`
`
`
`MOTHERSON
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 1
`
`

`

`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
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID MCLELLAN
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`Declaration
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and further,
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001
`of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`By: ___________________________
`
`David R. McLellan.
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 2
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`Professional Background .............................................................................. 2 
`I. 
`II.  Relevant Legal Standards ............................................................................. 8 
`III.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................... 11 
`IV.  Summary of the ’648 Patent and File History........................................... 12 
`A.  Outside Rearview Mirror Technology in 2009 .............................. 12 
`B.  Overview Of The ’648 Patent .......................................................... 17 
`V.  Claim Construction .................................................................................... 21 
`“Fixedly Attached” – Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, 15, 17-18, 21-22,
`A. 
`24, 26-27, 29-30, 32 ............................................................................ 21 
`“Yaw” and “Roll” – Claims 9, 25, 31, and 36 ................................... 22 
`B. 
`“Non-Orthogonally” – Claim 10, 23, 34 ............................................ 23 
`C. 
`VI.  Overview of the Prior Art .......................................................................... 23 
`A.  Overview Of Lupo – U.K. Patent Application No. GB
`2,244,965 ............................................................................................ 23 
`B.  Overview Of McCabe – U.S. Patent Number 7,255,451 ................... 28 
`C.  Overview Of Tsuyama – U.S. Patent Number 6,270,227 .................. 31 
`D.  Overview Of Schnell – U.S. Patent Number 6,672,731 .................... 35 
`VII.  Claims 1-13 and 15-36 Of The ’648 Patent Are Unpatentable ............... 38 
`A.  Ground 1(a): Claims 1, 3, 5–13, And 15 Are Obvious In View
`of Lupo ............................................................................................... 38 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 38 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 45 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 46 
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 49 
`4. 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 7 .................................................................. 50 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................. 51 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 51 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 54 
`9. 
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 55 
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 3
`
`

`

`10.  Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 56 
`11.  Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................ 58 
`12. 
`Independent Claim 15 .............................................................. 59 
`B.  Ground 1(b): Claims 2, 16-17, And 19–36 Are Obvious Over
`Lupo In View Of McCabe .................................................................. 61 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 61 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................ 63 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................ 67 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................ 67 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................ 68 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................ 68 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 22 ................................................................ 69 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................ 69 
`9. 
`Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................ 70 
`10.  Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................ 71 
`11. 
`Independent Claim 26 .............................................................. 71 
`12.  Dependent Claim 27 ................................................................ 74 
`13.  Dependent Claim 28 ................................................................ 75 
`14.  Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................ 76 
`15.  Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................ 76 
`16.  Dependent Claim 31 ................................................................ 77 
`17.  Dependent Claim 32 ................................................................ 77 
`18.  Dependent Claim 33 ................................................................ 79 
`19.  Dependent Claim 34 ................................................................ 80 
`20.  Dependent Claim 35 ................................................................ 80 
`21.  Dependent Claim 36 ................................................................ 81 
`C.  Ground 1(c): Dependent Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Lupo In
`View Of Tsuyama .............................................................................. 82 
`D.  Ground 1(d): Dependent Claim 18 Is Obvious Over Lupo In
`View Of McCabe In Further View Of Tsuyama ................................ 84 
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 4
`
`

`

`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Ground 2(a): Claims 1, 3–9, 12, And 15 Are Obvious By
`Tsuyama In View Of The Knowledge Of A Person Of Ordinary
`Skill In The Art ................................................................................... 85 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 85 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 94 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................. 97 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 97 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 98 
`6. 
`Independent Claim 15 .............................................................. 99 
`Ground 2(b): Claims 2, 16–22, 24 –27, And 29 –33 Are
`Obvious Over Tsuyama In View Of McCabe .................................. 101 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................ 101 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 16 .............................................................. 103 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 19 .............................................................. 104 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 20 .............................................................. 105 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 24 .............................................................. 105 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 25 .............................................................. 106 
`7. 
`Independent Claim 26 ............................................................ 107 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 27 .............................................................. 110 
`9. 
`Dependent Claim 31 .............................................................. 111 
`10.  Dependent Claim 33 .............................................................. 111 
`11.  Dependent Claim 36 .............................................................. 112 
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 5
`
`

