`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GM Global Technology Operations LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00534
`U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625
`__________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JASON C. HILL, IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Ex. 1043, LKQ v. GM
`IPR2020-00534
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`I, Jason C. Hill, submit this declaration in support of Petitioners LKQ
`
`Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response in this Inter Partes Review proceeding of U.S. Design Patent No.
`
`D797,625 (the ’625 Patent”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under
`
`penalty of perjury that the statements herein are true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge, belief, recollection, and understanding. All statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I am over the age of eighteen, and, if
`
`asked to do so, I could competently testify to the matters set forth herein.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc. (together “LKQ” or “Petitioner”), as an expert witness in this
`
`proceeding. I previously submitted a declaration in support of LKQ’s Petition in
`
`this proceeding, which was filed as Exhibit 1004. I am submitting this second
`
`declaration in support of LKQ’s Reply to Patent Owner GM’s Response. This
`
`declaration is based on my personal knowledge unless otherwise specified.
`
`2.
`
`It remains my opinion that the ’625 Patent is invalid as anticipated by
`
`the fender design disclosed in U.S. Patent No. D773,340 (“Lian”) (Ex. 1006),
`
`obvious in view of Lian, and further obvious in view of Lian in further view of the
`
`teachings and suggestions of the closely related fender design disclosed in the “2010
`
`Hyundai_Tucson” brochure submitted as Ex. 1007 (“Tucson”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In addition to the materials listed in my first declaration, Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 17), and Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002–2007, I have also
`
`reviewed and relied upon the following materials:
`
`• Exhibits 1017–1040, which consisted of the prior art exhibits cited by
`
`Mr. Peters in his Declaration (Ex. 2004) in support of GM’s “crowded
`
`field” theory;
`
`• Exhibits 1041 and 1042, which I understand to comprise collages of
`
`the side elevation views from each of Exhibits 1017–1040, as well as
`
`the side elevation views of the ’625 Patent (Ex. 1001) and Lian (Ex.
`
`1006); and
`
`• Exhibit 1044, which is a transcript of the deposition of GM’s
`
`declarant Mr. Thomas V. Peters.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to the above-stated materials provided, I have also relied on
`
`my own education, training, experience and knowledge in the field of transportation
`
`or automotive design and design patents.
`
`5.
`
`I may also consider additional documents and information that have not
`
`yet been provided to or discovered by me should such documents and information
`
`be brought to my attention after the date I submit this Declaration, and I reserve the
`
`right to add to or amend my opinions in connection with the same.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`6.
`
`As before, the analysis in this Declaration is exemplary. Additional
`
`reasons may support my conclusions, but they do not form my current analysis. The
`
`fact that I do not address a particular reason does not imply that I would agree or
`
`disagree with such additional reason.
`
`7.
`
`Also as before, I receive compensation at a rate of $375 per hour for
`
`my time spent on this matter, except for any travel time, which is billed at one-half
`
`of my hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work on this matter. I have no financial interests in the
`
`patents involved in this proceeding, and my compensation is not dependent on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. The conclusions I present are based on my own
`
`judgment. I am not an employee of LKQ Corporation, Keystone Automotive
`
`Industries, Inc., Irwin IP LLC, or any affiliated companies.
`
`II. THE ORDINARY OBSERVER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE
`BUYER OF AN AUTOMOBILE BECAUSE A FENDER IS NOT
`DESIGNED OR ORNAMENTED FOR ANY VIEWING CONTEXT
`EXCEPT ON AN AUTOMOBILE.
`
`8.
`
`As an automotive designer, it makes little sense to consider the ordinary
`
`observer to view the fender in any context other than mounted on a vehicle because
`
`vehicle fenders like that of the ’625 Patent are not designed to be viewed on their
`
`own. A fender is not individually designed, and on its own only constitutes a
`
`fragment of the design of an entire automobile. Further, the primary context for
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`which an automotive designer would design a vehicle is to be marketed and sold as
`
`a vehicle. Not piecemeal as individual parts, as it might appear at a repair shop.
`
`From a designer’s perspective, the only rational ordinary observer is the prospective
`
`purchaser of a new vehicle, as that is the only purchaser for whose viewing the fender
`
`is ornamented. Indeed, automobile buyers do not look at or buy a fender design
`
`alone; from a design perspective, they purchase the flow and harmony of design
`
`expressed on the product as a whole (i.e., the vehicle).
`
`9.
