`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT GIACHETTI PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 1
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Robert Giachetti, declare as follows:
`
`1. My qualifications and background were previously described in Exhibit
`
`1005, in support of Petitioners in this proceeding. I include a current list of my
`
`qualifications and background as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that on October 30, 2019, Patent Owner (“PO”) Sleep Number
`
`Corporation filed a Response (“POR”; Paper 46) to the Petition (Paper 2) filed by
`
`Petitioner American National Manufacturing Inc. (“ANM” or “Petitioner’) in
`
`IPR2019-00514 regarding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 (“’172 Patent”
`
`or “Gifft”; Ex. 1001). I understand the Response was accompanied by a
`
`declaration by William C. Messner, Ph.D., in support of PO’s Response (Exhibit
`
`2040), and a declaration by John P. Abraham, Ph.D. in support of PO’s Response
`
`(Exhibit 2041). I make this declaration in support of ANM’s Reply to the POR.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Messner’s declaration addresses a number of topics. Two primary topics
`
`in Dr. Messner’s declaration that I will address are “substantially fluidly sealed”
`
`and “guides and stops.” Next, Dr. Messner agrees with me upon the background of
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) that I presented, but, according to
`
`his analysis, we disagree upon what capabilities that background provides A
`
`PHOSITA – more importantly, Dr. Messner has provided a rationale for why the
`
`device can measure air pressure accurately, a rationale that is not present in the
`
`2
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 2
`
`

`

`specification or the claims. I will integrate this third topic into the two primary
`
`ones.
`
`4.
`
`Outside of these three main topics, there are other points that I find
`
`inconsistent or also disagree with. For example, I also find that some of the
`
`analysis provided by Dr. Messner contradicts other analyses provided in Exhibit
`
`2041 in support of Patent Owner by Dr. John Abraham, particularly in ascribing
`
`importance to arbitrary terms like “front” or “rear” when addressing whether
`
`products practice the claims of the ‘172 Patent. Dr. Abraham liberally finds that
`
`manifolds of various manufactured products are equivalent to the claimed valve
`
`enclosure assembly regardless of how they are put together and regardless of
`
`where each solenoid is affixed (e.g. inside or outside of the manifold, see Ex. 2041,
`
`d. Rapid Air or e. NightAir), while to the contrary Dr. Messner requires exact
`
`adherence to the language of the claim, such as the terms of orientation front, and
`
`rear, and which portion thereof each solenoid is affixed when critiquing my
`
`analysis, and the Vrzalik art, for example, see Ex. 2040 Paragraph 122). I disagree
`
`with most of the points Dr. Messner makes about these topics, and I find that most
`
`of his examples of other devices make his analysis confusing, and does comport to
`
`the understanding of a PHOSITA would have of Gifft and the relevant prior art.
`
`Dr. Messner also provides opinions in an effort to discredit prior art that I have
`
`presented, and I address that art also.
`
`3
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 3
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Patent owner is critical of my engineering experience in terms of air
`
`mattresses in 1997 (POR, page 2), but as I explained in my disposition, I had
`
`experience building a robotic vacuum cleaner in 1993. Ex. 2067, 62:11-63:2. This
`
`robotic vacuum cleaner was self contained, battery powered, had a plug in power
`
`source to charge the battery or operate if desired, included multiple sensors to
`
`provide continuous input to the system, included an on-board circuit board (x286)
`
`to interpret sensor readings and issue commands to system motors based on those
`
`readings. This robotic vacuum was built from scratch, and as part of the design
`
`process, nearly all the issues identified in the deposition of Mr. Duval were
`
`explored
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`By 1997, at the completion of my undergraduate degree, I was familiar with
`
`pumps and sensors, sufficient to understand the technology used in Gifft and
`
`Shafer.
`
`7.
`
`Even if my knowledge of air mattress technology in 1997 were limited to
`
`what I have read in books, the technology was not new then and the technology is
`
`still current. In fact, one of the references I used in my opening expert report (Ex.
`
`4
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 4
`
`

