UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`Polygroup Limited (MCO),
`Petitioner
`v.
`Willis Electric Company, Limited
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`Case IPR2016-01613
`Patent 9,044,056
`_________________________
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STUART B. BROWN IN
`SUPPORT OF REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’SMOTION TO AMEND U.S. PAT. NO. 9,044,056
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 3 
`II. 
`III.  RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART 5 
`IV.  UNDERSTANDING APPLIED TO THE ANALYSIS ................................. 6 
`V.  ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`
`i
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 2
`
`

`

`I. BACKGROUND
`
`I, Stuart B. Brown, make the present Supplemental Declaration in support of Patent
`
`Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition. To that end, I declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This declaration briefly sets forth my background and qualifications to
`
`provide my opinion, describes the technology at issue and background of the art,
`
`identifies the materials I reviewed to prepare this declaration, and sets forth my
`
`understanding of the patent claims at issue and my analysis regarding the
`
`application to the patent claims of the prior art provided to me. I reserve the right
`
`to supplement my opinions in the future, to clarify responses where appropriate,
`
`and to take into account new information as it becomes available to me.
`
`2.
`
`I am over the age of 21 years and am fully competent to make this
`
`Declaration. I make the following statements based on personal knowledge and, if
`
`called to testify to them, could and would do so.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Willis Electric Co., Ltd., to prepare a
`
`declaration that will be used in its Patent Owner Response to the inter partes
`
`review proceedings related to Patent Number 9,044,056 (referred to as the “’056
`
`patent”), and to opine regarding the applicability of prior art references and
`
`arguments presented by petitioner. My fee is not contingent on the outcome of any
`
`matter or on any of the technical positions that I explain in this declaration. I have
`
`no financial interest in Willis Electric Co., Ltd. or the ‘056 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the Board has merged Petitioner’s two petitions against
`
`U.S. patent No. 9,044,056 – a petition originally filed in case 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.
`
`5.
`
`I understand that, in separate 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 that the decisions have been
`
`merged into a single proceeding with IPR2016-01613. I have reviewed the Board’s
`
`Institution Decisions and am familiar with all of the prior art supporting those
`
`grounds.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner (PO) filed a Motion to Amend, proposing
`
`substitute Claims 21-24 should the Board find Claims 1, 5, 11, or 18 unpatentable.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend and that the Petitioner filed a declaration by Mike Wood (Petitioner’s
`
`expert) in support of the Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Ex. 1011). I have
`
`been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insight, and opinions about
`
`the Opposition to the Motion to Amend and to the corresponding Wood
`
`declaration.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`8.
`
`In reaching my opinion, I have reviewed the Motion to Amend, the
`
`Opposition to the Motion to Amend, the Wood declaration in support of the
`
`Opposition to the Motion to Amend, the Petition for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,044,056, my original declaration (Ex. 2052), and various exhibits,
`
`such as the ‘056 Patent itself and prior-art references. Specific to this declaration, I
`
`have reviewed all claims (claims 1-20) of the ‘056 patent, as well as the ‘056
`
`specification and parts of its file history. I have examined the prior art references
`
`cited in the ‘056 Patent, its prosecution history, and papers and exhibits of record.
`
`9.
`
`I still agree with the contents of the Motion to Amend for at least the reasons
`
`expressed in my original declaration, and my opinions expressed below about
`
`proposed substitute Claims 21-24 are consistent with my prior declarations and the
`
`contents of the Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`10.
`
` My qualifications as an expert in the general field of mechanical and
`
`electrical engineering are set forth in the paragraphs below. Attached as Appendix
`
`A is my curriculum vitae.
`
`11.
`
` I was awarded a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Washington
`
`University in 1977, an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University
`
`
`
`3
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 5
`
`

`

`in 1980, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`of Technology (MIT) in 1987.
`
`12.
`
` I am a member of several Honor Societies, including the Tau Beta Pi (The
`
`Engineering Honor Society) and Pi Tau Sigma (The International Mechanical
`
`Engineering Honor Society). I am also a member of the American Society of
`
`Mechanical Engineers, the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
`
`and the American Society for Testing and Materials. I have also received the
`
`NASA Certificate of Excellence.
