IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`
`MOTHERSON INNOVATIONS CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-00777
`U.S. Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Exterior Mirror Reflective Element Fixedly Attached At Said
`Mirror Head ............................................................................................ 2
`Rearward Field Of View ........................................................................ 4
`B.
`C. Mirror Head Comprises A Bracket To Which Said Exterior
`Mirror Reflective Element Is Fixedly Attached ..................................... 4
`D. Wherein the Outermost Front Perimeter Edge Of Said Exterior
`Mirror Reflective Element Is Rounded ................................................ 11
`Yaw and Roll ........................................................................................ 12
`E.
`III. Claims 1–13 and 15–36 Of The ’648 Patent Are Unpatentable ..................... 17
`A. Ground 1(a): Claims 1, 3, 5-13, And 15 Are Obvious In View Of
`Lupo ...................................................................................................... 17
`1.
`Lupo discloses “an exterior mirror reflective element
`fixedly attached at said mirror head” (Claims 1, 15, 26) ........... 17
`Lupo discloses “a mirror head comprising a bracket” and
`“a bracket to which said exterior mirror reflective element
`is fixedly attached” (Claims 3-4, 6-7, 17-18, 21-22, 29-30,
`32) .............................................................................................. 18
`Lupo discloses Claim 5 .............................................................. 19
`Lupo discloses “Yaw” and “Roll” adjustment (Claims 9,
`25, 31, 36) .................................................................................. 21
`Lupo discloses First and Second Actuators that are
`“cooperatively operable” ........................................................... 22
`B. Ground 1(b): Lupo in combination with McCabe discloses
`“wherein the outermost front perimeter edge of said exterior
`mirror reflective element is rounded.” ................................................. 23
`C. Ground 1(c): It Would Have Been Obvious to Use the Adhesive
`of Tsuyama to Fixedly Attach Lupo’s Reflective Element to the
`Bracket (Claim 4) ................................................................................. 25
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`D. Ground 2(a): Tsuyama in View of a POSA’s Knowledge of Side-
`View Mirrors Teach Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 15 .................................... 27
`IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`The claims of the ’648 patent are directed to an exterior rearview mirror assembly
`
`that moves the reflective element in tandem with the mirror head. This technology is
`
`not new. Lupo, a reference published in 1991, and Tsuyama, a reference published in
`
`2001, both disclose this relatively basic technology. In an attempt to avoid the prior art,
`
`Patent Owner attempts to significantly narrow the claims with limitations that are not
`
`required by the specification. Indeed, Patent Owner’s only purported distinction
`
`between Lupo and independent claims 1 and 15 is that Lupo does not include a mirror
`
`reflective element attached to a peripheral exterior surface portion of the mirror head.
`
`But the claims are not so limited. As described in the Petition and herein, all of the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’648 patent are unpatentable.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner spends over half of its Patent Owner Response trying to narrowly
`
`construe the claims to avoid the prior art. However, “one of the cardinal sins of patent
`
`law” is “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As explained below, this is exactly
`
`what Patent Owner asks the Board to do. The prohibition against reading limitations
`
`into the claims is even more appropriate here, where Patent Owner had the opportunity
`
`to amend the claims, but chose not to.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`A. Exterior Mirror Reflective Element Fixedly Attached At Said
`Mirror Head
`Patent Owner attempts to read in the limitation that the exterior mirror reflective
`
`element must be fixedly attached to “a peripheral exterior surface portion of the mirror
`
`head.” (Patent Owner’s Response, Paper 11 (“POR”) at 1.) As the Board correctly
`
`noted, the ’648 patent describes embodiments where the exterior mirror reflective
`
`element is attached at a peripheral exterior surface and embodiments where the
`
`reflective mirror element is not attached at a peripheral exterior surface of the mirror
`
`head. (Institution Decision, Paper 7 at 13.) The words “peripheral exterior surface” do
`
`not appear in the ’648 patent, and certainly not in the claims. The ’648 patent teaches
`
`that the mirror reflective element may be fixedly attached to either a surface or a
`
`mounting portion of the mirror head and that the mirror head can be any shape. (Ex.
`
`1001 at 71:53-59.)
