UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DYNACRAFT BSC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MATTEL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00042
`Patent 7,621,543
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. MALLOY
`
`
`Dynacraft BSC, Inc.
`Exhibit 1008
`Dynacraft BSC, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.
`IPR2018-00042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`
`I.
`Scope of Work and Summary of Opinions ...................................................... 1 
` 
`II.
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 1 
` 
`  Compensation .................................................................................................. 3 III.
`
`  Materials on Which My Opinion Is Based ...................................................... 3 
`IV.
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................... 4 
`V.
` 
`VI.
`  Background in the Design and Manufacture of Molded Parts
`and Components .............................................................................................. 6 
`  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 9 VII.
`
`  Applicable Legal Standards ............................................................................. 9 VIII.
`
`  The ’543 Patent .............................................................................................. 12 
`IX.
`A.  Subject Matter of the ’543 Patent (Ex. 1001) ........................................... 13 
`B.  Prosecution History of the ’543 Patent (Ex. 1002) .................................. 16 
`The Prior Art .................................................................................................. 18 
`A.  Damon (Ex. 1003) .................................................................................... 18 
`B.  Perego (Ex. 1004) ..................................................................................... 20 
`C.  DeGraaf (Ex. 1005) .................................................................................. 21 
`D.  Plastic Blow Molding Handbook (Ex. 1006) ........................................... 22 
`E.  Felker (Ex. 1007) ...................................................................................... 28 
`  Obviousness Opinion ..................................................................................... 30 
`1.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 5-8 and 10 are Obvious Over the
`Combination of Damon, Perego, and the Plastic Blow
`Molding Handbook.............................................................................. 31 
`a.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 31 
`b.  Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 49 
`c.  Claim 6 ........................................................................................... 51 
`d.  Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 53 
`e.  Claim 8 ........................................................................................... 54 
`f.  Claim 10 ......................................................................................... 56 
`
`X.
`
` 
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`
`
`2.  Ground 2: Claims 1, 5-8, and 10 are Obvious Over the
`Combination of Damon and Felker. .................................................... 58 
`a.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 58 
`b.  Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 72 
`c.  Claim 6 ........................................................................................... 74 
`d.  Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 76 
`e.  Claim 8 ........................................................................................... 77 
`f.  Claim 10 ......................................................................................... 78 
`
`
`  Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 79 XII.
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`The undersigned, Dr. Robert A. Malloy, resident at 46 Acorn Drive,
`
`Randolph, MA 02368, declares the following:
`
`
`I.
`
`Scope of Work and Summary of Opinions
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the fields of engineering, plastics manufacturing,
`
`mold design, and molded part design.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion concerning the patentability
`
`of claims 1, 5-8, and 10 in United States Patent No. 7,621,543 (“the ’543 patent”)
`
`(“the challenged claims”). As explained below, I have concluded that each of the
`
`challenged claims would have been obvious in view of the combination of U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2005/0056474 (“Damon”), U.S. Patent No. 5,924,506
`
`(“Perego”), and the Plastic Blow Molding Handbook (Norman Lee ed., 1990)
`
`(“Ground 1”), and the combination of Damon and U.S. Patent No. 3,910,332
`
`(“Felker”) (“Ground 2”).
`
` Qualifications
`II.
`
`3. My current curriculum vitae is being filed contemporaneously with
`
`this Declaration as Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1008.
`
`4.
`
`I am a practicing Plastics Engineer, with an A.S. degree in General
`
`Engineering, a B.S. degree in Plastics Engineering and a Ph.D. in Polymer Science.
`
`I joined the faculty of the Francis School of Engineering at the University of
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Massachusetts Lowell, Plastics Engineering Department in 1987. I served as
`
`Chair/Head of the Plastics Engineering Department at UMass Lowell for 14 years.
`
`5.