`
`13.
`
` I am currently the Managing Partner of Veryst Engineering®, LLC, which
`
`is an engineering consulting firm in the Boston area. I personally consult in
`
`manufacturing processes, the mechanical behavior of materials, and have extensive
`
`research and development experience in electromechanical systems. I regularly
`
`work within the medical device and consumer product industries providing
`
`consultation and technical advice on electromechanical devices, electronic and
`
`electrical components, and industrial equipment.
`
`14.
`
` Prior to founding Veryst Engineering, I was the director of the Boston
`
`Office of Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. Before
`
`Exponent I was a faculty member in MIT’s Department of Materials Science and
`
`Engineering.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
` I am a named inventor on over a dozen patents.
`
` I have authored or co-authored over 100 papers, which have been published
`
`in publications including, but not limited to, Mechanical Engineering Magazine,
`
`Mechanical Engineering Design Magazine, Experimental Mechanics, the Journal
`
`of Microelectromechanical Systems, the Journal of Engineering for Industry, the
`
`Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, and the Journal of Applied
`
`Physics. Some of these papers address the reliability of electrical contacts.
`
`17.
`
` The opinions expressed in this declaration are mine and they were
`
`developed after studying the ‘056 Patent, and related documents such as the prior
`
`art publications referenced in the ‘056 file history and in this document.
`
`III. RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`
` Based on my review of the ’056 Patent, portions of its prosecution history in
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and review of the papers and
`
`exhibits of record, I believe that the relevant field for analyzing the ‘056 patent are
`
`mechanical and electrical designs for lighted artificial trees.
`
`19.
`
` The first page of the ‘056 Patent states that it was filed on March 15, 2013,
`
`and that it includes a claim to utility application no. 13/836,026 filed on March 15,
`
`2013, and provisional application no. 61/643,968, filed May 8, 2012. The relevant
`
`timeframe for analyzing the ‘056 Patent is therefore prior to these dates.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`20. Based on my experienced described above and contained in my C.V., I have
`
`an established understanding of the relevant field in the relevant timeframe, and the
`
`knowledge that would have been known by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant field during the relevant timeframe. A person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art during the relevant timeframe would have been a person with at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering and at least
`
`one to two years of experience in mechanical and electrical design aspects of
`
`products having mechanical and electrical connections, or a designer with at least
`
`one to two years of experience in designing lighted artificial decorations.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING APPLIED TO THE ANALYSIS
`
`21.
`
` I have reviewed the claim construction section of the Petition and have
`
`applied those constructions in my analysis. I understand that in an IPR proceeding
`
`that claims should be construed as having the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the description in the patent and file history. For terms where no
`
`construction is really necessary, I have simply read the terms according to their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. Where appropriate herein, I have commented on how
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2012 would view claim terms based on the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the description in the patent and file
`
`
`
`6
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`history. I reserve the right to supplement my declaration should any claim terms be
`
`given different constructions.
`
`22.
`
` I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
` I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable for obviousness if the
`
`difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art is such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that a finding of
`
`obviousness requires a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) the difference(s) between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) whether the differences are such that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`24.
`
` A combination of old familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`Predictable variations of a work from one field are likely to be obvious, even if the
`
`variation is in another field. Similarly, where a technique has been used to improve
`
`a device, use of the same technique to improve similar devices is likely obvious. If
`
`
`
`7
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution, a patent claim encompassing that solution is not patentable.
`
`25.
`
` It is my understanding that the obviousness inquiry is not limited to just the
`
`prior art references being applied, but includes the knowledge and understanding
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`26.
`
` However, I understand that merely demonstrating that each element,
`
`independently, was known in the prior art is, by itself, insufficient to establish a
`
`claim was obvious. I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the
`
`features of one reference can be incorporated into the structure of another
`
`reference, but rather what the combined teachings would have suggested to those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that a party seeking to invalidate a
`
`patent must show a person or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`27.