`
`The ’648 patent also teaches that “aspects of the [interior] mirror assemblies . . .
`
`may be incorporated in or associated with an exterior rearview mirror assembly that is
`
`configured for mounting at a side region of a vehicle.” (Ex. 1001 at 58:49-52.) When
`
`referring to interior mirrors, the ’648 patent states “[o]ptionally, the mirror assembly
`
`may include a conventional bezel, such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,224,324.” (Id.
`
`at 33:64-66.) Figure 40 shows “a thin flat bezel or cover element 377 may partially
`
`overlap a perimeter region of the front surface of the mirror substrate 317 (such as a
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`front substrate of an electro-optic or electrochromic reflective element or such as a
`
`prismatic substrate of a prismatic reflective element).” (Id. at 36:23-28.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figure 40.)
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Nranian, contends that “the reflective element must
`
`be attached to the peripheral exterior surface portion of the mirror casing, and not
`
`recessed within it.” (Ex. 2001, ¶88.) But Mr. Nranian’s deposition testimony
`
`demonstrates that his opinions regarding claim construction are not credible and should
`
`be disregarded. As just one example, Mr. Nranian testified that, in order to tell what a
`
`claim term means, “you have to look at the product specifically or the prior art or
`
`whatever you’re saying reads on the claims.” (Nranian Depo. Ex. 1020 at 105:3-
`
`105:13.) The Federal Circuit has squarely rejected such an approach. Wilson Sporting
`
`Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“claims
`
`may not be construed with reference to the accused device.”).
`
`For the reasons explained above and in the Petition, the claims are not so
`
`constrained to require the exterior mirror reflective element to be fixedly attached to a
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`peripheral exterior surface portion of the mirror head.
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`B. Rearward Field Of View
`Patent Owner alleges that “rearward field of view” means “view of rearwardly
`
`approaching or following vehicles.” (POR at 24.) Petitioner does not dispute this
`
`construction for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`C. Mirror Head Comprises A Bracket To Which Said Exterior Mirror
`Reflective Element Is Fixedly Attached
`In the Institution Decision, the Board stated “Petitioner seems to argue that any
`
`bracket attached to the mirror housing, and connecting the mirror housing to some other
`
`component, would result in the bracket being indirectly fixedly attached.” (Institution
`
`Decision at 22.) Petitioner does not take such a broad reading of “fixedly attached.”
`
`For two elements to be fixedly attached, as that term is used in the ’648 patent,
`
`they must be not readily detachable, and they must move in tandem with one another.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶49.) Petitioner notes that the claim is not “directly” attached, but rather
`
`“fixedly” attached. Two elements can be attached together either directly or by use of
`
`an intermediary, such as attaching a photograph to an application with a staple. (Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1013 at 1).) The word “fixedly” means that two elements are “placed so as
`
`to be firm and not readily movable.” (Ex. 1002, ¶49 (citing Ex. 1014 at 1).) As Mr.
`
`McLellan explained, a “wheel of a vehicle is fixedly attached to the axel by the wheel
`
`hub such that the axel and the wheel are not readily detachable and move together.”
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`(Id.) The wheel is directly and fixedly attached to the wheel hub, which is directly and
`
`fixedly attached to the axel. The wheel is indirectly attached to the axel, but the wheel
`
`is still fixedly attached to the axel because they are not readily detachable and move in
`
`tandem with one another.
`
`Figure 56 supports this understanding of “fixedly attached.” Claim 1 requires
`
`“an exterior mirror reflective element fixedly attached at said mirror head.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 76:42-43.) Figure 56 shows the reflective element 612 fixedly attached at the mirror
`
`head 614. Claim 3 requires “said mirror head comprises a bracket to which said exterior
`
`mirror reflective element is fixedly attached.” (Id. at 76:65-67.)
`
`Reflective Element (612) Mirror Head Housing (614)
`
`Bracket (616)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figure 56.) The first portion of claim 3 requires that the mirror head
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`comprise a bracket. As Patent Owner’s expert Mr. Nranian agrees, bracket 616 is
`
`inserted into and fastened to the mirror head housing 614. (Ex. 1020 at 76:13-77:5.)
