PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,261,648
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued:
`April 16, 2019
`Filed:
`May 23, 2016
`Inventors: John T. Uken, et al.
`Assignee: Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.
`Title:
`EXTERIOR REARVIEW MIRROR ASSEMBLY
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`On behalf of Motherson Innovations Company Limited (“Motherson” or
`
`“Petitioner”) and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) is respectfully requested for claims 1–13 and 15–36 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,261,648 (“the ’648 patent”) (Ex. 1001). As explained
`
`in this Petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Motherson will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims. Motherson respectfully submits that
`
`an IPR should be instituted and that the Challenged Claims should be canceled as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioner authorizes the Office to charge the
`
`$47,000 Petition and Post-Institution Fees, and any additional fees, to Deposit Account
`
`501432, ref: 524322-730202.
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`
`Grounds For Standing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................... 1 
`Background Information For The ’648 Patent .................................................. 1 
`A.  Overview Of The ’648 Patent ................................................................. 1 
`B.  Overview Of The Prosecution History .................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Level Of Skill In The Art ........................................................................ 3 
`Identification Of Challenge Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...................... 4 
`A. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which IPR Is Requested ............ 4 
`B. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art And Specific Grounds
`On Which The Challenge To The Claims Is Based ................................ 4 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ....................................... 5 
`“Fixedly Attached” – Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, 15, 17-18, 21-
`1. 
`22, 24, 26-27, 39-30, 32 ................................................................ 5 
`“Yaw” and “Roll” – Claims 9, 15, And 26 ................................... 6 
`2. 
`“Non-Orthogonally” – Claim 10, 23, 34 ....................................... 7 
`3. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How The Construed Claims Are
`Unpatentable ............................................................................................ 7 
`E. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ..................................... 7 
`IV.  There Is A Reasonable Likelihood Claims 1–13 and 15–36 Of The ’648
`Patent Are Unpatentable .................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Brief Overview Of The Prior Art ............................................................ 7 
`1. 
`Lupo .............................................................................................. 7 
`2. 
`Tsuyama ........................................................................................ 8 
`3.  McCabe ......................................................................................... 9 
`4. 
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................... 10 
`B.  Ground 1(a): Claims 1, 3, 5-13, And 15 Are Obvious In View Of
`Lupo ....................................................................................................... 11 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 11 
`2. 
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................ 19 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 20 
`3. 
`Claim 6 ........................................................................................ 25 
`4. 
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 25 
`5. 
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 26 
`6. 
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 26 
`7. 
`Claim 10 ...................................................................................... 27 
`8. 
`Claim 11 ...................................................................................... 28 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 12 ...................................................................................... 28 
`11.  Claim 13 ...................................................................................... 31 
`12.  Claim 15 ...................................................................................... 32 
`C.  Ground 1(b): Claims 2, 16-17, And 19-36 Are Obvious Over
`Lupo In View Of McCabe ..................................................................... 33 
`1. 
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 33 
`2. 
`Claim 16 ...................................................................................... 35 
`3. 
`Claim 17 ...................................................................................... 38 
`4. 
`Claim 19 ...................................................................................... 38 
`5. 
`Claims 20-25 ............................................................................... 39 
`6. 
`Claim 26 ...................................................................................... 39 
`7. 
`Claim 27 ...................................................................................... 41 
`8. 
`Claim 28 ...................................................................................... 41 
`9. 
`Claim 29 ...................................................................................... 42 
`10.  Claim 30 ...................................................................................... 42 
`11.  Claim 31 ...................................................................................... 42 
`12.  Claim 32 ...................................................................................... 43 
`13.  Claim 33 ...................................................................................... 44 
`14.  Claim 34 ...................................................................................... 44 
`15.  Claim 35 ...................................................................................... 45 
`16.  Claim 36 ...................................................................................... 45 
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`F. 
`
`D.  Ground 1(c): Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Lupo In View Of
`Tsuyama ................................................................................................ 45 
`E.  Ground 1(d): Claim 18 Is Obvious Over Lupo In View Of
`McCabe In Further View Of Tsuyama .................................................. 48 
`Ground 2(a): Claims 1, 5, 8–9, 12, And 15 Are Obvious In View
`Of Tsuyama .......................................................................................... 49 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 49 
`2. 
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................ 58 
`3. 
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................ 61 
`4. 
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................ 62 
`5. 
`Claim 12 ...................................................................................... 64 
`6. 
