throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket