`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case No. IPR2019-00500
`Patent No. 9,737,154
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM C. MESSNER
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART ................................................................................................................ 4
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ........................................................................... 8
`V.
`THE UNDERSTANDINGS APPLIED TO MY ANALYSIS ..................... 11
`VI. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY, THE
`‘154 PATENT, AND THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ................................ 15
`A.
`The Background ................................................................................. 15
`B.
`The ‘154 Patent .................................................................................. 18
`C.
`Summary of the Asserted Prior Art .................................................... 27
`
`i
`
`
`
`X.
`
`NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE ............................................................ 85
`A.
`Conclusory Motivation to Combine ................................................... 86
`B.
`There is No Motivation to Combine Gifft and Mittal ........................ 88
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`I, William C. Messner, make the present Declaration in support of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response rebutting the Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S.
`
`Patent 9,737,154 (the ‘154 Patent) (Ex. 1001). To that end, I hereby declare as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of 21 years and am fully competent to make this
`
`Declaration. I make the following statements based on personal knowledge and, if
`
`called to testify to them, could and would do so. I have been retained on behalf of
`
`Sleep Number Corporation to prepare a declaration that will be used in its Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the inter partes review proceedings related to Patent Number
`
`9,737,154 (referred to as the “’154 Patent”), and to opine regarding the applicability
`
`of prior art references and arguments presented by Petitioner. My fee is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of any matter or on any of the technical positions that I
`
`explain in this declaration. I have no financial interest in Sleep Number Corporation
`
`or the ‘154 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration briefly sets forth my background and qualifications to
`
`provide my opinion, describes the technology at issue and background of the art,
`
`identifies the materials I reviewed to prepare this declaration, and sets forth my
`
`understanding of the patent claims at issue and my analysis regarding the application
`
`to the patent claims of the prior art provided to me. I reserve the right to supplement
`
`1
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 4
`
`
`
`my opinions in the future, to clarify responses where appropriate, and to take into
`
`account new information as it becomes available to me.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3. My qualifications as an expert in the general field of mechanical and
`
`electrical engineering are set forth in the paragraphs below and in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Appendix A.
`
`4.
`
`I received a B.S. in mathematics from Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) in Cambridge, MA in 1985. I received an M.S. and Ph.D. in
`
`mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley in Berkeley, CA in
`
`1989 and 1992, respectively.
`
`5.
`
`Following my graduation from MIT, I worked as an engineer at BBN
`
`Laboratories in Newport, RI, where I developed software for analyzing data from
`
`tests of a new torpedo under development for the US Navy. After receiving my
`
`Ph.D., I joined the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon
`
`University (CMU) in 1993. At CMU I held courtesy appointments with the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and with the Robotics Institute.
`
`There I specialized in control and design for data storage systems, robotics, and
`
`microfluidics. I was the leader the of the Servo Control effort at CMU’s Data Storage
`
`Systems Center. I had extensive work in robotics including developing flight
`
`controls for unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), developing autonomous vehicles for
`
`2
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 5
`
`
`
`off-road operation for the Grand Challenges competitions of the Defense Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2004 and 2005, and being the leader of the
`
`Augmented Harvest effort for the Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops
`
`project.
`
`6.
`
`In the September of 2012, I moved from CMU to Tufts University.
`
`There, I held the position of the John R. Beaver Chair of Mechanical Engineering
`
`from 2012 to 2015. I began a two-year phase out from Tufts in summer 2017, and I
`
`retired in May 2019. For my entire time at Tufts, I was a professor in the Department
`
`of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University, and I held a secondary appointment
`
`in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I remain affiliated with
`
`CMU as an adjunct professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering there.
`
`In recent years my research has emphasized control and design for atomic force
`
`microscopes, bioreactors for whole
`
`joints for osteoarthritis research, and
`
`development of robotic assistance for activities of daily living for persons with high
`
`level spinal cord injury, in addition to continuing work on data storage systems and
`
`microfuidics.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of several Honor Societies, including the Tau Beta Pi
`
`(The Engineering Honor Society), Sigma Xi (The Scientific Research Honor
`
`Society), and Phi Beta Kappa. I am a Fellow of the American Association for the
`
`Advancement of Science (AAAS), a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical
`
`3
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Engineers (ASME), and a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE), and a member of the American Society of Engineering Educators
`
`(ASEE).
`
`8.
`
`I am a named inventor on eight patents, include three related to design
`
`and control of microfluidic systems.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 75 papers, which have been
`
`published in refereed journals including, but not limited to, Journal of the American
`
`Chemical Society, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, Lab on a
`
`Chip, PLOS One, and Proceedings of the National Academy. Some of these papers
`
`address fluid pressure and fluid flow in electro-mechanical systems.
`
`10. The opinions expressed below are mine and were developed after
`
`studying the Petition and supporting evidence and the ‘154 Patent and other
`
`documents referenced herein. These opinions are based on my knowledge and
`
`experience and on my understanding of what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood in April of 2008.
`
`III. RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART
`11.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘154 Patent and portions of its prosecution history
`
`in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Specifically, I have reviewed the
`
`‘154 Patent and its prosecution history in relation to the systems and methods for
`
`4
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 7
`
`
`
`adjusting pressure in an air bed as recited in claims 1-22, which I understand to be
`
`at issue in the present inter partes review.
`
`12. Based on my review, I believe that the relevant field for analyzing the
`
`‘154 Patent is adjustable air mattress bed systems. Dr. Phinney, Petitioner’s expert
`
`agrees. (See Ex. 1009 at ¶ 70 (declaring “The ‘154 Patent is directed to a method
`
`for adjusting air pressure within an air bed.”).) Indeed, at his deposition, Dr. Phinney
`
`reiterated this point and further testified that the ‘154 Patent is not generally directed
`
`to inflatable objects. For instance, in response to a question on how Dr. Phinney
`
`characterizes the ‘154 Patent, Dr. Phinney stated:
`
`A. … I say that the ‘154 patent is directed to a method for adjusting air
`pressure within an air bed.
`Q. Thank you. Do you agree that the patent is directed to air beds and not
`generally inflatable objects?
`A. It seems to be what I’m saying here, that the ‘154 patent is directed to
`adjusting air pressure within an air bed.
`(Ex. 2041 at 16:11-25; see also Ex. 2042 at 270:8-11 (again testifying that the ‘154
`
`patent is directed to air beds).)
`
`13. The first page of the ‘154 Patent states that it was filed on May 21,
`
`2014. The ‘154 Patent is a continuation of, and therefore includes a priority claim
`
`to, utility application no. 12/936,084 (“the ‘084 application”), which was filed as
`
`part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty as application No. PCT/US2008/059409 on
`
`April 4, 2008. I further understand the ‘084 application issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`5
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 8
`
`
`
`8,769,747 (“the ‘747 Patent”). Accordingly, the relevant timeframe for analyzing the
`
`‘154 Patent is prior to April 4, 2008.
`
`14. Based on my experience described above and contained in my C.V., I
`
`have an established understanding of the relevant field in the relevant timeframe,
`
`and the knowledge that would have been known by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the relevant field during the relevant timeframe. A person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) during the relevant timeframe would have been a person with
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering and
`
`at least one to two years of experience in the development of mechanical and
`
`electromechanical products involving pneumatics, hydraulics, fluidic controls, or the
`
`equivalent. In my earlier declaration, I did not say the products with which the
`
`POSITA would have had experience would have involved pneumatics, hydraulics,
`
`fluidic controls, or the equivalent. Upon further reflection, I agree with Dr. Phinney
`
`that the POSITA’s experience would have included these things, because simply
`
`developing mechanical and electromechanical products, e.g., computer disk drives
`
`or mobile phones, would not be sufficient to understand the principals at issue in an
`
`adjustable air mattress bed system. Alternatively, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art during the relevant timeframe could have been a person with at least one to
`
`two years of experience working in product development, design, or manufacturing
`
`of adjustable air mattress bed systems. I would also clarify that when I refer to “at
`
`6
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 9
`
`
`
`least one year of experience” I mean one full year of experience, e.g., one year full
`
`time or two years at 50%. I would not consider someone who only worked part time
`
`for a single year to have the requisite experience. It is my opinion that Dr. Phinney
`
`does not qualify as a POSITA under either of my alternative POSITA definitions or
`
`under Petitioner’s and Dr. Phinney’s own definition. Specifically, both Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Phinney contend that a POSITA would have had an undergraduate degree
`
`in mechanical or electrical engineering and at least one year of experience with
`
`hydraulics, fluidic control, pneumatic air bed controllers, or the equivalent and
`
`would have a fundamental understanding of programming languages. Dr. Phinney,
`
`however, does not have the requisite experience because he does not have “at least
`
`one year of experience” with either adjustable air mattress bed systems or
`
`applications involving pneumatics, hydraulics, fluidic controls, or the equivalent.
`
`(See Ex. 2041 at 6:10-7:3 (stating this litigation is his only current work in fluid
`
`dynamics, pneumatics, or hydraulics), 7:4-9:11 (stating his work on the Laser
`
`Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), a physics experiment,
`
`involved some work on the hydraulic power supply and that other than the principles
`
`of pneumatic and hydraulic and fluid control systems, there is no relationship to the
`
`field of adjustable air bed systems), 11:15-14:4 (testifying that he worked on the
`
`LIGO experiment during the three months of a summer and part time while in
`
`school).) Dr. Phinney conceded that he only worked on the LIGO system for
`
`7
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 10
`
`
`
`approximately 12 months and that for three quarters of that he was only part time.
`
`(See id. at 13:5-14:4.) Because this does not equal one full year of experience, Dr.
`
`Phinney would not be considered a POSITA. In fact, when asked what his
`
`experience with skilled artisans was at the time of the invention, Dr. Phinney
`
`testified that he had worked with others who worked with pneumatic controls and
`
`hydraulics, but even they did not have experience in the air bed industry. (Id. at
`
`19:25-21:2.) See also 23:2-13 (not aware of or even thinking about problems facing
`
`air bed industry at the time of invention), 74:9-75:6 (did not talk to any artisans in
`
`the industry or review any articles about problems facing the industry).
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence. I have also
`
`reviewed all claims (claims 1-22) of the ‘154 patent, as well as the ‘154 specification
`
`and parts of its file history. I have examined the prior art references cited in the ‘154
`
`Patent, its prosecution history, and in the current Petition for Inter Partes Review. I
`
`have also reviewed the deposition testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Phinney. I
`
`will use the exhibit numbers listed the “Exhibit List” on page vi in the Petition. I will
`
`also use the exhibit numbers listed in Patent Owner’s “Exhibit List,” which I
`
`understand is filed simultaneously. For ease of reference, I have included a combined
`
`exhibit list of the documents I have considered below:
`
`8
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`Paper 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154 to Mahoney (the ‘154 Patent)
`
`1002 Excerpts of the File History of the ‘154 Patent (App. No. 14/283,675)
`
`1003
`
`Claim Listing
`
`1004
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 to Gifft (“Gifft”)
`
`1005
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,629,873 to Mittal (“Mittal”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,277,187 to Pillsbury (“Pillsbury”)
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0000559 to Ebel (“Ebel”)
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,088,642 to Finkelstein (“Finkelstein”)
`
`1009
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joshua Phinney (“Phinney Decl.”)
`
`1010
`
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,686,711 to Rose (“Rose”)
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,022,113 to Lockwood (“Lockwood”)
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,735,267 to Tobia (“Tobia”)
`
`1014
`
`PCT Publication WO2007/016054 (“Bhai”)
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Publication 2004/0186630 (“Shier”)
`
`2002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747
`
`9
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 12
`
`
`
`2003
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154
`
`2014
`
`Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Excerpt
`(Copyright 1998)
`2015 Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary Excerpt
`(Copyright 1994)
`Declaration of Paul Mahoney
`
`2031
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`20
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`Transcript of September 24, 2019 Deposition of Dr. Joshua
`Phinney
`Transcript of September 25, 2019 Deposition of Dr. Joshua
`Phinney
`ANMI00178030-ANMI00178035 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`ANMI00178036-ANMI00178041 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`ANMI00133414-ANMI00133422 (District Court Case)
`
`2053
`
`ANMI00268037 (District Court Case) – Under Seal
`
`2054
`
`ANMI00178191 (District Court Case) – Under Seal
`
`2063
`
`“The Magic Number” – Trucking Info Article
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`“Understanding truck tires and air pressure” – Fleet Equipment
`Article
`U.S. Patent No. 954,284
`
`2066
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,995,124
`
`2067
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,176
`
`2068
`
`PCT Publication No. WO96/13947
`
`2069 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
`Excerpt (Copyright 2003)
`Instant Comfort Website Page “Why We’re Better”
`
`2070
`
`10
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 13
`
`
`
`16.