`
`However, I agree with the Board’s assessment that in the case of Lian
`
`and the ’625 Patent, the designs’ similarity is so striking that either ordinary observer
`
`considered here would find the designs substantially the same.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER UNDERSTATES THE SKILL AND CAPABILITY
`OF THE DESIGNER OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART BY
`FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTEXT IN WHICH SUCH
`A DESIGNER WORKS.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the Board has adopted LKQ’s definition of the
`
`designer of ordinary skill in the art (“DOSA”): 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. I continue to believe this is
`
`an appropriate characterization of the DOSA’s qualifications.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I further understand that the law considers the DOSA to be a designer
`
`who designs articles of the type involved. For the fender design ’625 Patent, this
`
`DOSA would be an automobile designer.
`
`12. Although Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the DOSA’s
`
`qualifications did not seem substantially different than that advanced in my prior
`
`declaration, its positions in its Response, as well as Mr. Peters’ testimony, suggest
`
`that, just as it did in the earlier IPR2020-00064 proceeding, Patent Owner has not
`
`accorded the DOSA an appropriate degree of skill and capability. From their
`
`positions in this proceeding, GM and Mr. Peters view the “ordinary designer” as a
`
`mere automaton, incapable of imagination. The ordinary designer is still a skilled
`
`design professional, with the creativity that would be expected of such a professional
`
`and the capability to envision solutions to at least routine problems encountered in
`
`the field of automotive design.
`
`13. For example, I find unrealistic Patent Owner’s and Mr. Peters’ assertion
`
`that an ordinary designer would not have thought it obvious modify the features of
`
`Lian based on the suggestions of the Tucson even though the designs are directed to
`
`similar-appearing fenders on similar-appearing vehicles of identical class.
`
`Designers routinely analyze other automobile designs on the market as part of the
`
`vehicle design process, and it would have been particularly obvious for a designer
`
`considering modifying the design of Lian to look to vehicles as similar as the Tucson.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`14. When considering the knowledge, skill, and capabilities of the ordinary
`
`designer who is designing automobile exteriors, it is important to bear in mind that
`
`this person would ordinarily work at an automobile company. The ordinary
`
`designer’s skill and abilities cannot be properly gauged without considering the
`
`studio environment in which they perform their design work.
`
`15. Designers having the ordinary designer’s skill and qualifications,
`
`essentially, junior automobile designers, ordinarily and typically work within an
`
`extensive organizational structure, and develop their designs using a sophisticated
`
`and highly iterative design process. Such a junior designer would receive input,
`
`guidance, and direction from a variety of sources, including but not limited to senior
`
`and more experienced designers, to whom they would typically report, design and
`
`business executives, and marketing professionals.
`
`16. More senior supervising designers or executives are often responsible
`
`for a multitude of vehicle models or brands, and it is typical for such senior personnel
`
`to provide guidance and direction to junior designers, such as the ordinary designer,
`
`in order to align the designer’s work with the brand’s existing designs and themes.
`
`I understand that Mr. Peters performed precisely such a role at GM, and this is typical
`
`and common in the automotive industry. The ordinary designer also has the benefit
`
`of supporting professionals, such as digital artists and modelers, and clay sculptors
`
`7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`who help the designer realize, analyze, and iterate on their design ideas and realize
`
`their design concepts.
`
`17. This supporting business infrastructure further provides the designer
`
`with resources, guidance, insights, and direction regarding design trends and
`
`consumer preferences and business- and manufacturing-related considerations.
`
`18. The ordinary designer works in the context of a larger organizational
`
`framework and support structure. The ordinary designer cannot be separated from
`
`the design studio in which they operate if one is to realistically understand their
`
`capabilities.
`
`19. Although I disagree with Patent Owner’s understatement of the degree
`
`of skill and capability a designer of ordinary skill in the art would possess and believe
`
`the ordinary designer should be considered integrally with the studio environment
`
`in which such a designer would work, this issue is not decisive of the obviousness
`
`of the ’625 Patent. The claimed design would have been obvious to a DOSA even
`
`assuming the DOSA were working alone and without the benefit of the supporting
`
`infrastructure or resources to which such a designer would realistically have access.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`IV. LIAN ALONE ANTICIPATES AND RENDERS OBVIOUS THE ’625
`PATENT.
`
`A. A myriad of visual similarities connect the ’625 Patent and Lian,
`giving them substantially the same overall visual appearance.
`
`20. An ordinary observer (to the extent they perceived the design in a
`
`sufficient level of detail) or designer considering the drawings of each of the ’625
`
`Patent and Lian would have concluded that the following features of each were either
`
`identical or near-identical:
`
`A.