`Claim 15 ...................................................................................... 65 
`G.  Ground 2(b): Claims 2, 16, 19-20, 24 –27, 31, 33, And 36 Are
`Obvious Over Tsuyama In View Of McCabe ....................................... 66 
`1. 
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................ 66 
`2. 
`Claim 16 ...................................................................................... 68 
`3. 
`Claim 19 ...................................................................................... 70 
`4. 
`Claims 20, 24, 25 ........................................................................ 70 
`5. 
`Claim 26 ...................................................................................... 71 
`6. 
`Claim 27 ...................................................................................... 73 
`7. 
`Claim 31 ...................................................................................... 73 
`8. 
`Claim 33 ...................................................................................... 73 
`9. 
`Claim 36 ...................................................................................... 73 
`V.  Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .................................. 74 
`A. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest .................................... 74 
`B. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 74 
`C. 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Lead And Back-Up Counsel And
`Service Information ............................................................................... 74 
`VI.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 75 
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`I.
`
`Grounds For Standing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies the ’648 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting IPR challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified
`
`herein.
`
`II. Background Information For The ’648 Patent
`
`A. Overview Of The ’648 Patent
`The claims of the ’648 patent (36 in total) are generally directed to a rearview
`
`mirror assembly, mounted on the exterior of a vehicle, with an electrically-operable,
`
`multi-axis mirror adjustment mechanism. The mirror assembly comprises a reflective
`
`mirror element that is fixedly attached to the mirror housing, and thus moves in tandem
`
`with the housing. (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 59:7–22.)
`
`Figure 56 of the ’648 patent (annotated below) depicts a potential embodiment
`
`of claim 1. It shows an exterior rearview mirror assembly 610 comprising a reflective
`
`(mirror) element 612, which is fixedly attached to a mirror head housing 614.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 58:57–65.) The mirror head housing 614 is attached to an inner bracket 616,
`
`which is attached to a first actuator 618. The rotation of first actuator 618 rotates bracket
`
`616 and mirror head housing 614 (with attached mirror element 612) about a first pivot
`
`axis 618α. First actuator 618 is attached to a second bracket 620 that is mounted to a
`
`second actuator 622. The rotation of second actuator 622 rotates bracket 620, first
`
`actuator 618, bracket 616, and mirror head housing 614 (with attached mirror element
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`612) about a second pivot axis 622α. The second actuator 622 is attached to outer cover
`
`624, which is mounted to an exterior portion of a vehicle. (Ex. 1001, 59:7–22.)
`
`
`
`Mirror Head 
`Housing
`
`Rearview Mirror 
`Assembly
`
`Bracket
`First Actuator
`
`Reflective 
`Element
`
`First Pivot Axis
`
`Second Actuator
`
`Outer Cover
`
`Second Pivot Axis
`
`
`
`
`
`When mounted to a vehicle exterior, the mirror head can be electronically
`
`adjusted by a driver to adjust the rearward field of view of the driver. (Ex. 1001, 59:23–
`
`54, 60:42-61:8.) Some dependent claims require an electro-optic or electrochromic
`
`(e.g., self-dimming) mirror element, while others require certain variations of the
`
`actuators, such as non-orthogonal axes of rotation, or operation at different speeds.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`B. Overview Of The Prosecution History
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/161,708 was filed on May 23, 2016 and claims
`
`earliest priority, through a series of continuations, continuations-in-part, and
`
`provisional applications, to October 7, 2009.
`
`None of the prior art references relied upon in this petition were used by the
`
`Examiner as a basis for rejection during prosecution of the ’648 patent. The application
`
`received only a nonstatutory double patenting rejection as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 9,827,913 (“the ’913 patent”). (See Ex. 1007.) Patent Owner traversed this
`
`rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. None of the prior art references relied upon in
`
`this petition were used by the Examiner as a basis for rejection during prosecution of
`
`the ’913 patent either.
`
`C. Level Of Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of October 2009 (the earliest
`
`filing date to which the ’648 patent could claim priority) would have possessed at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or engineering technology with at least
`
`two years of experience in the automotive industry (or equivalent degree or experience).
