`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RIDDELL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KRANOS IP II CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2018-01164
`U.S. Patent 6,434,755
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS SHEWCHENKO
`
`Riddell Ex. 1022
`Riddell v. Kranos IPR2018-01164
`
`
`
`
`1. My name is Nicholas Shewchenko.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Petitioner Riddell, Inc., (“Riddell”) to
`
`investigate and opine on certain issues relating to United States Patent 6,434,755
`
`(the ʼ755 patent) (Ex. 1001) in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I possess the knowledge, skills, experience, training, and education to
`
`form expert opinions and offer expert testimony in this matter. Exhibit 1007 is a
`
`copy of my curriculum vitae. This declaration supplements my previous
`
`declaration in this proceeding (Ex. 1006) and incorporates the information and
`
`opinions presented in my earlier declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that patent owner Kranos IP II Corporation (Kranos) has
`
`filed a Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 13) and a number of exhibits. I have
`
`studied the Patent Owner’s Response as well as the additional evidence and
`
`information identified in this declaration.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is based on information currently available to me. I
`
`have relied on my professional knowledge and experience and the information and
`
`evidence identified in this declaration. To the extent that additional information
`
`becomes available, I reserve the right to continue my investigation and study,
`
`which may include a review of documents and information that may be produced,
`
`as well as testimony from depositions that may not yet be taken.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have formed my opinions from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of June 4, 1999. As in my earlier declaration in this
`
`matter, it remains my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at that time
`
`would have had a degree in a relevant technical, physics, or engineering field and
`
`at least two years of experience designing and engineering sports helmets, and that,
`
`alternatively, a person without the relevant technical degree could have been
`
`considered a person of ordinary skill in the art with at least five years of experience
`
`designing sports helmets.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that Kranos has proposed interpreting “an offset” in
`
`claim 11 of the ʼ755 patent to require “a shell surface that is higher or lower than,
`
`and connected by transition walls to, the neighboring shell surfaces above and
`
`below the surface.” Paper 13 at 3.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that, based on its proposed interpretation of “an offset,”
`
`Kranos has argued that Cooper 50782 (Ex. 1002) lacks the claimed offset feature.
`
`Paper 13 at 14-16. Kranos suggests that the relevant offset in Cooper 50782
`
`(indicated at Ex. 1006 ¶ 66) is not an offset because “it is not higher or lower than,
`
`and connected to, a neighboring shell surface below it.” Paper 13 at 15. According
`
`to Kranos, there is “no neighboring surface at all below the alleged offset of
`
`Cooper 50782—the alleged offset extends to the lower edge of the Cooper 50782
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`helmet.” Paper 13 at 15. Kranos highlighted the offset feature at issue and
`
`annotated the Cooper 50782 helmet, including the lower edge lip, as follows:
`
`
`
`Paper 13 at 15, 16.
`
`9.
`
`I disagree with Kranos’s proposed interpretation of “an offset.” For
`
`the reasons identified in my prior declaration, it remains my opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have read offset in claim 11 to mean “a portion of
`
`the shell that defines a surface that lies in a plane above or below a neighboring
`
`surface of the shell.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44-49.
`
`10. Nevertheless, the relevant portion of the Cooper 50782 helmet would
`
`satisfy even Kranos’s proposed requirement for neighboring surfaces above and
`
`below the offset because Kranos correctly identifies a raised surface above the
`
`offset and because the lower edge lip provides a raised surface below the offset.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`The offset in Cooper 50782 meets the lower edge lip of the shell, which forms a
`
`surface that lies in a plane higher than the offset surface.
`
`11. Kranos has correctly identified a lower edge lip in the Cooper 50782
`
`helmet. That edge lip structure is emphasized in green in the annotated version of
`
`Figure 3 from Cooper 50782, shown below.
`
`
`
`12. The relevant offset in the Cooper 50782 helmet shell meets the lower
`
`edge lip structure at its bottom margin. In addition, the figures in Cooper 50782
`
`demonstrate, and would have demonstrated to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`that the edge lip is part of the helmet shell because the edge lip is depicted in
`
`Cooper 50782 as being continuous and formed as part of the helmet shell (for
`
`example, see Ex. 1002, Fig. 1).