`
`During my time at UMass Lowell, I have taught over 100
`
`undergraduate, graduate, and industry courses (degree and non-degree) on
`
`engineering design, plastics processing, part and mold design, including those
`
`covering plastic molding, rubber molding, and the blow molding processes. I also
`
`have experience in the areas of mechanical design, machining, mold-making, and
`
`machine design. I have mentored and advised many M.S. and Ph.D. Plastics
`
`Engineering or Manufacturing Engineering degree candidates. I have also
`
`designed and managed the construction of many plastics molding and
`
`manufacturing laboratories at UMass Lowell including the Rocheleau Blow
`
`Molding Laboratory, which is equipped with injection, reciprocating screw, and
`
`extrusion blow molding machinery.
`
`6.
`
`I am an active engineering consultant and have consulted with more
`
`than 50 companies in the area of plastic part design, mold design, or molding
`
`process design.
`
`7.
`
`I am the author of over 100 publications, including a textbook on
`
`Plastic Part Design for the Injection Molding Process and co-author of other
`
`publications covering rubber molding and the blow molding process.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of the Society of Plastics Engineers, a Fellow of that
`
`Society, and I have been inducted into the Plastics Hall of Fame, an honor limited
`
`to only nine plastics professionals worldwide every three years.
`
` Compensation
`III.
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in preparing this Declaration at
`
`my usual and customary rate of $280 per hour plus reasonable expenses. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this action, and I have no
`
`financial interest in this case.
`
`IV.
`
` Materials on Which My Opinion Is Based
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I reviewed and relied on the following
`
`materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,621,543 (Ex. 1001);
`
` Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,621,543, including the
`
`Declaration of Albert L. Arendt (Ex. 1002);
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0056474 (Ex. 1003);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,924,506 (Ex. 1004);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,513,981 (Ex. 1005);
`
` Plastic Blow Molding Handbook (Norman Lee ed., 1990) (Ex. 1006);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,910,332 (Ex. 1007);
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
` D.L. Peters, Blow Molding Highly Irregular Shaped Parts With
`
`Moving Mold Sections, in ANTEC 82: 40th Annual Technical
`
`Conference & Exhibition of the Society of Plastics Engineers, at 711
`
`(May 10-13, 1982) (Ex. 1010);
`
` Concise Encyclopedia of Plastics (Donald V. Rosato et al. eds., 2000)
`
`(Ex. 1011);
`
` Raymond Roarke & Warren Young, Formulas for Stress and Strain
`
`(5th ed. 1975) (Ex. 1012);
`
` Marlex EHM 6007 Data Sheet (Ex. 1013);
`
` LinkedIn Profile of Christopher Lucas (Ex. 1014); and
`
` LinkedIn Profile of James Carducci (Ex. 1015).
`
`V.
`
` Level of Skill in the Art
`
`11.
`
`I understand that the patentability of an invention is determined in
`
`view of the knowledge of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`at the time of the invention, which in this case I understand to be no earlier than
`
`August 23, 2006, the filing date of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/509,421 (“the
`
`’421 application”), which issued as the ’543 patent on November 24, 2009. The
`
`relevant art is the design and manufacture of molded parts and components, such
`
`as blow-molded wheels used on ride-on vehicles. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:8-11
`
`(“The present disclosure relates to children’s ride-on vehicles, and more
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`particularly to blow-molded wheels for children’s ride-on vehicles and methods for
`
`producing the same.”).
`
`12.
`
`I understand that the following factors may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill:
`
` the educational level of the patent applicants;
`
` the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
` previous solutions to those problems;
`
` the rapidity with which innovations are made in the art;
`
` the sophistication of the relevant technology; and
`
` the educational level of active workers in the art.
