`POLYGROUP LIMITED (MCO),
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01613
`Patent 9,044,056 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MIKE WOOD IN SUPPORT OF
`THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Poly 1101
`Polygroup v. Willis
`IPR2016-01613
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 1
`ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................................... 4
`CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CLAIM TERMS .......................................... 4
`A. “commonly transmitted” (Claim 24) ..................................................... 5
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 21 IS UNPATENTABLE ..................................... 7
`A. Overview of Substitute Claim 21 .......................................................... 8
`B. Claim 21 is Rendered Obvious Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Miller in view of Otto and Jumo, and in further view of any one of
`McLeish, Falossi, or Daniels .....................................................................10
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Otto, Jumo, and McLeish ..............10 1.
`
`
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Otto, Jumo, and Falossi ................16 2.
`
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Otto, Jumo, and Daniels ................19 3.
`
` Claim 21 is Rendered Obvious Over Miller in view of Otto and 4.
`Jumo, and in further view of any one of McLeish, Falossi, or
`Daniels .........................................................................................23
`i.
`[21.P] A lighted artificial tree, comprising: .........................23
`ii.
`[21.1] A power cord configured to receive electrical power
`from an external power source and to transmit power to the
`lighted artificial tree, ............................................................23
`[21.2-4] [These claim terms are substantially identical to
`those under review from the original Petition] ....................24
`[21.5] and including an electrical terminal set, the electrical
`terminal set including a first electrical terminal positioned in
`line with the central vertical axis, [[and ]]a second electrical
`terminal, and a third electrical terminal; ..............................25
`McLeish........................................................................................25
`Falossi..........................................................................................29
`Daniels .........................................................................................34
`v.
`[21.6] Wherein two of the electrical terminals of the
`electrical terminal set are in electrical connection with the
`first light string and configured to transmit power to the first
`light string, and another electrical terminal of the electrical
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`vi.
`
`terminal set, other than the two electrical terminals in
`electrical connection with the first light string, is in electrical
`connection with the power cord; ..........................................37
`[21.7-13] [These claim terms are substantially identical to
`those under review from the original Petition] ....................42
`vii. [21.14] such that the first electrical terminal of the first
`electrical connector is electrically connected to the first
`electrical terminal of the second electrical connector, and the
`second electrical terminal of the first electrical connector is
`electrically connected to the second electrical terminal of
`the second electrical connector, and the third electrical
`terminal of the first electrical connector is electrically
`connected to the third electrical terminal of the second
`electrical connector. .............................................................43
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 22 IS UNPATENTABLE ...................................46
`A. Overview of Substitute Claim 22 ........................................................47
`B. Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Hicks in view of Otto, and in further view of any of McLeish,
`Falossi, or Daniels .....................................................................................48
` Reasons to Combine Hicks, Otto, and McLeish ..........................48 1.
`
`
` Reasons to Combine Hicks, Otto, and Falossi ............................49 2.
`
` Reasons to Combine Hicks, Otto, and Daniels ...........................54 3.
`
` Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious Over Hicks in view of Otto, and 4.
`in further view of any one of McLeish, Falossi, or Daniels ........58
`i.
`[22.p] A lighted artificial tree, comprising: .........................58
`ii.
`[22.1] A power cord configured to receive electrical power
`from an external power source and to transmit power to the
`lighted artificial tree, ............................................................58
`[22.2-4, 6] [These claim terms are identical to those under
`review from the original Petition]........................................60
`[22.5] Wherein the first electrical terminal of the second
`electrical connector and the second electrical terminal of the
`second electrical connector are in electrical connection with
`the light string and configured to transmit power to the light
`string, and the third electrical terminal of the second
`electrical connector is configured to electrically connect
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`- ii -
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`with the power cord through the third electrical terminal of
`the first electrical connector; ...............................................60
`McLeish........................................................................................62
`a.
`
`Falossi..........................................................................................63
`b.