`
`Mr. Nranian also agrees that the reflective element 612 moves in tandem with the
`
`bracket 616 and the mirror head 614. (Id. at 77:14-18.) Figure 56 thus shows (1) the
`
`reflective element fixedly attached to the mirror head, (2) the mirror head comprising a
`
`bracket, and (3) a bracket that is fixedly attached to the reflective element. The
`
`reflective element is indirectly, but fixedly, attached to the bracket such that the
`
`reflective element, mirror head, and bracket move in tandem with each another. The
`
`Federal Circuit “normally do[es] not construe claims in a manner that would exclude
`
`the preferred embodiment.” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d
`
`1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “In particular, where claims can reasonably be interpreted
`
`to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that
`
`embodiment, absent probative evidence on the contrary.” Id. (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted).
`
`Patent Owner argues that “a claimed attachment only covers direct attachment,
`
`not indirect.” (POR at 12.) Yet, Patent Owner’s expert Mr. Nranian agrees that
`
`“attachment” encompasses both direct and indirect attachment: “[s]o if you look at
`
`Figure 68 of the patent, right, it shows 742 which is the mirror reflective element 742
`
`is attached to the support arm structure 740.” (Nranian Depo. Ex. 1020 at 36:21-25,
`
`emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reflective
`Element 742
`
`Support Arm
`Structure 740
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figure 68.) Reflective element 742 is attached to support arm structure 740
`
`by intermediary bracket 734. Thus, Mr. Nranian understands “attachment” to include
`
`both direct and indirect attachment.
`
`Moreover, Figure 68 does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the bracket
`
`must be directly attached to the reflective element. (POR at 17.) Figure 68 (shown
`
`above) does not show an exterior mirror reflective element fixedly attached at a mirror
`
`head, which is required for each of the independent claims. In fact, Figure 68 does not
`
`show a mirror head at all. Figure 68 does show reflective element 742 directly attached
`
`to bracket 734. But, claims 3-4, 6, 21, 29, 32, and their corresponding depending
`
`claims, all require “wherein said mirror head comprises a bracket.” (Ex. 1001 at 76:65-
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`81:15.) Claims 7, 22, and 30, all require “wherein a mirror casing attaches at said
`
`bracket.” (Id.) Critically, as Mr. Nranian explained, Figure 68 does not show a mirror
`
`head or a mirror casing. (Nranian Depo. Ex. 1020 at 98:18-20 (“So if you look at
`
`[Figure] 68, it doesn’t have a housing, right, it doesn’t have a casing.”).) Therefore,
`
`Figure 68 does not show the claimed bracket because the claimed bracket must either
`
`be part of a mirror head or attached at a mirror casing.
`
`In addition to not having a mirror head, the Figure 68 embodiment does not adjust
`
`the rearward field of view of the driver. Patent Owner states that “rearward field of
`
`view” means a “view of rearwardly approaching or following vehicles.” (POR 24.)
`
`The reflective portion of the reflective element 742 is the side opposite the bracket 734.
`
`(Nranian Depo. Ex. 1020 at 81:14-21.) When mounting device 730 is attached to side
`
`732 of the vehicle, the reflective element is on the side opposite the driver.
`
`Reflective side
`of mirror
`
`Side of vehicle
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`Even if the mirror is moved closer to the car, because the pivot axis is adjacent
`
`to the side of the vehicle, the embodiment shown in Figure 68 would not provide a field
`
`of view of rearwardly approaching or following vehicles. In fact, the driver would not
`
`even be able to see the mirror. Mr. Nranian argues that a “driver side exterior rearview
`
`mirror must provide a field of view that, at the very least, complies with FMVSS 111.”
`
`(Ex. 2001 ¶116.) But when Mr. Nranian was asked if Figure 68 would produce a
`
`rearward field of view compliant with his definition, he said “[w]ell I don’t understand,”
`
`and refused to answer the question. (Nranian Depo. Ex. 1020 at 85:12-86:2.)1
`
`Figure 68A also does not support a “direct attachment” of the bracket to the
`
`reflective element because Figure 68A does not use a bracket. (Id. at 98:20-21 (“You
`
`look at Figure 68[A], it doesn’t show the bracket.”).) Therefore, Figure 68A does not
`
`show either (1) a mirror head comprising a bracket or (2) a mirror casing attached at the
`
`bracket. Moreover, Figure 68A does not even show a mirror head, which is required
`
`by every claim. Rather, Figure 68A shows “a mirror casing or shell 744.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 68:51-69:9.)