`
`The shape, outline, and contouring of the protrusion, including:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`the curvature of its top edge when viewed in side elevation,
`
`a substantially right-angular joint with its trailing edge,
`
`iii.
`
`the length and angle of its trailing edge,
`
`iv.
`
`its contouring when viewed in front elevation including an
`
`upwardly and inwardly angled face that inflects further inwards
`
`as it approaches the top, and
`
`v.
`
`the contouring of its actual top edge portions (i.e. the narrow
`
`inwardly-folded strip near the windshield);
`
`B.
`
`shape, angle, and position of U-shaped notches, including that each
`
`comprises a curve that tightens towards its center, similar
`
`dimensions of the U-shaped notch in length and height, and a similar
`
`radius of its internal arc relative to the rest of the fender;
`
`9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`C.
`
`shape and contour of their upper perimeters as they extend from
`
`protrusion to headlamp aperture and interface with the hood cut line,
`
`including:
`
`i.
`
`the downwardly sloping, upwardly curved segment flowing
`
`forwards from the front of the protrusion, and
`
`ii.
`
`the middle section having a subtle downward slope and curvature
`
`when viewed from the side;
`
`D.
`
`the s-curving transition from the hood cut line to the headlamp
`
`aperture that curves and slants laterally outwards, then turns
`
`downwards at the front terminus of the first crease to slope
`
`downwards and forwards into the headlamp aperture;
`
`E.
`
`the headlamp aperture, which consists of two subtly defined
`
`segments: a shorter segment that slopes more steeply downwards
`
`and forwards, and then rounds into a longer segment that slopes
`
`downwards and forwards at a shallower angle towards a pointed
`
`front end of the fender;
`
`F.
`
`the acute intersection angle of the headlamp aperture with the
`
`slanted cut at the lower-front edge of the fender, forming a front
`
`terminus having a virtually identical appearance;
`
`10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`G.
`
`laterally convex sculpture towards front, creating a full surface that,
`
`when viewed from the front, expresses itself as substantially flat and
`
`three-dimensionally angled inwards at the top and front in the same
`
`manner;
`
`H.
`
`slanted cuts oriented at similar angles, forming similar angles with
`
`each of the headlamp aperture, wheel arch flat, and wheel arch, and
`
`having similar length and proportions versus both the size of the
`
`fender and the width of the wheel arch flat;
`
`I.
`
`a nearly identical obtuse intersection angle between the slanted cuts
`
`and the point formed at the front lower corner of each fender
`
`design’s respective wheel arch and wheel arch flat;
`
`J.
`
`wheel arch flats having nearly identical width, contour, and inwards
`
`bevel angle;
`
`K.
`
`lower rear termini that, at the location on Lian corresponding to the
`
`point where the claimed design terminates and in terms of width,
`
`shape, and contouring up to the point at which the wheel arch flats
`
`terminate;
`
`L.
`
`curved door-cut lines that accelerate rearwards as they progress
`
`upwards;
`
`11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`M.
`
`first creases having a nearly identical appearance both in terms of
`
`shape, location, length, and contouring;
`
`N.
`
`inward folds above first creases running the full length of the first
`
`crease and folding material towards the horizontal to interface with
`
`the hood;
`
`O.
`
`first creases starting lower at the front than their rear termination,
`
`with gentle downward curvature and undercuts beneath;
`
`P.
`
`convex sculpting above the wheel arch flats and extending upwards
`
`towards the first creases;
`
`Q.
`
`second creases having a nearly identical appearance in terms of
`
`shape, location, angle, length, curvature, and contouring, including
`
`an undercut beneath the second crease;
`
`R.
`
`a zone of concavity between first and second creases inflecting
`
`between the rear edge of the fender at a point beneath the first crease
`
`and extending forwards and downwards;
`
`S.
`
`a wide-line oriented laterally and sloping downwardly, located
`
`beneath the respective second creases and situated vertically slightly
`
`less than halfway between the second crease and the rocker panel;
`
`T.
`
`nearly identical front elevation profiles and outlines, including in
`
`terms of contouring, sculpting, shape, and the appearance of all of
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`the respective fenders’ perimeter edges, including the angle of the
`
`wheel arch versus the vertical, and the change of angle at the top of
`
`the wheel arch as the fender flows upwards and inwards towards the
`
`protrusion; and
`
`U.