`
`Daniels .........................................................................................64
`c.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 23 IS UNPATENTABLE ...................................65
`A. Overview of Substitute Claim 23 ........................................................66
`B. Claim 23 is Rendered Obvious Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Miller in view of Seghers, and in further view of any of of McLeish,
`Falossi, or Daniels .....................................................................................68
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Seghers, and McLeish ....................68 1.
`
`
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Seghers, and Falossi ......................72 2.
`
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Seghers, and Daniels .....................76 3.
`
` Claim 23 is Rendered Obvious Over Miller in view of Seghers, 4.
`and in further view of any one of McLeish, Falossi, or Daniels .80
`i.
`[23.P] A lighted artificial tree, comprising: .........................80
`i.
`[23.1] A power cord configured to receive electrical power
`from an external power source and to transmit power to the
`lighted artificial tree, the power cord including a first power
`wire and a second power wire .............................................80
`[23.2, 3, 5, 6] [These claim terms are identical to those under
`review from the original Petition]........................................81
`[23.4] a first light string; ......................................................81
`[23.7] Including a first electrical terminal set, the first
`electrical terminal set including a first electrical terminal,
`[[and ]]a second electrical terminal, and a third electrical
`terminal, wherein two of the electrical terminals of the
`electrical terminal set are in electrical connection with the
`first light string and configured to transmit power to the first
`light string, and another electrical terminal of the electrical
`terminal set, other than the two electrical terminals in
`electrical connection with the first light string, in electrical
`connection with one of the first power wire or the second
`power wire of the power cord; and ......................................81
`McLeish........................................................................................84
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`iv.
`
`VI.
`
`a.
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`vi.
`
`VII.
`
`Falossi..........................................................................................85
`Daniels .........................................................................................87
`v.
`[23.8] A first wiring harness positioned at least in part
`within the first trunk body and comprising a first wire, a
`second wire, and a third wire, the first wire electrically
`connected to the first electrical terminal and the second wire
`electrically connected to the second electrical terminal, the
`third wire electrically connected to the third terminal and
`connected to the one of the first power wire or the second
`power wire of the power cord; .............................................88
`[23.9-13] [These claim terms are identical to those under
`review from the original Petition]........................................91
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 24 IS UNPATENTABLE ...................................92
`A. Overview of Substitute Claim 24 ........................................................93
`B. Ground 1: Claim 24 is Rendered Obvious Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Over Miller in view of Loomis ....................................................95
` Reasons to Combine Miller and Loomis .....................................95 1.
`
`
` Claim 24 is Rendered Obvious Over Miller in view of Loomis .95 2.
`[24.P-5] [These claim terms are identical to those under
`i.
`review from the original Petition]........................................95
`[24.6] Wherein power transmitted to the first light string and
`the second light string is commonly transmitted through the
`electrical hub of the second tree portion, such that the
`electrical hub provides power to both the first light string
`and the second light string; ..................................................96
`[24.7] [This claim term is identical to those under review
`from the original Petition]....................................................99
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`I, Mike Wood, make the present Supplemental Declaration in support of
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 53.) To that
`
`end, I declare as follows:
`
`I. OVERVIEW
`I am an expert in the field of electrical engineering as it relates to
`1.
`
`lighting manufacturing and design. My qualifications and work experience are set
`
`forth in my original declaration submitted in connection with the Petition. See Ex.