`
`
`1 Apparently recognizing this problem, Mr. Nranian further testified that this
`embodiment could include a “second surface reflector,” such that the inner side of the
`outer surface of 742 is the reflective side of the mirror. (Id. at 81:23-82:20.) The ’648
`patent provides no such description for the Figure 68 embodiment. And even if it did,
`the field of view would be almost entirely blocked by bracket 734 and support arm
`740.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figure 68A.) During his deposition, Mr. Nranian tried to remedy this issue
`
`by saying a POSA would take the bracket of Figure 68 and use it in Figure 68A.
`
`(Nranian Depo. Ex. 1020 at 88:17-24.) But, even if Figure 68A were modified to
`
`include the bracket of Figure 68, and even if Figure 68A disclosed a mirror head, this
`
`embodiment still would not satisfy the claim requirements of the “mirror casing attaches
`
`at said bracket,” unless “attaches” also includes indirect attachment. Ultimately, to give
`
`meaning to the claims, “fixedly attached” must encompass both direct and indirect
`
`attachment.
`
`Even if Patent Owner could somehow show that the bracket also directly attaches
`
`to the mirror casing, this still would only show that direct attachment would be a
`
`possibility, not a requirement. It would not preclude the indirect attachment
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`embodiment of Figure 56, which discloses both a mirror head and a bracket and
`
`provides a much more straightforward read on the claims. Accordingly, for two
`
`elements to be fixedly attached, the two elements must be “securely fastened, either
`
`directly or indirectly, such that the elements move in tandem with one another.”2
`
`D. Wherein the Outermost Front Perimeter Edge Of Said Exterior
`Mirror Reflective Element Is Rounded
`The ’648 Patent does not limit “rounded” to mean that “the outermost front
`
`perimeter edge of said exterior mirror reflective element is exposed and has at least a
`
`2.5 mm minimum radius of curvature,” as Patent Owner alleges. “2.5 mm minimum
`
`radius of curvature” appears nowhere in the claims, and only once in the ’648 patent
`
`overall, where it is used to describe the interior rearview mirrors of Figures 4B and 5.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 9:38-47.) When describing exterior rearview mirrors, the ’648 patent does
`
`not discuss a “2.5 mm minimum radius of curvature.”
`
`The only instance of the ’648 patent using the term “rounded” when referring to
`
`
`2 Patent Owner also alleges that “rear attaching portion 614a” “serves as the bracket
`that most closely aligns with the ‘bracket’ as set forth in the claims.” (POR at 16.)
`But this reading ignores element 616, which is clearly labeled as “bracket 616,” and
`“inner bracket or mounting element 616.” (Ex. 1001 at 59:7-22.) The Institution
`Decision also acknowledges that “in Figure 56, mirror head housing 614 and affixed
`reflective element 612 are attached to a series of brackets and rotating actuators.”
`(Institution Decision at 4.) Rear attaching portion 614a is not a “bracket,” but rather
`is a surface of the mirror head housing 614.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`an exterior rearview mirror assembly is in reference to Figures 56-58B. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`58:67-59:6.) The ’648 patent states:
`
`the mirror head housing, with the front perimeter edge regions of the
`reflective element being curved or rounded or beveled to provide a
`smooth or continuous transition between the generally planar front
`surface of the reflective element and the side walls or surfaces of the
`mirror housing . . .
`(Id.) So, while the front perimeter edge could be rounded to 2.5 mm, nothing in the
`
`’648 patent requires the additional limitation of the outermost front perimeter edge
`
`having “at least a 2.5 mm minimum radius of curvature,” as Patent Owner contends.
`
`Additionally, the disclosure that the reflective element could be “curved, or rounded,
`
`or beveled,” implies that a specific radius of curvature is either unnecessary or
`
`unimportant. For instance, if an edge is beveled, it would not have a radius of curvature
`
`at all. There is simply nothing in the patent that supports reading this limitation into the
`
`claims as Patent Owner proposes.
