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 DR. WILLIAM C. MESSNER
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`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 DR. WILLIAM C. MESSNER
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`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 ....................... 9
`VI. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ‘172 PATENT AND PRIMARY ART ....... 13
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................ 13
`B.
`The ‘172 Patent .................................................................................. 15
`C.
`Summary of the Primary Prior Art ..................................................... 19
`
`i
`
`
`
`X.
`
`“Substantially fluidly sealed air chamber.” ........................................ 37
`A.
`PMM ................................................................................................... 41
`B.
`“Guides and Stops” ............................................................................ 42
`C.
`IX. OPINIONS REGARDING VRZALIK ........................................................ 44
`A.
`“Guides and Stops” ............................................................................ 44
`B.
`“Enclosure Portion and a Rear Cover Portion” with a “Flexible
`Seal.” .................................................................................................. 48
`PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OBVIOUSNESS COMBINATIONS ......... 52
`A.
`The Combination of Shafer (Ex. 1007) and Grant (Ex. 1008) ........... 52
`B.
`The Combination of Shafer (Ex. 1007) and Kashiwamura (Ex.
`1009) ................................................................................................... 56
`The Combination of Shafer, Grant, and Kashiwamura ...................... 60
`C.
`The Combination of Shafer and Dye (Ex. 1010) ............................... 62
`D.
`The Combination of Shafer, Grant, and Dye ..................................... 65
`E.
`The Combination of Shafer and Cammack (Ex. 1011) ...................... 66
`F.
`The Combination of Shafer, Dye, and Cammack .............................. 74
`G.
`The Combination of Shafer, Kashiwamura, and Cammack............... 76
`H.
`The Combination of Vrzalik and Shafer ............................................ 77
`I.
`The Combination of Shafer and Ramacier (Ex. 1014) ....................... 79
`J.
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 85
`
`XI.
`
`ii
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 3
`
`
`
`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 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 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), (3) the transcript of Dr. Giachetti’s
`
`deposition on October 7-8, 2019, and (4) 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 2040
`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 2040
`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 designing
`
`mechanisms for controlling the moving components in a data storage system, such
`
`as computer disk drives and tape drives.
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`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, and to become the John R. Beaver Professor of Mechanical
`
`Engineering, a position that I held for five years. In 2017 I began a two-year phase
`
`out from Tufts, and I retired at the end of May 2019. Although I have not official
`
`affiliation with Tufts University, I continue to shadow advise several students. Also,
`
`I also remain affiliated with CMU as an adjunct professor in the Department of
`
`Mechanical Engineering there. In recent years, my research has included
`
`3
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 6
`
`
`
`mechanical design for atomic force microscopes, for bioreactors for whole joints for
`
`osteoarthritis research, for soft-bodied robots, and for robotic assistance for daily
`
`living activities for persons with high level spinal cord injury resulting in tetraplegia
`
`(also known as quadriplegia).
`
`9.
`
`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).
`
`10.
`
`I am a named inventor on eight (8) patents, including three related to
`
`mechanical design for microfluidic systems.
`
`11.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 7
`
`
`
`fluid pressure and fluid flow in electro-mechanical systems. I also am the author of
`
`approximately 100 referenced conference papers.
`
`12.
`
`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 POSITA would have
`
`understood in July 1997.
`
`III. RELEVANT FIELD OF THE INVENTION OF THE ’172 PATENT
`
`13.
`
`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 at 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.)
`
`14. Based on my review, the relevant field for analyzing the ‘172 patent is
`
`adjustable air mattresses, specifically air controllers for inflating and deflating air
`
`chambers to achieve a desired pressure.
`
`5
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 8
`
`
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`16.
`
`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).
`
`17. 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 Patent Owner’s Exhibit List, which I understand is being
`
`filed at the same time. For ease of reference, I have included a combined exhibit list
`
`of the documents I have considered below:
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`Paper 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172
`
`Description
`
`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)
`
`6
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`1003
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts of the Reexamination File History of the ’172 Patent (App.