`
`nearly identical top view profiles and outlines, including in terms of
`
`contouring, sculpting, and the appearance of all of the respective
`
`fenders’ perimeter edges, including in tapering from rear to front, a
`
`wide-line along the wheel arch, and first and second creases that
`
`were visible from the top.
`
`’625 PATENT
`CLAIMED DESIGN
`
`LIAN (EX. 1006)
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 4 (annotated)
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 4 (annotated)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`’625 PATENT
`CLAIMED DESIGN
`
`LIAN (EX. 1006)
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 5 (annotated)
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 5 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 7 (annotated)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`21. Faced with such a strikingly similar fender design, an ordinary observer
`
`would more likely than not have perceived the fenders to be substantially the same.
`
`The fenders are alike in all of the most graphically influential respects, including in
`
`their headlamp cut-outs and the S-curved transitions leading to them, the distinctive
`
`look formed by the interface of the S-curved transition with the fenders’ respective
`
`first creases, their patterns of contouring from the top edge interfacing with the hood
`
`into a set of two downwardly sloped and downwardly curving creases, and the
`
`shapes and sculpting of their respective protrusions.
`
`22. Likewise, a designer of ordinary skill in the art would, at the very least,
`
`have found the designs basically the same based upon all of those similarities. Such
`
`a designer, whom I understand to be aware of the prior art, would have recognized
`
`that the ’625 Patent is unusually and strikingly similar to Lian. Further, while Lian
`
`is not identical to the claimed design in the shape of its wheel arch and lower rear
`
`terminus, it differs only in routine respects. As further explained in my prior
`
`declaration and below, a DOSA would have found it obvious to modify Lian to
`
`incorporate a circular wheel arch and a rear lower rear terminus at the rocker panel
`
`based on such a designer’s ordinary knowledge and skill alone, as a circular wheel
`
`arch is one of the most prolific and obvious wheel arch designs. Further, there are
`
`only a finite number of ways to resolve the lower rear end of the fender (terminate
`
`at the rocker panel, as the claimed design does; proceed straight to the bottom of the
`
`15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`vehicle; or hook back towards the rocker panel, as Lian does). As previously
`
`explained, a DOSA, and especially one looking to adapt Lian for the United States
`
`market, would have found it obvious to cause Lian’s fender to terminate above the
`
`rocker panel to enable the use of a darker colored rocker, creating the illusion of
`
`greater height and ground clearance.
`
`B. GM’s “Crowded Field” References are far more different from
`the ’625 Patent than Lian.
`
`23. Having reviewed the references Patent Owner and Mr. Peters identified
`
`in support of their “crowded field” theory, Exs. 1017–1040, it is my opinion that
`
`none are as similar in overall visual appearance to the ’625 Patent as Lian.
`
`24. Several of these “crowded field” references either lack features of the
`
`’625 Patent altogether or present those features in a different visual appearance than
`
`the claimed design does. Further, not a single one of these “crowded field”
`
`references presents the constellation of all of the ’625 Patent’s features on a single
`
`design, much less all with the degree of similarity of visual appearance evident in
`
`Lian. This is evident in the below collage comparing GM’s six selected “crowded
`
`field” references against the ’625 Patent and Lian:
`
`16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1032. Lian discloses a more identical (1) slanted cut; (2) headlamp aperture;
`
`(3) upper edge of the fender; (4) first crease; (5) second crease; (6) concavity line;
`
`(7) wheel arch flat; and (8) surface contour pattern than any of the “crowding”
`
`references, and (9) only one, the ’798 Patent, discloses a protrusion that is arguably
`
`as similar as Lian’s. I agree with Mr. Peters in his description of the respects in
`
`17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`which each of these “crowding” references differed from Lian, as set forth on pages
`
`140-153 of his deposition, Ex. 1044, and further agree with Mr. Peters that none of
`
`GM’s additional 18 cited “crowding” references are closer in overall visual
`
`appearance than Lian to the ’625 Patent. Further, even if a crowded field would
`
`attune an ordinary observer aware of the prior art or a DOSA to differences, there is
`
`no reason that observer would pay particular attention to the specific, nuanced
`
`distinctions GM mentioned in its Response; if anything, it would render the striking
`
`similarity of the two fenders even more remarkable.
`
`C. A “Crowded Field” Makes More Designs Obvious; Not Less.
`
`25.