`
`1005. A copy of my curriculum vitae was submitted as Exhibit 1045.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the Board merged Petitioner’s two petitions against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,044,056 – a petition originally filed in c ase IPR2016-00802
`
`(“Petition I”) that challenged Claims 1, 5, and 11 and a petition filed in this case
`
`(“Petition II”) that challenged Claims 2, 4, 13, and 16-19. I understand that
`
`IPR2016-00802 is terminated and all instituted grounds are proceeding in this case.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that, in se parate Institution Decisions, the Board
`
`instituted an inter partes review of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, and 16-19 on three
`
`separate grounds based on Petitions I and II. I understand, from Petitioner’s
`
`counsel, that the decisions have been merged into a single proceeding with
`
`IPR2016-01613.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed the Board’s Institution Decisions and am familiar
`
`with all of the prior art supporting those grounds. The grounds instituted include:
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Type
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`Petition
`
`Miller, Otto, and Jumo
`
`1
`
`Hicks, Otto, and McLeish
`
`1 and 5
`
`Miller and Seghers
`
`11
`
`Miller, Otto, and Jumo
`
`2 and 4
`
`Miller and Seghers
`
`13, 16, and 17
`
`Miller and Loomis
`
`18 and 19
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`II
`
`II
`
`II
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner (PO) filed a contingent Motion to
`
`Amend, proposing substitute Claims 21-24 should the Board find Claims 1, 5, 11,
`
`or 18 unpatentable. I also understand that PO filed a declaration by Stuart B.
`
`Brown (PO’s expert) in support of the Motion to Amend (Ex. 2052). I have been
`
`asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insight, and opinions about the
`
`Motion to Amend and the corresponding Brown declaration.
`
`6.
`
`In reaching my opinions, I carefully reviewed the Motion to Amend,
`
`the Brown declaration in support of the Motion to Amend, the Petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,044,056, my original declaration (Ex. 1005),
`
`and various exhibits, such as the ’056 Patent itself and prior-art references.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Specific to this declaration, I reviewed the papers and exhibits of record for these
`
`proceedings including the following:
`
`Paper #
`
`Description
`
`5
`
`33
`
`52
`
`53
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`DECISION, Institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR2016-01613)
`
`Response Of Patent Owner Willis Electric Company, Limited
`(“POR”)
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`
`Exhibit #
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,044,056 to Chen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,020,201 to Miller
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0230174 to Hicks et al.
`
`DE 84 36328.2 to Otto
`
`FR 1,215,214 to Jumo
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,066,739 to McLeish
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,053,042 to Loomis
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,193,636 to Daniels, filed Nov. 7, 1962
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,409,403 to Falossi et al., filed Oct. 25, 1993
`
`Declaration of Mike Wood
`
`Declaration of Mike Wood
`
`Declaration of Stuart Brown in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Amend
`
`1001
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1027
`
`1147
`
`1035
`
`1005
`
`1049
`
`2052
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`7.
`
`I still agree with the contents of the Petition for at least the reasons
`
`expressed in my original declaration, and my opinions expressed below about
`
`substitute Claims 21-24 are consistent with my prior declarations and the contents
`
`of the Petitions.
`
`II. ORDINARY SKILL
`In the Institution Decision, the Board stated that Petitioner’s POSA
`8.
`
`standard and PO’s POSA standard “are generally in agreement.” Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 33, 9. Based on t he Board’s characterization of the proffered
`
`POSA standards, I have reviewed my initial declaration and all of my statements
`
`remain valid and applicable even under the PO’s proposed POSA standard. For this
`
`declaration, I am referring to a person who qualifies under either Petitioner’s or
`
`PO’s proposed POSA standards when I refer to a POSA.
`
`III. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CLAIM TERMS
`In reviewing PO’s Motion to Amend and the cited prior art references
`9.
`
`for this IPR proceeding, I understand from Petitioner’s counsel that when
`
`interpreting the claims, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is to apply the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” I understand this to mean that the words of the claim should be
`
`given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification
`
`or there is clear intent otherwise. That is consistent with how I have approached
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`my analysis for purposes of establishing invalidity of the ’056 Patent. I have also
`
`been informed by Petitioner’s counsel that claim drafters may choose to act as their
`
`own lexicographers in defining terms used in the claims in the specification, and
`
`that a claim term will not be construed according to ordinary meaning if the
`
`patentee set forth a definition of a term.