`

`I, David R. McLellan, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Motherson Innovations
`
`LLC, Inc. (“Motherson”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648 (“the ’648 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard hourly
`
`rate of $560 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
` Ex. 1001 – the ’648 patent, filed May 23, 2016, issued April 16, 2019;
`
` Ex. 1003 – U.K. Patent Application GB 2 244 965 A to Lupo (“Lupo”), filed
`
`on May 1, 1991, published on December 18, 1991.
`
` Ex. 1004 – U.S. Patent No. 7,255,451 to McCabe (“McCabe”), filed on
`
`December 23, 2004, issued on August 14, 2007.
`
` Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 6,270,227 to Tsuyama (“Tsuyama”), filed on
`
`November 3, 1999, issued on August 7, 2001.
`
` Ex. 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 6,672,731 to Schnell (“Schnell”) filed on
`
`November 16, 2001, issued on January 6, 2004.
`
` Ex. 1007 – the file history of the ’648 patent;
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 6
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Professional Background
`
`4.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Wayne State University in Detroit Michigan in 1959 and continued part time to pursue
`
`a Master of Science in Engineering Mechanics. I received a Master of Science in
`
`Management as a Sloan Fellow from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
`
`Cambridge Massachusetts in 1974.
`
`5.
`
`From the beginning of 1975 until I retired at the end of 1992, I served as
`
`the Engineering Director for Corvette. As the Engineering Director, I was responsible
`
`for all aspects of engineering the Corvette: design engineering and manufacturing
`
`engineering. The team of engineers I led included men and women, power train,
`
`chassis, electrical, body and specialists. Under my direction, these engineers designed
`
`and validated the car, its components and the processes for its manufacture. They
`
`were also responsible for the application of engineering processes, such as failure
`
`mode analysis, design for manufacture and assembly, and CAD/CAM. Each part of
`
`the process led to high quality, easily manufactured, cost effective designs. The team
`
`also supported the marketing division in product conception, sales, and service.
`
`Empowered to make the many decisions that lead to a successful product, this capable
`
`and dedicated team consistently led the industry in the introduction of market-focused
`
`technical innovation.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 7
`
`

`

`6. While I was the Engineering Director for Corvette, I directed and led
`
`several major Corvette engineering milestones including:
`
`a.
`
`For the 1981 model year, my team led the world in the
`
`development of the first fiberglass composite suspension-leaf
`
`spring, achieving a 600% weight savings. Today, similar
`
`composite springs are used in millions of cars and trucks
`
`worldwide.
`
`b. My team engineered the all new 1984 Corvette as an aluminum
`
`intensive sports car.
`
`c. My team developed the 1984 through 1987 C4 Corvettes as
`
`production racecars competing in the Sports Car Club of America
`
`Showroom Stock Series (SCCA). Corvettes won every race in the
`
`three year series, including all of the 24-hour races.
`
`d.
`
`For the 1986 model year, my team introduced the first 4-wheel
`
`anti-lock brakes system on a sports car. In one of the SCCA races,
`
`this system turned a sure loss into a victory.
`
`e.
`
`For the 1989 model year, my team introduced the first 6-speed
`
`manual transmission in preparation for the soon to be announced
`
`180 mph ZR-1.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 8
`
`

`

`f.
`
`In 1989, my team began in earnest, to plan the 5th generation C5
`
`Corvette.
`
`g.
`
`For the 1990 model year, my team introduced the 375 horsepower
`
`ZR-1 Corvette super car achieving 0 to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds with
`
`a top speed of 180 mph.
`
`h.
`
`In 1990 the production ZR-1 established three Fédération
`
`Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) World Records for speed
`
`and endurance including the 24-hour endurance record covering
`
`4,221 miles at an average speed of 175.885 mph.
`
`For the 1990 model year, my team introduced the first full
`
`production driver-side air bags in GM.
`
`For the 1992 model year, my team re-engineered the standard
`
`Corvette engine to produce 300 horsepower.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`For the 1992 model year, my team introduced Acceleration Slip
`
`Regulation now known as traction control.
`
`l.
`
`For the 1993 model year, my team introduced the first Passive
`
`Keyless Entry System which included the first Pass Key, a GM
`
`electronic anti-theft, ignition-key system.
`
`m.
`
`For the 1994 model year, my team developed a passenger-side air
`
`bag for the Corvette.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 9
`
`

