINERY 158, 169 (2010) (Japanese language edition published 2000) (Ex.
`
`1017) (describing “motorized fly winch systems” and stating that the “Izenour
`
`14
`
`18 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`Spotline System … was originally installed in 1963 in the McGowan Hall at
`
`UCLA”). In simple form, a winch is a drum on which cables may be wound. An
`
`example of such a winch is found in U.S. Patent No. 652,893 to Frank E. Herdman
`
`issued on July 3, 1900 (“Herdman”). Ex. 1006. Figure 1 of Herdman is set out
`
`below. Id., Fig. 1.
`
`The winch drum (C) is rotated on a threaded shaft (B) that is held by one or more
`
`bearings. The shaft is secured to the frame (A). The drum is driven by a motor, for
`
`example, by engaging and turning the shaft on which the drum is attached, or by
`
`driving the drum on the shaft through the use of a hub and driving means. Id., cols.
`
`1-2, ll. 35-84. The prior art is filled with publications regarding the use of
`
`motorized winches, including those used in theaters. See ¶¶ 51-61; see generally
`
`Exs. 1005, 1008, 1010, and 1011.
`
`15
`
`19 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`49.
`
`The elements claimed in the ’485 patent was not novel or nonobvious
`
`given the deep prior art surrounding winch technology. The prior art – Geiss (Ex.
`
`1008), Barnet (Ex. 1005), Fajtak (Ex. 1015), Bittner (Ex. 1010), Atwood (Ex.
`
`1012), and Izenour (Ex. 1011) – each address motorized fly system winch, drum
`
`and carriage combinations for use in theaters to raise and lower objects and
`
`scenery, and such combinations are in the composite preamble for each of the
`
`challenged independent claims set forth in the claim chart below.
`
`Claims 21
`and 27
`A motorized
`fly system
`winch, drum
`and carriage
`combination
`for raising
`and lowering
`[[scenery / an
`object]],
`comprising:
`
`Preambles
`
`Each of Geiss, Bittner, Barnet, Fajtak, Atwood, and Izenour,
`disclose the use of motorized fly system winch, drum and
`carriage combinations in a facility, secured to the facility, for
`raising and lowering objects with respect to a stage.
`Geiss states that “[a]n advantageous area of use of the winch 1
`is the theater, where it is used to transport props, backdrops and
`the like.” Ex. 1008, p. 9, ll. 5-6.
`Bittner states that “[t]he invention concerns a winch, especially
`a backdrop lifting winch” that “can be set up in any position”
`and “can be secured to hang from a cross beam 14, for
`example.” Ex. 1010, p. 1, ll. 1, 14; p. 2, ll. 11-12.
`Barnet states: “The present invention relates to winches and in
`particular, but not exclusively, to winches for use in theatres for
`moving various items of scenery.” Ex. 1005, p. 1, ll. 4-6.
`Barnet also discloses that “[t]he cylindrical drum 14 is rotatably
`driven with respect to the carriage 36 by means of a drive
`means 18 in the form of an electric motor 104 and gear box
`106.” Id. at p. 7, ll. 2-5.
`Fajtak states that “[t]he invention concerns a winch . . . ,
`especially for the moving of backdrops or point hoists in
`
`16
`
`20 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`Claims 21
`and 27
`
`Preambles
`
`theatrical stage operations, preferably for installation in shafts.”
`Ex. 1015, p. 2, ll. 2-5, Fig. 1.
`
`Atwood states: “This invention has reference to improvements
`in driving mechanism for elevators, lifts, hoisting apparatus and
`the like which are operated by means of ropes or cables that
`pass over a hoisting drum.” Ex. 1012, p. 1, ll. 9-13.
`
`Izenour states: “The winch itself is shown in Figs. 4 to 7. The
`winch is carried by a pair of fixed brackets 42 on a wall or other
`suitable support and by a movable frame 44 that is movable on
`axially aligned pivots 46, conveniently shock-mounted,
`allowing the frame 44 to swing about a vertical axis.” Ex.
`1011, col. 6, ll. 43-46. Izenour also states: “The present
`invention relates to apparatus for handling scenery, as in a
`theatre, and has as its broad purpose the provision of a new
`system for operating scenery in order to change sets at different
`times, during a performance.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 13-16.
`
`50.
`
`These references are each directed to the issue of maintaining a
`
`prescribed angle that the cable path takes relative to the axis of the drum. The
`
`maintenance of “zero fleet angle,” i.e., a constant perpendicular path for the cable
`
`relative to the longitudinal axis of the drum as it leaves the drum to an object or a
`
`sheave, is the stated goal of these references. Each of the above references (as
`
`further described below) harnesses translational motion of the drum relative to a
`
`frame or carriage as a solution to this common problem.
`
`51. Other prior art, such as Herdman (Ex. 1006); U.S. Patent No.
`
`1,888,912 to Gabriel Doose (“Doose”) (Ex. 1013); and U.S. Patent No. 1,821,563
`17
`
`21 of 151
`
`

`
`Declaration of William B. Gorlin
`
`to William Mitchell (“Mitchell”) (Ex. 1016) demonstrate the use of translational
`
`motion to move drums relative to other aspects of the winch. I briefly describe the
`
`references I rely upon for my invalidity opinions below.
`
`Geiss
`1.
`52. Geiss teaches a winch, drum and carriage combination for use in a
`
`theater. Exs. 1007, 1008. Geiss was published on August 19, 1993, and I
`
`understand that it is prior art that may be cited against the ’485 patent. Ex. 1007,
`
`Cover. Geiss moves a drum (2) and ba