UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`American National Manufacturing Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Sleep Number Corporation
`f/k/a Select Comfort Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR: IPR2019-00497
`Patent No. 8,769,747
`
`
`Case IPR: IPR2019-00500
`Patent No. 9,737,154
`
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY, PH.D., P.E.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 1
`
`

`

`I, Joshua Phinney, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert consultant in this
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Patent
`
`Office”). I am a salaried employee of Exponent. Exponent charges an hourly rate
`
`of $550 plus expenses for my work performed in connection with this case. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on the opinions I render or the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I submitted expert declarations in support of American National
`
`Manufacturing’s (“ANM”) Petitions for inter partes review (IPR). My declaration
`
`in support of IPR2019-00497 regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747 (“the ’747
`
`patent”) is Ex. 1007. My declaration in support of IPR2019-00500 regarding U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,737,154 (“the ’154 patent”) is Ex. 1009. I understand that IPRs were
`
`instituted in theabove proceedings.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner Sleep Number Corporation (“PO”)
`
`submitted a Patent Owner Response (POR) in IPR2018-00497 (Paper 46) and a POR
`
`in IPR2019-00500 (Paper 45), each addressing grounds for obviousness presented
`
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 2
`
`

`

`by Petitioner in its Petitions. I submit this expert declaration in support of ANM’s
`
`Reply to the POR for each proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Details regarding my qualifications, testifying experience, employment
`
`history, fields of expertise, and publications are provided in my prior declarations in
`
`these proceedings.
`
`II. EXPLANATION OF OPINIONS
`
`A. Construction of “desired pressure setpoint” and “pressure target”
`
`6.
`
`I understand that PO’s construction of “desired pressure setpoint” is “a
`
`value that represents a selected pressure.” In my opinion, this definition is
`
`inconsistent with how a person of ordinary skill would understand the term “desired
`
`pressure setpoint” in light of the ’747 and ‘154 patent disclosures.
`
`7.
`
`First, the specifications of both patents do not discuss “a value that
`
`represents” a selected pressure. What both patents do disclose is a desired pressure
`
`setpoint that is commensurate with a pressure reading. As one example, claim 1 of
`
`the ’747 patent provides a “desired pressure setpoint” that is compared to the sensed
`
`pressure “within the pump housing” and “the actual chamber pressure” within the
`
`air chamber of the air bed. In both these instances, pressure transducer 46 is the only
`
`instrument described as determining, sensing, or reading pressure within the pump
`
`housing or air chamber. Given this disclosure, a person of ordinary skill would
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 3
`
`

`

`understand that a “desired pressure setpoint” must also be a pressure, namely a
`
`pressure reading that is desired (or “selected,” using PO’s language).
`
`8.
`
`Second, to the extent that controller (such as microprocessor 36) works
`
`with internal numerical quantities to practice the claimed invention, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that a “desired pressure setpoint” in this case is still
`
`a pressure. I.e., the microprocessor works in terms of pressure, and uses pressure
`
`readings in calculations involving the “desired pressure setpoint.” I therefore see no
`
`reason, nor has PO articulated any, that “desired pressure setpoint” should be further
`
`construed to include “a value representing…”
`
`9.
`
`I understand that PO’s construction of “pressure target” is “a value
`
`representing the desired level of inflation or deflation.” In my opinion, this
`
`definition is also inconsistent with how a person of ordinary skill would understand
`
`the term “pressure target” in light of the ’747 and ‘154 patent disclosures.
`
`10. The specifications of both patents never use the term “desired” to
`
`describe the “pressure target,” and do not disclose “a value representing the desired
`
`level of inflation or deflation.” Reiterating the discussion above, what both patents
`
`do disclose is a pressure target that is commensurate with a pressure reading. As
`
`one example, both patents describe a deflate “pressure target” and an inflate
`
`“pressure target” that correspond to the sensed manifold pressure that will yield the
`
`desired pressure setpoint (for IPR2019-00497, see Ex. 1001, 8:13-19; and for
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00500, see Ex. 1001, 8:36-42). Given this disclosure, a person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that a “pressure target” must also be a pressure, a pressure
`
`that corresponds to a sensor reading that is used to terminate inflation or deflation.
`
`I see no reason, nor has PO articulated any, that “pressure target” should be further
`
`construed to include “a value that represents…”
`
`B. Opinions regarding
`References
`
`the Motivation
`
`to Combine Prior-art
`
`11. As I explain in my previous declarations accompanying the Petitions,
`
`the secondary references I discussed (Mittal, Pillsbury, and Ebel) would have
`
`logically commended themselves to an inventor’s attention because of the
`
`discrepancy between sensed pressure and chamber pressure in the air-bed system of
`
`Gifft.
`
`12. A person of ordinary skill would appreciate that during inflation or
`
`deflation in Gifft, a pressure reading on the pump side of an air hose is not equal to
`
`the bladder pressure at the opposite end of the hose. Gifft, for instance, distinguishes
`
`its approach from the prior art, which during inflation periodically closes off the air
`
`outlet “in order to provide to the processor board 20 a reading of the existing pressure
`
`in the bladder.” Ex. 1004, 1:63-2:3. From this statement, a person of ordinary skill
`
`would appreciate that for pressure measurements at the valve enclosure assembly (at
`
`the pump side of an air hose), closing the air outlet and stopping air flow allows the
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 5
`
`

