`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DYNACRAFT BSC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MATTEL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00039
`Patent 7,950,978
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT E. MIMLITCH, III
`
`1
`
`Mattel Ex. 2002
`Dynacraft v. Mattel
`IPR2018-00039
`
`
`
`1, Robert E. Mimlitch, III, declare as follows,
`
`1.
`
`I am one of the named inventors of US. Patent Nos. 7,222,684 and 7,950,978,
`
`both entitled “System, Apparatus, and Method for Providing Control of a Toy Vehicle."
`
`2.
`
`I am the Chief Technological Officer and a Co-Founder of Innovation First
`
`International Inc., a company with its headquarters in Greenville, Texas.
`
`3.
`
`Innovation First is a design and engineering company that focuses in large part on
`
`robotics-based toys for educating and entertaining children. Specifically, Innovation First
`
`currently sells its HEXBUG and VEX Robotics to children of varying ages.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`I joined Innovation First in 1999, and have worked there continuously since.
`
`Prior to Innovation First, I was a Senior Mechanical Engineer at Raytheon E-
`
`Systems.
`
`I worked at Raytheon for the 11-year period from 1988 to 1999.
`
`6.
`
`Prior to Raytheon, I was a student at Texas Tech University.
`
`I graduated from
`
`Texas Tech in 1988 with a Bachelor of Science degree Mechanical Engineering.
`
`7.
`
`Prior to focusing on child robotics, Innovation First was involved in motor speed
`
`control. It was during that time period that Innovation First worked with Mattel’s Fisher-Price
`
`Power Wheels group on designing speed control circuitry for children’s ride-on products.
`
`8.
`
`With respect to the ’684 and ’978 patents, Innovation First worked with Mattel to
`
`seek to find a way to more safely design the drive system of a battery-powered ride-on. These
`
`products present several unique challenges to developers. First, there are several safety
`
`considerations that are critical. Many of these concerns stem from the unpredictable way in
`
`which children drive these vehicles. For example, children often slam the direction shifters from
`
`forward to reverse, or vice versa, while the motor is fully powered. This, and the on/off nature of
`
`2
`
`
`
`these motors, can lead to jerkiness and lurching. When this is combined with other variables
`
`such as driving on hills or heavy child occupants, there is even a rollover threat.
`
`9.
`
`Making the situation even more challenging is that the safety concerns need to be
`
`addressed within very specific cost and design constraints. 0n the cost side, ride-ens are often
`
`cost challenged because consumers will only spend a certain amount on these items, usually
`
`topping out at a few hundred dollars. This factor prevents the ability to add costly, overly
`
`complicated components that consumers will not pay for, and safety innovations must still allow
`
`the final vehicle to fit within these price ranges. One way to make these safety innovations
`
`acceptable with respect to cost is to incorporate them into existing drive systems. Total
`
`redesigns are more costly.
`
`10. Working within a more established drive system also helps address several of the
`
`design constraints that are present. Children drive these vehicles erratically at times by, for
`
`example, stomping and releasing the foot pedal forcefully when they jump into and out of the
`
`vehicle. As a result, these foot pedals tend to be basic, two-state, on-off buttons that are covered
`
`by a plastic cap made to look like a car’s gas pedal. The button is spring loaded to the off
`
`position so that the motor is immediately disengaged when the child releases the pedal to, for
`
`example, jump out of the vehicle. The direction shifters also present a challenge because they
`
`must be easy enough to operate for a child, but the child can often almost immediately switch
`
`motor direction from forward to reverse.
`
`11.
`
`Prior to these patents, Mattel approached Innovation First and requested that we
`
`make a speed controller for use with their Fisher-Price Power Wheels battery-powered ride~on
`
`vehicles. One of the ideas that Mattel suggested was a proportional throttle pedal that would
`
`allow the child to more gently and gradually increase the speed of the vehicle. We did not feel
`
`3
`
`
`
`that to be a practical solution at the time. Children are still prone to stomp this type of pedal and
`
`override the proportional nature of the pedal. These controls also added considerable cost that
`
`made this approach impractical at the time.
`
`12.
`
`After considerable effort, it was determined that the best course would be to add
`
`sofi-start circuitry to the existing on/off drive system that would be able to first detect a change
`
`in the signal created by the on/off throttle pedal, and delay the time over which that change in
`
`motor speed was implemented. That work is reflected in the ’684 and ’978 patents. We were
`
`working with a throttle signal that only had two possible levels, one correlating to “off” and one
`
`to “on.” A two-state, digital signal like this is commonly referred to as a binary signal.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed Dynacraft’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, and feel
`
`that it does not adequately include experience with the design concerns particular to children’s
`
`battery ride-ons.
`
`I have designed many types of Speed control systems, and the design and
`
`engineering considerations relevant to children’s ride-ens are quite different in several respects.
`
`Accordingly, I feel that at least a year designing these products is important in the person of
`
`ordinary skill in this art. Children’s ride-ons have several technical and cost considerations that
`
`are simply relevant to other types of vehicles. Many of these considerations are discussed above
`
`and set forth in the ’684 patent.
`
`14.
`
`At the request of Mattel, I have reviewed US. Patent No. 4,634,941 to Klimo and
`
`understand that it is being used in an obviousness challenge to the ’684 and ‘978 patents. One of
`
`skills in the art at the time of the ’684 and ’978 patents would not have used the Klimo patent in
`
`designing a battery-powered chiidren’s ride-on for several reasons:
`
`1- The circuitry of Klimo is far too complicated and costly for inclusion in a
`
`children’s ride-0n in m o inion.
`p
`
`4
`
`
`
`0 As described in the paragraphs above, the proportional controls that Klimo
`
`requires would not in my opinion have been conducive to a child’s ride-on at
`
`the time. If anything, Klimo reinforces and illustrates why our decision to go
`
`away from these sorts of controls was the correct one, because this sort of
`
`circuitry would not work and would not be affordable in the context of a
`
`child’s battery-powered ride-on.
`
`-
`
`In my reading, the essence of the invention in Klimo is a wheelchair that
`
`employs particular circuitry that maintains wheelchair speed, particularly
`
`under low-battery conditions. Such circuitry has no relevance to designing
`
`children’s ride-ons, in part because low battery conditions, if anything, make
`
`children’s ride-ons safer. While motor ramping is mentioned, motor ramping
`
`in a general sense was known. What was not known, and what the ’684 and
`
`’978 patents generally relate to, was motor ramping under the specific drive
`
`system parameters most conducive to making a child’s ride-on better
`
`performing and safer, and doing so in a cost effective manner.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true
`
`and correct.
`
`Date
`
`Robert E. Mimlitch, III
`
`5
`
`