UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`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
`
`
`____________
`
`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
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