`

`1005), the Power Transmission Handbook (Ex. 1027, 1028) , a veritable
`
`encyclopedia of simple machine elements from the time of Shafer (1993), remains
`
`virtually unchanged, word for word and graphic for graphic in comparison to the
`
`2009 edition when it comes to the pneumatic components used in Shafer and Gifft.
`
`1. An Enclosure Defining a Substantially Fluidly Sealed Air
`Chamber and Measurement of Air Pressure in an Air Mattress
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Messner repeats throughout his declaration that the reason the valve
`
`enclosure assembly of Gifft works to measure air pressure in the air mattress
`
`accurately is because it is substantially fluidly sealed with a gasket; Dr. Messner
`
`states that A PHOSITA understands this (Ex. 2040 paragraph 76). Dr. Messner
`
`does not explain how or why either are the case, the specification of Gifft does not
`
`teach this, and Dr. Messner does not explain why the prior art cited by Gifft (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:22-29) that is chemically sealed does not also share the accuracy, despite
`
`also being sealed.
`
`9.
`
`Gifft’s specification does not include a statement or a teaching that accuracy
`
`of measuring pressure is dependent on the presence of a gasket.
`
`10. Furthermore, Gifft is compatible with other pump/blower configurations that
`
`could utilize the inlet port on the side of the valve enclosure assembly (Gifft
`
`element 184), and there is no gasket specified by Gifft in this location. Gifft only
`
`5
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 5
`
`

`

`mentions the property of substantially fluidly sealed in the abstract, summary, and
`
`claims; the term does not appear in the rest of the specification.
`
`11. While the pump or blower is operating there is not a way obvious to a
`
`PHOSITA for air pressure in the valve enclosure assembly to be the same as air
`
`pressure in the bladder, and likewise there is not a way to measure one of those
`
`pressures and call it an accurate measure of the other. In my experience,
`
`introductory fluid mechanics from a typical undergraduate course teaches that flow
`
`in a hose is driven by a pressure differential. Furthermore, in a fully assembled
`
`device such as Gifft, while the pump is operating, air flow in the hose to the
`
`bladder occurs because a pressure differential is created between the valve
`
`enclosure assembly and the bladder. Whether or not there is a small leak in the
`
`valve enclosure assembly at this time does not affect the pressure differential
`
`across the hose for a given flow rate. The relationship between the pressure
`
`measured in the valve enclosure and the bladder(s) is not affected by a leak in the
`
`manifold for a given flow rate as well and is therefore irrelevant to the
`
`measurement.
`
`12. Air escaping the valve enclosure assembly and going into the atmosphere, or
`
`escaping into the mattress makes no difference to the pressure transducer. Leaking
`
`air to atmosphere will only retard the process of filling the mattress and induce
`
`ambient noise, this is straightforward and does not require engineering acumen to
`
`6
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 6
`
`

`

`know and understand. The specification does not distinguish between the number
`
`of intended outlets in the valve enclosure assembly, further evidence that air
`
`leaving the valve enclosure assembly by routes outside of the path to the bladder(s)
`
`does not affect functionality.
`
`13. Air pressure at the pump outlet will always be greater than the pressure
`
`downstream with all else the same because the pump must also overcome frictional
`
`losses encountered, e.g. in the tubing and flowing through valves on the way to the
`
`air bladder. Furthermore, if air pressure within the valve enclosure assembly were
`
`the same as the air pressure within the air mattress, there would be no flow going
`
`through the hoses to the bladder, nor would there be a need to characterize the
`
`blower (i.e. measurement of physical quantities, including pressure developed vs
`
`flow rate), because pressure in the bladder could be measured directly at the valve
`
`enclosure assembly. Consistent with this physical law, in Mr. Duval’s deposition
`
`(Ex. 1077) on page 97, for example,
`
`
`
`.
`
`14. Dr. Messner does not point to one topic from the undergraduate curriculum
`
`that a PHOSITA could rely upon to determine “why” the device can only measure
`
`accurately due to a seal – he does not apply Bernouilli’s equation, Venturi effects,
`
`Pitot tubes or any other concepts that a PHOSITA, with an undergraduate degree in
`
`Mechanical Engineering, or equivalent, could use as a basis. Dr. Messner does not
`
`7
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 7
`
`