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, which is based on my experience as an educator and
`
`consultant in the field of engineering, plastics manufacturing, mold design, and
`
`molded part design, the relevant art, and taking the above factors into account
`
`where applicable, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art as of August 23,
`
`2006, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and 5 years
`
`of experience working in the fields of plastics manufacturing, mold design, or
`
`molded part design; or equivalent education and training, or work experience in the
`
`fields of plastics manufacturing, mold design, or molded part design, such as an
`
`Associate’s degree in mechanical engineering or related arts and at least 10 years
`
`of experience working in the fields of plastics manufacturing, mold design, or
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`molded part design. Given my education, training and experience, I consider
`
`myself knowledgeable as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed
`
`the prior art as of August 23, 2006.
`
`VI.
`
` Background in the Design and Manufacture of Molded Parts and
`Components
`
`14. To understand my opinions, it may be helpful to understand certain
`
`background information about the design and manufacture of molded parts and
`
`components.
`
`15. Plastic or rubber components or parts can be molded using a wide
`
`variety of molding techniques. These molding techniques include: compression
`
`molding, injection molding, thermoforming, rotational molding, and blow molding.
`
`In order for engineers to determine which molding technique is most appropriate
`
`for a given application, they must consider factors such as part geometry, overall
`
`part size, production quantity, economic factors, and a variety of material related
`
`factors. One commonality among these various molding processes is that they all
`
`require a mold for each different molded part geometry. The cost and complexity
`
`of the mold can vary greatly both between the different processes, and within each
`
`process.
`
`16. Some molds, such as some thermoforming molds, are one piece
`
`molds. However, the vast majority of molds have at least two mold sections that
`
`close along a parting surface prior to the part forming stage of the process, and
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`open once the molded component or part has solidified. Many molds, particularly
`
`those molds that form parts having a complicated geometry, have more than two
`
`movable mold sections, that facilitate the demolding (or ejection) of the solidified
`
`part. While molds with moving mold sections tend to be more expensive than
`
`simple open- and-shut two-piece molds, the impact on molded part cost can be
`
`minimal, especially for high production applications, since mold cost is amortized
`
`over the life of the production run (unlike material cost and hourly machine cost)
`
`which are fixed costs.
`
`17. Extrusion blow molding is a process that is well suited for the
`
`production of hollow parts. The extrusion blow molding process begins with the
`
`extrusion of a very viscous tube of polymer, extruded vertically downward for a
`
`specific vertical distance (related to the overall height of the part to be blow
`
`molded). This tube of molten polymer is known as the parison. The melt strength
`
`of the molten parison material is sufficient to keep the parison from sagging due to
`
`gravitational forces, however, the tube is flexible enough that it can be reshaped or
`
`deformed using high pressure gas, normally compressed air, during the blow stage
`
`of the process.
`
`18. After the parison is formed, a cooled (cool relative to the molten
`
`polymer temperature) mold, consisting of at least two mold sections mounted on
`
`the moving machine platens, then closes around the extruded parison. At least the
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`lower portion of the parison is typically pinched by the now closed mold sections,
`
`while the compressed gas is introduced into another section of the parison,
`
`typically the upper section of the parison. The compressed gas causes the molten
`
`parison to stretch or inflate, ultimately replicating the shape of the mold cavity
`
`space defined by the mold sections. The molten polymer now in contact with the
`
`relatively cool mold sections then cools and solidifies. Once the part has
`
`solidified, the mold sections will open and the part (along with any adjacent
`
`pinched sections) will be removed from the mold sections, and the process repeats
`
`itself over and over again.
`
`19. Many blow-molded parts (such as a shampoo bottle) have relatively
`
`simple geometries that are easily removed from the mold sections that form the
`
`plastic part. Such items have no features that prevent relative movement in the
`
`direction of part removal from the mold cavity sections. More complicated blow
`
`molded part geometries may have geometric features that prevent the solidified
`
`blow molded part from moving in the direction of ejection. Such features are
`
`described as “undercuts.” In some cases, “shallow” undercuts can be molded
`
`without any particular difficulty. For example, undercut features with tapers or
`
`ramped, lead-in angles may allow for recoverable deformation as the part is
`
`ejected. In addition, polymeric materials, such as high-density polyethylene, that
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`exhibit relatively high molding shrinkage, may effectively eliminate the undercut
`
`due to the related dimensional change caused by the molding shrinkage.
