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.
`
`Case IPR2020-00777
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`Declaration of Michael Nranian in Support of
`Patent Owner Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.
`
`34908841.9
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 001
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Background & Qualifications .......................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ..................................................................................... 10
`IV.
`Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 11
`V.
`Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 12
`A.
`Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ........................................... 12
`B.
`General Principles of Claim Construction .......................................... 14
`C.
`Prior Art Based Invalidity Challenges ................................................ 16
`1.
`Anticipation in View of Prior Art ............................................. 16
`2.
`Obviousness in View of Prior Art ............................................. 17
`The ’648 Patent .............................................................................................. 19
`VI.
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 29
`A.
`“Exterior Mirror Reflective Element Fixedly Attached At Said
`Mirror Head” ....................................................................................... 29
`“A Bracket To Which Said Exterior Mirror Reflective Element
`Is Fixedly Attached” ............................................................................ 35
`“Wherein The Outermost Front Perimeter Edge Of Said
`Exterior Mirror Reflective Element Is Rounded” ............................... 39
`“Rearward Field of View” ................................................................... 44
`D.
`“Yaw” And “Roll”............................................................................... 49
`E.
`VIII. The Claims of the ’648 Patent Are Not Unpatentable In View of the
`Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 56
`A.
`Lupo ..................................................................................................... 56
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 002
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Summary of Lupo ..................................................................... 56
`Lupo Does Not Disclose “An Exterior Mirror Reflective
`Element Fixedly Attached At Said Mirror Head” (Claim
`1, 15, 26) ................................................................................... 60
`Lupo Does Not Disclose “A Bracket To Which Said
`Exterior Mirror Reflective Element Is Fixedly Attached”
`(Claims 3-4, 6-7, 17-18, 21-22, 29-30, 32) ............................... 61
`Lupo Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said Mirror Head Is
`Disposed At One End Of Said Support Structure And
`Wherein Said Attachment Portion Is At A Distal Other
`End Of Said Support Structure” (Claims 5, 20, 26) ................. 63
`Lupo Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said First
`Electrically-Operable Actuator Is Operable At A Speed
`Different Than A Speed Of Operation Of Said Second
`Electrically-Operable Actuator” (Claims 13, 28) ..................... 65
`Lupo Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said First And
`Second Pivot Axes Are Angled Non-Orthogonally
`Relative To One Another” And “At An Angle That Is
`Greater Than 15 Degrees And Is Less Than 90 Degrees”
`(Claims 10-11, 23, 34-35) ......................................................... 68
`Lupo Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said Multi-Axis
`Adjustment Mechanism Is Operable For … Roll
`Adjustment” (Claims 9, 25, 31, and 36) ................................... 73
`Tsuyama .............................................................................................. 75
`1.
`Summary of Tsuyama ............................................................... 75
`2.
`Tsuyama Fails To Disclose An “Exterior Rearview
`Mirror Assembly” As Required By Every Claim ..................... 76
`Tsuyama Does Not Disclose “An Exterior Mirror
`Reflective Element Fixedly Attached At Said Mirror
`Head” (Claims 1, 15, 26) .......................................................... 80
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`ii
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 003
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Tsuyama Does Not Disclose Both An “Attachment
`Portion” And A “Support Structure” That Moves
`Relative To The Vehicle (Claims 5, 20, 26) ............................. 82
`Tsuyama Does Not Disclose Wherein Said First And
`Second Electrically-Operable Actuators Are
`“Cooperatively Operable” To Adjust Said Mirror Head
`(Claims 12, 24, 27) .................................................................... 83
`Tsuyama Does Not Disclose “Wherein Said Multi-Axis
`Adjustment Mechanism Is Operable For … Yaw
`Adjustment” (Claims 9, 25, 31, and 36) ................................... 84
`Tsuyama Does Not Disclose “Wherein The Outermost
`Front Perimeter Edge Of Said Exterior Mirror Reflective
`Element Is Rounded” (Claims 2, 16, 33) .................................. 87
`C. McCabe................................................................................................ 88
`1.
`Summary of McCabe ................................................................ 88
`2.