`
`In addition, I have had the opportunity to learn from those in this field
`
`of adjustable air mattress systems. For example, in addition to reviewing Paul
`
`Mahoney’s declaration per above, I have also spoken with him. These
`
`understandings inform my analysis herein.
`
`V.
`
`THE UNDERSTANDINGS APPLIED TO MY ANALYSIS
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in an IPR proceeding claims should be construed as
`
`having their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the
`
`time of the invention. I understand that claims should be read in the context of the
`
`claim language of which they are a part. I further understand that the specification
`
`and file history can also inform the scope of the claims. If, after a review of this
`
`evidence, the construction is not apparent, I understand that extrinsic evidence, such
`
`as dictionary definitions, treatises, and trade journals may be consulted to discern
`
`the meaning of a term. For terms where no construction is necessary, I have simply
`
`read the terms according to their ordinary and customary meaning. My
`
`understandings herein are made in light of how a POSITA in 2008 would view the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms. I reserve the right to supplement
`
`my declaration should any claim terms be given different constructions.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
`
`11
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 14
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable for obviousness if
`
`the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art is such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a POSITA. I understand that a finding of obviousness requires a
`
`determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference(s)
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of skill of the ordinary
`
`artisan in the pertinent art. I understand this analysis looks at whether the differences
`
`are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`at the time the invention was made. I further understand that any obviousness
`
`analysis must consider objective evidence of non-obviousness, where such evidence
`
`is present.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that objective evidence of nonobviousness includes (1)
`
`copying, (2) long felt but unsolved need, (3) failure of others, (4) commercial success
`
`of the invention, (5) unexpected results created by the claimed invention, (6)
`
`unexpected properties of the claimed invention, (7) licenses showing industry
`
`respect for the invention, (8) skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention, (9)
`
`recognition of invention’s advancement, and (10) contemporaneous invention by
`
`others or absence thereof. In general, there must be a connection between the factor
`
`and the claimed invention. For instance, the “commercial success” of a product
`
`practicing the claimed invention is relevant to the obviousness analysis only if the
`
`12
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 15
`
`
`
`commercial success is attributable to advantages from the use of the invention that
`
`were not available to the purchasing public before the invention was made.
`
`21. My understanding is that the obviousness inquiry is not limited to just
`
`the prior art references being applied, but includes the knowledge and understanding
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`22. However, I understand that merely demonstrating that each element,
`
`independently, was known in the prior art is, by itself, insufficient to establish a
`
`claim was obvious. My understanding is that the test for obviousness is not whether
`
`the features of one reference can be incorporated into the structure of another
`
`reference, but rather what the combined teachings would have suggested to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that a party seeking to invalidate a patent
`
`must show a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that each prior art reference must be considered
`
`as a whole, including the portions that would lead away from the claimed invention.
`
`I have been informed that some prior art combinations are improper, or not
`
`combinable. For instance, the reference cannot be non-analogous art. In order for a
`
`reference to be used to show obviousness, the reference must be analogous art to the
`
`claimed invention. I understand that to be analogous, the art must be from the same
`
`field of endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the problem – and therefore logically
`
`13
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 16
`
`
`
`would command the artisan’s attention in considering her/his problem. I also
`
`understand that when (1) the combination of prior art references teach away from
`
`the claimed invention or from each other, (2) the combination makes one invention
`
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or (3) when the combination would change
`
`the principle of operation of prior art references, such a combination is improper and
`
`does not show obviousness.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a combination of old, familiar, or known elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it only yields predictable
`
`results. Predictable variations of a work from one field are likely to be obvious, even
`
`if the variation is in another field. For example, where a technique has been used to
`
`improve a device, use of the same technique to improve similar devices is a
`
`predictable variation and likely obvious. Likewise, if the use of prior art for
`
`improvements is simply done according to the prior art’s established functions, a
`
`POSITA has simply implemented a predictable variation. If there existed at the time
`
`of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution, a patent
`
`claim encompassing that solution is not patentable.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that where one or more references in combination
`
`teach or disclose a benefit, achieving that benefit does not create a motivation to look
`
`to an additional reference.
`
`14
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 17
`
`
`
`26. Although the following analysis cites to particular pages, lines,
`
`paragraphs, or figures of many of the references discussed, these citations are
`
`intended to assist in understanding the various bases of my conclusions, and prior
`
`art teachings used to reach them. These citations are not intended to be an exhaustive
`
`recitation of every page, line number, or paragraph in which these teachings may be
`
`found. Similar teachings or disclosures may be found at other pages, lines, or
`
`paragraphs, as well as in other references, and it is to be understood that my opinions
`
`and statements are made in view of all of the references and teachings I have
`
`reviewed.