`
`20. However, some undercut features, such as relatively “deep” undercut
`
`geometries, would either (i) prevent the solidified part from being ejected or
`
`removed from the open mold sections, or (ii) prevent the solidified part from being
`
`ejected or removed from the open mold sections without significant damage to the
`
`blow molded part. In such cases, blow molds having additional moving mold
`
`sections (such as slides or moving cores) must be used to facilitate part removal.
`
`The moving mold sections are positioned in such a way that they withdraw the
`
`additional mold section(s) from the undercut region(s), thereby allowing the part to
`
`be ejected or removed from the primary mold sections. The moving mold
`
`section(s) that release the undercut(s) for blow molded parts are frequently motion
`
`activated using either hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders.
`
` Claim Construction
`VII.
`
`21.
`
`In forming my opinions, I interpreted the terms of the challenged
`
`claims according to their plain and ordinary meaning. In my opinion, this is the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification.
`
` Applicable Legal Standards
`VIII.
`
`22.
`
`I am not an attorney, but in forming my opinions in this case, I used
`
`the following legal standards that were provided to me by counsel.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`23. Anticipation, 35 U.S.C. § 102. I understand that a patent claim is
`
`invalid as anticipated (i.e., the claimed invention is not new or not novel) when a
`
`single prior art reference (e.g., a patent, or publication) discloses within the
`
`document every limitation recited in the claim arranged or combined in the same
`
`way as recited in the claim. If that prior art reference teaches all the limitations
`
`combined or arranged as recited in the claim in a manner that would enable one
`
`skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention, that claim is not new, but is
`
`“anticipated” by the prior art reference.
`
`24. For a prior art reference to “teach” the limitations of a claim, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art must recognize the limitations as disclosed in that single
`
`reference and, to the extent the claim specifies a relationship between the
`
`limitations, the disclosed limitations must be in the same relationship as recited in
`
`the claim. Additionally, a disclosure can “teach” a limitation only if the disclosure
`
`of the reference is enabling. This means that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`having become familiar with the prior art, must be enabled thereby to practice the
`
`invention without undue experimentation.
`
`25. Obviousness, 35 U.S.C. § 103. I understand that a claim is invalid
`
`for obviousness if the differences between it and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`art at the time of the claimed invention. I understand that obviousness is a question
`
`of law that requires underlying factual determinations of:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` the nature of the differences (if any) between the asserted claim and
`
`the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`when it is analogous to the claimed invention. A prior art reference is analogous:
`
` if it is from the same field of the inventor’s endeavor, regardless of the
`
`problem addressed, and
`
` if it is not from the same field of the inventor’s endeavor, but is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, I understand that, before a final determination of
`
`obviousness is made, any secondary considerations of non-obviousness or
`
`obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of
`
`others, industry praise, unexpected results, and copying, must be considered. I am
`
`not aware of any secondary considerations. I reserve the right, however, to render
`
`opinions on any secondary consideration of non-obviousness asserted by the patent
`
`owner.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`28. Motivation to combine with reasonable expectation of success. I
`
`understand that, for a claim to be obvious, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would need to have a reason or motivation to combine or to modify the prior art to
`
`achieve the claimed invention and have a reasonable expectation of successfully
`
`combining or modifying the prior art. I understand that the suggestion to modify
`
`or combine relevant prior art references may come from:
`
` a teaching or suggestion in the prior art references;
`
` the common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art;
`
` any need or problem known to a person of ordinary skill and
`
`addressed by the claimed invention, including, but not limited to, the
`
`problem addressed by the patent;
`
` the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`when it does no more than yield predictable results; and
`
` design incentives and other market forces.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that obviousness should not be evaluated using
`
`the benefit of hindsight or what is known today.
`
`IX.
