`
`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. IPR2019-00514
`Patent No. 5,904,172
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WILLIAM C. MESSNER
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. RELEVANT FIELD OF THE INVENTION OF THE ’172 PATENT ......... 5
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ......................................................................... 6
`V.
`THE UNDERSTANDINGS APPLIED TO MY ANALYSIS ...................... 8
`VI. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ‘172 PATENT AND PRIMARY ART ....... 13
`A.
`The ’172 Patent ................................................................................ 13
`B.
`Summary of the Primary Prior Art ................................................... 16
`
`i
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`J.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Combination of Shafer (Ex. 1007) and Kashiwamura (Ex.
`
`1009) ............................................................................................... 39
`The Combination of Shafer, Grant, and Kashiwamura ..................... 40
`The Combination of Shafer and Dye (Ex. 1010) .............................. 42
`The Combination of Shafer, Grant, and Dye .................................... 43
`The Combination of Shafer and Cammack (Ex. 1011) ..................... 44
`The Combination of Shafer, Dye, and Cammack ............................. 47
`The Combination of Shafer, Kashiwamura, and Cammack .............. 48
`The Combination of Vrzalik and Shafer ........................................... 49
`The Combination of Shafer and Ramacier (Ex. 1014) ...................... 50
`
`ii
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I, William C. Messner, make the present Declaration in support of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response rebutting the Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`
`of U.S. Patent 5,904,172 (“the ‘172 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 provide my expert opinion in a declaration that will
`
`be used in its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the inter partes review of the
`
`’172 Patent. Specifically, I have been asked to analyze and opine regarding: (1) the
`
`prior art references and arguments presented by Petitioner, (2) the opinions of Dr.
`
`Giachetti presented in the Giachetti Report (Ex. 1005), and (3) what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would know and understand from the prior art
`
`references and the field.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $575/hr. My fee is not contingent
`
`on the outcome of this or any matter or on any of my opinions. I have no financial
`
`interest in Sleep Number Corporation or the ‘172 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`This declaration briefly sets forth my background and qualifications to
`
`provide my expert opinion, describes the technology at issue and background of the
`
`1
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`art, identifies the materials I reviewed to prepare this declaration, and sets forth my
`
`understanding of the patent claims at issue and my analysis and opinions regarding
`
`the application to the patent claims to the prior art provided to me. I reserve the right
`
`to supplement 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
`
`4. My qualifications as an expert in the field of mechanical and electrical
`
`engineering are set forth in the paragraphs below and in my curriculum vitae,
`
`attached as Appendix A.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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, among other things, in mechanical design for data storage
`
`2
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`systems, robotics, and microfluidics. I was the leader of the Servo Control effort at
`
`CMU’s Data Storage Systems Center. One aspect of that role involved design of
`
`mechanisms for controlling the moving components in a data storage system, such
`
`as computer disk drives and tape drives. At CMU, I also helped develop autonomous
`
`vehicles designed for off-road operation. These vehicles competed in the Grand
`
`Challenges competitions of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA) in 2004 and 2005. One of my contributions to these vehicles was the
`
`design of a shock isolation system. This design is depicted in the March 2004 issue
`
`of Scientific American referenced in my CV. At CMU, I was also leader of the
`
`Augmented Harvest effort for the Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops
`
`project, and I worked on the design of mechanisms for faster transfer of fruit from a
`
`picking bag into a collection bin.
`
`7.
`
`In the September of 2012, I moved from CMU to Tufts University to
`
`become the Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, a position that I
`
`held for three years. Currently, I am a professor in the Department of Mechanical
`
`Engineering at Tufts University and I hold a secondary appointment in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I also remain affiliated with
`
`CMU as an adjunct professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering there.
`
`In recent years, my research has included mechanical design for atomic force
`
`microscopes, for bioreactors for whole joints for osteoarthritis research, for soft-
`
`3
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`bodied robots, and for robotic assistance for daily living activities for persons with
`
`high level spinal cord injury resulting in quadriplegia, in addition to my continued
`
`work on data storage systems and microfluidics.
`
`8.
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on eight (8) patents, include three related to
`
`mechanical design for microfluidic systems.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 75 papers, which have been
`
`published in refereed journals including, but not limited to, ASME Transactions on
`
`Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control; ASME Journal of Tribology
`
`IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics; IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
`
`Technology; Journal of the American Chemical Society; Lab on a Chip; PLOS One;
`
`and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some of these papers address
`
`fluid pressure and fluid flow in electro-mechanical systems.