`No. 90/012,456)
`
`1004
`
`Claim Listing
`
`1005 Opening Expert Report of Dr. Robert Giachetti
`
`1007
`
`PCT Publication WO96/13947 (“Shafer”)
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1014
`
`1026
`
`2003
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,353,838 (“Grant”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,655,505 (“Kashiwamura”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,383,894 (“Dye”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,309,783 (“Cammack”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,044,029 (“Vrzalik”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,494,074 (“Ramacier”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,177,018 (“Goodwin”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,509,154 to Shafer
`
`Denial of Request for Reconsideration in IPR2014-01419
`
`Initial Determination in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`Commission Opinion in ITC proceeding, Inv. No. 337-TA-971
`
`A Systematic Approach to Integral Snap-Fit Attachment Design
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,372,218 to Manson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,373,526 to Zellos
`
`List of HVAC articles
`
`7
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Paper/
`Exhibit
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`Description
`
`Field Investigation of Duct System Performance in California
`Light Commercial Buildings
`
`New Technologies for Residential HVAC Ducts
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,652,484 to Shafer
`
`The Mechatronics Handbook
`
`2025 U.S. Patent No. 3,857,081 to Gebelein
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2076
`
`2077
`
`2084
`
`2085
`
`2086
`
`2087
`
`2088
`
`2089
`
`2090
`
`Transcript of October 7, 2019 Deposition of Robert Giachetti,
`PhD, PE
`
`Transcript of October 8, 2019 Deposition of Robert Giachetti,
`PhD, PE
`
`ANMI00178036-ANMI00178041 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`
`ANMI00133414-ANMI00133422 (District Court Case)
`
`ANMI00178030-ANMI00178035 (District Court Case) – Under
`Seal
`
`Explain that Stuff! Webpage “Hovercraft”
`
`RestMed AirFit™ Full face mask User Guide
`
`Orca Webpage “hovercraft-440”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 954,284
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,396,010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,176
`
`2091 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary Excerpt
`
`8
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 11
`
`
`
`18.
`
`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
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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 POSITA 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.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention as arranged in the claim.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation may be inherently disclosed in the
`
`prior art reference if it necessarily includes the unstated limitation.
`
`9
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 12
`
`
`
`23.
`
`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; and (3) the 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 one cannot use hindsight bias in an obviousness analysis. I also understand that
`
`any obviousness analysis must consider objective evidence of non-obviousness,
`
`where such evidence is present.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 13
`
`
`
`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.
`
`25. 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.
`
`26. However, I understand that merely demonstrating that each element,
`
`independently, was known in the prior art is, by itself, insufficient to establish that 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. I also understand that obviousness requires that a POSITA
`
`must have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed in the patent.
`
`27.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 14
`
`
`
`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)
`
`when the combination would change the principle of operation of a prior art
`
`reference, such a combination is improper and does not show obviousness.
`
`28.
`
`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 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.
`
`12
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 15
`
`
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`30. 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
`
`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.
`Background
`
`31.
`
`Innovation in the mattress industry, and more specifically for air beds,
`
`has historically been a slow-moving endeavor. For example, inflatable beds or those
`
`with a mattresses utilizing air-filled bags or cores were used as early as the 1900s.
`
`(See Ex. 2088.) However, these early beds were not readily adjustable by the user.
`
`32.
`
`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
`
`13
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 with the
`
`use of pressurized air reservoirs. Later advances include use of a remote to adjust
`
`pressure within the bed and a motorized blower pump, which a POSITA would
`
`understand are high-volume, low-pressure pumps that are open to the atmosphere.
`
`(See USPN 5,652,484.) Also, it is my understanding that marketing of adjustable
`
`air beds to consumers really began 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.
`
`33. 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.
`
`2084 at 2-4; Ex. 1007 at 38-39; Ex. 2090.) 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 0.03 PSI. I understand
`
`that both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s products employ similar scales. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 2084 at 2-4 (
`
`); Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 9-10.)
`
`14
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 17
`
`
`
`34. Also, a POSITA would have understood that pressure adjustments may
`
`be relatively quick, i.e., a matter of seconds. (See, e.g., Ex. 2090 at 3:14-35
`
`(explaining that adjusting the pressure between 0.4 PSI and 0.2 PSI may take
`
`approximately 30 seconds).) Based upon my knowledge and experience and
`
`conversations with those in the field of adjustable air beds, I understand that before
`
`the ability to continuously monitor the pressure during a pressure adjustment,
`
`adjusting the pressure was based upon an estimate of the time it would take to go
`
`from the current pressure to a new desired pressure. (Id.) After a period of time the
`
`pressure adjustment would stop, the valves would close, and the pressure could be
`
`sensed to determine whether further inflation or deflation was needed. Shafer
`
`discloses this need. (See Ex. 1007 at 35:17-36:10; see also Ex. 1001 at 1:66-2:20.)
`
`This resulted in a what I understand was referred to as hunting and pecking. This
`
`inability to monitor during inflation resulted in a need to periodically turn off the
`
`pump and actuate the valves in order to determine the new current pressure. (See
`
`also Ex. 1001 at 1:11-2:26.)
`
`B.
`
`35.
