`
`
`Jeffrey W. Perkins
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: D797625 Attorney Docket No.: 45343-0031IP1
`Issue Date:
`September 19, 2017
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 29/575,313
`
`Filing Date:
`August 24, 2016
`
`Title:
`Vehicle front fender
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS V. PETERS
`
`
`
`
`I, Tom Peters, of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan state and declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`1. While I am doing some freelance design work, I am currently retired
`
`after a nearly forty year career in design, the vast majority of which was spent in
`
`the field of automotive design. I have assembled a summary of that experience,
`
`and it is provided as Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`For education, I spent two years at the University of Southwestern
`
`Louisiana and Louisiana Tech. I then spent four years at Art Center College of
`
`Design, where I received a B.S. in transportation design in 1980.
`
`3.
`
`After graduation, I received an offer to work at General Motors,
`
`where I started my design career. After working at GM for six months, I accepted
`
`an offer at Texas Instruments in 1980. At TI, I was responsible for design
`
`development and direction for a variety of products, including personal computers,
`
`electronic learning aids for children, and military marine navigation equipment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2004
`LKQ v. GM
`IPR2020-00534
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`4.
`
`In 1982, I returned to General Motors as a creative designer. In that
`
`role, I worked on design development for a variety of vehicles, including high-
`
`performance vehicles and alternative transportation, such as electric vehicles.
`
`5.
`
`Between 1982 and 2019, my career focused almost exclusively on
`
`vehicle design, which included cars, full- and mid-sized trucks, SUVs, and
`
`alternative transportation systems. In my various roles, I worked on the design of
`
`well-known General Motors vehicles such as the Chevrolet Corvette, Camaro,
`
`Impala, Silverado, Suburban, and Cadillac Escalade. In addition, I worked on
`
`concept and show vehicles, electric vehicles, and explored various new vehicle
`
`opportunities. This work included leading work on the theme of these vehicles,
`
`and the design of the entire exterior and interior of vehicles.
`
`6.
`
`I also have experience teaching automotive design, including
`
`corporate sponsored projects while at GM for Art Center College of Design and
`
`College for Creative Studies in Detroit (“CCS”) and later as an adjunct professor at
`
`CCS after retiring.
`
`7. My career has also involved product portfolio line up and brand
`
`strategy, and how it relates to vehicle line-up within the brand, to total corporate
`
`product strategy, and to cohesive themes across vehicle lines.
`
`8.
`
`I have been engaged in this matter to provide my independent analysis
`
`of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review of the ’625 Patent. I
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`received no compensation for this Declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the outcome of this inter partes
`
`review of the ’625 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to my education and training, some of which is described
`
`above, I have reviewed and relied upon the material discussed in this declaration,
`
`as well as the materials submitted by both parties in this IPR.
`
`II. VEHICLE DESIGN
`10.
`I believe that good automotive design is a three-dimensional product
`
`solution to a problem or a challenge that is beautifully executed. The design
`
`conveys not only aesthetics, but customer perception of function (i.e., whether a
`
`consumer will believe a particular “look” is fast or rugged), quality (e.g., level of
`
`precision), and class. Ex. 1005, Equinox Brochure, p. 2 (“The sculpted exterior
`
`makes a stunning statement from any angle.”); id. p. 5 (“With its assertive balance
`
`of sportiness and sophistication, Equinox will command attention on any road.”).
`
`Vehicle design is a field in which small differences can have significant impact
`
`both to the designer or design team who are designing the vehicle, but also to the
`
`end purchaser of a vehicle. Id. Ultimately, the designer’s focus is driven by the
`
`customer.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`11. The design differences between vehicles are highly varied. At a high
`
`level, of course, there are significant differences between classes of vehicles. A
`
`truck, like the Chevy Silverado, may often have a bolder grille and a more
`
`muscular fender than a sedan, in order to convey an aggressive, rugged appearance.
`
`12. Design also has a significant impact within the same vehicle class.
`
`Consider an Escalade and Suburban, for example. An Escalade will have different
`
`lines than a Suburban in order to convey a look and value that is imposing, overt,
`
`luxurious, exclusive, and elite. A Suburban, on the other hand, has a design that
`
`conveys an understated sense of confidence. In other words, even though both
`
`vehicles are broadly considered large, luxury Sports Utility Vehicles, the design of
`
`those vehicles conveys significantly different impressions to designers and
`
`consumers.