`

`point to one engineering topic that he is an expert in to explain why accurate
`
`measurements result from the seal in the Gifft device or why accurate
`
`measurements should be read into the Gifft specification but not with other prior
`
`art devices (see above); rather he relies on “discussions” with persons in the field
`
`(Ex 2040, Paragraph 75). The Gifft specification does not mention the concept of
`
`accurate measurement.
`
`15. According to Dr. Messner, a PHOSITA has an ability to understand why the
`
`seal engenders accurate measurements (Ex. 2040 paragraph 70), something that Dr.
`
`Messner had to ask persons in the industry about (Ex. 2040 paragraph 75) that was
`
`not part of his education, training, and experience. On the contrary Dr. Messner
`
`also believes that a PHOSITA is not able to realize that the greater the
`
`effectiveness of the seal on a manifold, the greater the efficiency an inflation
`
`device will have, an elementary concept (Ex. 2040 paragraphs 90-91, 94).
`
`Pneumatic devices, like air beds, will work faster, and stay inflated longer the
`
`better the seals that are used. This concept does not require engineering training to
`
`know and understand.
`
`16. Dr. Messner (Ex.2040, e.g. Paragraphs 88-91), is looking for evidence of a
`
`gasket in Shafer and desires to use this as a defense against functionality because
`
`Shafer does not explicitly mention gaskets covering the air distribution unit seams.
`
`However, as I stated previously, there is no evidence that a gasket necessary for the
`
`8
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 8
`
`

`

`device to function. Whether or not there is a gasket on pieces of a manifold is a
`
`simple design choice that may be made between a number of factors, that could
`
`include cost, operational efficiency, or consumer satisfaction. Dr. Messner
`
`believes that Shafer is not substantially fluidly sealed because there is no gasket
`
`(Ex. 2040 paragraph 94), but there is no quantitative or qualitative metric that he
`
`has provided that may be used to determine if it is. Dr. Messner states a
`
`substantially fluidly sealed interface requires a gasket, but several of the patent
`
`claims do not use the word gasket, or similar, to define the quality of the seal of the
`
`substantially fluidly sealed valve enclosure assembly within the device. Even with
`
`a leaky air enclosure, a stronger blower may be used to overcome the leaks,
`
`resulting in a functional device.
`
`17. Neither Shafer nor Gifft disclose any sort of gasket between the
`
`pump/blower and the valve enclosure assembly, see in particular the secondary
`
`port of Gifft mentioned above. A leak at this interface would have the same
`
`influence as a leak in a seam of the valve enclosure assembly.
`
`18. Dr. Messner introduces household HVAC systems, hairdryers, sports
`
`bubbles, and hover craft into his report, Ex 2040 paragraph 72-77. HVAC systems
`
`avoid pressurization to reduce the load on the blower, and to keep air from being
`
`forced outside. Hairdryers are not devices intended to be pressurized and do not
`
`divert one air stream into multiple air streams. Pressure measurement is not
`
`9
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 9
`
`

`

`something performed with either of those systems. Sports bubbles, however, are
`
`pressurized, and are pressurized to maintain their shape and structure. As someone
`
`who personally plays sports in a bubble, up to three times a week, my personal
`
`experience shows me that great care is taken to maximize the effect of the seals of
`
`the bubble, including the single revolving door used to enter it. The more leaks,
`
`the more expensive it is to maintain the bubble, this is a straightforward and
`
`commonsense concept. However, to further my point, there are patents held in the
`
`field of sports bubbles. For example, US Patent 4,550,533 from 1985 is entitled
`
`Air-supported structure for sport activities. This patent advocates for an air-lock
`
`style door so that pressure is not lost upon ingress and egress. Claim 13 of this
`
`patent states that the sheets of the structure should be anchored in a “substantially
`
`air-tight manner.” This is consistent with my understanding, what I believe a
`
`PHOSITA understands, and it is contrary to what Dr. Messner states when he
`
`writes “A POSITA would not consider these applications to be ‘substantially
`
`fluidly sealed’ as the ‘172 patent claims.” Ex. 2040 Paragraph 74.
`
`19. Finally, the hover craft example proffered by Dr. Messner includes one
`
`graphic of a hover craft with a plenum, reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`The plenum (red arrows), is the closest component in the hovercraft analogous to
`
`the valve enclosure assembly. This portion of the hovercraft must be substantially
`
`fluidly sealed so that air comes out of the hovercraft at the flexible skirt. The
`
`hover craft only hovers if pressure is developed by resistance of the air escaping
`
`through the flexible skirt. The whole purpose of the plenum is to direct air blown
`
`from the lift fans into the volume under the plenum. If the plenum volume leaks,
`
`the air will seek the path of least resistance to the atmosphere through those leaks.
`
`Just as with the sports bubble, when there are losses in the system during fan
`
`operation, it is essentially an arms race between pump/blower capability and the
`
`resistance of the leak. If the pump/blower cannot provide more air than what
`
`leaves through the leak, then the device does not function. Also, note that Dr.
`
`Messner is critical of different styles of pump (e.g., Ex. 2040 Paragraph 95),
`
`including blowers, which are used in this hovercraft graphic.
`
`11
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`lPR2019-00514
`Page 11
`
`