`
` The ’543 Patent
`
`30. The ’543 patent issued from the ’421 application, which was filed on
`
`August 23, 2006. Ex. 1001 at [21], [22]. I understand that the ’543 does not claim
`
`priority to any earlier-filed application.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Subject Matter of the ’543 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`31. The ’543 patent relates to “children’s ride-on vehicles, and more
`
`particularly to blow molded wheels for children’s ride-on vehicles and methods for
`
`producing the same.” Ex. 1001 at 1:8-11. The basic features of such vehicles are
`
`described in the ’543 patent’s background of the invention:
`
`Children's ride-on vehicles are reduced-scale vehicles that are
`designed and sized for use by children. For example, children's ride-
`on vehicles include a seat adapted to accommodate one or more
`children as well as steering and drive assemblies that are adapted to be
`operated by a child sitting on the seat. The drive assembly is adapted
`to drive the rotation of one or more of the vehicle's wheels and may
`include a battery-powered motor assembly or a manually powered
`drive assembly, such as a pedal-powered drive assembly.
`The wheels used on children’s ride-on vehicles are often blow-
`molded from a suitable material, such as a plastic.
`
`Id. at 1:15-25.
`
`32. The general process for creating blow-molded wheels also is known,
`
`as further explained in the ’543 patent:
`
`Blow-molded wheels are conventionally formed using a mold that has
`two portions, which typically separate in an axial direction. The
`portions of the mold collectively define a cavity that defines, or
`corresponds to, the shape of the blow-molded wheels, including the
`tread surface. The seam, or part line, between the axially-separating
`mold portions typically defines, or corresponds to, the central
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`circumferential portion of the wheel. During the blow-molding
`process, a parison of molten plastic is introduced into the mold cavity
`and a pressurized gas, such as air, is used to force the molten plastic
`against the internal surface of the cavity in order to form a hollow
`wheel having a shape defined by the internal surface of the cavity.
`After a cooling period, the mold portions are separated, and the blow-
`molded wheel is removed. . . .
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:26-39.
`
`33. The vehicles claimed in the ’543 patent utilize the same prior art
`
`features discussed above—a body having a seat sized for a child, a plurality of
`
`blow-molded wheels, and steering and drive assemblies—but incorporate “blow-
`
`molded wheels having undercut treads.” Ex. 1001 at [54], 21:5-35, 21:56-22:3,
`
`22:6-11. The ’543 patent uses the term “undercut treads” to describe a blow-
`
`molded wheel having a radial distance to a first portion of the wheel’s tread surface
`
`that is greater than the radial distance to a second portion of the wheel’s tread
`
`surface, with the second portion being positioned between the first portion and the
`
`part line of the blow-molded wheel. Id. at [54], 1:40-2:26, 21:5-35, 21:56-22:3,
`
`22:6-11; see also ’543 Patent Prosecution History, Ex. 1002 at 172-73 (“The term
`
`‘undercut’ . . . may be described as a ‘predetermined threshold’ of the difference of
`
`the radial distance to a first portion of a blow-molded wheel’s tread surface and the
`
`radial distance to a second portion of the wheel’s tread surface, with the second
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`portion of the tread surface being positioned between the first portion and the part-
`
`line of the blow-molded wheel”).
`
`34. Consistent with that description, the claimed wheels require a blow-
`
`molded body with a tread surface, two sidewalls, and a part line. Ex. 1001 at 21:7-
`
`17. The tread surface and part line extend circumferentially around the body of the
`
`wheel and between the sidewalls, and the tread surface has at least two defined
`
`regions. Id. at 21:15-21. The first region is disposed between the first sidewall
`
`and the part line, while the second region is disposed between the first region and
`
`the part line. Id. at 21:18-23. The radial distance to the first region is greater than
`
`the radial distance to the second region by the larger of 1/8 inch and 0.1% of the
`
`wheel body’s diameter. Id. at 21:23-28. The same tread surface configuration can
`
`be replicated on the other side of the part line, as well. Id. at 21:56-22:3.