`
`13. Similarly, a particular line or angle on a fender or hood can
`
`dramatically affect or change the character of the vehicle. For example, lines can
`
`create a more aggressive and sporty look, like the look of the front of a Corvette;
`
`or, if the angles are more subdued, it can create a more neutral look, like the look
`
`of a Ford Taurus or Chevy Impala. Also, the proportions of a particular feature
`
`(e.g., a surface, a line, or a curve) on a part can also have a significant effect on the
`
`vehicle’s character.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`14.
`
`Importantly, the angles and lines on a vehicle are important not only
`
`alone, but also with respect to their relationship with other design elements. These
`
`angles and lines also work together to define the overall sculpture of the vehicle as
`
`they integrate the vehicle’s features and components. This can be seen below, in
`
`the Chevrolet Equinox:
`
`Ex. 1005, Equinox Brochure, p. 2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Equinox Brochure, p. 3.
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Equinox Brochure, p. 20.
`
`15. The importance of small differences in vehicle design is also reflected
`
`in the fact that consumers use those differences as vehicle identifiers, without
`
`having to rely on emblems to identify specific vehicles. These small differences
`
`can be subtle, but have a powerful, dramatic effect. For example, based on my
`
`experience, most consumers could readily identify and distinguish between a
`
`Corvette, Ford Taurus, and BMW 5 Series, even with the with the Chevy, Ford,
`
`and BMW emblems removed from the vehicles. That is because the designs of
`
`vehicles have certain shapes, angles, proportions, and overall profiles that create a
`
`brand and differentiation within the crowded field of consumer vehicles.
`
`16. A designer skilled in the art of vehicle design is particularly attuned
`
`and likely to identify the differences between vehicles. This is because different
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`vehicles have body panels and other design elements that are unique. Further,
`
`while the design of the Equinox will evolve from year to year, the design character
`
`or presence will usually remain consistent. There are instances when the evolution
`
`of the design can be dramatic or subtle. To be clear, however, while the theme
`
`may remain consistent, the vehicle designs do evolve.
`
`17. Given what I have stated above, while a skilled designer might be
`
`aware of different vehicle-design options, the art of vehicle design is NOT one in
`
`which the designer simply picks and chooses from a menu of options to create the
`
`design. Rather, the designer must create the design in view of the overall theme of
`
`the vehicle, and do so in a way that the various design elements work together to
`
`create an innovative, unique, and coherent overall visual appearance that evokes a
`
`particular emotional response from the customer. Mr. Gandy states in his
`
`declaration at paragraph 44 that “Examiners can and should consider many sources
`
`for already existing similar designs, especially in relation to the global automotive
`
`market.” While I am not a patent examiner, I disagree with any suggestion that the
`
`art of vehicle design is simply the combination or picking-and-choosing of
`
`components and features from different sources. Gandy Report, Ex. 1003, ¶ 44.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`18. While I am not a lawyer and am not offering a legal opinion, I
`
`understand that the opinions I offer must be given within the context of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`applicable law. I have been informed about the applicable law, and my
`
`understanding of that law is below.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that there are design patents and utility patents. While a
`
`utility patent may cover things like how a formulation or mechanical invention
`
`works, a design patent covers the way that something looks.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that design patents have just one claim that identifies the
`
`patented design in the claimed figures. I understand that the claimed design is
`
`shown in solid lines, whereas broken or dotted lines in a design patent are not part
`
`of the claimed design. I also understand that surface shading is used to demonstrate
`
`the character or contour and sculpture of a surface that is part of the claimed
`
`design.
`
`21.
`
`In this proceeding, I understand that LKQ contends that the ’625
`
`Patent is anticipated (Ground 1 - Lian) or obvious (Ground 2 – Lian; Ground 3 –
`
`Lian and 2010 Hyundai Tucson) over certain prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in addressing a claim of anticipation in a design
`
`patent case, the question is whether in the eye of an “ordinary observer,” giving
`
`such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same.
`
`Two designs may be substantially the same if the resemblance is such as to deceive
`
`the ordinary observer, inducing them to purchase one supposing it to be the other.
`
`I understand that the “ordinary observer” analysis requires consideration of the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`design as a whole, and not individual features or aspects of the design in isolation,
`
`in order to determine if the overall visual effect of the designs in the eyes of an
`
`ordinary observer is substantially the same. This analysis considers significant
`
`differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that
`
`necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another.