`
` It is my understanding that each prior art reference must be considered as a
`
`whole, including the portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. I
`
`have been informed that Courts find that some prior art combinations are improper,
`
`or not combinable. The reference cannot be non-analogous art. In order for a
`
`reference to be used to show obviousness, the reference must be analogous art to
`
`the claimed invention. That is it must be from the same field of endeavor or be
`
`
`
`8
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem – logically commanded the artisan's attention
`
`in considering his or her problem. I also understand that when (1) the combination
`
`of prior art references teach away from the claimed invention or from each other,
`
`(2) the combination makes one invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or
`
`(3) when the combination would change the principle of operation of prior art
`
`reference, such a combination is improper and does not show obviousness.
`
`28.
`
` I also understand that where one or more references in combination teach or
`
`disclose a given claim element, there is no motivation to look to an additional
`
`reference for that element.
`
`29.
`
` I understand that the obviousness analysis also includes contextual
`
`considerations, factors usually referred to as "secondary considerations" or
`
`"secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” Objective evidence of nonobviousness
`
`includes copying, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial
`
`success, unexpected results created by the claimed invention, unexpected
`
`properties of the claimed invention, licenses showing industry respect for the
`
`invention, and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention. In general, there
`
`must be a connection between the factor and the claimed invention. For instance,
`
`the "commercial success" of a product practicing the claimed invention is relevant
`
`
`
`9
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`to the obviousness analysis only if it is attributable to advantages from its use that
`
`were not available to the purchasing public before the invention was made.
`
`30.
`
` Although the following analysis cites to particular pages, lines, or
`
`paragraphs of many of the references discussed, these citations are intended to
`
`assist in understanding the various bases of, and prior art teachings used in, my
`
`conclusions. They are not intended to be an exhaustive recitation of every page,
`
`line number, or paragraph in which these teachings may be found. Similar
`
`teachings or disclosures may be found at other pages, lines, or paragraphs, as well
`
`as in other references, and it is to be understood that my opinions and statements
`
`are made in view of all of the references and teachings I have reviewed.
`
`V.ANALYSIS
`
`31. Frederick is directed to a light string (Ex. 2057). The title of Frederick is
`
`“Decorative Light String”, and the figures and text of the patent are directed to
`
`various embodiments of a light string. (See, e.g., Id., title, FIG. 1.) The light string
`
`may be applied to an external portion of a tree. (FIGS. 7b-7d; and para. 0076:
`
`“Light strings embodying the present invention are particularly useful when used
`
`to pre-string artificial trees, such as Christmas trees.”). Other references disclosing
`
`light strings, and light strings for use on artificial trees, such as Miller with light
`
`
`
`10
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 12
`
`

`

`strings 20 (Ex. 1006, FIG. 3), have been cited and discussed in PO’s Motion to
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`Amend. (See, e.g., Paper 53, pp. 18-22.)
`
`32.
`
` Gordon is directed to a decorative lighting apparatus with lighted “arms”
`
`(Ex. 2058, Abstract, FIG. 1.) Features of Gordon, such as a central, vertical pole
`
`(“spine member” 30) and lighted “arms” 20 are similar to those disclosed by other
`
`references teaching tree trunks and lighted branches, such as Otto (Ex. 1008, tree
`
`of FIG. 1 with lighted branches 10) and Hicks (Ex. 107, tree with lighted branches
`
`18). Hicks and Otto are cited and discussed in PO’s Motion to Amend. (See, e.g.,
`
`Paper 53, pp. 28-29.)
`
`33. Primeau (Ex. 2059), Kao (Ex. 2060), and Yao (Ex. 1143) are all directed to
`
`trees with connectors, wiring and lights that are external to the tree trunk:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`
`
`Trees with connectors, wiring and lights located external to the tree trunk, i.e., not
`
`inside the tree trunk, are disclosed by such references as Hicks, which was addressed
`
`in PO’s Motion. (Paper 53, pp. 18-26.) References also raised as material and
`
`discussed by PO as being more relevant include references such as Miller, Otto, and
`
`Loomis which disclose connectors inside trunks. (see, Id., 18-35.)