`McCabe Does Not Disclose “Wherein The Outermost
`Front Perimeter Edge Of Said Exterior Mirror Reflective
`Element Is Rounded” (Claims 2, 16, 33) .................................. 91
`There Is No Motivation To Combine McCabe With Lupo
`Or Tsuyama ............................................................................... 93
`One Of Skill In The Art Would Avoid Combining The
`Electro-optic Feature Of McCabe With Lupo And
`Tsuyama (Claims 16-23, 26-36) ............................................... 94
`Because Tsuyama Is Not A Rear-View Mirror Used For
`Driving, There Is No Reason To Modify It In View Of
`McCabe ..................................................................................... 96
`Schnell ................................................................................................. 96
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`D.
`
`iii
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 004
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`I have been retained by Patent Owner, Magna Mirrors of America,
`
`Inc. (“Magna”), to provide my opinion on certain matters regarding Motherson
`
`Innovations Co., Ltd.’s (“Motherson”) Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648 (“the ’648 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein that are based on information and belief are believed to be true. I
`
`am over 21 years of age and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`At this stage, I have been asked to provide my opinions on certain
`
`discrete issues that are relevant to Magna’s Preliminary Patent Owner Response.
`
`To the extent I do not opine on any given issue in this declaration, that should not
`
`be construed as agreement with Motherson’s positions. I reserve the right to
`
`provide additional opinions in the event that an IPR is instituted, and I reserve the
`
`right to provide supplemental opinions in view the Board’s Institution Decision, if
`
`relevant.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $350.00 per hour for time
`
`preparing this declaration. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 005
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`II.
`
`Background & Qualifications
`5.
`In the following paragraphs, I will present some aspects of my
`
`technical, scientific, and automotive engineering background that are relevant to
`
`the technologies disclosed in the ’648 Patent and prior art. My Curriculum Vitae,
`
`which includes more details of my background, experience, and education, is
`
`attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2002.
`
`6.
`
`Although I have a law degree, and I am licensed to practice before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, I have not been asked to opine on any
`
`legal issues. I will not be giving any legal opinions throughout this declaration and
`
`throughout my work on this matter. My opinions are based on my engineering,
`
`technical, scientific, automotive, and business education and experience. To the
`
`extent I apply any legal standards, I was provided those standards by counsel for
`
`Magna.
`
`7.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, and a Bachelor
`
`of Science degree in Chemical Engineering. I also have a Juris Doctor degree from
`
`Wayne State University and a Master of Business Administration degree from the
`
`University of Michigan.
`
`8.
`
`My engineering education is relevant to this proceeding generally, but
`
`it also includes a focus on principles specifically related to this proceeding. For
`
`2
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 006
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`example, while getting my Master of Science degree, I concentrated on solid state
`
`electronics and the related physics of electromagnetic waves, including light and
`
`the related optical properties of different types of materials. This includes the
`
`scientific and physical principles of reflection, refraction, and fields of view, for
`
`mirrors and lenses, similar to what is discussed in the ’648 Patent and in regulatory
`
`requirements for related automotive applications.
`
`9.
`
`I am a licensed Professional Engineer, Certified Project Management
`
`Professional, and am Lean Six Sigma Black Belt certified through the American
`
`Society for Quality and the International Quality Federation. I am also certified in
`
`Security+, Network+ through CompTIA, as well as implementing and auditing
`
`cyber security controls through the Global Information Assurance Certification
`
`(GIAC - through SANS Technology Institute). I am also a Certified Authorization
`
`Professional in assessing and approving cyber security and system and component
`
`security through the U.S. Military risk management framework for Military,
`
`Ground Vehicle, and Government systems and components.
`
`10.
`
`I have over 35 years of engineering experience. I have extensive
`
`experience in the automotive industry for multiple companies. I have worked on
`
`automotive and safety systems as a practicing engineer and engineering manager,
`
`with in-depth testing, design, development, and prove-out of safety systems with
`
`direct technical applications since 1985.
`
`3
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 007
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`11.
