UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DYNACRAFT BSC, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MATTEL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00040
`
`Patent 7,487,850
`
`DECLARATION OF DAN DAMON
`
`1
`1
`
`Mattel Ex. 2005
`Mattel Ex. 2005
`Dynacraft v. Mattel
`Dynacraft v. Mattel
`IPR2018-00040
`IPR2018-0004O
`
`

`

`1, Dan Damon, declare as follows:
`
`(1)
`
`I am a Principal Engineer at Fisher-Price in East Aurora, NY.
`
`(2)
`
`I started working at Fisher-Price in 1995, and have been continuously employed
`
`there since. Much of my time during my over two-decade employment at Fisher-Price has been
`
`in support of the Power Wheels group that designs and develops Fisher-Price’s line of battery-
`
`powered ride-ons for children.
`
`(3)
`
`I graduated from State University of New York College at Buffalo in 1995 with a
`
`Bachelors of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. In addition to my degree, I have many
`
`years working in battery-powered ride-ons.
`
`I think this is critical experience given the specific
`
`challenges that these vehicles face, and feel that a person skilled in this area should have at least
`
`one year of such experience along with an appropriate undergraduate degree.
`
`(4)
`
`As part of my time in the Power Wheels group, I inspected the shifter mechanism
`
`of Dynacraft’s 24-Volt Disney Princess Carriage. From my inspection, it appears that
`
`Dynacraft’s shifter is copied from a previous Fisher-Price shifter, specifically the “Z-shifter”
`
`incorporated in many Power Wheels models and patented by Mattel. Photographs of the shifters
`
`I inspected in making this conclusion are attached as Exhibit A.
`
`(5)
`
`Prior to preparing this declaration, I was asked to review US. Patent Application
`
`Publication 2005/0087033 to Chi.
`
`I understand that Dynacraft is combining Chi with one of my
`
`own patent applications, US. Patent Application Publication 2005/0056474 (“Battery Retainer
`
`Assembly for Children’s Ride—on Vehicles”), to assert that Mattel’s patent to the Z-shifter is
`
`obvious.
`
`(6)
`
`On my examination, Chi does not appear to address the same problem as the Z-
`
`shifier. The Z-shifter is intended to make the shifting process slower and more difficult so that
`
`sudden “shifter slams” are avoided. Shifter slams from high speed to reverse present
`
`2
`
`

`

`considerable problems with respect to ride-ons because they add considerable electrical and
`
`mechanical stresses on the drive system, and can endanger the child given the fact that this
`
`change can occur almost instantaneously. The larger the battery, the bigger this problem is.
`
`I do
`
`not see any discussion in Chi of the torturous or aggravated path that was the essence of the Z-
`
`shifter, or any discussion of the need to break up the shifting process as the Z-shifter does. Chi
`
`seems prone to shifter slam because it does not effectively break up the shifting process. Chi’s
`
`combination of only having a slight jog in the shift path (as opposed to the prominent middle
`
`section of the Z-shifter), the spring that centers the handle at the jog, and the considerable
`
`mechanical advantage provided by the shifter handle pivoting about a pin located all the way at
`
`the bottom all contribute to the child’s ability to still slam that shifter design in my opinion. This
`
`shifter action in Chi also drives a flat switch plate straight forward or backward, which is quite
`
`different than the cylindrical, rotating actuator and associated cams that are used in the Z-shifter.
`
`(7)
`
`On my examination of Chi, I do not believe that a designer with experience in
`
`designing battery-powered children’s ride-ons would have any motivation to combine Chi with
`
`my battery retainer application to attempt to solve the shifter slam problem in the manner that the
`
`Z-shifter does. There is no reason why one working in this area would add Chi to my battery
`
`retainer patent application because they both deal with different problems than the Z-shifter. My
`
`battery retainer was aimed at easily retaining any ride-on battery, including larger 24-volt
`
`batteries. Chi is aimed at making a speed and direction shifier that is reaslistic and easy to
`
`operate. If one were trying to solve shifter slam, which is especially a potential hazard for large
`
`24-volt batteries, one would not add Chi to the ride-on in my patent application. And if one did,
`
`they would still not solve the problem, as noted above, and would create a potentially hazardous
`
`situation for the child.
`
`3
`
`

`

`I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and
`
`correct.
`
`Executed:
`
`/ t (7: (E
`
`' M
`
`D Damon
`
`4
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`5
`
`