`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL NRANIAN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, Cover
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS............................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ............ 7
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART............................................. 7
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW.................................................................................11
`V. OPINIONS.....................................................................................................12
`A. Disclosures of Lynam ‘026 That Appear in the ‘451 Patent ..............12
`B.
`Construction of “Generally Views Towards A Blind Spot”...............15
`C.
`Construction of “Backing Plate”.........................................................20
`D. Henion ‘013 Discloses A Trailer Towing Mirror ...............................25
`E.
`SMR Provides An Insufficient Motivation To Modify Henion
`‘013. ...................................................................................................29
`Platzer ‘956 Does Not View Downwardly..........................................29
`F.
`G. Kondo Discloses A Single Mirror.......................................................31
`
`i
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I have been retained by patent owner Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.
`
`(“Magna”) to provide my opinion on certain matters regarding SMR Automotive
`
`Systems USA Inc. (“SMR”)’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,934,843 (“the ‘843 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein based on information and belief are believed to be true. I am
`
`over 21 years of age and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`At this stage, I have been asked to provide my opinions on certain
`
`discrete issues that are relevant to Magna’s Preliminary Patent Owner Response. I
`
`have not been asked to and do not opine regarding the ultimate issues addressed by
`
`SMR’s proposed grounds. The fact that I do not opine on any given issue in this
`
`declaration should not be construed as agreement with SMR’s positions. I reserve
`
`the right to provide additional opinions in the event that an IPR is instituted.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $350 per hour for time
`
`preparing this declaration. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Although I have a law degree, and I am licensed to practice before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, I have not been asked to opine on any
`
`legal issues. I will not be giving any legal opinions throughout this declaration and
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`throughout my work on this matter. My opinions provided herein are based on my
`
`engineering, technical, scientific, and business education and experience.
`
`6.
`
`My academic background is in engineering. I possess a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering, a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering, a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Juris Doctor
`
`from Wayne State University. I also received a Master of Business Administration
`
`from the University of Michigan. I also am a licensed Professional Engineer,
`
`Certified Project Management Professional, as well as a Lean Six Sigma Black
`
`Belt certified through the American Society for Quality and the International
`
`Quality Federation.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive industry experience in the automotive industry for
`
`multiple companies. Specifically, I worked as a design engineer, senior project
`
`engineer, design analysis engineer, technical specialist, and engineering manager
`
`in the automotive industry from 1985 to 2007. This included experience at Ford,
`
`General Motors, and Allied Signal. I worked at Allied Signal from 1992 to 1993,
`
`General Motors from 1993 to 1995, and Ford Motor Company from 1985 to 1992,
`
`and from 1995 to 2007.
`
`8. While at Ford, General Motors, and Allied Signal, I worked as a
`
`Product Design Engineer, a Senior Project Engineer, a Technical Specialist, a
`
`Design Analysis Engineer, and an Engineering Manager. My work included the
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`design and development of automotive safety systems and components for various
`
`different types of automotive applications. This included, among other things,
`
`testing and development of systems and components for active and passive safety.
`
`9.
`
`Areas of my work included both active and passive sensing systems
`
`which can be used in the vehicle interior or exterior, including the design and
`
`development of sensing components and systems that incorporate electromagnetic
`
`wave sensing and visual perception (including, but not limited to, vision, camera,
`
`radar, lidar, infrared ultraviolet, night vision, mirrors, and other optical devices,
`
`including those containing lenses and mirrors) as well as acoustical sensing. Areas
`
`of my work also specifically included vision systems, occupant ergonomic
`
`evaluations, user and occupant audio and visual perception, visual interfaces and
`
`displays, infrared, vision, mirrors, lenses, camera, sonar, acoustic, radar, lidar,
`
`sensing and detection technologies and systems. I also worked on sensing systems
`
`for various automotive applications, including sensor fusion technologies, for
`
`image and object detection, discrimination, and identification and the appropriate
`
`status notifications to vehicle drivers and occupants, and visual perception
`
`techniques and methods.
`
`10. My work specifically involved the testing and development of the
`
`aforementioned systems. This included both laboratory tests and technology
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`assessments, as well as testing in various real world driving situations and traffic
`
`events.
