`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WALMART INC.
`
`Petition er
`
`V.
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`
`Patent No. 5,944,040
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RICHARD W. KLOPP
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 1 of 112
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... I
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ......................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,944,040 ........................................................................ 9
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 15
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-3 OF THE ’040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER YANG IN VIEW OF LYNCH ......................................................... 21
`
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1—3 OF THE ‘040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER YANG IN VIEW OF ADMITTED PRIOR ART ............................ 44
`
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1—3 OF THE ‘040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER YANG IN VIEW OF BERG ............................................................ 53
`
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-3 OF THE ’040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER TSAI IN VIEW OF LYNCH ............................................................ 63
`
`X.
`
`GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1-3 OF THE ‘040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER TSAI IN VIEW OF ADMITTED PRIOR ART ............................... 77
`
`XI. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 1-2 OF THE ‘040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER TSAI IN VIEW OF BERG ............................................................... 85
`
`XII. GROUND 7: CLAIMS 1-3 OF THE ‘040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER TSAI IN VIEW OF BERG AND CARTER ..................................... 90
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 2 of 112
`
`
`
`1, Richard W. Klopp, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Richard W. Klopp, and I reside in Redwood City, CA.
`
`I
`
`am a Principal Engineer in the Mechanical Engineering Practice at Exponent, Inc.
`
`I am over eighteen years of age, and I would otherwise be competent to testify as
`
`to the matters set forth herein if I am called upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by WALMART INC. (“Petitioner”) in
`
`connection with the above-captioned petition for interpartes review (“IPR”) of
`
`US. Patent No. 5,944,040 (the “’040 Patent” or “the Challenged Patent,” Ex-
`
`1001). The ’040 patent will be cited herein as “Ex. 1001” with additional column,
`
`line, and similar references to specific portions. I understand the ’040 Patent is
`
`currently assigned to CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to offer opinions regarding the ’040
`
`Patent, including whether claims 1-3 (which I will refer to collectively as the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) are unpatentable because they were obvious in View of
`
`certain prior art. This declaration sets for the opinions I have reached to date
`
`regarding these matters.
`
`4.
`
`In forming my opinions, I rely on my knowledge, training, and
`
`experience in the field and on documents and information referenced in this
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 3 of 112
`
`
`
`Declaration.
`
`5.
`
`My employer, Exponent is being compensated by Petitioner at my
`
`standard hourly consulting rate for my time spent on this matter. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the substance of my opinions, on the outcome of
`
`the IPR, or on the outcome of any related dispute between Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`6.
`
`Neither Exponent nor 1 have a conflict of interest with respect to
`
`Petitioner or Patent Owner.
`
`7.
`
`I reserve my ability to offer additional opinions in other dispute
`
`venues.
`
`A.
`
`Background and Expertise
`
`8.
`
`My CV is shown in Exhibit A to this declaration.
`
`B.
`
`Information Considered
`
`9.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’040 Patent and
`
`considered each document listed in Exhibit B and any other references cited in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`In reaching my opinions, I have considered the viewpoint of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’040 Patent’s claimed priority date of
`
`May 23, 1997. As explained below, I am familiar with the level of skill of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art regarding the relevant technology at issue as of
`
`that time. I consider myself to have been a person of at least ordinary skill in the
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 4 of 112
`
`
`
`art as of the claimed priority date.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`10.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’040 Patent, 1 am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel
`
`has explained to me and that I have encountered in other work on intellectual
`
`property matters.
`
`1 1.
`
`First, I understand that for a claimed invention to be patentable,
`
`among other things, it must be new and not obvious in light of the information
`
`known to exist before the invention was made.
`
`12.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, articles, product
`
`manuals, company publications, etc).
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was filed before
`
`the effective filing date, while a printed publication will be prior art if it was
`
`publicly available before that date.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, it is Petitioner Walmart lnc.’s
`
`burden to prove that the Challenged Claims were anticipated by or were obvious in
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 5 of 112
`
`
`
`light of the prior art 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 true than it is not true.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given the
`
`meaning that the terms would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the ’040 Patent claimed priority date.‘ The claims so interpreted are then to
`
`be evaluated for novelty in light of the prior art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that in the proceeding for which I am submitting this
`
`declaration, the scope of prior art is limited to patents and printed publications.
