UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`YITA LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`MACNEIL IP LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01139
`Patent No. 8,382,186
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL E. KOCH, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,382,186
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`EX1003
`Yita v. MacNeil
`IPR2020-01139
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications and Experience ......................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 4
`A. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 4
`B. Motivation to Combine ......................................................................... 7
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9
`V.
`State of the Art ...............................................................................................10
`A.
`Thermoforming Generally ...................................................................10
`B.
`Various methods to control or limit thinning during
`thermoforming .....................................................................................16
`C. Many prior art floor mats were thermoformed ...................................23
`D.
`Prior art floor mats were made to closely conform to vehicle
`sidewalls ..............................................................................................29
`Prior art floor mats had a reservoir .....................................................35
`The Use of Hollow Baffles to Elevate the Vehicle Occupant’s
`Feet above the Water Collected in the Reservoir Was not New .........39
`VI. Overview of the ’186 Patent ..........................................................................45
`A.
`The ’186 Patent Background ...............................................................45
`B.
`The ’186 Patent Specification and Drawings ......................................47
`C.
`’186 Patent Challenged Claims ...........................................................51
`D.
`Summary of the ’186 Patent’s Prosecution History ............................53
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................58
`A.
`Legal Standard .....................................................................................58
`
`E.
`F.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`B.
`“thickness … being substantially uniform throughout the tray” ........59
`VIII. Summary of Grounds .....................................................................................61
`IX. Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-7 Based on Rabbe (FR2547252)
`in view of Yung (U.S. Pre–Grant Publication No. 2002/0045029) and
`Gruenwald (“Thermoforming: A Plastics Guide”) .......................................62
`A. Overview of Rabbe ..............................................................................62
`B.
`Overview of Yung ...............................................................................65
`C.
`Overview of Gruenwald ......................................................................69
`D.
`Independent Claim 1 ...........................................................................72
`1.
`Preamble: “A vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a
`sheet of thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially
`uniform thickness, comprising ..................................................90
`Element 1[a]: “a central panel substantially conforming
`to a floor of a vehicle foot well” ...............................................92
`Element 1[b]: “the central panel of the floor tray having
`at least one longitudinally disposed lateral side and at
`least one transversely disposed lateral side” .............................94
`Element 1[c]: “a first panel integrally formed with the
`central panel of the floor tray, upwardly extending from
`the transversely disposed lateral side of the central panel
`of the floor tray, and closely conforming to a first foot
`well wall” ..................................................................................97
`Element 1[d]: “the first panel of the floor tray joined to
`the central panel of the floor tray by a curved transition” ........99
`Element 1[e]: “a second panel integrally formed with the
`central panel of the floor tray and the first panel,
`upwardly extending from the longitudinally disposed
`lateral side of the central panel of the floor tray, and
`closely conforming to a second foot well wall” .....................102
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`Element 1[f]: “the second panel of the floor tray joined to
`the central panel of the floor tray and to the first panel of
`the floor tray by curved transitions” .......................................104
`Element 1[g]: “a reservoir disposed in the central panel
`of the floor tray” ......................................................................106
`Element 1[h]: “a plurality of upstanding, hollow,
`elongate baffles disposed in the reservoir” .............................109
`10. Element 1[i]: “each of the baffles having at least two
`ends remote from each other” .................................................113
`11. Element 1[j]: “the central panel, the first panel, the
`second panel, the reservoir and the baffles each having a
`thickness from a point on the upper surface to a closest
`point on the bottom surface thereof, said thicknesses, as a
`result of the tray being thermoformed from the sheet of
`thermoplastic polymeric material of substantially uniform
`thickness, being substantially uniform throughout the
`tray” .........................................................................................114
`12. Element 1[k]: “the baffles each having a width, in any
`horizontal direction, of more than two times its
`thickness” ................................................................................116
`13. Element 1[l]: “the baffles adapted to elevate the shoe or
`foot of the occupant above fluid collected in the
`reservoir, and further adapted to impede lateral
`movement, induced by a change in vehicle speed or
`direction, of fluid collected in the reservoir” ..........................118
`14. Element 1[m]: “any portion of the reservoir connected to
`a remote portion of the reservoir by a path formed around
`ends of the baffles” .................................................................120
`15. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Rabbe, Yung, and Gruenwald and Arrived at the Claimed
`Vehicle Floor Tray ..................................................................121
`16. Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................129
`
`9.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`E.