`
`4
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`11. The opinions expressed below are mine and were developed after
`
`studying the Petition and supporting exhibits, the ‘172 Patent and other documents I
`
`found relevant, which are 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 July 1997.
`
`III. RELEVANT FIELD OF THE INVENTION OF THE ’172 PATENT
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the ’172 Patent (EX. 1001), the relevant prosecution
`
`history (Ex. 1002), and the reexamination history for the ’172 Patent (Ex. 1003).
`
`Based on my review of the prosecution history and the reexamination history. I
`
`understand that the ’172 Patent is directed to an improved valve enclosure assembly
`
`that is used with an air adjustable mattress to inflate or deflate the mattress and
`
`monitor and maintain the desired pressure. (Ex. 1001, 1:4-9.) The invention relates
`
`to the efficiencies of the valve enclosure assembly, specifically having an improved
`
`assembly time, reduced leakage, reduced heat and energy usage, and the elimination
`
`of chemical sealants. (Id.at 2:36-55.)
`
`13. Based on my review, the relevant field for analyzing the ‘172 patent is
`
`air controllers for inflating and deflating adjustable air mattresses.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that my analysis must be with respect to what a POSITA
`
`would know in July 1997 because the ’172 Patent was filed in July 1997.
`
`5
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence. I have also
`
`reviewed claims 2-8 and 12-18 as originally issued and claims 9 and 19-25, which
`
`issued after reexamination. I have examined the prior art references cited in the ’172
`
`Patent and applied during prosecution. With respect to the prosecution history and
`
`reexamination history, I have specifically reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,509,154 to
`
`Shafer, et al., (“Shafer ‘154,” Ex. 2003).
`
`16. When referencing the exhibits from the Petition, I will use the exhibit
`
`numbers listed in the Exhibit List on page vi in the Petition. When referencing
`
`exhibits that I have located or exhibits provided to me by counsel, I will also use the
`
`exhibit numbers listed in the Exhibit List on pages x-xi of the Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response. For ease of reference, I have included a combined exhibit
`
`list of the documents I have considered below:
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Paper 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 to Gifft et al. (the ’172 Patent)
`
`1002
`
`Excerpts of the File History of the ’172 Patent (App. No. 08/901,144)
`
`1003
`
`Excerpts of the Reexamination File History of the ’172 Patent (App.
`No. 90/012,456)
`
`6
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1004
`
`Claim Listing
`
`1005 Opening Expert Report of Dr. Robert Giachetti
`
`1007
`
`PCT Publication WO96/13947 (“Shafer”)
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,353,838 (“Grant”)
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,655,505 (“Kashiwamura”)
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,383,894 (“Dye”)
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,309,783 (“Cammack”)
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,044,029 (“Vrzalik”)
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,494,074 (“Ramacier”)
`
`1026
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,177,018 (“Goodwin”)
`
`2003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,509,154 to Shafer
`
`2014
`
`Denial of Request for Reconsideration in IPR2014-01419
`
`2015
`
`Initial Determination in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`2016
`
`Commission Opinion in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`7
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2017
`
`A Systematic Approach to Integral Snap-Fit Attachment Design
`
`
`
`2018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,372,218 to Manson
`
`2019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,373,526 to Zellos
`
`2020
`
`List of HVAC articles
`
`2021
`
`Field Investigation of Duct System Performance in California
`Light Commercial Buildings
`
`2022
`
`New Technologies for Residential HVAC Ducts
`
`2023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,484 to Shafer
`
`2024
`
`The Mechatronics Handbook
`
`2025 U.S. Patent No. 3,857,081 to Gebelein
`
`17.
`
`In addition, I have had the opportunity to learn from those in this field
`
`of adjustable air mattress systems. These understandings inform my analysis herein.
`
`V. THE UNDERSTANDINGS APPLIED TO MY ANALYSIS
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in an IPR proceeding claims should be construed as
`
`having their plain 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
`
`8
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`19. For my opinions herein, I have simply read the terms according to their
`
`plain and customary meaning. My understandings herein are made in light of how
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1997 would view the plain and customary
`
`meaning of the claim terms. I reserve the right to supplement my declaration should
`
`any claim terms be given different constructions.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation may be inherently disclosed in the
`
`prior art reference if it necessarily includes the unstated limitation.