`
`Specifically, I have worked as a design engineer, senior project
`
`engineer, design analysis engineer, technical specialist, and engineering manager
`
`in the automotive industry from 1985 to 2007. This included experience at Ford,
`
`General Motors, and Allied Signal. I worked at Allied Signal from 1992 to 1993,
`
`General Motors from 1993 to 1995, and Ford Motor Company from 1985 to 1992,
`
`and from 1995 to 2007. After working at Ford, I worked as a Systems Engineer
`
`for Raytheon and General Dynamics, as well as a contractor and civilian employee
`
`for the U.S. Army.
`
`12.
`
`I currently work for the U.S. Army at the Development Command,
`
`Ground Vehicle Systems Center (DEVCOM GVSC) in Warren, Michigan. I work
`
`on systems for military ground vehicles, which involve the application of
`
`automotive technologies, including those related to automotive safety systems, and
`
`vision systems. My current responsibilities, as well as my previous work at
`
`Raytheon and General Dynamics, include working on many applications involving
`
`visible light, infrared light, and related emitters and receptors. My work has
`
`included, among other things, sensor development and visual perception, including
`
`camera, optical systems, viewers, lenses, mirrors, and visual displays.
`
`13. While at Ford, General Motors, and Allied Signal, my work included
`
`the design and development of automotive safety systems and components for
`
`various different types of automotive applications. This included, among other
`
`4
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 008
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`things, testing and development of systems and components for active and passive
`
`safety.
`
`14. My work has involved the testing and development of a variety of
`
`automotive components and systems. This included both laboratory tests and
`
`technology assessments, as well as testing in various real world driving situations
`
`and traffic events.
`
`15. My work also involved conducting technology assessments and
`
`proper supplier and sourcing evaluation and selection, quoting and bidding, and the
`
`overall source selection for numerous technologies. For example, while at Allied
`
`Signal, I prepared numerous proposals and responses for many different domestic,
`
`European, Asian, and Pacific Rim requests for quotations. While at General
`
`Motors and Ford, I was part of many cross-functional teams involved in the
`
`sourcing selection, request-for-information and request-for-quotation processes and
`
`evaluations, and ultimate evaluation and decision as to which suppliers were
`
`chosen on numerous vehicle programs.
`
`16. My responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with Federal
`
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Economic Commission for Europe
`
`("ECE") regulations, Industry Standards, SAE Standards, ISO standards, Corporate
`
`Standards, various
`
`international government
`
`regulations, and Due-Care
`
`Requirements.
`
`5
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 009
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`17.
`
`I have testified extensively as a corporate representative and expert
`
`witness on behalf of Ford. In that role, I have analyzed, verified, and testified
`
`regarding compliance with FMVSS requirements, including product, component,
`
`system, and vehicle compliance with FMVSS 111 (49 CFR § 571.111), FMVSS
`
`104 (49 CFR § 571.104), and the U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA
`
`Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 111 (TP111V-00).
`
`18. My work has also included analyses involving statistical information
`
`from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and Fatality Analysis
`
`Reporting System (FARS) databases.
`
`19. My work also involved extensive inspection, investigation, and
`
`analysis of field events involving automotive safety systems. I am certified in
`
`accident reconstruction through Northwestern University, and I have performed
`
`numerous real-world assessments of accident causation as part of my
`
`investigations. I have specifically assessed accidents involving lane change
`
`incidents, blindspots, and rearward vision systems involving, for example, exterior
`
`and interior rear view mirrors.
`
`20.
`
`I have conducted numerous system and component evaluations,
`
`laboratory tests, supplier and technology assessments, quality and reliability
`
`evaluations, as well as developed design validation plans and reports and failure
`
`modes and effects analyses to design and develop automotive safety, sensing,
`
`6
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 010
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`vison, and electrical/electronic systems, including the integration of sensor fusion
`
`technologies. I have conducted numerous vehicle test track (I am qualified as a
`
`Ford Level II certified test track driver), rough road, obstacle, lane change, rear
`
`view and side view mirror vision assessments, braking/stopping, maneuverability,
`
`on-road, off-road, as well as numerous crash and sled tests, for vehicular safety
`
`systems testing, development, design, prove-out, verification, and validation.