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 34-36.) A person could also have qualified as a POSA with some
`
`combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s degree) and less technical
`
`experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`III.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims For Which IPR Is Requested
`IPR is requested for claims 1–13 and 15–36 of the ’648 patent. An appendix of
`
`these claims can be found in the Appendix of Challenged Claims.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art And Specific Grounds On
`Which The Challenge To The Claims Is Based
`IPR is requested in view of the following references:
`
` U.K. Patent Application GB 2,244,965 to Lupo (“Lupo”) (Ex. 1003). Lupo was
`
`filed on May 1, 1991, published on December 18, 1991, and is prior art to the ʼ648
`
`patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,255,451 to McCabe et al. (“McCabe”) (Ex. 1004). McCabe
`
`was filed on December 23, 2004, issued on August 14, 2007, and is prior art to the ’648
`
`patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,270,227 to Tsuyama (“Tsuyama”) (Ex. 1005). Tsuyama was
`
`filed on November 3, 1999, issued on August 7, 2001, and is prior art to the ’648 patent
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The specific statutory grounds on which the challenge to the claims is based and
`
`prior art relied upon for each ground are as follows:
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`1, 3, 5-13, and 15 Obvious under § 103 in view of Lupo
`2, 16-17, and 19-36 Obvious under § 103 over Lupo in view of
`McCabe
`Obvious under § 103 over Lupo in view of
`Tsuyama
`Obvious under § 103 over Lupo in view of
`McCabe in further view of Tsuyama
`Obvious under § 103 in view of Tsuyama
`
`4
`
`18
`
`1, 5, 8–9, 12, and
`15
`2, 16, 19-20, 24 –
`27, 31, 33, and 36
`
`Obvious under § 103 over Tsuyama in view of
`McCabe
`
`1(a)
`1(b)
`
`1(c)
`
`1(d)
`
`2(a)
`
`2(b)
`
`
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`The Board gives claims their ordinary and customary meaning, or “the meaning
`
`that the term would have to a [POSA] at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner does not waive, and
`
`expressly reserves, its claim scope arguments, constructions, and evidence it may raise
`
`in other proceedings. Petitioner submits the following terms for claim construction.
`
`1.
`
`“Fixedly Attached” – Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, 15, 17-18, 21-22,
`24, 26-27, 39-30, 32
`“Fixedly attached” appears only once in the specification of the ’648 patent and
`
`is not further defined. (Ex. 1001, 71:53-55.) One court found “fixedly attached” means
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`“securely attached and not readily moveable or detachable.” Claim Construction Order,
`
`Steve Neville et al v. Foundation Constructors, Inc., 5-17-cv-02507 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24,
`
`2018). Another court found that “attached” includes “components attached to a fixed
`
`structure via another component,” such as attaching tags to a piece of clothing by an
`
`intermediary. Claim Construction Order, 9-14, No. 07-CV-390, M-B-W Inc. v.
`
`Multiquip, Inc., (E.D. Wis. 2009) Judge Learned Hand even rejected the notion that
`
`“attached” means only “directly affixed,” stating “we speak of two objects as ‘attached’
`
`to each other though they are connected by a train of links or even by a chain.” Royal
`
`Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 168 F.2d 691, 693 (2d Cir. 1948). Thus,
`
`Petitioner submits that “fixedly attached” means “securely fastened, either directly or
`
`indirectly, and not readily detachable.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 48-49.)
`
`2.
`“Yaw” and “Roll” – Claims 9, 15, And 26
`The ’648 specification does not specifically define yaw and roll. Typically, the
`
`roll axis is the main axis drawn longitudinally through an item. (E.g., Ex. 1009, at 2.)
`
`Roll is defined as a rotation around this axis. (Id.) Yaw can be defined as a rotation
`
`around a vertical axis relative to the main axis. (Id.; Certain Personal Transporters,
`
`Components Thereof, and Packaging and Manuals Therefor, Final Initial
`
`Determination, Inv. No. 337-TA-1007, 103 (August 10, 2017)). Thus, “roll” should be
`
`defined as “a rotation about a main axis,” and “yaw” should be defined as “a rotation
`
`about a vertical axis perpendicular to the main axis.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 50-51.)
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`3.
` “Non-Orthogonally” – Claim 10, 23, 34
`Orthogonal means intersecting lying at right angles or at 90 degrees. (Ex. 1010,
`
`at 2) At least one court has construed “orthogonal,” consistent with its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, to mean “perpendicular or at a right angle to.” LG Electronics USA,
`
`Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 08-234 (GMS), Dkt. 204 at 2, (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2009).
`
`Thus, “non-orthogonally” should be construed to mean “intersecting at any angle that
`
`is not 90 degrees.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 52-53.)