`

`n.
`
`For the 1994 model year, my team introduced the first run flat tire
`
`system, damaged tires that run without air!
`
`7.
`
`In 1959, right out of engineering school, I started with General Motors
`
`as a Senior Project Engineer in the Noise and Vibration Laboratory of the General
`
`Motors Proving Grounds. I led various projects in vibration control on components,
`
`cars, trucks and military track laying vehicles until a promotion into management in
`
`1965.
`
`8.
`
`From 1965 to 1967, I was the first manager of GM Proving Grounds
`
`Vehicle Dynamics Test Area commonly known as Black Lake. I was responsible for
`
`test and instrumentation development and the facility’s daily management and safety.
`
`9.
`
`From 1967 to 1970, I was the Development Engineer for the Camaro and
`
`Nova chassis. Leading the team and responsible for ride handling and noise, vibration,
`
`and harshness engineers responsible for Camaro and Nova development.
`
`10.
`
`In 1970, I was promoted to Assistant Staff Engineer for the Camaro and
`
`Nova chassis and moved to the GM Technical Center in Warren, Michigan, the world
`
`headquarters of GM.
`
`11.
`
`In 1973, I was sponsored by GM as a Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) Sloan Fellow at the Alfred P. Sloan School of Management at
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 10
`
`

`

`12.
`
`In 1974 I received the Master of Science in Management degree from
`
`the MIT Alfred P. Sloan School of Management.
`
`13. After returning to GM in 1974, I was promoted to Staff Engineer and
`
`assigned to work for the about to retire Zora Arkus-Duntov, the first Corvette
`
`Engineering Director.
`
`14. On January 2, 1975, I was selected to lead the Corvette program as its
`
`Engineering Director.
`
`15.
`
`In 1990, I received the Society of Automotive Engineer’s (SAE)’s
`
`Edward N. Cole Award for Automotive Engineering innovation. This award was
`
`given in recognition of “work and achievements (that) exemplify in an outstanding
`
`manner innovation in the engineering development of automobiles, their components,
`
`systems and accessories.”
`
`16. From 1996 to 1998 I was a member of the SAE’s Edward N. Cole Award
`
`Board.
`
`17.
`
`In 1996 I served as the General Chairman of the SAE Race Car
`
`Engineering Conference and was a member of the SAE Race Car Engineering
`
`Conference Committee in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
`
`18.
`
`In 2007, I was elected as a Fellow of the SAE, which is their highest
`
`elected grade of membership. Among some 80,000 SAE members, there are only
`
`about 200 active Fellows.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 11
`
`

`

`19. Beginning in 1993, I authored my book, “Corvette From The Inside. The
`
`50 development year History as told by Dave McLellan, Corvette’s Chief Engineer
`
`1975-1992.” The book, published in 2002 by Bentley Publishers, is my guided tour
`
`through Corvette history as I was intimately involved with the sports car for the
`
`seventeen most exciting years of my life. The book details my struggle leading the
`
`Corvette program from the edge of failure to resounding success as the vehicle was
`
`again able to compete once again with European and Asian manufacturers.
`
`20. On August 31, 1992, I retired from GM and as they had no replacement
`
`identified, I continued to lead the Corvette team until the end of the year.
`
`21. From 1996 until 1998, I was the Program Manager for the Variable
`
`Dynamic Testbed Vehicle (VDTV) at the Environmental Research Institute of
`
`Michigan (ERIM). This was a Federal Government Department of Transportation
`
`National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Crash Avoidance (OCA)
`
`project. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory provided program oversight. The program
`
`built a vehicle that would be used in human factors research. To achieve a wide range
`
`of attribute qualities it used a custom onboard computer controlling front and rear
`
`steer-by-wire, brake-by-wire, and throttle-by-wire systems.
`
`22. From 1998 to 1999, I served as the ERIM Program Manager for the
`
`Commercially Based Tactical Truck. This was a cost share program sponsored by the
`
`Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) of the U.S. Army, to
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 12
`
`

`

`develop commercially based trucks that approach the mobility payload and
`
`functionality of the Army’s High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, also
`
`known as the Humvee.
`
`23. Since 1999, I consulted for numerous companies in the area of
`
`automotive engineering, including Porsche Engineering Services, Lockheed Martin,
`
`Bose Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Pratt & Miller Engineering, CODA
`
`Automotive, Soar Tech, Badenoch LLC, Technologies M4, Intermag Technologies,
`
`IAM Insight, Mosler Automotive, and Georgia Tech Research Institute.
`
`24. Exhibit 1008 is a copy of my current curriculum vitae (“CV”).
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed the ’648 patent, and I am familiar with the subject matter
`
`of this patent, which is within the scope of my education and professional experience.
`
`Based at least on my background in industry, I am familiar with technologies and
`
`issues related to vehicles and vehicular mirror design and manufacture.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`26.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims 1-13 and
`
`15-36 of the ’648 patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`27.
`
`I am a mechanical engineer by training with over 60 years of professional
`
`experience. The opinions I am expressing in this report involve the application of my
`
`knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 13
`
`