`
`E. Yaw and Roll
`Petitioner and Patent Owner initially set forth the following definitions for Roll
`
`and Yaw:
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`
`
`(Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 6 (“POPR”) at 27.) In the Institution
`
`Decision, the Board declined to adopt either party’s construction. (Institution Decision
`
`at 14.) The Board noted that the claims “recite a frame of reference for the yaw and roll
`
`adjustment” of being “relative to the exterior portion of the equipped vehicle at which
`
`said exterior rearview mirror assembly is attached.” (Id. at 14-15.) In spite of this,
`
`Patent Owner submits the exact same construction of roll and yaw in their Patent Owner
`
`Response. (POR at 29.) In his deposition, Mr. Nranian described the impact of the
`
`“relative to” language, and stated “[i]t’s a shifting of it to the side, it’s a shifting of the
`
`longitudinal axis to the side is all it is.” (Ex. 1020 at 58:5-10.) But, he then showed
`
`motions of what roll, pitch, and yaw looked like saying “[t]his is roll okay. This is yaw,
`
`this is pitch okay.” (Id. at 59:8-10.) When asked whether the shifting of the axis over
`
`to the side of the car changed any of the motions, he said “this is pitch still, this is yaw,
`
`and this is roll,” and confirmed that he “made the same motions for each one.” (Id. at
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`59:11-24.) In other words, in Mr. Nranian’s opinion, the “relative to” language does
`
`not alter the commonly understand orientations in any way. Patent Owner thus gives
`
`no meaning to the phrase “relative to the exterior portion of the equipped vehicle at
`
`which said exterior rearview mirror assembly is fixedly attached,” and reads it out of
`
`the claims entirely. This is improper. “A claim construction that gives meaning to all
`
`the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Merck & Co., Inc. v.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Mr. Nranian stated that “[g]iven the well-established understanding of ‘yaw,’
`
`‘pitch,’ and ‘roll’ in the automotive industry, [he] would expect an explicit re-
`
`orientation of these axes if the inventors of the ’648 Patent intended such a re-
`
`orientation.” (Ex. 2010 at 5.) But, “relative to the exterior portion of the equipped
`
`vehicle to which said exterior rearview mirror assembly is attached” is the explicit
`
`language that provides this reorientation of the axes. If “[t]he designation of the yaw,
`
`pitch, and roll designations are universal in the automotive context,” (Ex. 2001, ¶120)
`
`as Mr. Nranian claims, then there would be no reason to include the “relative to”
`
`language other than to reorient the axes. And the specification of the ’648 Patent plainly
`
`describes that reorientation.
`
`For example, Figure 57 shows the rotational adjustment (e.g. roll) about the
`
`second pivot axis “relative to the side of the vehicle,” which is the longitudinal axis of
`
`the mirror assembly. (Ex. 1001 at 59:23-32.) This allows for the vertical adjustment
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`of the driver’s field of view. (Id.)
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`(Id. Fig. 57.) Figures 58A and 58B show the “pivot[] about the first pivot axis 618a to
`
`laterally adjust the rearward field of view,” which is a rotation about the axis that is
`
`vertical to the main axis, otherwise known as a yaw. (Id. at 59:33-38.)
`
`
`
`Figure 68, which Patent Owner contends (incorrectly) most closely aligns with
`
`the claims, shows the same. Specifically, it shows and describes the “roll adjustment”
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`of the reflective element “relative to the side of the vehicle” as being rotation about the
`
`axis of the support arm, not the axis of the vehicle:
`
`Roll adjustment
`
`(Id. at Figure 68, 68:43-50.)