`
`My analysis compares the Challenged Claims to patents and printed publications
`
`that I understand are prior art to the Challenged Patent.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that one way prior art may render a claimed invention
`
`unpatentable and its associated patent claims invalid is when the prior art can be
`
`shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art.2
`
`My understanding of the legal standards for obviousness is set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`Obviousness
`
`1 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`2 I am aware that there are other issues that may render patent claims invalid, but
`
`those are beyond the scope of this declaration.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 6 of 112
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I understand and have been instructed as to the definition of
`
`“obviousness” in the context of US. patent law.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that patent claim is invalid if it would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. I
`
`understand that the following standards govern the determination of whether a
`
`patent claim is obvious.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of
`
`four factors:
`
`I The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`a The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`0 The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`0 Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the objective factors (“indicia”) that may bear on the
`
`question of obviousness or non-obviousness include whether the claimed invention
`
`proceeded in a direction contrary to the accepted wisdom in the field, whether
`
`there was a long-felt but unresolved need in the field that was satisfied by the
`
`claimed invention, whether others had tried but failed to make the claimed
`
`invention, whether others copied the claimed invention, whether the claimed
`
`invention achieved any unexpected results, Whether the claimed invention was
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 7 of 112
`
`
`
`praised by others, whether others have taken licenses to use the claimed invention,
`
`whether experts or those skilled in the field of the claimed invention expressed
`
`surprise or disbelief regarding the claimed invention, and whether products
`
`incorporating the claimed invention have achieved commercial success.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should avoid
`
`relying on hindsight, and must adopt the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art as of the patent’s effective filing date.
`
`23.
`
`I also understand that under a proper obviousness analysis, any need
`
`or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed
`
`by the patent can provide a reason for combining prior art elements in the manner
`
`claimed.
`
`I also understand combining familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be deemed obvious when it yields no more than predictable
`
`results. I further understand that the following are other factors that may show
`
`obviousness:
`
`I
`
`0
`
`0
`
`a combination that only unites old elements with no change in their
`respective functions is unpatentable. As a result,
`the combination of
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be deemed
`obvious when it yields no more than predictable results,
`
`a predictable variation of a work in the same or a different field of endeavor
`is likely to be deemed obvious if a person of ordinary skill would be able
`to implement the variation,
`
`an invention is deemed obvious if it uses a known technique to improve a
`similar device in the same way, unless the actual application of the
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 8 of 1 l2
`
`
`
`technique would have been beyond the skill of the person of ordinary skill
`in the art.
`In this case, a key inquiry is whether the improvement is more
`than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`functions,
`
`0
`
`an invention is deemed obvious if there existed at the time of invention a
`
`known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by
`the patent’s claims.
`
`0
`
`inventions that were “obvious to try” — chosen from a finite number of
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success
`— are likely to be deemed obvious,
`
`- known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of
`ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`0
`
`to combine
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art
`references, while not a requirement for a finding of obviousness, may be
`helpful in determining obviousness.
`
`24.
`
`Finally, I understand that even if a claimed invention involves more
`
`than substitution of one known element for another or the application of a known
`
`technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement, the invention may still be
`
`obvious.
`
`I also understand that in such circumstances courts may need to look to
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the
`
`design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine if the claimed
`
`invention is obvious.
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 9 of 112
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I considered several factors to determine the skill level of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed priority date
`
`of May 23, 1997, including the types of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`solutions to those problems, the pace of innovation in the field, the sophistication
`
`of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`26.
`
`Based on my knowledge, expertise, and the prior art cited in the ’040
`
`Patent, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have had a degree in the mechanical
`
`arts (or a related discipline) and at least two years of experiences in the design or
`
`analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages,
`
`though additional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice
`
`VCFSEI.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 10 of 112
`
`
`
`Center Pole
`
`Center Pole
`
`Ribs
`
`Figure A: Annotated Figure 3 from the '040 Patent showing side poles, side pole ribs, center pole, center
`pole ribs, connectors, sliders, and claw members as disclosed in the '040 Patent.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,944,040
`
`27.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,944,040 was issued to Jung-Woo Jang on August
`
`31, 1999. The ’040 Patent application was filed in the US. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) on May 21, 1998, claiming priority to a foreign patent
`
`application in the Republic of Korea filed May 23, 1997.
`
`28.