`
`11. My responsibilities also included technology assessments and proper
`
`supplier and sourcing evaluation and selection, quoting and bidding, and the
`
`overall source selection for numerous technologies. For example, while at Allied
`
`Signal, I specifically prepared numerous extensive proposals and responses for
`
`many different domestic, European, Asian, and Pacific Rim requests for quotations
`
`(“RFQs”) in the hopes of winning awards as the Tier 1 supplier chosen for many
`
`original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) programs. I was involved in both
`
`winning awards and non-winning awards on numerous programs for different
`
`OEMs. While at General Motors and Ford, I was an integral part of many cross-
`
`functional teams involved in the sourcing selection, request for information
`
`(“RFI”) and RFQ processes and evaluations, and ultimate evaluation and decision
`
`as to which suppliers were chosen for purchase order (“PO”) awards on numerous
`
`vehicle programs.
`
`12. My responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with Federal
`
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Economic Commission for Europe
`
`(“ECE”) regulations, Industry Standards, Corporate Standards, various
`
`international government regulations, and Due-Care Requirements. I also testified
`
`as a corporate representative and expert witness on behalf of Ford. In that role, I
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`have analyzed, verified, and testified regarding compliance with FMVSS
`
`requirements, including FMVSS 111.
`
`13. My work over the years has also included analyses involving
`
`statistical information from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
`
`and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) databases. My work also
`
`involved extensive inspection, investigation, and analysis of field events involving
`
`automotive safety systems. I am also certified in accident reconstruction through
`
`Northwestern University, and I have performed numerous real-world assessments
`
`of accident causation as part of my investigations. I have specifically assessed
`
`accidents involving lane change incidents.
`
`14.
`
`I also conducted numerous system and component evaluations,
`
`laboratory tests, supplier and technology assessments, quality and reliability
`
`evaluations, as well as developed design validation plans and reports and failure
`
`modes and effects analyses to design and develop automotive safety, sensing,
`
`vison, and electrical electronic systems, including the integration of sensor fusion
`
`technologies. I also conducted numerous vehicle test track (I am qualified as a
`
`Ford Level II certified test track driver), rough road, obstacle, lane change,
`
`braking/stopping, maneuverability, on-road, off-road, as well as numerous crash
`
`and sled tests, for vehicular safety systems testing, development, design, prove-out,
`
`verification, and validation.
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`15.
`
`Subsequent to my employment at Ford, I worked as a Systems
`
`Engineer for Raytheon and General Dynamics, as well as a contractor and civilian
`
`employee for the U.S. Army. My work has included, among other things, sensor
`
`development and visual perception, including camera, optical systems, viewers,
`
`lenses, mirrors, and visual displays. I currently work at the Tank and Automotive
`
`Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan,
`
`where I work on systems for military ground vehicle systems, which extensively
`
`involve the application of automotive technologies, including those related to
`
`automotive safety systems.
`
`16. My current responsibilities include working with internal scientists,
`
`researchers and technical staff, as well as outside collaborators and universities, to
`
`develop technologies, innovation, and inventions for the protection of our soldiers
`
`and the enhancement of our soldiers’ survivability in military vehicles. My
`
`responsibilities include and have included technologies involving camera and
`
`vision systems (including those involving mirrors and lenses), Command, Control,
`
`Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
`
`(C4ISR) systems, 360-degree surveillance, optical systems, visual perception and
`
`identification, interface displays, acoustic, ultrasonic, infrared, radar, night vision,
`
`and electromagnetic wave sensing, sensor fusion integration, algorithm, and
`
`pattern recognition development, sensor information discrimination and
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`identification, active and passive safety system development, and occupant injury
`
`mitigation.
`
`17.
`
`I have been qualified to testify as an expert in over 20 cases involving
`
`automotive safety systems.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed
`
`summary of my background, experience, and publications, is being submitted
`
`concurrently.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`19.
`The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed SMR’s Petition and all
`
`Exhibits thereto, as well as SMR’s Petition and Exhibits in IPR2018-00505,
`
`IPR2018-00506, IPR2018-00517, IPR2018-00520, IPR2018-00533, IPR2018-
`
`00536, IPR2018-00541, IPR2018-00545.
`
`20. My opinions are further guided by my understanding of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as further defined below) as of
`
`the claimed May 20, 2003 priority date of the ‘843 patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21.
`I understand that patent validity is assessed from the standpoint of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention.
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`22.
`
`I understand that SMR has asserted that a POSA at the relevant time
`
`would have had “a M.S. in Optics, Optical Engineering, or similar studies in a
`
`related field (e.g., Physics or Mechanical Engineering) with 2-3 years of
`
`experience in the optics/mechanical industry.” I disagree.