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How The Construed Claims Are
`Unpatentable
`An explanation of how claims 1–13 and 15–36 are unpatentable, including where
`
`each claim feature is found in the prior art and the motivation to combine the prior art,
`
`is set forth below in Section IV.
`
`E.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this petition is attached. Exhibit 1002 is a
`
`supporting Declaration of David R. McLellan.
`
`IV. There Is A Reasonable Likelihood Claims 1–13 and 15–36 Of The ’648
`Patent Are Unpatentable
`
`A. Brief Overview Of The Prior Art
`1.
`Lupo
`As shown in Figure 1 below, U.K. Patent Application GB 2,244,965 to Lupo,
`
`entitled Rear-View Mirror For A Vehicle, is directed to an exterior rearview mirror
`
`assembly with an electrically-operable, multi-axis adjustment mechanism, with a mirror
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`element that is fixedly attached to the mirror housing and thus moves in tandem with
`
`the housing. (Ex. 1003, Abstract.) Figure 1 shows “an external rear-view mirror for a
`
`motor vehicle,” that includes “a support bracket (2) adapted to be fixed to a side portion
`
`of the vehicle bodywork, a hollow outer body (3), a reflective plate (4) supported in a
`
`frontal aperture (5) in the body (3).” (Id.) The exterior rearview mirror assembly is
`
`operable to adjust a mirror around two pivot axes. (Ex. 1003, 2:17–3:8.) The first pivot
`
`axis is “substantially-vertical” and the second pivot axis is “substantially-horizontal.”
`
`(Id.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 54-59.)
`
`Hollow outer
`body (3)
`
`External rearview mirror
`assembly
`
`
`
`
`Frontal aperture (5)
`
`
`Reflective plate (4)
`
`
`Support bracket (2)
`
`
`2.
`Tsuyama
`U.S. Patent No. 6,270,227 to Tsuyama, entitled Remote-Controlled Mirror
`
`Apparatus for Vehicles, teaches a rearview mirror assembly for mounting on the
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`exterior of a vehicle. (Ex. 1005, Abstract.) As shown in Figure 6 of Tsuyama below,
`
`Tsuyama teaches a mirror assembly with a stay 1 with one end attached to a vehicle
`
`body (not shown), and a mirror body 2 with a mirror holder 3, power unit 4, a clutch
`
`mechanism 5 and a mirror holder base 6. The mirror body 2 has a convex reflecting
`
`mirror surface. (Id., 4:44–50.) The mirror body 2 is fixedly attached to the mirror
`
`holder 3 “by bonding (and/or other fastening means) via tape 20 between the hook 31
`
`and the ribs 32.” (Id., 4:47-56.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 64-68.)
`
`Vehicle attachment 
`point (stay 1)
`
`Hook 31, ribs 32, 
`and tape 20 
`
`Reflective element 
`(mirror body 2)
`
`Mirror holder (3)
`
`
`3. McCabe
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,255,451 to McCabe, entitled Electro-optic Mirror Cell, is directed
`
`
`
`to a reflective element assembly for rearview mirrors of vehicles that includes electro-
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`optic or electrochromic reflective element assemblies. (Ex. 1004, 1:30-60.) Fig. 37
`
`below shows a reflective element assembly 610 for an interior or exterior mirror
`
`assembly that includes a front substrate 612, a rear substrate 614, and an electro-optic
`
`or electrochromic medium 616 disposed or sandwiched in the middle and
`
`contained/protected within an epoxy seal 622. (Id., 39:59-65.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 60-63.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rear substrate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Front substrate
`
`
`
`Electrochromic medium
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`Lupo (UK Patent Application GB 2 244 965), which this petition relies on as a
`
`primary reference, was not cited as a reference or by the Examiner during the
`
`prosecution of the ’648 patent. Tsuyama (U.S. Pat. No. 6,270,227), which this petition
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`relies on as a primary and secondary reference, also was not cited as a reference or by
`
`the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’648 patent. McCabe (U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,184,190), which this petition relies on as a secondary reference, was cited as a
`
`reference but was not cited by the Examiner in any rejection. Moreover, McCabe is
`
`relied upon as a secondary reference in combination with Lupo and Tsuyama,
`
`references yet to be considered by the Office. Therefore, there is no overlap between
`
`the arguments made in this Petition and those made during examination.