`
`I have reviewed the ’040 Patent and its three claims. The ’040 Patent
`
`relates to technology for providing a collapsible tent frame, specifically one which
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 11 of 112
`
`
`
`Center Pole
`
`
`_
`
`Center Pole Ribs
`
`upport Links
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Connector
`
`Side Pole
`
`Ribs
`
`lider
`
`Poles
`
`
`
`Claw M - mbers
`o'ema
`.
`. \f—I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure B: Annotated Figure 4 from the ’040 Patent showing the same elements as Figure A in a
`side View of the claimed invention.
`
`is “capable of making, pitching, or striking a tent easily and quickly when
`
`necessary and, more particularly, to a collapsible tent frame suitable for giving an
`
`enlarged and heightened interior space to users when pitching a tent.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:540).
`
`29.
`
`In general, the ’040 Patent teaches a collapsible tent frame which
`
`includes a plurality of side poles (four) coupled to each other Via scissor-type ribs.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 12 of 112
`
`
`
`These side poles are also each coupled to a center pole via a plurality of center
`
`poles ribs. When fully extended, the four side poles and center pole form a
`
`structure upon which material can be stretched so as to provide shelter.
`
`30. More specifically, and with reference to Figure A and Figure B in this
`
`report, the 3040 Patent teaches a collapsible tent structure with side poles (10),
`
`coupled to each other via scissor-type side pole ribs (20). The upper arm of each of
`
`the plurality of side pole ribs is coupled to a stationary connector (60), while the
`
`lower arm is coupled to a slider (70) placed around the side poles. In this
`
`arrangement, as the tent structure is made to expand/contract, the lower arm of the
`
`side pole ribs coupled to slider '70 is allowed to move along the side pole, thus
`
`allowing the scissor structure of the side pole ribs to close and open.
`
`31.
`
`Also shown in Figure A and Figure B are the center pole (50) coupled
`
`to the side poles at connectors (60) via center pole ribs (30). These center pole ribs
`
`also connect to the sliders (70) on the side poles via support links (40). As the tent
`
`structure is folded, the sliders (70) and connected support links (40) slide down the
`
`side poles, and the support links (40) pull down the center pole ribs (30), causing
`
`the center pole ribs (30) to fold at hinge connections (30a). This folding movement
`
`enables the tent structure to collapse into a compact space.
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 13 of 112
`
`
`
`32.
`
`The ’040 Patent discusses that patents for collapsible tents with side
`
`poles, scissor—type connections between each side pole and attached to sliders and
`
`connectors on the side poles, and center poles with associated center pole ribs
`
`coupled to each other at the center pole already existed at the time the patent was
`
`filed (see EX. 1001, 1:10-49). Further, the ’040 Patent also acknowledges that prior
`
`art patents also disclosed the striking and collapsing of the tent by the side poles
`
`moving together which forces the sliders attached to said side poles to move
`
`downwards (Ex. 1001, 1:34—38), which is the same mechanism disclosed in the
`
`’040 Patent. However, the ’040 Patent identifies a problem with the prior art in
`
`that the center pole structure is connected (via the center pole ribs) to the side pole
`
`ribs directly via scissor-type connections, as opposed to being connected to the side
`
`poles directly. According to the ’040 Patent, this arrangement results in an inner
`
`frame structure which is overly burdensome because it limits interior head space
`
`(causing an obstacle for users entering or exiting the tent), adds unduly
`
`complicated construction requirements to the center pole (resulting in higher
`
`costs), and adds overall weight (which results in transportation difficulties). (Ex.
`
`1001, 1:54-22).
`
`33. With regards to the identified prior art presenting an impediment to
`
`users exiting/entering the tent, the ”040 Patent specifies the problem in “limitng
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 14 of 112
`
`
`
`the height of the interior space”: “It is thus necessary for a user to be careful lest
`
`one bumps one’s head against the center pole ribs 3 or the connector 4 while going
`
`out of, coming into or standing in the tent” (EX. 1001, 1:58-63).
`
`34. With regards to the added construction complexity and ease of
`
`transportation, the ”040 Patent teaches that the prior art identified in its application
`
`results in a “center pole .
`
`.
`
`. having a complex construction and increasing the
`
`production cost of the tent frame. Another problem of the above collapsible tent
`
`frame resides in that it is too heavy for a user to easily handle or move the frame.”
`
`(Ex. 1001,1:66—2:2).
`
`35.