`
`23. A POSA in the field of the ‘843 patent would necessarily have
`
`experience working in the automotive industry. The ‘843 patent claims are
`
`directed to “[a]n exterior sideview mirror system suitable for use on an
`
`automobile.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. According to the specification, the specific
`
`problem that the claimed invention solves is to “reduce, if not eliminate[], an
`
`automobile’s blind spot.” Id., 20:20-21. The specification explains that the
`
`claimed invention does so in a manner that is superior to prior art blind spot
`
`mirrors for several reasons. First, it “provides a seamless rearvision function
`
`whereby the image of a side approaching/side overtaking other vehicle is
`
`substantially seamlessly maintained as the image of the overtaking or approaching
`
`vehicle transitions from being principally and substantially viewed by the driver of
`
`the vehicle … in the plano reflective element to be seen in the auxiliary reflective
`
`element.” Id., 20:28-36. Second, the claimed invention allows “a driver [to]
`
`simultaneously and similarly move the auxiliary element and the plano element so
`
`as to position their respective rearward fields of view, and to achieve this within
`
`the relatively restricted space available in a standard automobile-sized exterior
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`sideview mirror assembly.” Id., 12:42-48. And third, the claimed invention “has
`
`manufacturing advantages, particularly for exterior sideview mirror assembly
`
`manufacturers who can procure a plano-multiradius reflective element assembly
`
`module from a mirror reflector supplier and then mount the plano-multiradius
`
`reflective element assembly module onto an actuator.” Id., 15:13-19.
`
`24. A mechanical engineer, optical engineer, or someone with an M.S. in
`
`optics who does not have experience in the automotive industry would not be
`
`familiar with the requirements necessary in order to provide an exterior automotive
`
`mirror that is useful and convenient to drivers without being distracting, that is
`
`desirable for automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and that
`
`complies with federal regulatory requirements. For example, the ‘843 patent
`
`specification discloses that the plano element should be of a size sufficient “to
`
`provide the driver of the automobile a view of a level road surface extending to the
`
`horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to the driver’s
`
`side of the automobile at the widest point, extending 8 feet out from the tangent
`
`plane 35 feet behind the driver’s eyes.” Id., 12:48-13:5; see also id., 15:20-46
`
`(describing similar requirement). A POSA would recognize that this field of view
`
`is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111. Ex. 1040, 20. A person
`
`without experience in the automotive industry would not necessarily have the
`
`understanding and experience of designing, developing, and testing vehicle
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`components and systems to comply with this requirement and the other
`
`requirements of FMVSS, while also still meeting industry standards and
`
`requirements for reliability, quality, durability, performance, manufacturing, and
`
`assembly. A person without experience in the automotive industry would also not
`
`necessarily understand that vehicle components and systems must also be designed
`
`and developed to meet due care requirements, beyond the minimal safety standards
`
`established by FMVSS regulations. This requires work in the automotive industry
`
`and an understanding of how automobiles are used in the real world.
`
`25.
`
`For example, in applications specific to this patent, an engineer with
`
`experience in the automotive industry would understand the added complexities in
`
`designing automotive side-view mirror systems that safely provide the requisite
`
`information to the driver (such as whether a vehicle is in the blind spot) to
`
`maximize the ability of the driver to visually perceive and cognitively understand
`
`the information. An engineer with experience in the automotive industry would
`
`also understand the need to minimize driver confusion regarding objects appearing
`
`in the side view mirror and the need to minimize driver distraction and enable to
`
`driver to focus attention on the view forward of the vehicle. Engineers with
`
`experience in the automotive industry would recognize that the ‘843 patent alludes
`
`to these types of design considerations when it discusses, for example, that the
`
`invention “provides a seamless rearvision function whereby the image of a side
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`approaching/side overtaking other vehicle is substantially seamlessly maintained as
`
`the image of the overtaking or approaching vehicle transitions from being
`
`principally and substantially viewed by the driver of the vehicle … in the plano
`
`reflective element to be seen in the auxiliary reflective element.” Ex. 1001, 20:28-
`
`36.
`
`26. Based on the field that the ‘843 patent is directed to, the levels of
`
`education and experience of persons working in the field in the relevant time, the
`
`types of problems encountered in the field, and the sophistication of the
`
`technology, a POSA at the time of the ‘843 patent priority date would have had a
`
`M.S. in an engineering discipline relevant to automotive component design (e.g.,
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or optical engineering), as well as
`
`2-3 years of experience in the automotive industry designing components for
`
`automobiles.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW
`27.