`
`VI. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY, THE
`‘154 PATENT, AND THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`A.
`The Background
`
`27.
`
`Innovation in the mattress industry, and more specifically for air beds,
`
`has historically been a slow-moving endeavor. For example, inflatable beds or those
`
`using a mattresses utilizing air-filled bags or cores were used as early as the 1900s.
`
`(See Ex. 2065.) However, these early beds were not readily adjustable by the user.
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that adjustable air beds were invented in the late
`
`1970s. For example, USPN 4,224,706 to Young, which was filed in 1978 and issued
`
`in 1980, describes an improvement over inflatable air beds with a mechanism for
`
`adjusting the amount of air in an air mattress. Young disclosed that a manual
`
`adjustment of the air within the bed by use of a screw and bar, but contemplated that
`15
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 18
`
`
`
`an electric motor connected to the bar could provide a motorized adjustment. USPN
`
`5,586,347 to Frischknecht, filed in 1993 and issued in 1996, also contemplated using
`
`basic manual and electrical components to adjust air within an air bladder. Later
`
`advances include use of a motorized pump and remote to adjust pressure within the
`
`bed. (See USPN 5,652,484.) Advances then started to be made in monitoring the
`
`pressure during adjustments so that faster and more accurate pressure adjustments
`
`could be made. (See Ex. 1004.) Also, it is my understanding that marketing of
`
`adjustable air beds to consumers really started to be directed to consumers in the
`
`early 1980s starting with Comfortaire, but that it was not until the late 1990s that
`
`sales of adjustable air bed systems began increasing significantly.
`
`29. A POSITA would have understood that the pressure in the adjustable
`
`air mattress chambers was typically between the range of 0 and 0.6 PSI. (See Ex.
`
`16
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 19
`
`
`
`2050 at 2-4; Ex. [Shafer]; Ex. 1001 at FIG. 4, 6:27-65.) Therefore, a POSITA further
`
`would have understood that the pressure adjustments to control the firmness of the
`
`bed were a fraction of this. Accordingly, a POSITA would have recognized that a
`
`desired pressure adjustment could be in the range of about 0.02 to 0.06 PSI.
`
`(Ex. 1004 at Fig. 4.)
`30. A POSITA’s in the adjustable air bed industry would have understood
`
`that achieving a pressure substantially equal to the desire selected pressure was
`
`important. For example, at least as early as the late 1980s the desire to achieve and
`
`maintain a pressure substantially equal to the desired pressure was known. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 2066 at 4:52-5:24; Ex. 2067 at 2:5-32.) In addition, and as explained above, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that relatively small pressure adjustments were
`
`both necessary and desirable. (See Ex. 2070 (Petitioner’s website advertises
`
`“medical-grade accuracy for all comfort settings and precise adjustments,” “use [of]
`
`a medical grade pressure scale to ensure the most precise adjustments,” and that they
`
`use technology to “ensure precise control of your comfort settings.”).) In fact, the
`
`PCT application on which Petitioner relies in a related proceeding demonstrates that
`
`it was desirable to have or allow for pressure changes as small as 0.02 PSI. (See Ex.
`
`2068 at pages 38-39.) I understand that both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s
`
`products employ similar scales. (See Ex. 2031 ¶10-11, 16 (explaining it is desirable
`
`to adjust in intervals of 0.03 PSI or less); Ex. 2050 at 2-4 (
`
`17
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 20
`
`
`
`).) Also a POSITA would have understood that pressure
`
`adjustments may be relatively quick, i.e., a matter of seconds. (See, e.g., Ex. 2067 at
`
`3:14-35 (explaining that adjusting the pressure between 0.4 PSI and 0.2 PSI may
`
`take approximately 30 seconds).) Accordingly, a POSITA would have known that
`
`adjusting pressure just 0.02 or 0.03 PSI would take substantially less time,
`
`depending, of course, on the structural attributes of the system.