`

`’648 patent. My only knowledge of patent law is from working with experienced
`
`patent lawyers in two previous automotive patent cases. Therefore, I have requested
`
`the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Motherson Innovation LLC, to provide
`
`me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below
`
`express my understanding of how I must apply current principles related to patent
`
`validity to my analysis.
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must apply the Phillips
`
`standard to construe the claim by giving the claim its plain and ordinary meaning,
`
`consistent with the specification and prosecution history. For the purposes of this
`
`review, I have construed each claim term in accordance with its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the Phillips standard except where particular constructions are
`
`discussed.
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I also understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 14
`
`

`

`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`31.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered analogous prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is analogous prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
`
`A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same
`
`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in an
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`32. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention to
`
`be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems as
`
`the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the
`
`elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
`33.
`
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 15
`
`

`

`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions; applying
`
`a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to
`
`yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
`
`the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’648
`
`patent, I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`the relevant priority date. My understanding is that the earliest claimed priority date
`
`of the ’648 patent is October 7, 2009.
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’648 patent
`
`would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or
`
`electrical engineering with at least two years of experience in automotive development
`
`(or equivalent degree or experience). A person could also have qualified as a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such
`
`as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal
`
`education and more technical or professional experience.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 16
`
`

`

`36. My own training and experience exceeds that of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, but I have directed and collaborated with numerous engineers whose training
`
`and experience were very similar to one of ordinary skill in the art. As described
`
`above in my “Professional Background” section, I managed and led a team of
`
`engineers as the Engineering Director of Corvette for 17 years, responsible for all
`
`aspects of the design and manufacturing engineering of the Corvette. As an
`
`engineering consultant, I have worked with and taught younger engineers from
`
`various automotive and other industries as well.
`
`IV. Summary of the ’648 Patent and File History
`
`37. The ’648 patent was filed on May 23, 2016. The ’648 Patent has an
`
`earliest date of priority of October 7, 2009. The ’648 patent was issued on April 16,
`
`2019.
`
`A. Outside Rearview Mirror Technology in 2009
`38. Outside rearview mirrors give the driver of a vehicle situation awareness
`
`of the cars that are operating outside the driver’s direct field of view in adjacent lanes
`
`left or right. They are used in conjunction with the inside rear view mirror to give the
`
`driver an almost complete picture of cars traveling, closing from behind, or in adjacent
`
`lanes all outside the driver’s direct field of view. They are regulated in the United
`
`States by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and their requirements
`
`are defined in Federal Vehicle Motor Safety Standard 111.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 17
`
`

`

`39. The history of the rearview mirror likely began in 1911 when Ray
`
`Harroun famously attached an external rearview mirror to the racecar in which he then
`
`won the Indianapolis 500. See How the First Rearview Mirror Won the First Indy
`
`500, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/sports/autoracing/at-
`
`indianapolis-500-innovation-began-with-a-look-back.html. Every other car in the
`
`race had two people—a driver and a riding mechanic. The riding mechanic’s job
`
`included looking over his shoulder and alerting the driver when cars were closing on
`
`him. The exterior rearview mirror on Ray’s car allowed him to view the critical area
`
`behind him while removing the riding mechanic, providing Ray with a more
`
`aerodynamic and lighter racecar.
`
`40. One of the first patents for exterior rearview mirrors was U.S. Patent
`
`Number 1,114,559 given to Chester A. Weed entitled Mirror Attachment for
`
`Automobiles. The purpose of the mirror attachment is to give the driver of the vehicle
`
`situational awareness of vehicles in the rear field of the vehicle. One embodiment of
`
`the mirror attachment included two separate adjustable mirrors, one “true mirror” and
`
`one convex mirror to give the driver two distinct fields of view. (See below).
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`41.
`
`In the decades before 2009, outside rearview mirrors were initially made
`
`adjustable from the driver’s seat using mechanical cables allowing the driver to set
`
`them for field of view both vertically and horizontally. The technology then advanced
`
`to replacing the cables with electric motors. These mirrors were generally in a fixed
`
`housing. One example of this can be found in U.S. Patent No. 3,575,496 issued in
`
`1971 to Samuel Pollock of the General Motors Corporation (“Pollock”). Pollock,
`
`shown below, refers to a remote controlled exterior rearview mirror for a motor
`
`vehicle that can oscillate about a vertical axis. Pollock, 1:65-70. The electric motor
`
`24 is energized by an actuator switch 16 inside the cabin of the vehicle which causes
`
`a rotation of the mirror 12 and the mirror assembly 20. Id., 2:32-56. The mirror
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 19
`
`