`
`34. Element 24.4 of proposed substitute claim 24 recites as follows:
`
`
`
`14
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`[24.4] an electrical hub positioned inside the second trunk body and
`
`electrically connected to the first and second electrical connectors of the
`
`second electrical connector.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would recognize that the phrase “first and second
`
`electrical connectors of the second electrical connector” would be understood to
`
`mean “first and second electrical terminals of the second electrical connector,”
`
`which is consistent with the claim as a whole, and in particular with claim element
`
`24.3 which recites a second electrical connector “including a first electrical
`
`terminal and a second electrical terminal.” Such an understanding is consistent
`
`with, and the same as, Petitioner’s proposed meaning as provided by Petitioner’s
`
`expert, Mr. Mike Wood. (Ex. 1101, ¶161.)
`
`35. Falossi discloses a “swivel system” that can rotate 360 degrees, for use with
`
`cables or in applications with electrical cords, or an extension cord. (Ex. 1035, 1:6-
`
`9, 1:8-11.) The “Field of the Invention” states that the field is the “field of swivel
`
`systems which can rotate in a 360° rotation.” (Id., 1:6-9.) As such, a POSA would
`
`understand that that the inventive connector system relates to the field of swiveling
`
`electrical connectors, and does not relate to the field of lighted artificial trees.
`
`36. Falossi discloses that the inventive swivel system solves the prior art
`
`problem of connector failure in swiveling connectors. (Id.,1:9-20.) Swivel
`
`
`
`15
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`connectors, such as those described in Falossi are meant to be rotatable after
`
`connection, and such rotation can cause failure of known designs based on rings
`
`and springs. (See, id. 1:9-20 and 37-39 (stating that the main purpose for using a
`
`swivel contact mechanism is to “provide a device for turning around freely in a
`
`transverse plain and to prevent failure.”) Falossi provides a latching connector
`
`system for retaining the male and female portions of the connector together during
`
`rotation, thereby improving contact during rotation, and reducing connector failure.
`
`(Id., 48-56.)
`
`37. Consequently, the invention of Falossi solves the problem of maintaining a
`
`connection between the male and female portions of an electrical connector after
`
`connection, and during rotation, and the problem of preventing failure of
`
`components subject to routine swivel movements after connection. This differs
`
`from the problem solved by PO’s inventive tree of making lighted trees more
`
`convenient to put together and power. (Paper 53, p. 24, describing the problem
`
`solved by the invention of the ‘056 Patent.) The problem solved by the ‘056 relates
`
`convenient alignment and connection, and not to the post-alignment and
`
`connection problem of maintaining quality connections between connector
`
`portions that are subjected to rotation after connection.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`38. Similar to Falossi, Daniels is also directed to a swiveling connector, and as
`
`such is in the field of interlocking swivel-type connectors. (Ex. 1147, 1:9-14,
`
`stating that: “The present invention relates generally to multiple-lead electrical
`
`connectors of the swivel type, and more particularly to a self-interlocking
`
`demountable swivel-type connector in which internal contacts provide self-
`
`interlock features for the connector.”) As such, Falossi is not in the field of lighted
`
`artificial trees.
`
`39. Daniels solves the problem of “unintentional breakage of the electrical
`
`contact by forces applied to the cables or to the connector directly” in connectors
`
`wherein the connected “plug and receptacle” are able to rotate with respect to each
`
`other. (Id., 1:29-36.) Daniels solves this problem with an inventive swivel
`
`connector that locks the electrical contacts of the plug (male) portion of the
`
`connector with the electrical contacts of the receptacle (female) portion of the
`
`connector. (Id., 2:16-18.)
`
`40. This differs from the problem solved by PO’s inventive tree, namely making
`
`lighted trees more convenient to put together and power. (Paper 53, p. 24,
`
`describing the problem solved by the invention of the ‘056 Patent.) As such, the
`
`problem solved by the ‘056 relates to convenient alignment and connection, and
`
`not to the post-alignment issues of breakage due to wires of a cable that are flexed
`
`
`
`17
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`during swiveling. Power wires located inside tree trunks, and connected to
`
`connectors fixed within the tree trunks are not subject to such flexing.
`
`Consequently, the solution taught by Daniels would not be relevant to the problem
`
`needing to be solved by the inventor of the ‘056 Patent.
`
`41. As pointed out by Petitioner, a coaxial arrangement of terminals may allow
`
`connection at multiple rotational alignments. (see, e.g., connectors of Otto and
`
`McLeish, and Paper 69, p. 32.) However, the number of terminals used does not
`
`determine whether the connector is capable of multiple rotational alignments, such
`
`as a coaxial connector. For example, non-coaxial connectors having two– or three-
`
`terminal connectors are known, such as Miller (two terminals per connector
`
`portion) and Hicks (three terminals per connector portion.) (Paper 2, p. 9,
`
`describing the connector of Miller as a standard two-prong plug and socket; Ex.
`
`1007, FIG. 7 depicting a three-terminal connector.) Coaxial connectors having two
`
`terminals are known, such as Otto and Jumo, as are coaxial connectors having
`
`three terminals, such as McLeish. (paper 2, p. 9, describing the pin and ring
`
`connections of Jumo and Otto; Ex. 1010, connector 350 of FIG. 8.) Further,
`
`Falossi describes a coaxial cable connector having two to ten terminals (Ex. 1035,
`
`4:42-44.) Consequently, increasing the number of terminals from two to three in a
`
`connector would not by itself enable a connector to be multi-alignable, rather, the
`
`
`
`18
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`structural features, such as terminal shape and arrangement, would determine
`
`whether the connector could be aligned and connected in multiple positions.
`
`Consequently, achieving a multi-alignment connector would not be a motivation to
`
`add a third terminal to an existing two-terminal connector.
`
`42. The third terminals of each of Hicks and McLeish function as earth-ground
`
`terminals. (Ex. 2052, ¶32, referring to Hicks, FIG. 7; Ex.1010, 6:38-50, 3:4-7.) As
`
`such, a POSA would understand that these terminals would be wired, or otherwise
`
`electrically connected to a conductive portion of a housing, e.g., tree trunk, lamp
`
`base, or other such conductive portion of the tree or lamp. Such a configuration
`
`would aid in preventing electrocution, as described by McLeish, should a live
`
`power wire accidentally come into contact with the housing. (Ex. 1010, 6:38-50.)
`
`Consequently, the earth-ground terminal, and associated wiring, perform the
`
`function of diverting electrical current to earth ground for safety purposes. The
`
`collective teachings of a standard earth-ground connection would not motivate a
`
`POSA to change the electrical configuration of the tree of Hicks or the lamp of
`
`McLeish to connect a third, formerly-earth-ground terminal to a power wire of a
`
`power cord, because doing so would eliminate the safety features provided by the
`
`earth-ground configuration.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 21
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`43. Further, if all three terminals of a tree taught by the combination of Hicks,
`
`Otto and McLeish (or Falossi or Daniels) were configured to transmit power, or be
`
`connected to a power-transmitting power cord, the purpose of the earth-ground
`
`function of the connectors of Hicks and McLeish would be defeated since none of
`
`the terminals would be connected to earth ground. As such, the intended purpose of
`
`the third terminal of Hicks and McLeish would be defeated.
`
`44. As similarly described above with respect to claim 21, and as pointed out by
`
`Petitioner, a coaxial arrangement of terminals may allow connection at multiple
`
`rotational alignments. (See, e.g., connectors of Otto and McLeish, and Paper 69, p.
`
`32.) However, the number of terminals used does not determine whether the
`
`connector is capable of multiple rotational alignments, such as a coaxial connector.