`
`The “040 Patent attempts to ameliorate these claimed shortcomings in
`
`the identified prior art by attaching the center pole directly to the side poles (as
`
`opposed to the prior art connecting the center pole to the side pole ribs), including
`
`adding a support link between the center pole ribs and the side pole to aid in
`
`pitching and striking the tent. See Figure A and Figure B.
`
`36.
`
`The 3040 Patent contains 3 claims, all of which are being challenged
`
`in the current matter:
`
`I. A collapsible Ientfi‘ame, comprising:
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 15 of 112
`
`
`
`a.) a center pole constructedfor stretching and sustaining a tent ’s roof
`
`when a tent is pitched with the tentframe;
`
`b.) a plurality ofside poles coupled to each other through a plurality of
`
`scissor-type ribs, with upper ends ofsaid ribs being hinged to connectors
`
`provided at top ends ofsaid side poles and lower ends ofsaid ribs being
`
`hinged to sliders movablyfitted over said side poles; and
`
`c.) plurality of'center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`
`connectors of the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a hingejoint
`
`and being hinged to the slider ofan associated side pole through a
`
`support link, thus being collapsible at the hingejoint in accordance with
`
`a sliding motion ofsaid slider along the side pole.
`
`2. A collapsible tentframe according to claim 1, wherein said rib
`
`members of the center pole ribs have a substantially equal length.
`
`3. A collapsible tentframe according to claim 2, further comprising a
`
`claw member disposed at a lower end of each side pole.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`14
`
`Petitioner WalmaIt Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 16 of 112
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board uses the Phillipsj
`
`standard for claim construction used in civil courts, which is to say that the claims
`
`must be given the meaning that the terms would have had to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the ’040 Patent claimed priority date.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the parties in the Underlying Litigation in totality
`
`dispute over six different terms in the ’040 Patent: “center pole,
`
`constructed for
`
`'J'J L‘
`
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof,” “being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along the side pole,” “hinge joint,”,
`
`“support link”, and “substantially equal lengt ”.
`
`Center Pole
`
`39.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “a center pole constructed for stretching
`
`and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched.” (Ex. 1001, 4:28-29).
`
`40. Within the ’040 Patent, the term “pole” is used consistently to refer to
`
`long slender objects. Specifically, the term “pole” is used to refer to both “side
`
`poles” and the “center pole”, without any indication that the term should be
`
`understood differently within these two contexts. Therefore, a POSITA at the time
`
`3 Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 17 of 112
`
`
`
`of filing would have understood that “center” and “side” describe the location of
`
`the pole and do not change the underlying definition or structure of a “pole”; in
`
`recognizing that a “side pole” as taught in the ’040 Patent is a long, slender object
`
`provided at the sides or comers of the tent (see side poles 10 in Figure A and
`
`Figure B in this report) from just a simple comparison, a POSITA would have
`
`similarly construed a center pole to be a “long, slender object located at the center
`
`of the tent”.
`
`41.
`
`This construction would have also been reinforced by how the center
`
`pole is used within the ”040 Patent. For example, a POSITA would have
`
`recognized that the center pole would need to be elongated so as to maximize
`
`vertical headspace within the tent and provide a maximum angle for water
`
`shedding. Additionally, a POSITA would have recognized that the width of the
`
`center pole defines how laterally compact the folded tent can be: a POSITA would
`
`have thus understood that the center pole needs to also be as slender as is practical.
`
`This “slender” condition also arises from the notion that a POSITA would have
`
`wanted the tent material to be supported at an apex, instead of a flat portion, again,
`
`to maximize water shedding capability. Therefore, the use of the term “center
`
`pole” within the ’040 Patent would have also led a POSITA to construe this term
`
`as both “long” and “slender”.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 18 of l 12
`
`
`
`42.
`
`For further guidance as to how to understand the term “center pole”,
`
`a POSITA would have also looked to dictionary definitions of “pole”
`
`contemporaneous with the claimed priority date of ’040 Patent, such as “a long,
`
`cylindrical, often slender piece of wood, metal, etc,”4 and “a long, slender, usually
`
`cylindrical object (as a length of wood)”5 While these dictionary definitions taken
`
`as a whole indicate that a pole is generally cylindrical, within the context of the
`
`’040 Patent it is clear that no such limitation exists (i.e., the side poles are
`
`rectangular or square, and the embodiment of the center pole shown in Figure 3 of
`
`the ’040 Patent, Figure A in this report, is conical).