`
`31. Accordingly, a POSITA in the field of adjustable air beds would have
`
`known that very small, very precise pressure measurements were necessary and
`
`accuracy would be important. Based on my training and experience, this is consistent
`
`with other fields or applications where accuracy is more important than speed, e.g.,
`
`control of pressure in a microfluidic network, control of the position of the read/write
`
`transducer in computer disk drives, and control of position for almost all robotic
`
`manipulation tasks and autonomous vehicles. If accuracy were sacrificed for speed,
`
`the systems would not work as intended or not be as useful.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘154 Patent
`
`32. The ‘154 Patent, titled “System and Method for Improved Pressure
`
`Adjustment,” was filed on May 21, 2014, and issued August 22, 2017. As further
`
`discussed above, the ‘154 Patent claims priority back to April 4, 2008. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`33. As discussed above in Section III, the ‘154 Patent is directed to methods
`
`and systems for adjusting pressure within an adjustable air bed. (See Ex. 1001 at
`
`18
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Abstract, 13:10-16:26.) At least one articulated purpose of the ‘154 Patent is as
`
`follows:
`
`As one skilled in the art will appreciate, numerous iterations of inflating
`and deflating the air bladder may be required until the sensed chamber
`pressure falls within the acceptable range of the desired pressure . . .
`Furthermore, the pump must be turned off each time the pressure
`transducer takes a pressure measurement, which increases the amount
`of time that the user must wait until the air bladder reaches the desired
`pressure. Therefore, there is a need for an improved pressure
`adjustment system and method for an air bed that is able to minimize
`the amount of time and the number of adjustment iterations necessary
`to achieve a desired pressure in an air bladder, while also increasing the
`accuracy of the actual bladder pressure.
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:4-16.) Because, as explained above, a POSITA in the field of
`
`adjustable air beds would have understood that achieving an accurate pressure was
`
`of paramount importance he/she would have understood from this statement that
`
`decreasing the time spent adjusting would be desirable only if it maintained or
`
`increased the accuracy of the system. That is, a POSITA in the field of adjustable
`
`air beds would have understood from this statement that accuracy should not be
`
`sacrificed for any increase in speed. The ‘154 Patent does not discuss changing
`
`environmental concerns, dust and debris concerns, or use of a filter.
`
`34. The air bed system of the ‘154 Patent includes a bed 12 (shown in FIG.
`
`2) having a first and second air chamber 14A and 14B that, via tubes 48A and 48B,
`
`19
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 22
`
`
`
`are in fluid communication with a pump 20, as seen in FIG. 2 below. (Id. at FIG. 2,
`
`3:29-32.) The pump 20 includes a motor 42, pump manifold 43, valves 45A, 45B,
`
`and 44, and pressure transducer 46. (Id. at FIG. 2, 3:59-64.) The pressure transducer
`
`46 senses the pressure within the pump manifold 43. (Id. at 4:32-47.) The pump 20
`
`is in electrical communication and operated by control box 24. (Id. at FIG. 2, 3:32-
`
`50.)
`
`35. When the motor is not running, the pressure is fairly stable and the
`
`pressure sensed in the manifold is substantially equal the actual pressure within the
`
`20
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2026
`IPR2019-00500
`Page 23
`
`
`
`chamber 14A, 14B. (Id. at 8:7-16.) That is, when there is no inflation/deflation the
`
`pressure is in equilibrium. In a particularly novel aspect of the invention, the ‘154
`
`discloses the use of pressure adjustment factors to account for differences in a static
`
`pressure within a chamber 14A, 14B and the pressure sensed within a manifold 43
`
`during inflation or deflation, i.e., a dynamic pressure reading. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001
`
`at 5:50-6:26.) That is, the pressure sensed within the pump manifold during a
`
`pressure adjustment approximates and/or is related to the pressure in the chamber
`
`14A, 14B. (Id. at 4:48-50.) The ‘154 Patent discloses a mathematical relationship
`
`between the sensed dynamic pressure and the static chamber pressure. (See id. at
`
`5:3-6:65 (disclosing how an inflate or deflate pressure adjustment factor can be
`
`combined with the sensed pressure to mathematically calculate the chamber
`
`pressure).) The use of these pressure adjustment factors can reduce the number of
`
`iterative adjustments necessary for the sensed pressure to reach the desired pressure.
`
`(See id. at 5:50-6:26.)
`
`36. Another particularly novel aspect of the ‘154 Patent is its disclosure
`
`that the mathematical relationship between the sensed pressure in the manifold and
`
`the actual pressure in the chambers can compensate for circumstances or
`
`characteristics specific to the user of the system. (Ex. 1001 at 5:26-7:34.) For
`
`insta