`
`I also understand the ordinary observer test requires the fact finder to consider all
`
`of the ornamental features illustrated in the figures that are visible at any time in
`
`the “normal use” lifetime of the accused product, i.e., from the completion of
`
`manufacture or assembly until the ultimate destruction, loss, or disappearance of
`
`the article.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in addressing a claim of obviousness in a design
`
`patent case, the question is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to
`
`a designer of ordinary skill who designs the things at issue. I understand that this
`
`analysis generally has two steps. First, the challenger must find a single reference
`
`that has design characteristics that are basically the same as the claimed design.
`
`And second, once this first reference is found, other references may be used to
`
`modify the first reference to create a design that has the same overall visual
`
`appearance as the claimed design. I understand that the secondary reference may
`
`only be used to modify the first reference if they are so related that the appearance
`
`9
`
`
`
`of certain features on one would suggest the application of those features to the
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`other.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that when assessing obviousness, the focus must be on
`
`the actual appearances of the design, rather than on generic design concepts.
`
`25.
`
` I understand that the field of the ’625 Patent’s fender design at issue
`
`is important when assessing obviousness. For example, in a crowded field—such
`
`as automotive design—subtle differences between the patented design and the
`
`prior art designs are likely to be more significant to an ordinary observer and
`
`ordinary designer. This is consistent with my experience as a consumer and as a
`
`designer—in a crowded field such as vehicle front fender design, the nuances in
`
`design become more significant.
`
`IV. ORDINARY OBSERVER
`26.
` As stated above, I understand that the obviousness question focuses
`
`on the perspective of the ordinary observer. I understand that both GM and LKQ
`
`have proposed definitions of an ordinary observer. LKQ proposes:
`
`For purposes of this Petition, the ordinary observer should be the retail
`consumer of an automobile.
`LKQ Petition at p. 40. I understand that GM has proposed that the ordinary
`
`observer:
`
`[I]ncludes commercial buyers who purchase replacement vehicle front
`fenders to repair a customer’s vehicle, such as repair shop
`professionals.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`GM Prelim. Resp. at 7. I have considered both proposals, and my opinion is the
`
`same regardless of which definition is applied. The overall appearance of the ’625
`
`Patent is meaningfully different compared to Lian from the perspective of the
`
`ordinary observer under either definition. Further, I meet and exceed both
`
`definitions. I also reiterate here that the ordinary observer, under either definition,
`
`would have been aware of the scope of relevant vehicle designs in the prior art—
`
`here fenders—and would be particularly discerning, given the crowded nature of
`
`the field here. Accordingly, I do not agree with any suggestion by LKQ or its
`
`declarants that the ordinary observer would have confused Lian and/or the 2010
`
`Hyundai Tucson for the design claimed by the ’625 Patent.
`
`V. DESIGNER OF ORDINARY SKILL
`27. As stated above, I understand that the obviousness question focuses
`
`on the perspective of a designer of ordinary skill. I understand that both GM and
`
`LKQ have proposed definitions of a designer of ordinary skill. Mr. Gandy, on
`
`behalf of LKQ, proposes:
`
`A designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an
`undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design and work
`experience in the field of transportation or automotive design, or someone
`who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive
`design.
`
`LKQ Pet. at 38. I understand that GM has proposed that a designer of ordinary skill:
`
`
`[W]ould have at least an undergraduate degree in automotive design, or
`other related industrial design field, with at least two years of relevant
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`practical experience in designing automotive body parts. An increase
`in experience could compensate for less education, and an increase in
`education could likewise compensate for less experience.
`
`GM Prelim. Resp. at 9. Like the Board, I do not discern any relevant differences
`
`between these proposals, nor do I have any substantive disagreement with Mr.
`
`Gandy’s proposal. My opinion is the same, regardless of which definition is
`
`applied. Further, I meet and exceed both definitions. I also reiterate here that a
`
`skilled designer would be aware of the scope of relevant vehicle designs in the
`
`prior art—here fenders—and would be particularly discerning, given the crowded
`
`nature of the field here. For that reason, I do not agree with any suggestion by
`
`LKQ or its experts that a skilled designer would view fender designs as
`
`interchangeable.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’625 PATENT
`28. The ‘625 Patent is a design patent for a vehicle front fender. The
`
`Petition states that the 2018 Chevrolet Equinox is an embodiment of the claimed
`
`design of the ’625 Patent. LKQ Petition at p. 10. I agree with this, and reference
`
`that vehicle throughout my declaration.
`
`29.