`
`21. Areas of my work also specifically included automotive vehicle safety
`
`systems, sensing systems, sensor fusion, vision systems, occupant and infant/child
`
`seat sensing and detection systems, out of position occupant detection, RFID,
`
`object identification and detection, electrical and safety system diagnostics,
`
`occupant ergonomic evaluations, user and occupant audio and visual interfaces and
`
`displays, infrared, vision, camera, optical, sonar, acoustic, radar, LIDAR, sensing
`
`and detection technologies and systems. This includes vehicle interior and exterior
`
`testing and development work for evaluation of object and situational
`
`awareness/identification and proper system response, including proper response
`
`involving ongoing environmental and positional changes and scenarios, as well as
`
`assessment of false positives and evaluation of failure to properly respond, alert, or
`
`warn in circumstances and events when required to so.
`
`22. My work on the systems described above included, among other
`
`things, testing, development, and assessment of systems and components for active
`
`7
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 011
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`and passive safety, including vision and mirror systems. This included laboratory
`
`tests, in-vehicle assessments, technology and prototype component assessments, as
`
`well as product testing, development, and performance verification and validation
`
`in various real world driving situations and traffic events, for assessment of these
`
`products and systems for improving overall safety, improving driver awareness,
`
`and providing overall accident reduction and injury mitigation.
`
`23.
`
`In addition, my work for General Motors included applying for and
`
`being granted a Statutory Invention Registration for a rear-facing infant seat
`
`occupant detection using technology involving mirrors and optical transmitters and
`
`receivers (which include, for example the use of either visible or infrared
`
`electromagnetic light waves) that I conceived of and developed.
`
`24. My current responsibilities, as well as my previous work at Ford,
`
`General Motors, AlliedSignal, Raytheon, and General Dynamics, include working
`
`on electrical and electronic sensors and the related components and systems, and
`
`also the development of requirements, specifications, quality, reliability, process,
`
`manufacturing and compliance standards, control plans, Failure Mode and Effects
`
`Analyses (FMEA), Analysis and Corrective Actions Reports related to these
`
`sensors and systems.
`
`25.
`
`I have extensive experience in manufacturing processes, including
`
`process optimization through, for example, design of experiments. My experience
`
`8
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 012
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`also includes electrical and electronic component design, testing, development, and
`
`manufacturing processes, quality, reliability and manufacturing control and
`
`inspection.
`
` I am also experienced
`
`in durability and reliability
`
`testing,
`
`specifications, and standards, and the proper assembly, manufacturing, and quality
`
`control (e.g.,
`
`including
`
`those
`
`involving
`
`lean six-sigma applications and
`
`techniques). My responsibilities also include conducting and leading technology
`
`and material source trade studies and analyses using preset requirements for
`
`evaluation to ensure the selected alternatives meet or exceed the requirements and
`
`specifications for the components, system, vehicle, and overall mission system
`
`integration requirements as well as Department of Defense 5000 and 5001
`
`protocols.
`
`26. My work also involves, for example, vision systems (including those
`
`involving mirrors and lenses), optical systems, enhanced soldier perception
`
`systems, infrared systems, laser systems, object and image detection, identification,
`
`enhancement, notification, and display. I have also worked on friend and foe
`
`target recognition and tracking, detection and reduction of vehicle electrical
`
`signatures (including perception assessment of movement, brightness, color,
`
`texture against background), image enhancement/intensifiers (e.g., thermal, active
`
`and passive infrared (IR)), electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) camera/sensors (e.g.,
`
`charge-coupled device (CCD) or complementary metal oxide semiconductor
`
`9
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 013
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`(CMOS))
`
`for
`
`incoming
`
`threat
`
`detection,
`
`wavelength
`
`specific
`
`reflective/absorption/scatter protection filters. For example, I am a co-inventor on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,860,159 titled “Spintronic Electronic Device and Circuits,”
`
`which, among other novel features, describes and claims an antenna and associated
`
`circuitry for detection of radio frequency waves (e.g., a beam of microwave
`
`energy), using a spintronic electronic apparatus having a multilayer structure that
`
`can operate in a large amplitude, out-of-plane magnetization precession regime,
`
`which, depending on the circuit structure, can be adjustably biased and used to
`
`detect low frequency microwave RF signals that exceed a predetermined threshold
`
`current and have a frequency lower than a predetermined level. In alternative
`
`embodiments, the apparatus can be used for frequency identification of incoming
`
`electromagnetic waves and/or energy harvesting of incoming electromagnetic
`
`waves.