`
`I understand Patent Owner to have previously argued that in what
`
`Patent Owner terms a “crowded field,” which I understand to mean a situation where
`
`there are a vast number of prior art designs in a field, an ordinary designer will be
`
`more attuned to recognizing minor and nuanced differences between designs, and
`
`that because of these nuanced distinctions, such an ordinary designer would find
`
`even designs with similar elements not to create the same overall visual impression.
`
`26.
`
`I am not an attorney and express no opinion regarding the legal aspects
`
`of Patent Owner’s argument. However, as a professional designer, it is my opinion
`
`that Patent Owner’s theory arrives at the wrong conclusion, and one inconsistent
`
`with how I would understand the term “obvious.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`27. Although I agree that ordinary designers of articles such as the fender
`
`design at issue here do notice nuanced design elements and differences that lay
`
`observers might miss, that designer would have the knowledge and the judgment to
`
`differentiate between distinctions that have a meaningful impact on the overall visual
`
`appearance of a design and those that do not. This is regardless of the number of
`
`similar prior art references known to that designer. The capacity to parse through
`
`the multitude of elements and details making up the design to understand the visual
`
`appearance the design creates as a whole is an essential skill for all designers, and
`
`especially automobile exterior designers.
`
`28. Further, it is my opinion that if an ordinary designer is aware of a
`
`greater number of similar prior art designs, that could only enhance the designs and
`
`modifications to designs that the designer can envision. A designer in a more
`
`“crowded field” has a larger pool of ideas and inspiration to draw upon when
`
`considering how to revise or modify an existing design, and thus should find a
`
`greater swathe of designs to be “obvious” than a designer without the benefit of that
`
`knowledge.
`
`29. Finally and regardless, even if the “crowded field” were assumed to
`
`attune a DOSA to differences, that would still be irrelevant to the test for obviousness
`
`since a DOSA can notice differences, yet still conclude that two designs are basically
`
`19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`the same or even convey the same overall visual impression regardless of those
`
`differences, as is the case here.
`
`D. None of Patent Owner’s Purported Distinctions Avoid
`Anticipation or Obviousness.
`
`30. Neither Patent Owner’s Response, nor Mr. Peters’ declaration
`
`compares the overall visual impressions created by the ’625 Patent and Lian.
`
`Instead, both focus exclusively upon small, often illusory differences, ignoring the
`
`clear similarities between the two designs, such as those noted in Paragraph 20,
`
`above.
`
`1.
`
`None of Lian’s door-cut line, protrusion, inflection line, or
`pattern of creases and sculpture meaningfully differ from
`the ’625 Patent.
`
`31. First, as to the door cut line, contrary to GM’s assertions, Lian’s door
`
`cut line is not angular; but arcuate with the arch at the top accelerating. The ’625
`
`Patent’s door cut line is not uniformly arcuate either and exhibits rearwards
`
`acceleration at the top. As shown below, these door-cut lines are substantially
`
`similar:
`
`20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`’625 PATENT
`CLAIMED DESIGN
`
`LIAN (EX. 1006)
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 4
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1
`
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 4 Ex. 1006, FIG. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 5
`
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`32. The respective tops of the door cut lines are extremely similar, with
`
`Lian exhibiting slightly greater rearwards acceleration and a slightly more sheer
`
`upper segment than the ’625 Patent. However, this is not the type of difference that
`
`I would expect an ordinary observer to notice as the upper parts of each design’s
`
`door cut line is exhibiting the same behavior; just not to exactly the same extent. For
`
`that same reason, an ordinary designer would still have found the fenders basically
`
`the same despite such a difference of degree, since such a DOSA would have
`
`recognized that the fenders were exhibiting extremely similar features. Both door
`
`cut lines then flow to an arcuate segment as they cross their respective second
`
`21
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`creases, another similarity that would have occluded any difference to the ordinary
`
`observer, and that would have reinforced the designs’ similarity to an ordinary
`
`designer. Finally, both designs arc back in an almost identical manner as they flow
`
`downwards until the ’625 Patent’s fender terminates at its rocker panel, and Lian’s
`
`fender flows into its rearward hook at the level of the rocker panel.
`
`33. The difference between the two designs’ door-cut lines is so minor that
`
`an ordinary observer is unlikely to even notice it. Further, even if the ordinary
`
`observer could observe the difference when focusing on the door-cut line in
`
`isolation, it would still have no impact on such an observer’s overall visual
`
`impression of the fender design when considering the design as a whole, given such
`
`time as an ordinary purchaser would give. Likewise, a DOSA would find the door-
`
`cut lines basically the same even in isolation, despite the minor difference in
`
`rearward acceleration, and considering the fender designs as a whole, would not find
`
`the difference to distinguish the overall visual impression created by each design.