`I have been informed that claims of unexpired patents in an IPR are
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation, when reading the claims in light of
`
`the specification and the teachings in the patent. I also have been informed that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation should account for how the claims themselves
`
`and the specification inform a POSA as to which ordinary definition the patentee
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`was using. I further have been informed that claims should not be construed so
`
`broadly that they are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.
`
`V.
`
`OPINIONS
`A.
`Disclosures of Lynam ‘026 That Appear in the ‘451 Patent
`28.
`I understand that SMR asserts that each limitation of claims 1-23 and
`
`27-39 of the ‘843 patent are disclosed by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0072026
`
`(“Lynam ‘026”).
`
`29.
`
`Lynam ‘026 is a published patent application that is a continuation-in-
`
`part of the application that issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,522,451 (“the ‘451 patent”).
`
`30.
`
`The majority of the material from Lynam ‘026 that SMR maps to the
`
`claims of the ‘843 patent also appears in the ‘451 patent. Exhibit 2012 is an
`
`annotated copy of Lynam ‘026, with the paragraphs that also appear in the ‘451
`
`patent highlighted.
`
`31.
`
`SMR’s mapping of the disclosures of Lynam ‘026 to the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘843 patent demonstrates that the ‘451 patent also fully discloses
`
`the claim limitations of the ‘843 patent as arranged in the ‘843 patent. For each
`
`limitation of claims 1-23 and 27-39 of the ‘843 patent, SMR relies on one or more
`
`paragraphs of Lynam ‘026 that also appear in the ‘451 patent, as show in the chart
`
`below.
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 12
`
`
`
`Limitation
`
`Lynam ‘026 disclosure cited by SMR
`that also appears in the ‘451 patent
`
`¶¶ 41, 57, 59, 61, Figs. 1, 7
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`Pages of SMR
`Petition Where
`Limitation Is
`Discussed
`Petition, 37
`
`Preamble,
`1[a], [b]
`1[d]
`1[q]
`1[e], [i]
`1[c]
`1[f]
`1[h], [k], [l],
`[m]
`1[j]
`1[g], [p]
`1[n]
`1[o]
`2
`3, 13
`4
`5, 6
`7, 8
`9
`10, 11
`12
`16
`
`Petition, 37-38
`¶¶ 42-43, 45, 49, 58-59, 61, Fig. 3
`Petition, 38
`¶¶ 43, 47, 48, 55
`¶¶ 42, 44, 45, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-8 Petition, 38-39
`¶ 41
`Petition, 39
`¶¶42, 58, Figs. 3, 6
`Petition, 40
`¶¶42, 43, 45, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6
`Petition, 40-41
`
`¶¶ 50-51, 53
`3, 52, 58-59, 61
`¶¶ 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-7
`¶¶ 52, 59
`¶¶ 48, 72, Figs. 3, 6
`¶¶42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6, 7
`¶¶ 42, 50-53, 59, 61, Figs. 3-4, 6, 7
`¶ 51
`¶¶ 50-53
`¶ 59
`¶ 42, 50-53, 59, 61, Figs. 3-4, 6, 7
`¶¶42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6, 7
`¶ 50
`
`13
`
`Petition, 41
`Petition, 41
`Petition, 41-42
`Petition, 42
`Petition, 42
`Petition, 42-43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 44
`Petition, 44
`Petition, 44
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 13
`
`
`
`Limitation
`
`Lynam ‘026 disclosure cited by SMR
`that also appears in the ‘451 patent
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`Pages of SMR
`Petition Where
`Limitation Is
`Discussed
`Petition, 44
`
`17, 18, 19, 30,
`31
`20, 35
`21, 22
`23
`27
`14, 15
`28, 29
`34
`32, 33
`36-39
`
`¶¶ 41-42, 43, 44-45, 47, 55, 47-61, 83
`
`¶¶ 43, 47, 55
`¶¶ 50, 53, Figs. 3, 6
`¶¶ 42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6, 7
`¶ 54
`¶¶ 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-7
`¶¶ 46, 61
`¶ 59
`¶ 49
`¶¶ 43, 47, 48, 55, 59, 83
`
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 47
`
`32.
`
`I agree with SMR that each of the paragraphs of Lynam ‘026 cited
`
`above disclose the limitations of the ‘843 patent claims for which SMR cites those
`
`paragraphs. Because each of these paragraphs also appear in the ‘451 patent, the
`
`‘451 patent discloses all of the limitations of claims 1-23 and 27-39 of the ‘843
`
`patent.
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`B.
`33.