`
` I have reviewed Mr. Gandy’s and Mr. Hill’s description of this
`
`design, and believe that both lack significant details that contribute to the claimed
`
`design. I provide my understanding below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`30. The ’625 Patent provides the ornamental design for a vehicle front
`
`fender, shown in four different views. Based on my review, the figures,
`
`collectively, show that the claimed design includes sculpted surfacing that provides
`
`an overall appearance that is smooth, arcuate, consistent, and athletic.
`
`31. FIG. 1 (reproduced below) of the ’625 Patent shows the perspective
`
`view of claimed design.
`
`
`32. FIG. 2 (reproduced below) shows the side view of the claimed design.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`33. FIG. 3 (reproduced below) shows the front view of the claimed front
`
`fender.
`
`
`34. FIG. 4 (reproduced below) shows the top view of the claimed design.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`It is both necessary and important to view the perimeter, edge, and
`
`35.
`
`contour shapes of the claimed design from a three-dimensional perspective, such as
`
`from the above sketches and/or from multiple views of the design, when assessing
`
`key features of a vehicle design and when determining whether their contributions
`
`affect the overall appearance of the vehicle.
`
`36. There are several key features of the ’625 Patent that provide the
`
`claimed design with a smooth, arcuate, cohesive overall appearance including its
`
`unique side and lower perimeter shapes, protrusion, sculpting, lower horizontal
`
`crease, and circular wheel arch.
`
`37. The first feature of the ’625 Patent that I would like to highlight and
`
`discuss is the claimed design’s side and lower perimeter shapes. The claimed
`
`design includes a door cut line that accounts for the majority of the side perimeter.
`
`The door cut line has a curvature that is smooth and consistent as it extends from
`
`the bottom of the fender to the cut-out feature near the top of the fender. The
`
`smooth and consistent curvature of the door cut line echoes the smooth and
`
`consistent curvature of the circular wheel arch shape. I note further that the shape
`
`15
`
`
`
`of the door cut line and the wheel arch also complement the smooth and consistent
`
`curvature of the “first” and “second” creases and other sculpting of the fender.
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`38. Ex. 1001, ’625 Patent, FIG. 2 (annotated). I note that the appearance
`
`of the door cut line would have had a substantial impact on the overall appearance
`
`of the design. Not only does the door cut line account for a substantial portion of
`
`the fender perimeter, but it provides an important interfacing feature. The door cut
`
`line interfaces with and adjacent door panel of the vehicle, and thus the shape of
`
`the door cut line must match the shape of the corresponding vehicle panel.
`
`39. The second feature of the ’625 Patent that is particularly notable is
`
`what the Petition refers to as the “protrusion.” The “protrusion” interfaces with the
`
`vehicle “A-pillar” and has a distinct three-dimensional shape. For example, the
`
`“protrusion” has an upper surface and a side surface separated by a crease that
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`extends across the “protrusion.” The thickness of the upper surface is largely
`
`consistent and has a smooth curvature as it extends between sides of the protrusion.
`
`The protrusion also includes a “u-shaped notch.” The “u-shaped notch” includes a
`
`scalloped surface having a thickness and consistent width that mirrors the thickness
`
`and consistent width of the upper surface. These features are readily visible and
`
`accentuate the cohesive overall appearance of the fender. The three-dimensionality
`
`of the protrusion is appreciated by considering each of the perspective, side, front,
`
`and top views.
`
`FIG 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 2:
`
`
`
`FIG 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 4:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ’625 Patent, FIGS 1-4 (partial, annotated).
`
`
`
`40. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field, the appearance of
`
`the specific features of the protrusion would have been particularly notable to the
`
`ordinary observer’s impression of the overall appearance of the fender because of
`
`the requirement that these features match with other components of the vehicle.
`
`For example, the protrusion is adjacent to the vehicle hood and the A-Pillar. The
`
`protrusion’s crease extends between the hood and the A-pillar, which would have
`
`signaled that the crease interfaces with related creases of the hood and A-Pillar.
`
`The “u-shaped notch” also provides an interfacing feature. The ’625 Patent depicts
`
`the “u-shaped notch” having a thickness, which interfaces with a door/side-view
`
`mirror assembly.