`
`22.
`
`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 person having ordinary skill in the art. 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; and (3) the
`
`9
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`level of skill of the ordinary artisan in the pertinent art. I understand an obviousness
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`24. 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.
`
`10
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`25. 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 is 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.
`
`26.
`
`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, I understand that references which are not analogous
`
`should not be combined. 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 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)
`
`11
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`when the combination would change the principle of operation of prior art reference,
`
`such a combination is improper and does not show obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a combination of old, familiar, or known elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. 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 person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art 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.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that where one or more references in combination
`
`disclose a given claim element, there is no motivation to look to an additional
`
`reference for that element.
`
`29. 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 disclosures may be found at other pages, lines, or paragraphs, as well
`
`12
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ‘172 PATENT AND PRIMARY ART
`
`A. The ’172 Patent
`
`30. The ’172 Patent, titled “Valve Enclosure Assembly,” issued on May 18,
`
`1999 from Application No. 08/901,144, which was filed on July 28, 1997. (Ex.
`
`1001.) The claims are directed to an improved valve enclosure assembly and a
`
`method of continuously monitoring pressure in at least one air bladder in an air
`
`inflatable mattress. (Id. at 2:56-3:24.)
`
`31. The improved valve enclosure assembly of the ’172 Patent is to be used
`
`with an adjustable air mattress bed system. (Ex. 1001, 1:4-8.) The improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly has at least an enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed
`
`air chamber and pressure monitor means for monitoring the pressure in the at least
`
`one bladder of the air adjustable mattress. (Id. at 2:56-3:2.) The improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly may also have a plurality of guides and stops for correctly
`
`positioning components within the enclosure. (Id. at 5:32-43.) Figure 4 of the ‘172
`
`Patent illustrates the improved valve enclosure assembly.
`
`13
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 4.)
`
`32. The improved valve enclosure assembly is described as having two
`
`major components: (1) an enclosure portion 130 and (2) a rear cover portion 132.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 4:17-19.) The enclosure portion and the rear cover form an internal air
`
`chamber. (Ex. 1001, 4:17-20.) The internal air chamber is substantially fluidly
`
`sealed because a deformable gasket 202 is interposed between the enclosure portion
`
`130 and the rear cover portion 132. (Id. at 5:45-46, 6:59-67.)
`
`33. The improved valve enclosure assembly also has a pressure monitoring
`
`port 146 fluidly coupled to the internal air chamber. (Ex. 1001, 4:30-36.) The
`
`pressure monitoring port 146 is a part of the pressure monitor means used to measure
`
`14
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`the pressure in air bladders by measuring the pressure in the air chamber of the valve
`
`enclosure assembly. (See id. at 2:48-50.)
`
`34. The improved valve enclosure assembly also has a solenoid 210 paired
`
`with a valve 218. (Ex. 1001, 5:59-60.) The electrically powered solenoid actuates
`
`the valve to open and close the valve. (Id. at 7:16-32.)
`
`35. The improvement for the valve enclosure assembly relates to
`
`efficiencies of the air controller, an improved assembly time, reduced leakage,
`
`reduced heat and energy usage, and the elimination of chemical sealants. (Id. at
`
`2:36-55.)
`
`36. Sealing disc failures was a problem due to overheating of large
`
`solenoids and leaky valves. (Ex. 1001, 2:4-20.) Pressure monitoring during the
`
`inflate and deflate cycles was also a problem addressed in the ’172 Patent, as well
`
`as assembly efficiencies. (Id. at 2:27-33.)
`
`37. A POSITA would understand that the improved valve enclosure
`
`assembly of the ’172 Patent allows for the monitoring and adjusting of pressure in
`
`the adjustable mattress in order to adjust the firmness for a desired user. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:5-8, 2:36-3:24.)
`
`38. A POSITA would understand that sealing discs of the valves for prior
`
`art valve enclosures developed leaks and would continuously leak or bleed air, which
`
`results in a constantly deflating bladder. (Ex. 1001, 2:21-26.)
`
`15
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`39. A POSITA would understand that the ’172 Patent inventors recognized
`
`that prior art systems required periodically sealing and unsealing of the valves in
`
`order to monitor pressure in the bladder that this repeated actuation of the motors for
`
`periodically opening and closing of the valves generated unwanted heat. (Ex. 1001,
`
`2:4-33.)