`

`20. Dr. Messner, Ex. 2040 paragraph 47, indicates that Gifft invented valve
`
`improvements (heat, sealing improvements), by implementing positive sealing
`
`poppet solenoid valves, but this configuration was already well known in industry
`
`at the time Gifft was written, for example this configuration was used in Cammack
`
`(Ex. 1011). The use of a positive seal solenoid poppet was not an invention by
`
`Gifft, nor was it an improvement.
`
`2. Guides and Stops
`
`21. Dr. Messner opines that guides are assembly enables and stops are locating
`
`features in Gifft, see, e.g. Ex. 2040, paragraph 80. In my opinion, this constricted
`
`construction is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms to be
`
`supported by the claims or the specification. The result of Dr. Messner’s
`
`construction is to remove the claimed structural limitations for the meaning of the
`
`claim terms.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that in November, 2019, after this IPR was instituted
`
`on August 5, 2019 (Paper 10), PO and ANM agreed that the parties may use
`
`materials from the district court case in this IPR. It is also my understanding that
`
`prior to that, in August 2018, PO and ANM agreed that materials designated under
`
`a protective order in the International Trade Commission investigation involving
`
`the ’172 Patent may be used by the parties in the district court case, and they were
`
`12
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 12
`
`

`

`to be treated as highly confidential – outside counsel only materials in the district
`
`court case.
`
`23.
`
`In my opening expert report in support of the Petition (Ex. 1005) I reviewed
`
`International Patent Application WO 96/13947 with the named inventors David
`
`Shafer and Eugene Duval. Ex. 1005 paragraph 40-45.
`
`24. As I prepared this report I reviewed the deposition transcript of Eugene
`
`Duval taken during the International Trade Commission investigation involving the
`
`’172 Patent. I understand this transcript is marked as Exhibit 1077 in this IPR.
`
`25. Mr. Duval, in his deposition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Duval appears to
`
`support my interpretation of guides and stops in his testimony.
`
`26. Dr. Messner (Ex 2040,paragraph 105) believes that a POSITA would not
`
`consider the features labeled “331” in Fig. 18b guides and stops, when a plain
`
`13
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 13
`
`

`

`review of their functionality by those at any level of engineering capacity including
`
`the named inventor, knows otherwise.
`
`
`
`2b. Guides and Stops in Cammack
`
`27.
`
`Dr. Messner is critical of my analysis of the Cammack device(Ex. 101 1),
`
`indicating that the flexible housing appears to be too small for the valve cartridge
`
`to enter (Exhibit 2040 page 72, Patent Owner’s response page 51). Dr. Messner
`
`has added two lines to show how the cartridge appears to be larger than the
`
`housing in certain areas, completely discounting that the housing, itself, is flexible
`
`material. Cammack includes features that were indicated as guides formed by the
`
`upper and lower covers ( 214 and 216, respectively) of the Cammack housing,
`
`engaging the valve cartridge as it is located within the housing. Cammack also
`
`includes features that are later covered with a collar that function as stops.
`
`Cammack contains guides and stops. These features are all visible in Cammack’s
`
`Figure 8 that Dr. Messner reproduced.
`
`14
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR201900514
`Page 14
`
`

`

`2c. Guides and Stops in Vrzalik
`
`28.
`
`In paragraph 109, (Ex. 2040) Dr. Messner reiterates that guides and stops
`
`are assembly enhancers. Again, guides and stops are features that appear in all
`
`types of machinery, devices, and products. In paragraph 113 (Ex. 2040), Dr.
`
`Messner adds more limitations to guides and stops: guides and stops cannot be
`
`features of components that also serve another purpose, such as the sides of an
`
`enclosure. I disagree with this extra limitation. A guide is any feature used to
`
`constrain relative motion between two components.
`
`29. Dr. Messner states (paragraph 114) that the valve components of Vrzalik do
`
`not act as guides and stops, despite the fact that they constrain relative motion, and
`
`literally direct components up and down, restricting motion in other directions,
`
`while valves open and close. Dr. Messner does not acknowledge (Ex.2040
`
`paragraph 115) that Vrzalik pin 141 rides up and down in bracket 142 (see Fig. 8
`
`of Vrzalik’s Enclosure). Without bracket 142, the plug 140 and pin 141 would
`
`spin around like a propeller, however, because of the bracket, the rotational motion
`
`is limited and guided into a sliding motion. The collar underneath the plug limits
`
`the travel of the plug when the two collide. Vrzalik, therefore, contains guides and
`
`stops.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 15
`
`

`

`3. Gifft Pressure Monitor Means (PMM)
`
`30.
`
`In Gifft, there are only two places it discusses structure of the valve
`
`enclosure assembly associated with monitoring pressure. In one location, Gifft
`
`discloses a “monitor tab 240” on a valve body 220. Ex. 1001, 6:22-24. This tab 240
`
`is fluidly coupled to the air passageway of the valve body 220. Ex. 1001, 6:22-24.
`
`In another location Gifft discloses a “port 146” on the rear cover of the valve
`
`enclosure assembly 100. Ex. 1001, 4:30-36. This port 146 is on and fluidly coupled
`
`to the interior of the valve enclosure assembly 100. Ex. 1001, 6:22-24.
`
`
`
`4. Front-Rear Nomenclature (Vrzalik)
`
`31. Dr. Messner is critical of my description of the Vrzalik manifold enclosure
`
`(Ex. 2040 Paragraphs 118-129). One of the primary reasons is that the
`
`nomenclature for front and rear is not consistent with what he believes fits with
`
`Gifft. I disagree with Dr. Messner that a PHOSITA would be deterred by
`
`nomenclature or simple reordering of components. However, as seen throughout
`
`Dr. Abraham’s disclosure (Exhibit 2041), Dr. Abraham disregards the terms front
`
`and rear, rather, the manifolds he reviewed that are comprised of multiple pieces
`
`and include solenoids but no rear cover are all found to be equivalent to the valve
`
`enclosure claimed by Gifft, see for example, Dr. Abraham’s analysis of the Exhibit
`
`2044 device. Dr. Abraham finds that the Exhibit 2044 device infringes Gifft and it
`
`16
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 16
`
`

`

`has a manifold comprising a top portion and bottom portion with the solenoids all
`
`protruding from the rear of the enclosure (not contained inside of it). “Front” and
`
`“rear” are arbitrary names provided in Gifft and Shafer. Whether the solenoids are
`
`mounted on the bottom or the top, or a cover is used or two halves are used, are all
`
`straightforward design choices that do not influence the teaching of the valve
`
`enclosure assembly that is comprised of an enclosure with the electromechanical
`
`valves mounted inside of it. A PHOSITA understands this concept and
`
`understands that functionally; there are no differences in the orientation with which
`
`the manifold is assembled.
`
`5. Shafer and Grant
`
`32. Dr. Messner is critical of the combination of Shafer and Grant (Ex. 1008)
`
`because he does not believe PHOSITA would be motivated to look to Grant (Ex.
`
`2040 paragraph 136) for noise reduction.1 Grant discusses a method to reduce
`
`unwanted noise by a recirculation method (Grant 5:55-60). Grant’s device takes
`
`pumped air and directs it away from the environment, channeling it back into the
`
`substantially fluidly sealed pump enclosure to reduce noise (Grant 5:55-60). This
`
`method also allows selective opening and closing of air passageways that Gifft
`
`suggests could be used in an inflatable air bed (Grant 5:16-26). I noted that most of
`
`
`1 Grant notes in the Background that diaphagm pumps may be used to inflate bladders of bed pads or the like.
`Grant 1:30-35.
`
`17
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 17
`
`