`
`13. The edge lip of the Cooper 50782 helmet defines a narrow surface,
`
`and that surface is higher than the neighboring offset surface. That is most clearly
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`apparent from Figure 2 of Cooper 50782, which shows the edge lip in profile at the
`
`rear of the helmet protruding higher than the neighboring offset surface:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002, Fig. 2. Accordingly, even if Kranos’s proposed requirement for surfaces
`
`on both sides of an offset were applied, it would be my opinion that Cooper 50782
`
`satisfies that requirement because the offset in the Cooper 50782 helmet is lower
`
`than neighboring shell surfaces above and below the offset, including the surface
`
`of the edge lip.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that Kranos contends that the offset in Cooper 50782 is
`
`not an offset for increasing the flexural resistance of the shell. I understand that
`
`Kranos bases that assertion on the premise that areas of a helmet shell near the
`
`edge of the helmet have decreased local flexural resistance and concludes that,
`
`because the Cooper 50782 offset is adjacent to the lower edge of the helmet and
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`flanked by other structures that also increase flexural resistance, the offset
`
`represents “a surface with decreased—not increased—flexural resistance.” Paper
`
`13 at 17-19.
`
`15. When evaluating the capacity of a structural feature to increase
`
`flexural resistance of a helmet shell, the proper analysis applied by persons skilled
`
`in the art considers whether a helmet shell having that structural feature would
`
`exhibit greater flexural resistance compared to an otherwise identical helmet shell
`
`lacking that feature. Thus, a structural feature, like an offset, provided in an area of
`
`relatively low flexural resistance still increases flexural resistance of the shell. For
`
`example, it would have been well recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that an edge lip provided at the edge of a helmet shell increases flexural
`
`resistance compared to a helmet edge lacking an edge lip.
`
`16. For a given offset or other structural feature in a helmet shell, the
`
`presence of other nearby features that may also affect flexural resistance, such as a
`
`helmet edge, other offsets, ribbing, or an edge lip, do not negate the effects of the
`
`offset itself on the flexural resistance of the shell. Helmets can be and often are
`
`designed with multiple strengthening elements that each independently contributes
`
`increased flexural resistance to the shell. For example, the ʼ755 patent itself
`
`indicates that a helmet containing an offset can also be provided with an edge lip to
`
`increase flexural resistance. Ex. 1001 (3:40-42). Likewise, the Cooper 50782 and
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Clement helmets include an edge lip in addition to numerous offsets, all of which
`
`would increase flexural resistance of the helmet shell. Ex. 1002 (Figures 1-3), Ex.
`
`1004 (Fig. 1, 3:1-10).
`
`17. The offset in the Cooper 50782 helmet shell is only one aspect that is
`
`used to stiffen the shell. Regardless of the presence or absence of other adjacent
`
`features, the disclosed offset in the Cooper 50782 helmet shell would serve to
`
`increase flexural resistance of the shell because the disclosed helmet with that
`
`offset would have greater flexural resistance than an otherwise identical shell
`
`lacking the offset. By the same token, placing the offset near an edge region of the
`
`shell yields increased flexural resistance compared to the same edge region without
`
`the offset.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Kranos’s expert has cited dictionary definitions for
`
`the words “substantially” and “between” to support arguments regarding whether
`
`an offset extends “substantially between the ear holes” as recited in claim 11. Ex.
`
`2010 ¶¶ 41-45. I understand that the cited dictionary definition for “substantially”
`
`includes “to a great or significant extent,” Ex. 2012, and that the cited dictionary
`
`definition for “between” includes “at, into, or across the space separating (two
`
`objects or regions),” Ex. 2013.
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, under those definitions a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would conclude that Tang’s offset extends substantially (i.e., at least to “a
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`significant extent”) between the ear holes (i.e., “across the space separating two
`
`regions”) of the Tang helmet’s shell because those terms and Kranos’s cited
`
`definitions connote flexibility rather than rigid precision, and Tang’s offset is
`
`positioned just above and very near the ear holes themselves and thus would be
`
`viewed as extending at least substantially between the relevant regions of the shell.
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby declare that all the statements made in this declaration are based on
`
`my own true knowledge, that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true, and that all statements were made with the knowledge that
`
`willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws
`
`of the United States that all statements made in this declaration are true and
`
`correct.
`
`
`
`
`By: ___________________________
`
` Nicholas Shewchenko
`
`
`
`Dated: 30 May, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