`

`sensed pressure to come into equilibrium with the air bladder(s) at the opposite end
`
`of the hose.
`
`13. The differing pressures on either end of an air hose is typical of many
`
`pneumatic control systems,
`
`inasmuch as
`
`the pressure sensor
`
`is
`
`in fluid
`
`communication with a pump manifold that is remote from the controlled air volume.
`
`A conduit or hose is typically interposed between a pressure sensor and air chamber
`
`in other fluid-control applications, including seating comfort adjustment systems (as
`
`in Ebel (for IPR2019-00497, see Ex. 1007; and for IPR2019-00500, see Ex. 1006)),
`
`automatic tire pressure controllers (as in Mittal (Ex. 1005)), and blood-pressure
`
`monitors (as in Pillsbury (for IPR2019-00497, see Ex. 1006; and for IPR2019-
`
`00500, see Ex. 1011)).
`
`14. All of these applications present a particular challenge to the control
`
`engineer since the point of pressure sensing is separated from the pressurized volume
`
`by an intervening conduit having a pneumatic impedance. Fast and accurate holding
`
`of chamber pressure is difficult in such situations since the actual chamber pressure
`
`can only be measured after dwelling in an idle state, i.e., after the sensor pressure
`
`has come to equilibrium with the pressure in the chamber. This problem is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the control of air beds generally, as well as the Gifft
`
`particularly, which foregoes the periodic valve actuation used to accurately
`
`determine pressure during adjustment.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 6
`
`

`

`15. While Gifft does not address these control and compensation
`
`challenges directly, other references that do would have logically recommended
`
`themselves to the consideration of a person of ordinary skill. In particular, a person
`
`of ordinary skill would have been aware – whether through their experience or
`
`training – that a pressure sensor collocated with the pump measures too high a
`
`pressure during filling and a too low a pressure during emptying. Thus for each
`
`valve state – inflating or deflating – a characteristic error is on hand, which can be
`
`compensated by the pneumatic controller. This form of compensation (e.g., using
`
`offsets) was known specifically in the art for air mattress control,1 as well as in the
`
`general field of pneumatic controllers. For this reason, a person of ordinary skill
`
`designing a pneumatic controller for an air bed would look to references in analogous
`
`fields – such as seating comfort adjustment systems, tire pressure controllers, or
`
`
`1 See, e.g., p. 15 of International Patent Application Publication WO 2007/016054
`A2 (“Bhai”) entitled “System and Method of controlling an Air Mattress” and
`assigned to Hill-Rom Services. Bhai is directed to the control of patient supports
`(such as hospital beds) with inflatable mattresses. Bhai discloses that once a set-
`point pressure in a patient support is calculated, the system determines a related
`“bogey” pressure. For inflation, the bogey pressure is developed as an “over-
`shoot” value that is set slightly greater than the pressure set-point. The bogey
`pressure is set slightly lower than the target pressure when the system is in the
`deflate mode. Bhai states that in its air-mattress application, “[e]mpirical evidence
`has shown that the offset between the bogey and the target [the set-point] results in
`an actual pressure within an acceptable tolerance of the target [the pressure set-
`point].” Id.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 7
`
`

`

`blood-pressure monitors – because these references address the same type of
`
`problem, i.e., estimating a remote pressure accurately during inflation or deflation.
`
`C. Opinions regarding the technical grasp of a Person of Ordinary
`Skill
`
`16. As I explain in my previous declarations accompanying the Petitions,
`
`modifying Gifft in view of the secondary references (Mittal, Pillsbury, and Ebel)
`
`would have been within the technical knowledge and grasp of a person of ordinary
`
`skill.
`
`17.
`
` A person of ordinary skill would have understood that using
`
`inflate/deflate factors to compensate for pressure read errors while air is flowing
`
`would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results. For instance, Gifft already provides a method of adjusting pressure until a
`
`sensed pressure equals a target pressure. In view of Mittal and Ebel, it would be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill to still control the valve using a target pressure,
`
`but modify the target pressure by adjustment factors. Thus, a person of ordinary
`
`skill would be faced with what is essentially a software task, i.e., using existing
`
`software functions and variables, but improving the accuracy of how certain
`
`variables (like a pressure target) are calculated. Such improvements are well within
`
`the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill, since (given the subject matter of the
`
`’747 and ’154 patents) a person of ordinary skill would understand how to
`
`implement software for an air-bed controller at least at an algorithmic level.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 8
`
`

`

`18. Additionally, from the standpoint of pneumatic control, the impedance
`
`of an air hose, whether it is used to supply air to tires or to an air bladder internal to
`
`a mattress, may be treated using the same engineering principles. A person of
`
`ordinary skill would thus realize that different applications do not affect the
`
`underlying compensation principles, or their utility.
`
`19. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success when implementing known control solutions (e.g., from
`
`Mittal, Pillsbury, or Ebel) into the air-bed system of Gifft.
`
`D. Opinions regarding the interpretation and obviousness of certain
`claim elements
`
`20.
`
`I understand that PO has challenged my understanding of variations on
`
`the claimed principles “within an acceptable pressure target error range,” and
`
`“substantially equal” in view of the prior art. (for IPR2019-00497, see Paper 46 at
`
`56-57; and for IPR2019-00500, see Paper 45 at 57-58. Here, PO contends that while
`
`I may have analyzed some claim language (e.g., “adjusting pressure within the air
`
`chamber until a sensed pressure within the pump housing is substantially equal to
`
`the calculated pressure target,” as recited in claim 1 of ’747 patent), that analysis is
`
`insufficient for variations of the claim language.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is flexible, and does not
`
`require that a prior art reference include the same words as the claim. My opinion,
`
`rather, is based on what a person ordinary skill in the art would have understood or
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 9
`
`

`

`appreciated based on disclosures in the prior art. For the claim language at issue
`
`here, Gifft discloses the concept of adjusting pressure until a bladder pressure
`
`“substantially equals” the desired pressure. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have understood that there are variety of ways to implement such a
`
`comparison.
`
`22. For instance, a person of ordinary skill would understand that in a
`
`digital controller especially, a sensed pressure may not precisely equal a pressure
`
`target even after a necessary pressure adjustment. Thus, there is a need to determine
`
`when two pressure quantities are “close enough” for practical purposes.
`
`23.
`
` A person of ordinary skill would understand that one way of
`
`determining the end-point of pressure adjustment – when the sensed pressure within
`
`the valve enclosure is “substantially equal” to the calculated pressure target – is to
`
`establish a numerical “error range” around the pressure target. A person of ordinary
`
`skill would therefore find it obvious to implement control logic that adjusts pressure
`
`“until the sensed manifold pressure is within an acceptable pressure target error
`
`range of the calculated manifold pressure target.”
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`24.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, that
`
`all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that these
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 10
`
`

`

`so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title
`
`18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize
`
`the validity of the application or any patents issued thereon.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`January 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By:
` Dr. Joshua W. Phinney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`WA 14194595.2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1061
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 11
`
`