`
`10. With regard to the claim construction of any term in the ’056 Patent,
`
`I reserve the right to opine on how the prior art discussed herein meets any claim
`
`element when read in light of any claim construction for a term that differs from
`
`how I believe a POSA would have understood it as I provide below. In addition, I
`
`reserve the right to opine on any term for which I have not provided a proposed
`
`claim construction. I further reserve the right to opine on how any of the prior art
`
`discussed herein meets any claim element when read in view of any additional
`
`terms for which either PO or the Board provides a claim construction.
`
`A.
`11.
`
`“commonly transmitted” (Claim 24)
`
`I understand from Petitioner’s counsel that PO has not provided any
`
`explicit construction for this term. I note that the terms “commonly” or “commonly
`
`transmitted” are completely absent from all written description materials of the
`
`’056 Patent and its provisional priority application. Given the lack of description in
`
`the written description, I believe that the plain meaning of this term applies. In my
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`opinion, the plain meaning of this term to a POSA, in light of the specification, is
`
`“transmitted together.”
`
`12.
`
`The phrase “commonly transmitted” is used with respect to the
`
`electrical hub: “power transmitted to the first light string and the second light string
`
`is commonly transmitted through the electrical hub of the second tree portion, such
`
`that the electrical hub provides power to both the first light string and the second
`
`light string.” While the term “commonly” is absent from the specification, a POSA
`
`would understand that the last portion of this term - “such that the electrical hub
`
`provides power to both the first light string and the second light string” - provides
`
`guidance as to the proper construction of the term. Power for the first and second
`
`light string is provided through connections between the light strings and the
`
`electrical hub.
`
`13. Viewing the term in this manner, the specification provides further
`
`guidance as to the meaning. For example, the specification explains that a single
`
`hub provides power concurrently to all strings that connect to it. Ex. 1001, 15:65-
`
`16:3 (“such that five light strings may be powered by hub 652” and “hub 652 may
`
`provide power to more or fewer light strings 124”); 16:24-27.
`
`14.
`
`The hub concurrently provides power to each of these light strings
`
`through a number of connectors and wires from a single source of power, such as
`
`an AC power supply. Id., 15:36-55. Accordingly, the hub acts as a conduit through
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`which power from single power supply is shared by the connected light strings. In
`
`other words, the power for the first light string and the power for second light
`
`string are transmitted together through the hub.
`
`15. Accordingly, consistent with the ’056 usage of the term “hub” and
`
`the surrounding claim language, a POSA would have understood the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “commonly transmitted” to be “transmitted
`
`together.”
`
`IV. SUBSTITUTE CLAIM 21 IS UNPATENTABLE
`For reasons I discuss below, PO has not shown a patentable
`16.
`
`distinction of the substitute claim over all prior art known to the patent owner
`
`because substitute Claim 21 is unpatentable for being obvious under §103.
`
`17.
`
`I understand from Petitioner’s counsel that the Board’s consideration
`
`of the substitute claims hinges on invalidation of the corresponding claim (i.e.,
`
`claim to be replaced). Accordingly, I understand that, in considering PO’s Motion
`
`to Amend for Claim 21, the Board has presumably invalidated Claim 1 before
`
`considering this Opposition. Therefore, for claim elements that are in common
`
`between Claim 1 and Claim 21, the positions I set forth in my prior declarations
`
`are applicable toward these common claim elements.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`A. Overview of Substitute Claim 21
`The Motion to Amend asks to replace Claim 1 with substitute Claim
`18.
`
`21. Claim 21 repeats several of the same claim terms that can be found in Claim 1
`
`and that I previously discussed in my prior declarations. To avoid repetition and
`
`for brevity, my analysis in this supplemental declaration will focus primarily on the
`
`new claim terms that are proposed to be added to the limitations of Claim 1 t o
`
`arrive at new Claim 21.