`
`35.
`
`In other words, the ’543 patent claims a conventional, prior art ride-on
`
`vehicle with blow-molded wheels and requires that the wheels’ tread surface have
`
`at least a 1/8 inch undercut, or an undercut that equals at least 0.1% of the wheel
`
`body’s diameter, whichever is larger. To produce these undercuts and to ensure
`
`that the wheel does not become locked into the mold or damaged during the part
`
`removal process, the ’543 patent describes a blow-mold process that incorporates
`
`movable mold portions configured to move inwardly and outwardly between a
`
`molding position and release position, as illustrated below:
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:26-39, 16:16-38, 17:14-25, Fig. 8, Fig. 9.
`
`36. As explained in greater detail below, the claimed features and blow-
`
`mold processes capable of forming undercut treads of the dimensions claimed were
`
`known and disclosed in the prior art. In my opinion, the claimed technology
`
`involves nothing more than the application of a known blow-molding technique to
`
`a known molded, plastic product to yield predictable results—a molded, plastic
`
`wheel having “deep” undercut treads that (i) does not become locked in the mold,
`
`and (ii) may be removed from the mold without damage. See Ex. 1001 at 2:4-12.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’543 Patent (Ex. 1002)
`
`37. During prosecution of the ’543 patent, the examiner rejected claims 1-
`
`10 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`No. 2005/0056474 (“Damon”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,924,506 (“Perego”).
`
`Ex. 1002 at 126-29. In response, the applicants amended the claims to add a
`
`limitation specifying that the radial distance to the first region be greater than the
`
`radial distance to the second region “by the larger of 1/8 inch and 0.1% of the
`
`wheel body’s diameter,” which appears in each of the challenged claims. Id. at
`
`158. The applicants then argued that the examiner’s rejections should be
`
`withdrawn, asserting that (i) Damon and Perego fail to disclose each and every
`
`limitation of amended claim 1; and (ii) one of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have been motivated to modify the proposed combination of Damon and Perego to
`
`arrive at the subject matter of amended claim 1. Id. at 166-70.
`
`38.
`
`In support of their positions, the applicants submitted an inventor
`
`declaration signed by Albert Arendt, who stated that “[t]he illustrated wheel [of
`
`Perego] does not have a tread surface with an undercut that is equal to, much less
`
`greater than, 0.1% of the wheel’s diameter” and that “the illustrated undercut of the
`
`tread surface would not have been greater than 1/8 inch.” Id. at 171-76. Mr.
`
`Arendt further opined that wheels having such undercuts were not an “available
`
`design choice” and could not be produced using known blow-molding processes.
`
`Id. at 174-75.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
` The Prior Art
`
`39.
`
`I understand from counsel that the references discussed in this section
`
`and used in my analysis qualify as prior art to the ’543 patent. Where appropriate,
`
`I have identified evidence showing that each reference qualifies as prior art.
`
`40. For the reasons discussed in this report, I have concluded that the
`
`challenged claims are rendered obvious by the prior art identified below.
`
`A. Damon (Ex. 1003)
`
`41. Damon is a patent application published on March 17, 2005. Ex.
`
`1003 at (43).
`
`42. Damon discloses a children’s ride-on vehicle in the form of a reduced
`
`scale Jeep® vehicle. Ex. 1003 at [0027], [0029]. Figures 1 and 2 of Damon
`
`illustrate examples of the vehicle and are reproduced below:
`
`Id. at Fig. 1, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`43. The vehicle includes, among other things, a body 12 “with a seat
`
`assembly 16 that is sized and configured to accommodate at least one child” (Ex.