`
`41. A third key feature of the ’625 Patent’s design is its distinctive
`
`sculpting. The claimed design is characterized by lines and surfaces having
`
`smooth, arcing shapes. “First” and “second” creases gently curve between
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`respective ends, as do the “concavity” line and third crease. Each of these lines
`
`cooperate with the fender perimeter, which likewise is made up of smooth, arcing
`
`lines. Fender includes smooth, contoured surfaces. The set of lines and surfaces
`
`work together to result in an overall appearance of smooth, curving shapes. These
`
`lines are annotated in FIG. 2 below.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ’625 Patent, FIG. 2 (annotated). I note that each of the lines generally
`
`starts at a relatively lower position towards the front of the fender, which is the left
`
`side in the perspective of FIG. 2, and terminates at a relatively higher position
`
`towards the rear of the fender. This relationship is readily visible and again
`
`promotes the cohesive overall appearance of the ’625 Patent’s design.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`42. The “concavity line” has a distinct curving shape—it extends
`
`upwardly from a left end of the “second crease” nearly to the right end of the “first
`
`crease.” The “concavity line” is significant to the overall appearance both due to
`
`its upwardly curving shape and its contribution to providing uniquely shaped
`
`surface light and shadow. In other words, these lines result in a particular
`
`sculpture of the fender that catches light in a unique way such that the contoured
`
`surfaces are highlighted by location of relatively lighter and darker surfaces.
`
`Relatively light and dark surfaces are readily observed in a depiction of the 2018
`
`Chevrolet Equinox below. Areas of dark/light are delineated by the “concavity
`
`line.”
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Equinox Brochure, 10 (annotated); Ex. 1001, ’625 Patent, FIG. 2
`
`(annotated)).
`
`43. The ’625 Patent’s surface sculpting includes another distinctive
`
`feature that contributes to its overall appearance—the upper edge of the
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`“protrusion” and the “first crease” extend in opposed directions. The upper edge
`
`of the “protrusion” (annotated with a red arrow) curves upward. This contrasts
`
`with the “first crease” (annotated in blue), which curves downward below the U-
`
`shaped notch. This is significant to the overall appearance in part because the
`
`upper edge of the protrusion draws the ordinary observer’s eye upwardly, while the
`
`first crease draws the ordinary observer’s eye downwardly and rearwardly. The
`
`ordinary observer would have thus recognized the opposed directions of these
`
`features.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ’625 Patent, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`44.
`
`I note that the “first crease” (blue) is critical to the overall appearance
`
`in the eyes of the ordinary observer because it serves as a “character line.” The
`
`curvature and relative positioning of the “first crease” helps set a tone for the
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`proportions and body shape of the fender, as well as other parts to which the fender
`
`connects, such as the bumper, head lights, side panels, and rear portions of the
`
`vehicle. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field, the ordinary observer
`
`would have found the shape, location, and relationship with other features of the
`
`design as important features to the overall visual impression created by the ’625
`
`Patent’s design.
`
`45. The fourth key feature of the claimed design that I discuss here is a
`
`third crease near the lower portion of the fender. This third crease extends between
`
`the wheel arch and the door cut line. Based on my knowledge and experience, the
`
`third crease adds a focal feature that extends to the right of the wheel arch. It
`
`would have been readily observed by the ordinary observer and significant to their
`
`overall impression of the claim design. The focal feature that is created by the
`
`third crease divides the lower wheel arch portion from the upper portion of the
`
`panel. I note that the ’625 Patent depicts shade lines above and below the crease,
`
`further accentuating the prominence of the third crease to the appearance of the
`
`claimed design.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGS. 1 and 2 (annotated).
`
`46. A fifth key feature of the claimed design is its circular wheel arch.
`
`Much like the shape of the door cut line, the lower perimeter defining the wheel
`
`arch has a smooth, continuous curvature. This circular perimeter edge extends
`
`from the front corner of the fender and rear bottom corner of the fender. In my
`
`opinion, the circular wheel arch, and its relationship to the other smooth, arcing
`
`lines of the design, significantly impact the cohesive overall appearance of the
`
`fender.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`
`
`FIG. 2, (annotated). I further note that the design has a relatively short height
`
`between the top of the protrusion and the bottom of the door cut line. As I
`
`discussed previously, the door cut line includes a smooth, continuous curve such
`
`that there is no discrete rearward extensions at the lower edge. The wheel arch
`
`defines a relatively small circular segment as a result of the relatively short height
`
`such that the door cut line terminates above a radial center of the wheel arch.