`
`
`
`All of Patent Owner’s diagrams show the coordinate system relative to the
`
`vehicle as a whole, not the mirror. (POR at 30-35.) And many of Patent Owner’s
`
`diagrams do not even show the mirror assembly at all. The claims are not directed to a
`
`vehicle as a whole, but rather the exterior rearview mirror. Petitioner and Patent Owner
`
`both agree a roll is a rotation about a longitudinal axis and a yaw is a rotation about
`
`an axis vertical to the longitudinal axis. (POR at 29.) The disputed issue is whether
`
`the longitudinal axis of the claim is the main axis of the vehicle or the main axis of the
`
`mirror. Because the claims are directed to an exterior rearview mirror assembly, the
`
`roll axis is the longitudinal axis of mirror assembly, not the vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner’s proposed constructions make no sense. The ’648
`
`patent provides the roll to adjust the driver’s vertical field of view and the yaw to
`
`laterally adjust the driver’s field of view. (Ex. 1001 at 59:23-38.) A yaw, as Patent
`
`Owner has defined it, would neither vertically adjust the driver’s field of view nor
`
`laterally adjust the driver’s field of view, and would be unhelpful for the driver.
`
`Moreover, FMVSS 111 requires that the outside mirrors be “tilted in both horizontal
`
`and vertical directions,” which aligns with the movement described by the ’648 Patent
`
`and with Petitioner’s construction of yaw and roll. (Ex. 2003 at 12-13.) Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed constructions are inconsistent with the specification, and with the common
`
`understanding of how mirrors are adjusted.
`
`Accordingly, “roll” is “a rotation about the main axis of the mirror assembly”
`
`and “yaw” is “a rotation about an axis vertical to the main axis of the mirror assembly.”
`
`III. Claims 1–13 and 15–36 Of The ’648 Patent Are Unpatentable
`
`A. Ground 1(a): Claims 1, 3, 5-13, And 15 Are Obvious In View Of
`Lupo
`1.
`Lupo discloses “an exterior mirror reflective element fixedly
`attached at said mirror head” (Claims 1, 15, 26)
`
`Patent Owner’s only validity argument for claims 1 and 15 is that Lupo does not
`
`have the mirror element at a peripheral exterior surface. As discussed in Section 0, the
`
`claims do not require the mirror element to attach at a peripheral exterior surface.
`
`Accordingly, Lupo discloses this limitation for the reasons set forth in the Petition, and
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`independent claims 1 and 15 are invalid.
`
`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`
`2.
`
`Lupo discloses “a mirror head comprising a bracket” and “a
`bracket to which said exterior mirror reflective element is
`fixedly attached” (Claims 3-4, 6-7, 17-18, 21-22, 29-30, 32)
`Lupo shows the mirror head (outer body 3) comprising a bracket (projections
`
`53). First, the claims require that the mirror head comprises a bracket. As discussed in
`
`Section II.B, the Figure 56 embodiment most closely embodies the claims and shows
`
`the mirror head comprising a bracket (616), and the bracket is indirectly, but fixedly,
`
`attached to the reflective element (612).
`
`Reflective Element (612) Mirror Head Housing (614)
`
`Bracket (616)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown below, Lupo teaches the same configuration of the mirror head
`
`comprising a bracket and where the reflective element is directly and fixedly attached
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`to the mirror head, which is directly and fixedly attached to the bracket, as in Figure 56.
`
`Thus, the reflective element 4 is indirectly, but fixedly, attached to the projections 53.
`
`Just like the bracket 616, the projections then attach the mirror head to the rest of the
`
`support structure.
`
`Outer Body (3)
`
`Projections (53)
`
`
`
`
`Reflective Plate (4)
`
`Thus, Lupo teaches wherein said mirror head (outer body 3, projections 53)
`
`
`
`comprises a bracket (projections 53) to which said exterior mirror reflective element
`
`(reflective plate 4) is fixedly attached. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶93-95.)
`
`3.
`Lupo discloses Claim 5
`As described in the Petition, Lupo teaches a multi-axis adjustment mechanism
`
`(drive assembly 6) with at least one actuator (motors 14, 55) that is operable to move
`
`said mirror head (body 3, projections 53) with a mirror reflective element (reflective
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`plate 4) fixedly attached thereto, about multiple axes (axis A and axis B) relative to
`
`said attachment portion (bracket 2).