`
`The ‘172 Patent
`
`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
`
`15
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 18
`
`
`
`inflatable mattress. (Id. at 2:56-3:24.) The improved valve enclosure assembly of
`
`the ’172 Patent is to be used with an adjustable air mattress bed system. (Id. at 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 is fluidly coupled intermediate a
`
`pump and at least one air bladder for controlling the inflation of the at least one air
`
`bladder by inflated compressed air. A processor provides commands to the improved
`
`valve enclosure assembly during the inflate/deflate cycle. (Id. at 2:59-61, 2:66-3:2.)
`
`The improved valve enclosure assembly may also have a plurality of guides and
`
`stops for correctly positioning components within the enclosure. (Id. at 5:34-43.)
`
`Figure 4 of the ‘172 Patent illustrates the improved valve enclosure assembly.
`
`16
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 19
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at FIG. 4.)
`
`36.
`
`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 at 4:17-19.) The enclosure portion and the rear cover form an internal air
`
`chamber. (Id. at 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.)
`
`37.
`
`The improved valve enclosure assembly also has a pressure monitoring
`
`port 146 fluidly coupled to the internal air chamber. (Ex. 1001 at 4:30-36.) The
`
`pressure monitoring port 146 is a part of the pressure monitor means used to measure
`
`17
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 20
`
`
`
`the pressure in air bladders by measuring the pressure in the air chamber of the valve
`
`enclosure assembly, which due to the substantially sealed environment is
`
`substantially equal to the pressure in the air bladder. (See id. at 2:48-50.)
`
`38.
`
`The improved valve enclosure assembly also has a solenoid 210 paired
`
`with a valve 218. (Ex. 1001 at 5:59-60.) The electrically powered solenoid actuates
`
`the valve to open and close the valve. (Id. at 7:16-32.)
`
`39.
`
`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. (Ex. 1001
`
`at 2:36-55.)
`
`40.
`
`Failure of sealing discs was a problem due to overheating of large
`
`solenoids and leaky valves. (Ex. 1001 at 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.)
`
`41. 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.)
`
`18
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 21
`
`
`
`42. 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 at 2:21-26.)
`
`43. 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. A POSITA would also understand that this
`
`repeated actuation of the motors for periodically opening and closing of the valves
`
`generated unwanted heat. (Ex. 1001 at 1:66-2:33.)
`
`44. Based on the description of the assembly of the improved valve
`
`enclosure assembly (Ex. 1001 at 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 5:34-44, 6:39-45.)
`
`C.
`
`45.
`
`Summary of the Primary Prior Art
`
`Pumps for air mattresses were known at least as early as the 1940s.
`
`Early air mattresses were coupled with manual pumps or very large mechanical
`
`pumps for inflating the mattress. (Ex. 2018 (USPN 2,372,218); Ex. 2019 (USPN
`
`2,373,526).)
`
`19
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 22
`
`
`
`46. Over time, pumps improved but problems such as leaking valves caused
`
`sealing disc failures due to high force on the sealing discs and overheating of large
`
`solenoids were still a problem in 1997. (Ex. 1001 at 2:4-20.)
`
`47.
`
`The inventors of the ‘172 Patent improved the valve enclosure
`
`assembly for air controllers for adjustable air mattresses by: improving the means
`
`for pressure monitoring to allow for continuous monitoring, including during an
`
`inflate/deflate cycle; sealing the air chamber for better efficiency to allow for
`
`accurate measurement of the bladder pressure via the air chamber; improving the
`
`valves to prevent leaks and overheating, and improving the assembly of the air
`
`controller. (See, e.g., id. at 2:27-33.)
`
`48. 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. For instance, the ‘172 Patent discuss the problems
`
`evident in the prior art with reference to Figure 1, which is specifically identified as
`
`prior art. (See Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1, 1:11-2:26.) Figure 1 of the ‘172 Patent is the same
`
`as Figure 10 of Shafer. (Compare id. with Ex. 1007 at Fig. 10.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`are specially designed to continuously leak air to the environment. (Id. at 7:10-28.)
`
`A POSITA would therefore understand that in order for the Vrzalik air mattress to
`
`work as intended (staying inflated while also continuously leaking air to the
`
`environment) there must be a constant supply of air to the air bladders, meaning the
`
`valves of the air controller must be open to some degree at all times.
`
`50.
`
`The Vrzalik system is also very large and extends the length of the bed
`
`frame as shown in Fig. 3.
`
`21
`
`Sleep Number Corp.
`EXHIBIT 2040
`IPR2019-00514
`Page 24
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1012 at FIG. 3.)
`51.
`The Vrzalik air control system includes an air control box 124. (Ex.
`
`1012 at 8:12-23.) The air control box has a frame (side walls), a manifold assembly,
`
`and a back plate. (Id. at 8:12-22, 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 plate 121. (Id. at FIG. 3, 10:30-31.) There are three gaskets
`
`(106, 115, 147) present within the manifo
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