`

`assembly 20 and mirror 12 are also universally adjustable by being frictionally
`
`attached to the postmember 30 by ball stud 50. Id., 2:70-75.
`
`
`
`42. Another example of an exterior rearview mirror assembly adjusted by
`
`electrically-operable actuators can be found in U.S. Patent No. 4,991,950 issued in
`
`1991 to Heinrich Lang (“Lang”). Lang refers to a mechanically adjustable rearview
`
`mirror with a housing 1 which securely holds mirror glass 3 and includes electrically-
`
`operable servomotors 31 and 32. Lang, 1:45-55. When servomotor 31 is actuated,
`
`the housing 1 and mirror glass 3 pivot around pivot axis 46 by an angle “b”. Id., 4:15-
`
`25. When servomotor 32 is actuated, the housing 1 and mirror glass 3 pivot around
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 20
`
`

`

`pivot axis 45 by an angle “c.” Id. The pivot axes 45 and 46 lie perpendicular to one
`
`another as shown in Figures 2-3 below. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`43. High end cars, such as the 2006 Lexus GS, then added a controlled
`
`vertical dipping of the mirror to improve reverse maneuvering. Some outside
`
`rearview mirrors also added an additional electric motor that rotated the entire housing
`
`inboard around a vertical axis to put it flush with the bodywork. An example of this
`
`is also described in Lupo. Ex. 1003, 10:16-11:3. This served the purpose of better
`
`protecting the mirror in tight operating spaces, such as car washes and parking spaces.
`
`B. Overview Of The ’648 Patent
`44. The ’648 patent, which claims earliest priority to October 7, 2009, is
`
`titled Exterior Rearview Mirror Assembly. The ’648 patent generally relates to “an
`
`exterior rearview mirror assembly configured for mounting at an exterior portion of a
`
`vehicle include[ing] a base configured for attachment at an exterior portion of a
`
`vehicle and a mirror head attached at the base and pivotable relative to the base.” Ex.
`
`1001, 2:37-56. Specifically, the “mirror head includes a mirror reflective element.”
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 22
`
`

`

`Id. The assembly includes a “first actuator [that] is operable to pivot the base relative
`
`to the exterior portion of the vehicle about a first pivot axis, and a second actuator
`
`operable to pivot the mirror head relative to the base about a second pivot axis.” Id.
`
`“The first and second actuators are cooperatively operable to pivot the base about the
`
`first pivot axis and to pivot the mirror head about the second pivot axis to adjust the
`
`mirror reflective element relative to the exterior portion of the vehicle to adjust the
`
`rearward field of view of a driver of the vehicle.” Id. And, the “first and second
`
`actuators may be operable at different rotational speeds to adjust the rearward field of
`
`view of the driver of the vehicle. The first and second pivot axes may be angled
`
`relative to one another at an angle of between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees.”
`
`Id.
`
`45. An example of such a mirror assembly is shown in Figure 56 (reproduced
`
`below). According to the ’648 patent, the “mirror head housing 614 is attached at an
`
`inner bracket or mounting element 616 that is attached at a first actuator 618, whereby
`
`rotational driving of the first actuator 618 imparts a rotation of bracket 616 and mirror
`
`head housing 614 about a first pivot axis 618α.” Ex. 1001, 59:7-22. “First actuator
`
`618 is attached to or mounted at an outer bracket 620 that is mounted to or attached
`
`to a second actuator 622, which is attached at or disposed at or in an outer cover 624,
`
`whereby rotational driving of second actuator 622 imparts of rotation of bracket 620
`
`and first actuator 618 and bracket 616 and mirror head housing 614 about a second
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Motherson Innovations v. Magna Mirrors
`Motherson Exhibit 1002, Page 23
`
`

`

`pivot axis 622α.” Id. “The outer cover 624 is disposed at or attached to or mounted
`
`at the side portion of the vehicle (and pivotally or rotatably mounted thereat, such as
`
`via the actuator 622) when the exterior mirror assembly is normally mounted at the
`
`side of the vehicle.” Id.