`
`[21.P] A lighted artificial tree, comprising:
`
`[21.1] a power cord configured to receive electrical power from an external
`power source and to transmit power to the lighted artificial tree,
`
`[21.2] a first tree portion aligned along a central vertical axis,
`
`[21.3] the first tree portion including: a first light string, a first trunk
`body having a first end, a second end,
`
`[21.4] a first electrical connector positioned in the second end of the
`first trunk body
`
`[21.5] and including an electrical terminal set, the electrical terminal set
`including a first electrical terminal positioned in line with the central vertical
`axis, [[and ]]a second electrical terminal, and a third electrical terminal,
`
`[21.6] wherein two of the electrical terminals of the electrical terminal
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`set are in electrical connection with the first light string and configured to
`transmit power to the first light string, and another electrical terminal of the
`electrical terminal set, other than the two electrical terminals in electrical
`connection with the first light string, is in electrical connection with the
`power cord;
`
`[21.7] second tree portion aligned with the central vertical axis,
`[21.8] the second tree portion including: a second trunk body including a
`first end and a second end, the first end configured to couple with the second
`end of the first trunk body of the first tree portion;
`
`[21.9] a second electrical connector positioned in the first end of the
`second trunk body
`
`[21.10] and including a first electrical terminal,[[ and]] a second
`electrical terminal, and a third electrical terminal, the second electrical
`terminal defining a ring shape that encircles the first electrical terminal,
`
`[21.11] the second electrical connector configured to couple with the
`first electrical connector of the first trunk body;
`
`[21.12] a light string electrically connected to the first and the second
`electrical terminals of the second electrical connector,
`
`[21.13]wherein upon the first tree portion being coupled to the second
`tree portion along the central vertical axis, the first electrical connector is
`coupled to the second electrical connector,
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`[21.14] such that the first electrical terminal of the first electrical connector
`is electrically connected to the first electrical terminal of the second
`electrical connector, the second electrical terminal of the first electrical
`connector is electrically connected to the second electrical terminal of the
`second electrical connector, and the third electrical terminal of the first
`electrical connector is electrically connected to the third electrical terminal
`of the second electrical connector.
`
`B. Claim 21 is Rendered Obvious Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Miller in view of Otto and Jumo, and in further view of any
`one of McLeish, Falossi, or Daniels
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Otto, Jumo, and McLeish
`1.
`
`19. As I stated in my initial declaration, a POSA would have found it
`
`obvious to enhance Miller with the known connectors of Jumo as suggested by
`
`Otto. Ex. 1005 ¶¶148-155. A POSA would have further found it obvious to
`
`enhance Miller-Jumo-Otto with the known multi-position connectors of McLeish.
`
`20.
`
`In particular, Otto teaches a known multi-position coaxial connector
`
`system between trunks that mechanically and electrically connects in any number
`
`of rotational orientations. Ex. 1008, 17:2-5, 18:5-27, 22:33-35, FIG. 2. Jumo
`
`further states that the disclosed coaxial connector design are advantageous over
`
`connector designs that use flexible wiring (e.g., the plug connectors of Miller),
`
`which leave the insulation and flexible wiring susceptible to damage due to
`
`“repeated bending,” and may ultimately lead to short-circuits. Ex. 1009, 4:4-7. The
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`multi-position connectors between the tubular elements in Jumo may include
`
`interlocks that are shaped and arranged such that “the tubular components may be
`
`engaged and fastened relative to each other in different relative angular positions.”
`
`Id., 5:30-31, Fig. 1. The feature of the multi-position connectors in Jumo
`
`advantageously prevents movement between the joints of the tubular elements,
`
`which can cause frictional wear and thus defects between electrical contacts as
`
`would have been understood by a POSA. Id., 4:8-9, 5:28-31. To avoid the
`
`frictional wear potentially caused by the allowed movement between joints in Otto
`
`Ex. 1008, 18:23-27, 22:33-35, Fig. 2, a POSA would have naturally sought to
`
`improve the combination of Miller and Otto with McLeish’s multi-position
`
`connector based on the teachings of Jumo.