`
`For example, non-coaxial connectors having two– or three-terminal connectors are
`
`known, such as Miller (two terminals per connector portion) and Hicks (three
`
`terminals per connector portion.) (Paper 2, p. 9, describing the connector of Miller
`
`as a standard two-prong plug and socket; Ex. 1007, FIG. 7 depicting a three-
`
`terminal connector.) Coaxial connectors having two terminals are known, such as
`
`Otto and Jumo, as are coaxial connectors having three terminals, such as McLeish.
`
`(paper 2, p. 9, describing the pine and ring connections of Jumo and Otto; Ex.
`
`1010, connector 350 of FIG. 8.) Further, Falossi describes a coaxial cable
`
`
`
`20
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 22
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`connector having two to ten terminals (Ex. 1035, 4:42-44.) Consequently,
`
`increasing the number of terminals from two to three in a connector would not by
`
`itself enable a connector to be multi-alignable, rather, the structural features, such
`
`as terminal shape and arrangement, would determine whether the connector could
`
`be aligned and connected in multiple positions. Consequently, achieving a multi-
`
`alignment connector would not be a motivation to add a third terminal to an
`
`existing two-terminal connector.
`
`45. The “third” terminal of McLeish functions as an earth-ground terminal.
`
`(Ex.1010, 6:38-50, 3:4-7) As such, a POSA would understand that this terminal
`
`would be wired, or otherwise electrically connected to a conductive portion of a
`
`lamp base or other conductive portion of the lamp. Such a configuration would aid
`
`in preventing electrocution, as described by McLeish, should a live power wire
`
`accidentally come into contact with the housing. (Ex. 1010, 6:38-50.)
`
`Consequently, the earth-ground terminal, and associated wiring, perform the
`
`function of diverting electrical current to earth ground for safety purposes. The
`
`collective teachings of a standard earth-ground connection would not motivate a
`
`POSA to change the electrical configuration of the lamp connector of McLeish, or
`
`the tree of Miller-Seghers with the McLeish connector, to connect a third,
`
`
`
`21
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 23
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`formerly-earth-ground terminal to a power wire of a power cord, because doing so
`
`would eliminate the safety features provided by the earth-ground configuration.
`
`
`
`Executed this 25 day of September, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Stuart B. Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 24
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 2056
`IPR2016-01613
`Polygroup v. Willis
`Page 25
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Stuart B. Brown
`
`Dr. Stuart Brown is the Managing Partner of Veryst Engineering® LLC, an engineering
`consulting firm located in the Boston area. Veryst provides services in product design,
`manufacturing processes, and failure analysis. Dr. Brown’s technical background includes
`mechanical engineering and materials science. Specific topics of expertise include material
`mechanics and behavior with subspecialties in plasticity, fracture, fatigue, elasticity,
`viscoelasticity and viscoplasticity, creep, thixotropy, nonlinear behavior, and wear, subjects
`that he taught to both graduate and undergraduate students at the Massachusetts Institute of
`Technology (M.I.T.). He has experience with a wide variety of materials encompassing
`metals, polymers, elastomers, composites, and ceramics, including glass. He has consulted in
`manufacturing processes including metal and polymer manufacturing processes, semi-solid
`materials, extrusion, powder metallurgy, drawing, forging, welding, cold and hot rolling. He
`has also extensive
`research and development experience
`in
`thin
`films and
`microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).
`
`Dr. Brown consults regularly within energy, manufacturing, transportation, medical device
`and consumer products industries. He also provides technical advice on consumer products,
`electronic and electrical components, and industrial equipment.
`
`Prior to founding Veryst Engineering, Dr. Brown was director of the Boston office of
`Exponent, Inc. Before Exponent, Dr. Brown was on the faculty of the Department of
`Materials Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While at
`M.I.T. he has performed research in metal and polymer forming operations, other industrial
`processes, thin films, and MEMS.
`
`
`EDUCATION
`
`Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987
`M.B.A., Business Administration, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 1979
`M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, 1980
`B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Washington University, 1977
`A.B., English Literature, Washington University, 1977
`
`Tau Beta Pi; Phi Beta Kappa; Pi Tau Sigma; Omicron Delta Kapp