`
`The ’648 patent initially received a double-patenting rejection over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,827,913. None of the references from this petition were used by the Examiner as
`
`a basis for rejection during prosecution of the ’913 patent. Thus, the arguments and
`
`prior art presented in this petition were not previously considered by the Office.
`
`B. Ground 1(a): Claims 1, 3, 5-13, And 15 Are Obvious In View Of
`Lupo
`1.
`Claim 1
`
`(a) Preamble: “An exterior rearview mirror assembly
`configured for mounting at an exterior portion of a
`vehicle, said exterior rearview mirror assembly
`comprising:”
`The claim preamble is not limiting where, as here, the “patentee defines a
`
`structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a
`
`purpose or intended use for the invention.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prod., Inc.,
`
`919 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the claim body defines a structurally
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`complete invention and uses the preamble to state the intended use of the invention as
`
`“for mounting at an exterior portion of a vehicle.” Thus, the preamble is not limiting.
`
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, however, Lupo discloses it. As shown in
`
`annotated Figure 1 below, Lupo teaches “an external rear-view mirror for a motor
`
`vehicle,” that includes “a support bracket (2) adapted to be fixed to a side portion of the
`
`vehicle bodywork, a hollow outer body (3), a reflective plate (4) supported in a frontal
`
`aperture (5) in the body (3).” (Ex. 1003, Abstract, emphasis added.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 72-
`
`73.)
`
`Hollow outer
`body (3)
`
`External rearview mirror
`assembly
`
`
`
`
`Frontal aperture (5)
`
`
`Reflective plate (4)
`
`(b) Element 1: “a mirror head;”
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 below, Lupo teaches a mirror 1 including “a
`
`
`Support bracket (2)
`
`support 2 only part of which is illustrated and which is adapted to be fixed to a side
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`portion of the motor-vehicle bodywork, a hollow body 3 cantilevered on one end of the
`
`bracket 2, and a reflective plate 4 fixed to the body 3 in a frontal aperture 5 thereof.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, 4:4–9.) Projections 53 attach the outer body 3 to the appendages 52 of the
`
`second movable support 51. Id., 7:17-24. Thus, Lupo discloses a mirror head (hollow
`
`outer body 3, projections 53). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 74-75.)
`
`Hollow body (3)
`
`Projections (53)
`
`
`
`
`Frontal aperture (5)
`
`(c) Element 2: “an exterior mirror reflective element fixedly
`attached at said mirror head;”
`As shown in Figure 1 below, Lupo teaches a mirror 1 including “a reflective plate
`
`
`
`4 fixed to the body 3 in a frontal aperture 5 thereof.” (Ex. 1003, 4:4–9.) Thus, Lupo
`
`teaches an exterior mirror reflective element (reflective plate 4) fixedly attached at said
`
`mirror head (body 3, projections 53). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 76-77.)
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`
`Reflective plate (4)
`
`(d) Element 3: “an attachment portion configured for
`attachment at an exterior portion of a vehicle equipped
`with said exterior rearview mirror assembly;”
`Lupo teaches a mirror 1 including “a support 2 only part of which is illustrated
`
`
`
`and which is adapted to be fixed to a side portion of the motor-vehicle bodywork, a
`
`hollow body 3 cantilevered on one end of the bracket 2, and a reflective plate 4 fixed to
`
`the body 3 in a frontal aperture 5 thereof.” (Ex. 1003, 4:4–9.) Thus, Lupo teaches an
`
`attachment portion (bracket 2) configured at an exterior portion of a vehicle (to be fixed
`
`to a side portion of the motor-vehicle) equipped with said exterior rearview mirror
`
`assembly (mirror 1). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 78-79.)
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`(e) Element 4: “a multi-axis adjustment mechanism
`comprising at least one electrically-operable actuator;”
`As shown in annotated Figures 1 and 2 below, Lupo describes that the “body 3
`
`houses a drive assembly 6 for the mirror 1 which can adjust the orientation of the body
`
`3, and hence of the plate 4 fixed thereto, relative to the support bracket 2 by means of
`
`relative rotations about a first, substantially-vertical axis A and a second substantially-
`
`horizontal axis B parallel to the plane of the plate 4.” (Ex. 1003, 4:11–16.) The drive
`
`assembly 6 includes a first movable support 7 and second movable support 51. (Id.,
`
`4:19–22 and Fig. 3.) The first movable support 7 houses a first electric motor 14 (id.,
`
`4:25–29) and a second electric motor (55). (Id., 7:25–29.) The first electric motor 14
`
`rotates the mirror assembly, by means of first movable support 7 and transmission
`
`system, about the axis A. (Id., 4:29–5:2.) The second electric motor 55 rotates the
`
`mirror assembly, by means of a second movable support 51 and transmission system,
`
`about the axis B. (Id., 7:25–29.) Thus, Lupo teaches a multi-axis adjustment
`
`mechanism (drive assembly 6) comprising at least one electrically-operable actuator
`
`(motors 14, 55). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 80-83.)