`

`the similar products examined by Dr. Abraham (Ex. 2041), devices that he
`
`believed met the limitations of the challenged claims in this IPR include diaphragm
`
`pumps (like Grant),2 whereas Dr. Messner believes the connections for the valve
`
`enclosure assembly with a Grant diaphragm pump would discourage such a joining
`
`(Ex. 2040 Paragraph 136).
`
`33. Dr. Messner appears to be critical of the opinion that I expressed during
`
`deposition that there can be value in older technology (Ex. 2040 paragraph 202 ).
`
`While personally disassembling the pumps reviewed by Dr. Abraham I noted that
`
`many of the diaphragm pumps implemented in these devices use flap style check
`
`valves at their inlets, see, e.g., the Dream Number “U” that Dr. Abraham also
`
`examined - an old technology disclosed by Hancock in the 1800s.
`
`6. Kashiwamura
`
`34. Dr. Messner states that Kashiwamura (Ex. 1009) is a different field of
`
`invention and solves a complex problem. Accordingly, Dr. Messner believes that
`
`Kashiwamura would not be reviewed by a PHOSITA (Ex. 2040 Paragraphs 141-
`
`143). However, this does not make sense. Kashiwamura is an invention that takes
`
`input, turns it into a command to a pump, and then distributes air pressure into
`
`bladders via a manifold (see, for example, the Kashiwamura abstract). This is the
`
`
`2 In December 2019 I reviewed the air controllers first time that were first disclosed in this IPR in Dr. Abraham’s
`declaration (Ex. 2041). In my review of the units examined by Dr. Abraham, I found that at least the following
`brand names used diaphragm pumps in their designs: Dream Number, Personal Comfort, Airpo NIngo Forever,
`Rapid Air, Night Air, Therapedic Air Touch, and Tempurpedic.
`
`18
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 18
`
`

`

`exact problem trying to be solved by a PHOSITA in Gifft. A PHOSITA is able to
`
`interpret the teachings of Kashiwamura and arrive at a less complex solution to
`
`achieve the desired result of a slower filling air bladder.
`
`7. Dye
`
`35. Again, with Dye (Ex. 1010), Dr. Messner (Ex. 2040 paragraphs 155-158)
`
`makes the claim that a more complex invention steers the PHOSTIA away. I
`
`disagree and it is my opinion that a more complicated existing invention is easier
`
`for a PHOSITA to simplify when design constraints can be relaxed or components
`
`can be removed in a straightforward way.
`
`36. Dye includes extra components in terms of Gifft, i.e., a flow control valve,
`
`and a PHOSITA, not concerned with flow control, can easily eliminate it. This is a
`
`simple process for a PHOSITA because it involves removing design constraints of
`
`the Dye device.
`
`8. Ramacier and Goodwin
`
`37. Ramacier (Ex. 1014) is an invention for a quick connect valve intended to
`
`minimize air loss (Ex. 1005 Paragraph 146). Ramacier, with its quick and easy
`
`connect features is a straight-forward existing invention to look to for design
`
`teachings. Snap fit connections were seen as advantageous for assembly (e.g.
`
`Goodwin (see Ex. 1005 paragraph 149)), and if a valve like Ramacier could be
`
`19
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 19
`
`

`

`used to install a connection onto the valve enclosure, then this use of such a valve
`
`represents a manufacturing efficiency.
`
`38. Goodwin is a predecessor of Ramacier, and Goodwin is specifically
`
`developed to reduce manufacturing costs (Goodwin 1:43-45). Snap fit connections
`
`on the valve enclosure assembly are advantageous for packaging, assembly,
`
`storage, and ease of use, etc.. Many of the units examined by Dr. Abraham
`
`included quick connections at or near the manifold outlet, consistent with the
`
`proposition that they are economical and advantageous. Devices without quick
`
`connect fitting integrated into the manifold outlet contained similar connections
`
`inches downstream of the manifold outlet, using press-on tube fittings at the
`
`manifold outlet instead. See the Exhibit 2044 device for a manifold with press-on
`
`tubing with nearby downstream quick connect fittings.
`
`39. As my analysis may continue, and I may acquire additional information
`
`and/or attain supplemental insights that may result in added observations.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 20
`
`