`
`47. Each of the features that I have described above contribute to the
`
`overall appearance and design of the ’625 Patent, evoking a distinctive visual
`
`image and impression that is smooth, arcuate, and consistent. This is particularly
`
`the case in the field of vehicle front fenders. As I discussed previously, these are
`
`the type of features that distinguish the overall appearance between designs in the
`
`crowded space of vehicle front fenders to the ordinary observer.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`VI. THE FIELD OF VEHICLE FENDER DESIGN
`48. LKQ and its experts largely focus on just two prior art references: the
`
`Lian reference and the 2010 Hyundai Tucson. They largely ignore the significant
`
`number of vehicle front fenders and fender references that were available at the
`
`time of the invention. This leads LKQ and its experts to oversimplify the claimed
`
`design, ignore features that the ordinary observer and ordinary designer would
`
`have found significant, and engage in what appears to be a hindsight-based
`
`picking-and-choosing of features between the references. Below, I describe prior
`
`art and its impact on the overall appearance of the ’625 Patent’s design to the
`
`ordinary observer and ordinary designer.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Fenders
`49. The ordinary observer would have been both familiar with prior art
`
`designs and attuned to small differences in a crowded field, such as the field of
`
`vehicle fenders. LKQ and its experts do not acknowledge and address the vast
`
`array of prior art vehicle front fenders, which inform the level of detail that would
`
`impact the ordinary observer’s impression of the claimed design. There are
`
`numerous prior art vehicle front fenders, including dozens cited and considered
`
`during patent prosecution of the ’625 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`It can be seen from the face of the ’625 Patent that the existing front
`
`fender designs were vast and numerous at the time of filing. For example, U.S.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`Pat. Nos. D766149, D704607, D763753, D686536, D692798, D762151, D713298,
`
`D764362, D785521, D739306, D722282, D784857, D613645, D611387,
`
`D704103, D717696, D692798, D680909, D615458, D699629, D781180,
`
`D635488, D773361, and D699649 all depict vehicle fender designs. Each includes
`
`features identified in LKQ’s proposed construction for the ’625 Patent. U.S. Pat.
`
`Nos. D766149, D704607, D763753, D686536, D692798, and D762151, in
`
`particular, depict vehicle fender designs that reflect common design concepts like
`
`those recited in Petitioner’s proposed construction for the ’625 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`51. The fender designs shown above also inform the ordinary observer of
`
`features commonly present in front fender designs. These common features
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`include arcuate wheel arches, protrusions that interface between the vehicle hood
`
`and A-pillar, door cut lines that interface with a door panel, and contoured surface
`
`sculpting that includes multiple creases. Notably, however, the specific designs of
`
`these features differ. Based on my knowledge and experience, such differences are
`
`significant to the ordinary observer’s overall appearance, and such differences
`
`distinguish the vehicle fenders in the eyes of the ordinary observer.
`
`52. The ordinary observer would have been attuned to nuanced
`
`differences between fender designs, and these nuanced differences would have had
`
`a substantial impact on the overall appearance of fender designs to the ordinary
`
`observer. This is because fender designs are prolific, and because so many fender
`
`designs share common design concepts. It was common for fenders to include a
`
`top protrusion (e.g., A-pillar base) extending upwardly and rearwardly from an
`
`upper portion of the fender and having a u-shaped notch. The top protrusion
`
`interfaces with the “A-pillar,” which is present in nearly all vehicles of the time
`
`period. Likewise, it was common to have a fender profile that includes an arcuate
`
`wheel arch, and an angular profile when viewed from the front. As a result, it is
`
`the specific features that provide the overall appearance to the ordinary observer,
`
`such as the geometry of the protrusion and its relationship to other features of the
`
`design, the specific lines and contours that make up the surface sculpting, the
`
`27
`
`
`
`perimeter shape, and the relative proportions and positional relationships of these
`
`Case IPR2020-00534
`Attorney Docket No. 45343-0031IP1
`
`features.
`
`53. As further evidence of the crowded field that is at issue here, I refer to
`
`an article from October 2017 estimating that over 1,700 different car models were
`
`on the road. Ex. 2002, Kuchling Article at p. 2. Each car model typically includes
`
`a vehicle front fender, and each vehicle front fender generally includes a lower
`
`perimeter that defines a front wheel arch, and edges that interface with the
`
`headlight, hood, and door panel. Based on my experience, the ordinary observer
`
`readily recognized differences that distinguish vehicle fender designs, particularly
`
`given the number of fender designs on the market.
`
`B.
`
`The ordinary observer is concerned with the match of a vehicle
`fender with interfacing components.
`54. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field, the ordinary
`
`observer notices the match of fit of the design with other components of the
`
`vehicle. The part must fit and match with a