`
`43.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA in View of the above requirements for a
`
`center pole (in addition to the ’040 Patth specification, claims, and figures) would
`
`interpret a center pole as a “centrally disposed, long, slender object”.
`
`Constructed for Stretching and Sustaining a Tent’s Roof
`
`44.
`
`Claim 1 of the patent claims. a “center pole” (defined above in pars.
`
`39-43) that is “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.” As the ’040
`
`4 EX. 10l4 (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`
`Language (1996))
`
`5 Ex. 1015 (Merriam—Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (2000))
`
`2002362000 _ 5067
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 19 of 112
`
`
`
`Patent describes, the “canvas or other material” of the tent roof is “stretched over
`
`and sustained by a frame.” (Ex. 1001, 1:11-13). Specifically, the tent roof is most
`
`often secured to the side poles and is held up by the center pole and center pole
`
`ribs. The center pole specifically heightens the tent roof to create tension in the
`
`fabric which prevents sagging. Sagging leads to instability and flapping due to
`
`wind or leaking due to a collection of rainwater. These are all common problems
`
`identified in the art.
`
`45. Moreover, the purpose of center pole within the ”040 Patent is to
`
`further heighten the interior space of the tent (see, e.g. Ex. 1001, 3:30—33). This
`
`addresses one of the key problems identified in the patent: prior art tents had
`
`“limit[ed] the height of the interior space.” (Ex. 1001, 1:56-64).
`
`46.
`
`Therefore, from the specification of the ’040 Patent, a POSITA would
`
`interpret “stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” to mean the action of a center
`
`pole which both heightens and holds up the tent covering.
`
`47.
`
`This interpretation of stretching and sustaining comports with how
`
`dictionaries at the time of priority would have defined the terms also. For example,
`
`the 1996 Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus defines “stretch” as “place or lie at full
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 20 of 112
`
`
`
`length or spread out (with a canopy stretched over them),”6 and Webster’s 11 New
`
`Riverside Dictionary, also from 1996, defines “sustain” as “[t]o hold up: support.”7
`
`48.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would have interpreted “constructed for
`
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” to mean “made to heighten and hold up the
`
`tent covering”.
`
`Petitioner’s Constructions for the Remaining Terms
`
`49.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the following
`
`additional terms in the Underlying Litigation: “being collapsible at the hinge joint
`
`in accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along a side pole”—construed to
`
`mean “when the tent frame is collapsed, the center pole ribs bend at the hinge joint,
`
`and the slider slides along the side pole”; “hinge joint’
`
`construed to mean “a
`
`
`
`'3
`
`connector that pivots to raise or lower the collapsible tent frame”; and “support
`
`link”—construed to mean “a structure that connects a rib member with a slider
`
`associated with a side pole”. See Petitioners Opening Claim Construction brief in
`
`the Underlying Litigation, Ex- 1012. Patent Owner countered that each term merits
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1012.
`
`6 Ex. 1016 (emphasis in original).
`
`7 EX. 1017.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 21 of 112
`
`
`
`50.
`
`It is my opinion that Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the
`
`Underlying Litigation are correct.
`
`I have been informed that Petitioner offered
`
`these constructions to aid the jury in understanding technical terms. As that issue
`
`is not present here, construction of those terms is not necessary for institution
`
`purposes or analysis of the obviousness of the Challenged Claims in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`51.
`
`Regarding the claim term “substantially equal length,” it is my
`
`opinion that this term is not explicitly defined or discussed within the “040 Patent,
`
`and neither the specification nor the prosecution history provides any objective
`
`boundaries for this term to a POSITA.
`
`52.
`
`For the purposes of analyzing the scope of Claim 2 of the ”040 Patent,
`
`a POSITA would look to the ’040 Patent specification, which teaches: “The center
`
`pole ribs 30 individually comprise two rib members, which have the same
`
`construction and are coupled to each other through a hinge joint 30a” (Ex.
`
`1001 :66-3: 1 ). A POSITA would understand that center pole ribs made from two
`
`rib members “having the same construction” would be within the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term “substantially equal length”, even if the full scope of
`
`“substantially equal length” cannot be ascertained.