`
`40. Based on the description of the assembly of the improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly (Ex. 1001, 6:27-67), a POSITA would understand that assembly
`
`efficiencies were important to the inventors as they used guides and stops as
`
`assembly enhancers for fast and accurate positioning of components within the
`
`enclosure. (Id. at 5:34-38, 6:39-45.)
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Primary Prior Art
`
`41. Pumps for air mattresses were known at least as early as the 1940s.
`
`Early air mattresses were coupled with manual pumps or enormous mechanical
`
`pumps for inflating the mattress. (Ex. 2018 (USPN 2,372,218); Ex. 2019 (USPN
`
`2,373,526).)
`
`42. Over time, pumps improved but by 1997, problems such as leaking
`
`valves caused sealing disc failures due to high forces on the sealing discs and
`
`overheating of large solenoids were still a problem. (Ex. 1001, 2:4-20.)
`
`43. The inventors of the ’172 Patent improved the valve enclosure
`
`assembly for air controllers for adjustable air mattresses by improving the means for
`
`16
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`pressure monitoring to allow for continuous monitoring, including during an
`
`inflate/deflate cycle; they sealed the air chamber for better efficiency; they improved
`
`the valves to prevent leaks and overheating, and they improved the assembly of the
`
`air controller. (See, e.g., id. at 2:27-33.)
`
`44. Reading the ’172 Patent, a POSITA would understand that the prior art
`
`air controllers, such as those disclosed in Vrzalik (Ex. 1012) and Shafer (Ex. 1007)
`
`had shortcomings that needed improvements and that the inventors of the ’172 Patent
`
`made those improvements.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1012, FIG. 3.)
`
`47. The Vrzalik air control system includes an air control box 124. (Ex.
`
`1012, 8:12-23.) The air control box has a frame (side walls), a manifold assembly,
`
`and a back plate. (Id. at 10:30-31.) The manifold assembly is at the front end of the
`
`air control box. (Id. at FIG. 3, 8:14-15 (“The front of air box 124 is provided with a
`
`manifold assembly 126.”).) The manifold assembly includes a manifold plate that
`
`has holes for conduits. (Id. at 8:15-22.) At the rear of the air control box is the back
`
`18
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`plate 121. (Id. at FIG. 3, 10:30-31.) There are three gaskets (106, 115, 147) present
`
`within the manifold assembly. (Id. at 8:22-23, 43-45, 9:3-5.) One gasket is between
`
`the manifold plate and the side walls of the air control box frame. (Id. at 8:22-23.)
`
`No gasket is present between the back plate and the side walls of the air control box.
`
`48. The Vrzalik air control system has three blowers. (Ex. 1012, FIG. 3.)
`
`A POSITA would understand the system is designed to have at least one blower
`
`blowing at all times and valves open or at least partially open at all times. Because
`
`the Vrzalik air control system is designed to alternate between high and low
`
`pressures to create a pulsating effect for the low air loss air bladders, the valves are
`
`repeatedly opening and partially closing. (Id. at 11:63-12:20.)
`
`49. A POSITA would understand that the valves in Vrzalik are actuated by
`
`nuts moving back and forth on lead screws rotated by electric motors. The lead
`
`screws and motors allow for partial opening of the valves necessary for the low air
`
`loss air bladders to function as intended by Vrzalik. (Ex. 1012, FIG. 9A, 17:38-41.)
`
`50. A POSITA would understand that the repeated opening and partial
`
`closing of the valves to pulsate the low air loss air bladders generates a considerable
`
`amount of undesired heat.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Shafer (Ex. 2023). Upon my review, the references and their disclosure are all
`
`substantially similar or, in many cases, the same. I understand that the ‘154 Patent
`
`was considered during the original prosecution and reexamination of the ‘172 Patent.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 2-47; Ex. 1003 at 73, 96-106.)
`
`52. The Shafer prior art air controller, which is named the pump 152, has
`
`an outer housing 202, a fan unit 204, and an air distribution unit 206.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1007, FIG. 5, 17:14-15.)