`
`Miniscule differences in detail, such as the depth to which the door cut line advances
`
`beyond the U-shaped notch or the height at which its apex manifests in the side
`
`elevation view would not be noticeable to an ordinary observer. Further, they would
`
`not have caused an ordinary designer to find the designs different because such a
`
`designer would have recognized that the fenders were nonetheless exhibiting nearly
`
`identical features. These conclusions are reinforced by the identicality of the rear
`
`22
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`edge when viewed in perspective view and substantial similarity when viewed from
`
`above.
`
`34.
`
`Indeed, designers do not focus extensively on the specific shape of
`
`door-cut lines because they are mainly functional parting lines that carry little visual
`
`significance and are intended to disappear rather than stand out in the design of the
`
`vehicle. Because they are vertically oriented elements, they are often glossed over
`
`by observers. This is intentional, as vehicle designs typically cause the viewer’s
`
`gaze to flow along the vehicle’s length. This places greater visual emphasis on
`
`horizontal rather than vertical design elements, and observers tend to discard vertical
`
`elements that would interrupt that intended flow. Thus, DOSAs would be aware that
`
`the specific shape of the door-cut part line is often dictated by engineering
`
`considerations, such as the placement locations of door pivot points along the
`
`vehicle’s frame, throw, and the resultant angle of the door (as it would affect weight
`
`balance).
`
`35. Second, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions in its Response, the top
`
`surface of Lian’s protrusion does not distinguish the designs either from the
`
`perspective of an ordinary observer or a DOSA. Preliminarily, Patent Owner
`
`exaggerates the extent of this purported difference by incorrectly annotating part of
`
`the side face of Lian’s protrusion as though it were the top edge:
`
`23
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17, at 27. As Lian’s Figure 5 makes apparent, the design already has a defined
`
`top edge. Patent Owner had previously taken note of and even separately annotated
`
`precisely that top surface of the protrusion in its Preliminary Response (see yellow
`
`below, but note that the bottom green box line is actually fabricated):
`
`Paper 9, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, at 23 (V labeling added). As Patent
`
`Owner’s own annotation shows, the top surface of Lian’s protrusion looks extremely
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`similar to that of the ’625 Patent’s protrusion. The protrusions of Lian and the ’625
`
`Patent are nearly identical. Considered from all views, the similarity of the
`
`protrusions is apparent:
`
`’625 PATENT
`CLAIMED DESIGN
`
`LIAN (EX. 1006)
`PRIOR ART
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 4
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 4
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 5
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 5
`
`25
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`’625 PATENT
`CLAIMED DESIGN
`
`LIAN (EX. 1006)
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 FIG. 1
`
`Ex. 1006 FIG. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`36. These conclusions are reinforced by the identicality of the rear edge
`
`when viewed in perspective view and substantial similarity when viewed from
`
`above. Both designs’ protrusions feature arcing top edges of substantially consistent
`
`thickness (V) and formed via an upwardly curved crease, although upon very close
`
`inspection, Lian’s appears to slightly taper as it progresses rearwards. However,
`
`even considering this surface in isolation, it is unlikely that an ordinary observer
`
`would identify a difference between the two designs, and moreover, even if they did,
`
`they would still find the protrusions to be substantially the same, and any difference
`
`would have no effect on the overall visual impression created by the fender as a
`
`whole due to how small a portion of the design is affected, its location, and the
`
`similarities between the protrusion top surfaces notwithstanding any minor
`
`differences. Likewise, a DOSA would have found even the tops of the protrusions
`
`basically the same, and would not have found any difference between the top
`
`26
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jason C. Hill in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`D797,625 S
`
`
`surfaces to distinguish the overall visual appearances of even the protrusions in
`
`isolation, much less the designs as a whole.
`
`37. The intermittent crease that Patent Owner relies upon to manufacture
`
`what it now argues to be the top edge of Lian’s protrusion does not create a new
`
`surface; it merely causes an inflection across part of the protrusion’s surface before
`
`fading halfway down the protrusion. Both the area of the protrusion face above and
`
`below that crease should be considered to be a single surface.
`
`38.
`
` Further, the intermittent crease does not impact the observer’s gaze.
`
`As a viewer’s gaze tracks rearwards along the fender, it would be drawn upwards
`
`along Lian’s A-pillar just as it would up the claimed design’s embodiment’s A-pillar
`
`(to the extent this can