`
`27. As listed in my CV, Exhibit 2002, I have been qualified to testify as
`
`an expert in numerous cases, including in over 20 cases involving automotive
`
`systems.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`28. My opinions are based on the documents I reviewed and my
`
`knowledge, experience, and professional judgment.
`
`10
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 014
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`29.
`
`Specifically, I reviewed the ’648 Patent, its file history, and
`
`Motherson’s Petition along with the exhibits provided with it, including the
`
`Declaration of David McLellan (Exhibit 1002). I also reviewed all the exhibits
`
`attached to and/or otherwise discussed and cited in the body of this Declaration. A
`
`full list of the materials I considered in forming my opinions is set forth at
`
`Appendix A.
`
`30. My opinions are further guided by my understanding of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as defined below) as of the
`
`October 7, 2009 priority date of the ’648 Patent.
`
`IV.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`31. As set forth in detail below, it is my opinion that the prior art relied
`
`upon by Motherson in its Petition does not anticipate or render obvious the
`
`challenged claims of the ’648 Patent. That is because the prior art, both
`
`individually and in combination, does not disclose various features recited in the
`
`claims of the ’648 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`It is also my opinion that various terms recited in the claims of the
`
`’648 Patent have a plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art, and that
`
`Motherson’s understanding of certain claim terms (whether offered as an express
`
`construction or implicit in the analysis) is incorrect.
`
`11
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 015
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`33.
`
`It is also my opinion that one of skill in the art would not combine the
`
`prior art references in the way set forth in the Petition, and that there is no
`
`motivation to combine the references in the way the Petition asserts.
`
`V.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards
`34. Although I have a law degree and am registered to practice before the
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, I do not opine on the correct legal standards to
`
`apply. Rather, I have been given the following legal standards by the attorneys for
`
`Patent Owner, and have applied those legal standards to the facts and
`
`circumstances of this case in rendering my opinions.
`
`A.
`35.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`I understand that several of the legal standards must be applied from
`
`the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the priority
`
`date of the ’648 Patent, which I understand is October 7, 2009.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that to determine the characteristics of a hypothetical
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art of the asserted patent at the time of the claimed
`
`inventions, one must consider several factors, including: the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the education level
`
`of active workers in the field. Finally, I placed myself back at the time of the
`
`12
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 016
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`priority date of the ’648 Patent, and also considered the engineers with whom I had
`
`worked, and the then state of the art.
`
`37. Based on my assessment of the factors listed above, and in view of my
`
`personal knowledge of engineers having worked in the field at the time of the
`
`invention, it is my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’648
`
`Patent would hold a Master of Science degree in any kind of engineering discipline
`
`relevant to automotive component design (e.g., electrical engineering, mechanical
`
`engineering, or optical engineering), as well as 2-3 years of experience in the
`
`automotive industry designing components for automobiles.
`
`38. Based on my education and experience, I am an expert in the field of
`
`the technology relevant to the ’648 Patent, and was an expert as of the earliest
`
`priority date of the ’648 Patent. Unless otherwise stated, when I provide my
`
`understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with the level of one of ordinary
`
`skill at the time of the invention of the ’648 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`I reviewed the level of ordinary skill in the art described by Mr.