`
`53. Shafer describes the air distribution unit 206 as having a housing 330
`
`that is coupled to the fan housing. (Id. at 24:13-15.) The air distribution unit 206
`
`receives air through an air inlet that is coupled to the air outlet of 290 of upper
`
`impeller chamber 288. (Id. at 24:22-23:1.) The air distribution unit 206 has air
`
`outlets 334 and 336 where air travels to the air bladders of the adjustable air mattress.
`
`(Id. at 25:2-15)
`
`54. Shafer describes a flexible mount 212 for mounting a fan. (Ex. 1007,
`
`19:17-20:1.) The fan is open to the environment through at least the helical air
`
`passageway 222. (Id. at 18:18-19.)
`
`55. Pressurized air is expelled from the fan housing 280 via the air outlet
`
`290 to the air distribution unit 206. (Ex. 1007, 27:1-6.) The air distribution unit 206
`
`distributes air to the air bladders of the air mattress. (Id.) Shafer does not describe
`
`a gasket or flexible sealer for the air distribution unit 206.
`
`56. A POSITA would recognize that the flexible mount 212 and the O-rings
`
`328 in Shafer are for reducing the noise and dampening the vibration of the fan, not
`
`providing a seal to the air distribution unit. (Ex. 1007, 17:22-18:2, 22:20-23:2; 26:3-
`
`10.)
`
`57. Shafer also describes resilient fingers 331 and snap fit portions 332 to
`
`affix or secure components during assembly. The resilient fingers 331 and the snap
`
`21
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 24
`
`
`
`fit portions 332 are for locking or attaching instead of using screws. (Ex. 1007,
`
`
`
`24:13-20.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`58.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, the claim terms should
`
`normally be given their plain and customary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`POSITA at the time of the invention. I further understand that the claims are to be
`
`construed in the context of the claim language of which they are a part and consistent
`
`with the specification and prosecution history of the patent. I also understand that,
`
`when not readily apparent, the intrinsic evidence, which I understand to be the patent
`
`specification and file history, and the extrinsic evidence, which I understand to be
`
`outside resources such as dictionaries, treatises, etc., may be consulted to determine
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`A. Definition of a POSITA
`
`59.
`
`I understand that factors that may be considered in determining level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`22
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 25
`
`
`
`
`
`60.
`
`I understand that Petitioner proposes a definition for a POSITA.
`
`Petitioner’s definition is someone with “an undergraduate degree (B.S.) in
`
`Mechanical Engineering, or equivalent technical discipline, and at least one year of
`
`experience with designing or developing products or machines including pumps,
`
`valves, and . . . computer controlled valves and pumps.” (Pet. at 8.) I do not have
`
`an opinion at this time on whether Petitioner’s proposed definition is accurate, but
`
`for my analysis and opinions I have applied Petitioner’s proposed definition for a
`
`POSITA.
`
`B.
`
`61.
`
`Plain and Customary Meaning
`
`I understand that there are four claim limitations at issue in the Petition:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`a plurality of guides and stops . . . for correctly positioning
`components within the enclosure;
`
`a flexible seal . . . between the enclosure portion and a rear
`cover;
`
`an enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber;
`and
`
`pressure monitor means.
`
`62.
`
`I understand that Petitioner applies the plain and customary meaning to
`
`all of these claim limitations, with the exception of “pressure monitor means.” (Pet.
`
`at 10.)
`
`63.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has provided three alternative constructions
`
`for “pressure monitor means.” (Pet. at 11-12.)
`
`23
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2001
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 26
`
`
`
`
`
`64.
`
`I have applied the plain and customary meaning for each of these claim
`
`limitations.
`
`VIII. OPINIONS REGARDING SHAFER (EX. 1007) ANTICIPATION
`
`65.
`
`In Ground 1, Petitioner asserts Shafer as anticipatory prior art. (Pet. at
`
`13-27.) I do not agree with the Petitioner’s arguments or Dr. Giachetti’s opinions
`
`regarding what Shafer discloses.
`
`66. As explained herein, it is my opinion that Shafer does not disclose or
`
`suggest the claim limitations “substantially fluidly sealed” and “guides and stops.”
`
`67. All of the challenged claims recite that the valve enclosure assembly
`
`have “a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber.”
`
`A.
`
`“Substantially fluidly sealed air chamber.”
`
`68. Petitioner and Dr. Giachetti point to the air distribution unit 206 in the
`
`Shafer reference as the air chamber of the valve enclosure assembly. In my opinion
`
`the air distr
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