`
`1003 at [0027]), a steering assembly 26 that “includes a steering column 40 and a
`
`steering mechanism 42” and “enables a child sitting on seat 18 [of seat assembly
`
`16] to steer” the vehicle (id. at [0031]), a motor assembly 46 including a “battery-
`
`powered motor 48 that is adapted to drive the rotation of at least one” of the
`
`vehicle’s wheels (id. at [0033]), a battery assembly 60 including a “battery, or cell,
`
`62 that is adapted to provide power to the motor” (id. at [0034]), “a drive actuator
`
`104, through which a user input directing the battery assembly to energize the
`
`motor assembly is received” (id. at [0038]), “a speed switch 110, which enables a
`
`user to select the relative rotation of the motor assembly’s output 50” (id. at
`
`[0039]), and “a direction switch 112, which enables a user to select the relative
`
`direction (i.e., clockwise or counterclockwise) of rotation of output 50 and thereby
`
`configure the vehicle to drive in forward and reverse directions” (id. at [0039]).
`
`44. The body 12 “typically is formed from molded plastic” and “includes
`
`a plurality of wheels 22” having what appears to be a tread surface, as shown
`
`below:
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1003 at [0028], [0030], Fig. 1 (excerpted).
`
`B.
`
`Perego (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`45. Perego is a patent issued on July 20, 1999. Ex. 1004 at [45].
`
`46. Perego discloses “a motorized wheel assembly suitable for use in a
`
`toy vehicle, for example an electric toy car, in which the child can sit.” Ex. 1004 at
`
`1:5-7. The wheel assembly comprises “a wheel 13 (for example in moulded
`
`plastic)” having undercut treads, as illustrated in Figure 2 of Perego, which is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Undercuts
`
`
`
`Id. at 1:56-58, Fig. 2 (annotations added); see also ’543 Patent Prosecution
`
`History, Ex. 1002 at 175 (inventor declaration admitting “the illustrated wheel was
`
`likely produced by a blow-molding process” and shows an “undercut”).
`
`C. DeGraaf (Ex. 1005)
`
`47. DeGraaf is a patent issued on April 30, 1985. Ex. 1005 at [45].
`
`48. DeGraaf discloses a “ride-on toy vehicle with front wheel drive and
`
`outboard front wheels,” such as that shown below:
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at [54], Fig. 1. DeGraaf further teaches that “manufacturers [of
`
`children’s ride-on toys] strive to simulate the appearance of adult vehicles such as
`
`racing cars, military vehicles, etc.” and that “molding or forming complex shapes
`
`from synthetic resin has enabled the industry to meet . . . these desires . . . .” Id. at
`
`1:8-15. DeGraaff also teaches that “[b]low molding is conveniently used for
`
`fabricating the wheels” of such vehicles. Id. at 5:50-53.
`
`D.
`
`Plastic Blow Molding Handbook (Ex. 1006)
`
`49. Plastic Blow Molding Handbook is a book published in 1990. Ex.
`
`1006 at 2. In my opinion, the Plastic Blow Molding Handbook is analogous art to
`
`the ’543 patent because it is from the same field of the inventor’s endeavor—
`
`design and manufacture of molded parts or components. It also is pertinent to the
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`problem addressed by the claimed technology—providing molded parts or
`
`components with undercut features.
`
`50. The Plastic Blow Molding Handbook teaches that “[i]f it is desired to
`
`produce undercut features in a [blow-molded] part that could not be released from
`
`a simple two piece mold, moving sections must be used.” Ex 1006 at 510-11. The
`
`Plastic Blow Molding Handbook then describes an example of a known blow-
`
`molding process, where moving mold sections, also known as slides, are used to
`
`form and release such undercuts:
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Figure 23-13 Moving section molds are used to produce
`parts that not otherwise be molded. A. Open quarter-
`mold sections and thread forming core. B. Quarter-mold
`sections closed on thread forming core. Courtesy of
`Phillips 66 Company, Plastics Division.
`
`Id. at 511 (annotations added); see also id. at 44-50 (describing similar processes
`
`and substantial undercut features capable of being produced by them).
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`51. The closed mold depicted above shows a cross-sectional view of a
`
`circular, screw-on lid having an undercut han