`
`McLellan (Ex. 1002, ¶ 35). I also have reviewed the Motherson Petition, and I
`
`note that the level of ordinary skill in the art described in the Motherson Petition is
`
`different than the level or ordinary skill in that art described in Mr. McLellan’s
`
`Declaration. Specifically, the differences between McLellan’s level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the Petition’s level of ordinary skill in the art are: (i) McLellan
`
`13
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 017
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`specifies “mechanical engineering or electrical engineering” and the Petition
`
`specifies “mechanical engineering or engineering technology”; and (ii) McLellan
`
`states “more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree)” and the
`
`Petition states “more formal education (such as a master’s degree).” Regardless,
`
`our opinions are different in that Mr. McLellan’s person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`as well as that which is stated in the Motherson Petition, would qualify with less
`
`education and less experience. To that extent, I disagree with his opinion.
`
`40. Despite the difference in the definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention, my opinions below do not change based on
`
`whether the person of skill in the art has the qualifications that I’ve described, or
`
`that Mr. McLellan has described. For example, under the lower level of skill in the
`
`art that Mr. McLellan advances, it would have been even less obvious to combine
`
`the prior art in the way that Motherson suggests to arrive at the claimed inventions.
`
`41.
`
`If the Board adopts a definition that is different enough from that
`
`described above to change my conclusions or my analysis, I reserve the right to
`
`submit an additional report on those points.
`
`B.
`42.
`
`General Principles of Claim Construction
`I understand that the claims in this proceeding are interpreted under a
`
`standard called the Phillips standard (also known as the “district court standard”)
`
`as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`14
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 018
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`43.
`
`I understand that under the Phillips standard, a claim term must be
`
`given the ordinary meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in question at the time of the invention. The person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular
`
`claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that both intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence can be
`
`used to interpret the claims. Intrinsic evidence includes the language of the claim
`
`itself, the specification and drawings of the patent, and the prosecution history of
`
`the patent. The intrinsic record may indicate that the inventor has acted as his/her
`
`own lexicographer, or has disclaimed the full scope of the ordinary meaning of a
`
`term. I understand that the specification is highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis; it is usually dispositive, and is the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed claim term.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may also be consulted. Extrinsic
`
`evidence, while useful, is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining
`
`the meaning of claim language. Extrinsic evidence may include dictionaries and
`
`authoritative technical publications, as well as expert and inventor testimony.
`
`15
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 019
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`C.
`46.
`
`Prior Art Based Invalidity Challenges
`I understand that certain of the conditions for patentability are that a
`
`claimed invention must be new and not obvious in light of what came before it.
`
`Certain patents and publications which predate the priority date of the patent
`
`claims may qualify as “prior art.”
`
`47.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the burden is on the party
`
`asserting unpatentability, here Motherson, to prove unpatentability by “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.” I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`Anticipation in View of Prior Art
`1.
`I understand that a claim may be unpatentable if it is anticipated by a
`
`48.
`
`prior art reference as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated under § 102 only if each and
`
`every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`
`described, in a single prior art reference.
`
`50.
`
`Further, I understand that a claim limitation is not inherently present
`
`in a prior art reference if the limitation is not necessarily present in a reference, or
`
`if one of ordinary skill in the art does not recognize that the limitation is
`
`necessarily present in the cited reference.
`
`16
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 020
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`Obviousness in View of Prior Art
`2.
`I understand that, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim may be unpatentable
`
`51.
`
`if the differences between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`52.
`
`The relevant obviousness analysis requires consideration of four
`
`factors:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`Secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`53.
`
`Evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness may
`
`include, for example:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commercial success of the claimed invention;
`
`Copying of the claimed invention;
`
`That the claimed invention solved a long-standing problem or
`
`need;
`
`The failure of others to solve the problem solved by the claimed
`
`invention;
`
`17
`
`Magna - IPR2020-00777 - Ex. 2001 - 021
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00777
`
`Patent No. 10,261,648
`
`
`
`Unexpected results of the claimed invention.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that evidence of secondary considerations may often be
`
`the most probative and cogent evidence in the record, and may establish that an
`
`invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not. Such
`
`evidence plays an important role in guarding against the impermissible use of
`
`hindsight reasoning in the obviousness analysis. I further understand that for
`
`evidence of commercial success, if a commercia