`
`Construction of “Generally Views Towards A Blind Spot”
`I understand that claim 1 of the ‘843 patent includes the following
`
`limitation, which requires that the field of view of the auxiliary reflective element
`
`“generally views towards a blind spot”:
`
`wherein, when said exterior sideview mirror assembly is
`attached to the side of the automobile, the field of view
`of said plano reflective element generally views
`rearwardly of the equipped automobile and the field of
`view of said auxiliary reflective element generally views
`towards a blind spot in the side lane adjacent the side of
`the automobile to which said exterior sideview mirror
`assembly is attached, said blind spot being generally
`outside the rearward field of view of said plano reflective
`element when said plano reflective element is viewed by
`a driver of the equipped automobile when said exterior
`sideview mirror assembly is attached to the side of the
`automobile;
`
`34.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “generally views towards a
`
`blind spot” to a POSA based on the claims and the specification of the ‘843 patent
`
`requires the principal axis of the field of view of the auxiliary reflective element to
`
`view into the blind spot. The specification discusses the direction that the
`
`reflective elements of the mirror assembly view by discussing where the principal
`
`axis of those reflective elements view. For example, when explaining that the field
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`of view of the auxiliary reflective element may be angled and directed
`
`downwardly, it states that “the principal axis of the rearward field of view of the
`
`plano element is directed generally parallel to the road” and “the principal axis of
`
`the rearward field of view of the multiradius element is angled and directed
`
`generally downwardly.” Ex. 1001, 13:27-58. When explaining that the field of
`
`view of the auxiliary reflective element may be directed outwardly and
`
`downwardly, the specification states “[w]ith the tilted orientation of reflective
`
`element 314, reflective element 314 provides a field of view with a principal axis
`
`that sweeps outwardly and downwardly with respect to the principal axis of the
`
`field of view of reflective element 312.” Ex. 1001, 19:13-17. In the field of optics,
`
`a “principal axis” is “a line passing through the center of the surface of a lens or
`
`spherical mirror.” Ex. 2013 at 1539. A POSA would therefore understand that the
`
`“principal axis” of a field of view, as discussed in the specification of the ‘843
`
`patent, is a line drawn at the center of the field of view. A POSA would have
`
`understood that a reflective element’s field of view aims “towards” where its
`
`principal axis is pointed, because that is what the center of the field of view is
`
`directed at. A POSA would have understood from the language of claim 1 that the
`
`field of view of the auxiliary reflective element need only view “generally”
`
`towards the blind spot, meaning that the principal axis could be pointed anywhere
`
`in the blind spot, rather than necessarily directly at the center of the blind spot.
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`35. A POSA reading claim 1 of the ‘843 patent as of the priority date of
`
`the ‘843 patent would have understood that the “generally views towards a blind
`
`spot” limitation distinguishes the invention over prior art spotter mirrors that have
`
`a wide field of view but that do not have the field of view of an auxiliary reflective
`
`element angled toward the blind spot. The contrast between these mirrors can be
`
`seen in the diagrams below:
`
`Views generally towards a blind spot
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior art
`
`See Ex. 1001, 13:16-26, 19:37-57, Fig. 22 (depicting field of view according to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed invention).
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`36.
`
`In these diagrams, the field of view of a main plano reflective element
`
`is shown in blue, and the field of view of an auxiliary reflective element is shown
`
`in green. The diagram on the left depicts an auxiliary field of view that generally
`
`views towards the blind spot, as required by claim 1 of the ‘843 patent. The
`
`diagram on the right depicts the field of view of a prior art spotter that is not angled
`
`to generally view towards the blind spot.
`
`37. Because the prior art spotter (diagram on the right) is not aimed
`
`toward the blind spot, in order to see into the blind spot it must have a very wide
`
`field of view that extends further inward toward the side of the vehicle, as well as
`
`further outward past the field of view of the primary reflective element. The field
`
`of view of the auxiliary reflective element also fully overlaps with the field of view
`
`of the primary reflective element.
`
`38.