`
`Body (3) Bush
`(50)
`
`Second movable
`support (51)
`
`Casing (10) for
`support (7)
`
`Bush
`(27)
`
`Tubular end (8) of
`support (7)
`
`Appendages (52)
`of second movable
`support (51)
`
`Therefore, Lupo teaches wherein a multi-axis adjustment mechanism (drive
`
`Horizontal
`axis pin
`(42’)
`
`Tubular
`member (45)
`
`First movable
`support (7)
`
`
`Pin (9) Bracket
`(2)
`
`assembly 6) comprises a support structure (second movable support 51) that is
`
`adjustable about multiple degrees of freedom (at least two) with respect to the exterior
`
`portion of the equipped vehicle at which said exterior rearview mirror assembly is
`
`attached via operation of said at least one electrically-operable actuator (motor 14, 55),
`
`and wherein said mirror head (body 3, projections 53) is disposed at one end of said
`
`support structure (second movable support 51) and wherein said attachment portion
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`(bracket 2) is at a distal other end of said support structure (disposed at the distal other
`
`end of second movable support 51 through the first movable support 7, bush 27 and pin
`
`9). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶96-101.)
`
`In the POPR, Patent Owner argued that the attachment portion was not at the
`
`distal other end of the support structure. (POPR at 36-37.) Petitioner understands
`
`Patent Owner waived this argument because it did not appear in the Patent Owner
`
`Response. (Scheduling Order, Paper 8 at 8.)
`
`As stated in the Petition, the mirror head is at one end of the support structure
`
`and the attachment portion is at the other. Petitioner notes that “support structure”
`
`appears only in the claims of the ’648 patent, and thus the specification does not
`
`preclude the mirror head being directly attached to one end of the support structure, and
`
`the attachment portion being indirectly attached to the distal other end.
`
`In the alternative, the attachment portion can include the bracket 2 and first
`
`movable support 7, bush 27, and pin 9, such that the attachment portion is directly
`
`attached to the second movable support 51.
`
`4.
`
`Lupo discloses “Yaw” and “Roll” adjustment (Claims 9, 25,
`31, 36)
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Lupo discloses yaw and roll adjustment under
`
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the terms. As described in Section II.E, a “roll”
`
`is “a rotation about the main axis of the mirror assembly” and a “yaw” is “a rotation
`
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`about an axis vertical to the main axis of the mirror assembly.” Lupo’s rotation around
`
`axis B, as shown below in Figure 2, is a roll, and Lupo’s rotation around axis A is a
`
`yaw. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶113-118.)
`
`Body (3)
`
`Second motor (55)
`
`First motor (14)
`
`Second axis (B)
`
`5.
`
`
`
`Drive assembly (6)
`
`First axis (A)
`
`Lupo discloses First and Second Actuators that are
`“cooperatively operable”
`Patent Owner argues that Lupo does not teach motors that are cooperatively
`
`operable. As described in Lupo, when a user presses button 81, the control unit 80
`
`supplies voltage to the first motor 14. (Ex. 1003 at 9:24-25.) When the user presses
`
`button 82, the control unit 80 supplies voltage to the second motor 55. (Id. at 11:5-12.)
`
`A POSA would understand that a user can press both buttons and operate both motors
`
`simultaneously. Even if Lupo does not explicitly describe the motors simultaneously
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`Patent 10,261,648
`
`operable, this would be a simple, straightforward application that would have been
`
`obvious and easy for a POSA to implement. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶128-132.)
`
`In regards to having the motors operable at different speeds, Lupo discloses
`
`“[c]onveniently, the control unit 80 is programmed to vary the voltage supplied, and
`
`hence the speed of the motor 14, in dependence on the angular position of the body 3
`
`detected by the sensor means 83.” (Ex. 1003 at 10:16-19.) If motor 14 is operable at
`
`different speeds, then it is necessarily operable at a speed different from motor 55.
`
`B. Ground 1(b): Lupo in combination with McCabe discloses “wherein
`the outermost front perimeter edge of said exterior mirror reflective
`element is rounded.”
`Patent Owner argues that it would not have been obvious to round the front
`
`perimeter edge of the reflective element of Lupo. But, Mr. Nranian admits that “one of
`
`skill in the art would understand that the patent’s reference to a 2.5 mm minimum radius
`
`of curvature is dictated by, and consistent, with the safety regulations.” (Ex. 2001,
`
`¶104.) Thus, Mr. Nranian admits that a POSA not only would have understood how to
`
`round the front perimeter edge, bu