`

`40.
`
`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 that knowledge that willful false statements and the
`
`like 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 29, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Robert S. Giachetti
`
`21
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`22
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 22
`
`

`

`Exponent”
`
`Engineering & Scientific Consulting
`
`| rgiachetti@exponent.com
`
`Robert Giachetti, Ph.D., P.E.
`Senior Managing Engineer | Mechanical Engineering
`525 W. Monroe St. Suite 1050 | Chicago. IL 80661
`(312) 999-4208 tel
`
`Professional Profile
`
`Dr. Giachetti has experience solving technical problems in a variety of industries including product
`development, evaluation, assistance with recalls, and mechanical performance of systems. His academic
`emphasis included topics in mechanics of materials, non-linear continuum mechanics, non-linear
`dynamics, vibrations, and finite element analysis. His background in mechanics and instrumentation
`allows him to easily build, monitor, or analyze complex systems. These systems have ranged from wire
`ropes, cookware, and child carriers to transducers, machine presses and railcars.
`
`Prior to joining Exponent, Dr. Giachetti worked in industry designing steel coiling machinery and overhead
`lifting devices. While performing his graduate research, he worked in the Biomechanics laboratory at the
`University of Illinois investigating factors which increase the contact stresses between adjacent
`components in total knee replacements through three dimensional computer modeling and finite element
`analysis. His doctoral research in the University of Wisconsin's Biomechanics Laboratory involved
`characterizing the underlying control strategy of bipedal stability based on the end-point force output of
`the lower limbs.
`
`Dr. Giachetti has substanfial experience utilizing Lab\fiew to create specialized data acquisition solutions
`that implement multiple, simultaneous sensing technologies for real-time analysis. His acquisition
`solutions have included accelerometers, potentiometers, thermocouples, GPS devices, pressure
`transducers, force plates, and low-cost web cams. This technology has been used in various ways,
`including: two-dimensional optical motion capture, custom whole body occupant vibration analysis,
`custom cyclic load testing, and temperature acquisition.
`
`Dr. Giachetti also has extensive experience utilizing AutoCAD, Ansys, Matlab, Mathcad, EES, and
`3DSSPP.
`
`Academic Credentials & Professional Honors
`
`Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2008
`
`MS, Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago, 2000
`
`3.8., Mechanical Engineering, Marquette University, 1997
`
`Licenses and Certifications
`
`Licensed Professional Engineer, Illinois, #062062996
`
`Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer, Oklahoma, #29433
`
`Robert Giachetti, Ph.D., P.E.
`07/18 | P3981
`
`American National Manufacturing, Inc.
`EXHIBIT 1069
`lPR2019-00514
`Page23
`
`

`

`
`ASTM Committee F08 on Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities
`
`ASTM Committee F15 on Consumer Products
`
`ASME Committee on Power Transmission and Gearing
`
`Academic Appointments
`University of Wisconsin-Madison, Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Kinesiology
`• Lecturer, Introduction to Dynamic Systems (Vibrations)
`• Teaching Assistant, Introduction to Biomechanics
`• Teaching Assistant, Introduction to Dynamic Systems
`
`
`University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Mechanical Engineering
`• Teaching Assistant, Engineering Economy
`
`
`Marquette University, Department of Physics
`• Teaching Assistant, General Physics
`
`Prior Experience
`Intern, BioTechPlex, 2001
`
`Project Engineer, Braner USA, 1998-1999
`
`Estimator and Engineer, Alloy Sling Chain Industries LTD., 1998
`
`Publications
`Perlmutter, S, Cades DM, Heller, MF, Giachetti, RS, Sala JB, Arndt, SA. Effects of mobile technology use
`on walking. Proceedings, 58th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014.
`
`Giachetti R, Danek K. Analytical model for estimating knee loads during ladder climbing. ASME 2013
`International Mechanical Engineering