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`Body (3)
`
`Second motor (55)
`
`First motor (14)
`
`Second axis (B)
`
`Second movable
`support (51)
`
`First movable
`support (7)
`
`First axis (A)
`
`Body (3)
`
`Second motor (55)
`
`First motor (14)
`
`Second axis (B)
`
`
`
`
`
`Drive assembly
`(6)
`
`First axis (A)
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`
`(f) Element 5: “wherein said multi-axis adjustment
`mechanism is operable to move said mirror head, with
`said exterior mirror reflective element fixedly attached
`thereto, about multiple axes relative to said attachment
`portion; and”
`Lupo teaches the “drive assembly 6 for [] mirror 1,” “can adjust the orientation
`
`of the body 3, and hence of the plate 4 fixed thereto, relative to the support bracket 2 by
`
`means of relative rotations about a first substantially-vertical axis A and a second
`
`substantially-horizontal axis B parallel to the plane of the plate 4.” (Ex. 1003, 4:11–
`
`16.) Thus, Lupo teaches that a multi-axis adjustment mechanism (drive assembly 6) is
`
`operable to move said mirror head (body 3, projections 53) with a mirror reflective
`
`element (reflective plate 4) fixedly attached thereto, about multiple axes (axis A and
`
`axis B) relative to said attachment portion (bracket 2). (See also Elements 1, 2, and 4
`
`above.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 84-85.)
`
`(g) Element 6: “wherein said exterior mirror reflective
`element moves in tandem with movement of said mirror
`head relative to the exterior portion of the body of the
`equipped vehicle at which said exterior rearview mirror
`assembly is attached to adjust the rearward field of view
`of a driver of the equipped vehicle who views said
`exterior mirror reflective element when operating the
`equipped vehicle.”
`Lupo teaches a mirror 1 including “a support 2 only part of which is illustrated
`
`and which is adapted to be fixed to a side portion of the motor-vehicle bodywork, a
`
`hollow body 3 cantilevered on one end of the bracket 2, and a reflective plate 4 fixed to
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`the body 3 in a frontal aperture 5 thereof.” (Ex. 1003, 4:4–9.) Because the reflective
`
`plate 4 is fixedly attached to the body 3 by the frontal aperture 5, the reflective plate 4
`
`moves in tandem with the body 3. Thus, Lupo teaches wherein said exterior mirror
`
`reflective element (reflective plate 4) moves in tandem with movement of said mirror
`
`head (body 3, projections 53) relative to the exterior portion of the body of the equipped
`
`vehicle at which said exterior rearview mirror assembly is attached (side portion of the
`
`motor-vehicle bodywork).
`
`While Lupo may not explicitly disclose “to adjust the rearward field of view of
`
`a driver of the equipped vehicle who views said exterior mirror reflective element when
`
`operating the equipped vehicle,” it would be obvious to a POSA that operating the
`
`mirror assembly disclosed in Lupo as described therein would result in adjusting the
`
`rearward field of view of the driver. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating “a patent can be obvious in light of a single prior art reference
`
`if it would have been obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the patented
`
`invention.”) Lupo discloses “the control unit 80 is arranged to memorise the angular
`
`position [of the reflective plate 4] relative to the axis A chosen by the driver.” (Ex.
`
`1003, 9:19–21.) Thus, Lupo describes that a driver can adjust the angular position of
`
`the exterior rearview mirror in a way where the angular position of the mirror relative
`
`to the driver is meaningful—where the angle should be reproduced for the driver’s
`
`benefit. A POSA would understand that the primary (if not sole) purpose for the
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,261,648
`
`maneuverability of a vehicle’s exterior rearview mirror (e.g., as described in Lupo) is
`
`to adjust the driver’s rearward field of view. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 86-92; 69-71; 40.)
`
`To the extent an additional refe