`
`21.
`
`Similarly, McLeish teaches a multi-position connector whose parts
`
`allow the male and female parts of the connector to connect at any relative
`
`rotational orientation. Ex. 1010, Abstract, 2:4-5. As McLeish explains, such a
`
`connector allows parts of the connector to “connect together without being
`
`rotationally aligned making the connection even easier to form.” Ex. 1010, 9:43-
`
`46. Jumo teaches a similar connector having the same benefits of simplifying the
`
`assembly of the trunks of the tree. Ex. 1009, 4:1-3, 4:36-5:17, FIG. 1-3.
`
`22. A POSA, based on the se disclosures in Otto, Jumo, and McLeish,
`
`would have understood the benefits of McLeish’s multi-position connector and
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`how it would have improved Miller. Furthering the advantages of concentric
`
`connectors as discussed in Jumo, McLeish further explains that the connector
`
`having concentric terminals “benefit from the advantage that the parts [of the
`
`connector] may connect together without being rotationally aligned making the
`
`connection even easier to form.” Ex. 1010, 9:43-46. Accordingly, a POSA would
`
`have viewed the teachings of McLeish as being applicable to any industrial
`
`application that may benefit from McLeish’s concentric electrical terminals such as
`
`the lighting applications within an artificial tree as described by the combination of
`
`Miller, Otto, and Jumo. McLeish’s teachings, and the advantages taught by Otto,
`
`would have motivated a POSA to modify Miller with McLeish’s electrical
`
`connectors positioned in the ends of the trunk sections of an artificial tree.
`
`23. McLeish further explains the benefits of including a third terminal as
`
`part of the multi-position connector. McLeish teaches hollow tubular parts,
`
`analogous to the tree portions of Miller and Otto, including a male connector and a
`
`female connector, each with live, neutral, and earth electrical contacts, as shown in
`
`FIGS. 4b, 4d, 5b, and 5c. Ex. 1010, 10:54-67, FIGS. 4a, 4d, 5b, 5c. The connectors
`
`of McLeish can simultaneously connect electrically and mechanically in multiple
`
`rotational orientations of the tubular parts. Id., 10:54-67. McLeish explains that the
`
`addition of a third (earth) terminal that surrounds the other two terminals “reduces
`
`the possibility of electrocution when connected.” Id., 6:50-52.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`24. A POSA would have understood that the types of plug-in connections
`
`taught by Otto, Jumo, and McLeish would make Miller’s tree easier and safer to
`
`assemble and configure. A POSA would have also understood that while Miller
`
`teaches an artificial Christmas tree with trunk sections that can be mechanically
`
`and electrically connected in any rotational alignment, the tree in Miller requires
`
`that the mechanical and electrical connection be completed in separate steps, i.e.,
`
`connect the plug between the electrical wires 22 in one step and fit the upper trunk
`
`section 5 into sleeve 4 of the lower trunk section 3 in another step. Because this
`
`assembly is more difficult and inconvenient than in other known designs, such as
`
`Otto or McLeish, a POSA would have sought to eliminate this difficulty, and
`
`would have done so by incorporating known connectors that allow trunk sections
`
`to mechanically and electrically connect upon joining.
`
`25.
`
`In light of these collective teachings of Miller, Otto, Jumo, and
`
`McLeish, it would have been obvious for a POSA to enhance Miller’s trunk
`
`members with electrical connectors of the type taught by Jumo and modify the
`
`electrical connection between wires 22 of the trunk members of Miller by
`
`replacing the plug and socket of Miller with Jumo’s electrical connectors and to
`
`further enhance this combination to include an additional concentric terminal as described in
`
`McLeish. To take advantage of the known benefits of multi-position connectors as
`
`explained in Otto, Jumo, and McLeish, a POSA would have found it obvious to
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`enhance the trunk sections of Miller with the multi-position connectors of Jumo
`
`and/or McLeish.
`
`26. Moreover, the proposed enhancement of Miller with Jumo and
`
`McLeish’s multi-position connector would have been obvious and routine to a
`
`POSA. As I explained in my prior declaration, a POSA would have found it
`
`obvious to enhance Miller’s trunk sections with the multi-position connectors of
`
`Jumo as suggested by Otto. Ex. 1005 ¶154. A POSA would have found it further
`
`obvious to have utilized a multi-position connector having a third electrical
`
`terminal as described in McLeish which would create a lighted artificial tree that
`
`connects mechanically and electrically via coupling Jumo’s and/or McLeish’s
`
`male/female assemblies. Both Jumo and McLeish disclose a connector having
`
`concentric terminals. For example, as shown below in annotated FIG. 2C of
`
`McLeish and annotated FIG. 3 of Jumo, McLeish’s terminal 121 and terminal 122
`
`are analogous to Jumo’s first electrical terminal 18 and second electrical terminal
`
`15.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`McLeish Fig. 2C,
`Annotated
`
`Third electrical terminal
`
`Analogous to Otto’s
`Second electrical terminal
`
`Analogous to Otto’s
`First electrical terminal
`
`
`
`
`
`27. A POSA would have appreciated that making such an enhancement
`
`merely involves incorporating known elements (e.g., the multi-position connector
`
`with an inner terminal encircled by a ring-shaped outer terminal of Jumo and
`
`McLeish’s multi-position connector having three terminals) with another known
`
`element (e.g., the mechanically and electrically connectable trunk sections of
`
`Miller)
`
`to obtain predictable results (e.g., mechanically and electrically
`
`connectable trunk sections that are easier and more convenient to assemble and
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`configure and less prone to damage than the flexible wires of Miller or the contacts
`
`of Otto).
`
` Reasons to Combine Miller, Otto, Jumo, and Falossi
`2.
`28. As I explained in my prior declaration, a POSA would have found it
`
`obvious to enhance Miller with the known multi-position connectors of Jumo as
`
`suggested by Otto. Ex. 1005 ¶¶148-155. A P OSA would further have found it
`
`obvious to enhance the multi-position connectors in the combination of Miller,
`
`Jumo, and Otto with the known multi-position connector having a third concentric
`
`electrical terminal of Falossi.
`
`29.
`
`Jumo discloses a multi-position connector having a first and second
`
`concentric terminals as shown in FIG. 3 below. Ex. 1009, 5:6-17. Falossi discloses
`
`a similar multi-position connector having first, second, and third concentric
`
`terminals as shown in FIG. 2 below. Ex. 1035, 5:26-28, 59-65.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Third electrical
`terminal
`
`Second electrical
`terminal
`
`Falossi FIG. 2 excerpt
`Annotated
`
`Electrical connector
`
`
`First electrical
`terminal
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Falossi further explains the benefits of including a third terminal as
`
`part of the multi-position connector. Falossi explains that each of its ring plates 66
`
`(terminals) have a “longitudinal concave tubular surface 70 and a transverse
`
`circular surface 72 for improved area contact.” Ex. 1035, 5:26-28. A POSA would
`
`have understood that increasing the number of terminals would also increase the
`
`area of contact between ring plates 66 within a male connector 52 and
`
`corresponding ring plates (terminals) of female connector 2.
`
`31. A three-terminal coaxial connector, such as that shown in FIG. 2
`
`(above) of Falossi, would have been readily combinable with any of Miller, Jumo,
`
`and/or Otto, at least in the ways described in Falossi. In addition to Falossi’s stated
`
`benefits for adding a third terminal, adding additional terminals to a connector
`
`would have been routine to a POSA. That is, replacing an electrical connector
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`having two terminal