`
`The excessively wide field of view of the prior art spotter is more
`
`difficult for drivers to use. In order for the auxiliary reflective element’s field of
`
`view to be so wide, the radius of curvature of the auxiliary reflective element must
`
`be small, causing the image of a passing vehicle seen in the auxiliary reflective
`
`element to be small and distorted. Moreover, because the majority of the field of
`
`view of the auxiliary reflective element overlaps fully with the primary reflective
`
`element field of view or views further inward into the cabin of the equipped
`
`vehicle, it is more difficult for a driver to determine and distinguish at a glance that
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`a vehicle is in the blind spot. Because of the excessively wide field of view of the
`
`prior art spotter, the driver cannot quickly determine at a glance that a vehicle
`
`visible in the auxiliary reflective element is actually in the blind spot, rather than
`
`being further rearward in the side lane. In contrast, for a mirror assembly
`
`constructed according to claim 1 of the ‘843 patent, a passing vehicle will initially
`
`appear prominently in the auxiliary reflective element, enabling the driver to
`
`quickly determine at a glance that the side lane is not clear and that it is not safe to
`
`change lanes. Moreover, angling as in the ‘843 patent avoids the need for the field
`
`of view of the auxiliary reflective element to be excessively large such that image
`
`size is so small and distance distortion is so great that the driver cannot safely
`
`make a lane change based on an instant glance at the auxiliary reflective element.
`
`39. Moreover, because the auxiliary reflective element as claimed in the
`
`‘843 patent is specifically and narrowly aimed towards the blind spot, the auxiliary
`
`reflective element can be made smaller while still providing a sufficiently-sized
`
`view of a passing vehicle present in the blind spot. This enables achieving a high
`
`ratio between the width of the plano reflective element and the width of the
`
`auxiliary reflective element while still meeting the ‘843 patent’s objective of
`
`“achiev[ing] this within the relatively restricted space available in a standard
`
`automobile-sized exterior sideview mirror assembly.” Ex. 1001, 12:45-48; see
`
`also id., 8:5-13 (disclosing width ratios of “most preferably greater than 2.5 in
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`order to provide a large, unit magnification plano element 150 as the principal rear
`
`viewing portion of plano-multiradius reflective element assembly 130 and
`
`providing multiradius element 155 as a smaller, auxiliary, separate, wide-angle
`
`viewing portion”).
`
`C.
`40.
`
`Construction of “Backing Plate”
`I understand that claim 1 of the ‘843 patent requires a “backing plate,”
`
`which first appears in the following limitation:
`
`said plano reflective element and said auxiliary reflective
`element supported at a backing plate element, said
`backing plate element mounting to said actuator such that
`movement of said backing plate element of said plano-
`auxiliary reflective element assembly by said actuator
`simultaneously and similarly moves said plano reflective
`element and said auxiliary reflective element;
`
`41. Claim 1 includes a number of additional requirements for the
`
`“backing plate,” including that it has “a first support portion supporting said plano
`
`reflective element and a second support portion supporting said auxiliary reflective
`
`element” and that there is “an angling of said second support portion of said
`
`backing plate element … to said first support portion of said backing plate
`
`element.”
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`42.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “backing plate” to a POSA
`
`based on the claims and the specification of the ‘843 patent is “a rigid structure that
`
`supports the rear surfaces of the primary and auxiliary reflective elements.”
`
`43.
`
`This interpretation is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “plate,”
`
`which is a “rigid body.” Ex. 2014, 1344. Two support structures connected by a
`
`flexible hinge or bellows would not be “rigid,” and therefore a POSA would have
`
`understood that such a structure is not a “backing plate.”
`
`44.
`
`This interpretation is also consistent with the specification of the ‘843
`
`patent, which states that the backing plate is a “rigid polymeric substrate capable of
`
`supporting plano element 50 and multiradius element 155” that has “a flat portion
`
`… that corresponds to and is aligned with plano element 150” and “a curved
`
`portion … that corresponds to and is aligned with multiradius element 155,” and
`
`that is “formed as a single element.” Ex. 1001, 8:21-34. This interpretation is also
`
`consistent with the “backing plate” depicted in Figures 11 and 14, which are
`
`reproduced below and which show the “backing plate” at number 160.
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`45.
`
`This interpretation is also consistent with the description in the
`
`specification that the backing plate elements are at an angle or are angled relative
`
`to one another, rather than being adjustable with respect to one another. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:19-20 (“section AA to BB of backing plate element 160’ is angled to
`
`section BB to CC”), 10:27-28 (“the angling of section AA to BB to section BB to
`
`CC”), 14:24-25 (“portion AA to BB of backing plate element 160’ is generally
`22
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`angled to portion BB to CC of backing plate 160’”) (all emphases added).
`
`Similarly claim 1 of the ‘843 patent requires “an angling” on the backing plate. A
`
`rigid backing plate sets “the angling” of the reflective elements; a flexible,
`
`adjustable support structure does not have a set, specific angling.
`
`46. A POSA would also understand that the backing plate claimed in the
`
`‘843 patent provides manufacturing advantages, since the backing plate can be
`
`molded as a