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 22 of 112
`
`
`
`Roof Beam Bearing
`‘ Center Pole
`4 Support
`
`Links
`
`
`
`Connector
`
`
`
`
`50
`Side Pole
`
`
`
`
`Ribs
`
`Side Poles
`
`
`Claw Members
`
`Figure C: The disclosed elements of Yang include side poles, side pole ribs, center
`pole ribs (with support links), connecting elements (connectors and sliders), roof beam
`bearing, and claw members.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that “having the same construction”
`
`means having the same dimensions to a level relevant to collapsible tent
`
`consumer product technology. In that technology, “having the same
`
`construction” implies a common part on a bill of materials.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-3 OF THE ’040 PATENT ARE OBVIOUS
`
`OVER YANG IN VIEW OF LYNCH
`
`A.
`
`Japanese Unexamined Utility Model Application H1-61370 for
`“Telescopic Instant Frame Assembled Building Structure”
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 23 of 112
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Japanese Unexamined Utility Model Application H l -6l370 for a
`
`“Telescopic Instant Frame Assembled Building Structure” was filed by James
`
`Chow Lin Yang on October 15, 1987 and published on April 19, 1989. I will refer
`
`to this application herein as “Yang”, or “the Yang application”. Yang will be cited
`
`to the certified English Translation of Yang as “EX. 1004” with additional pages
`
`indicated to the specific portions referenced. I am informed that Yang qualifies as
`
`prior art with respect to the ’040 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as it was
`
`published nearly 8 years before the claimed priority date of the ”040 Patent. The
`
`’040 Patent inventor Jang did not disclose Yang with his filing, and the examiner
`
`did not review Yang during the ’040 Patent prosecution.
`
`54.
`
`Yang teaches to the same field of invention identified by the ’040
`
`Patent, that is, collapsible tents which are easily assembled and disassembled:
`
`“thus the present invention provides a telescopic frame assembled building
`
`structure having an easy and quick operation” (EX. 1004, at 4-5).
`
`55. Moreover, (and as in the ’040 Patent) Yang identifies goals of reduced
`
`complexity of assembly, ease of transportation, and ease of entry and exit: “...the
`
`present invention, which has superior points such as follow [sic]: 1. Useful for
`
`carrying around due to integrated shape. 2. Saves time and energy because
`
`the frame assembly and folding operations are simple. 3. Neat and pretty after
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`22
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 24 of 112
`
`
`
`assembly is complete. 4. Can be moved and positioned at will. 5. No risk of being
`
`blown over by wind. 6. Highly mobile. 7. Convenient for aligning the location
`
`of the entrance/exit and raising the side bars for entrance and exit of persons.
`
`8. The rooftop is pushed up to increase space for activities for which it is
`
`used” (emphasis added, Ex. 1004, at 5-6).
`
`56.
`
`Yang discloses a collapsible tent frame with side poles (“main
`
`column 1” and “telescopic support column 2”) which are connected to each other
`
`via scissor-style side pole ribs (“side bars” 5a and 5b). As in the ’040 Patent, one
`
`arm of the side pole ribs is connected to a stationary connector (“upper fixed
`
`support bar shaft body” 4), and the other arm is coupled to the side poles via a
`
`movable slider (“lower moving support bar shaft body” 3). See (Ex. 1004, at 7-8)
`
`and Figure C.
`
`57. Yang also discloses a connecting hub (referred to as a “roof bearing
`
`beam shaft 8”) at the center of the tent which is used to provide support to the tent
`
`covering. Like the center pole in the ’040 Patent, the roof bearing beam shaft in
`
`Yang is connected to the side poles via ribs (roof support bars 7), which are
`
`coupled directly to a connector (4 in Yang) on the side poles, as well as being
`
`linked to the side pole sliders (3 in Yang) via support links (“support frame push—
`
`up bar” 9 in Yang).
`
`2002362000 - 5067
`
`23
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 25 of 112
`
`
`
`Center Pole \ /
`
`50 Center Pole
`_
`
` 69
`
`34
`
`a Side Pole
`Ribs
`
`30
`
`:2
`
`6
`23
`1‘
`Claw Members —p U)
`
`22 x; °
`
`28
`
`Side Poles
`FIG.2
`
`so
`
`25
`
`3°
`
`Figure D: Annotated Figure 2 from Lynch showing the side poles, side pole ribs, center pole and
`center pole ribs (with support links), connecting elements (connectors and sliders), an