`Claim 2 ..............................................................................................131
`Claim 3 ..............................................................................................137
`F.
`Claim 4 ..............................................................................................143
`G.
`Claim 5 ..............................................................................................146
`H.
`Claim 6 ..............................................................................................148
`I.
`Claim 7 ..............................................................................................151
`J.
`X. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness .......................................................154
`XI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................155
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`LIST OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 to MacNeil et al., issued February 26,
`1001
`2013 (“’186 Patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 (“’186 Patent File
`History”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,444,748 to MacNeil, issued November 4, 2008
`(“MacNeil”)
`French Patent Application Pre-Grant Publication No. 2547252 to
`Rabbe, published December 14, 1984, with attached certified
`English-language translation (“Rabbe”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pre–Grant Publication No. 2002/0045029
`A1 to Yung, published April 18, 2002 (“Yung”)
`Gruenwald, G., Thermoforming: A Plastics Processing Guide,
`CRC Press, 2nd Edition, 1998 (“Gruenwald”)
`Throne, J., Technology of Thermoforming, Hanser, 1996 (“Throne
`I”)
`Throne, J., Understanding Thermoforming, Hanser, 2nd Edition,
`2008 (“Throne II”)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,057,873 to Atwood, issued October 20, 1936
`(“Atwood”)
`U.S. Patent No. 2,657,948 to Sturtevant, issued November 3, 1953
`(“Sturtevant”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,793,872 to Buss, issued September 21, 2004
`(“Buss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,361,099 to McIntosh, issued March 26, 2002
`(“McIntosh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,568,581 to Peoples, issued February 4, 1986
`(“Peoples”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,298,319 to Donahue, issued March 29, 1994
`(“Donahue”)
`DOW HDPE DGDA-5004 NT 7 Data Sheet, published October
`10, 2003
`Black Armor Web Advertisement
`Husky Liner Advertisement, August 24, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 4,420,180 to Dupont et al., issued December 13,
`1983 (“Dupont”)
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`v
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`U.S. Patent No. 4,280,729 to Morawski, issued July 28, 1981
`1020
`(“Morawski”)
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0379630 to Sagona,
`published August 1, 1990 (“Sagona”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,267,459 (“459 Prosecution
`History”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,390,912 to Stata, issued July 2, 1968 (“Stata”)
`German Patent Application Publication No. 4000877 to
`Weitbrecht et al., published July 18, 1991, with attached certified
`English-language translation (“Weitbrecht”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,027,782 to Sherman, issued February 22, 2000
`Japanese Patent Application No. H11-268570 to Suzuki, published
`October 5, 1999, with attached certified English-language
`translation (“Suzuki”)
`Word Comparison of the ’703 Application as filed to the ’899
`Application as filed
`U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834 to MacNeil et al., issued September 16,
`2014 (“’834 Patent”)
`Plastic Extrusion Tolerance Guide
`Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003
`Oxford Compact English Dictionary, First Edition, 2000
`Curriculum Vitae of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D. (“Koch CV”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,910,995 to MacNeil, et al. (“’995 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,058,618 to Hemmelgarn et al. (“Hemmelgarn”)
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1961
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`I, Paul E. Koch, Ph.D., do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`I have been engaged by Yita LLC (“Yita” or “Petitioner”) to
`1.
`
`investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 (“the
`
`’186 patent”), in connection with Yita’s Petition for Inter Partes Review. My
`
`opinions on these issues are presented below.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the owner of the ’186 patent is MacNeil IP LLC
`
`(“MacNeil” or “Patent Owner”). In this declaration, I will first discuss the
`
`technology background related to the ’186 patent and then provide my analyses
`
`and opinions on claims 1-7 of the ’186 patent.
`
`3.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the ’186 patent, its prosecution history
`
`(including the prosecution history, sometimes called the “file wrapper,” of the
`
`relevant parent applications), prior art references in the Grounds analyzed herein,
`
`and other references cited herein. I also rely on my vast experience and expertise in
`
`the relevant field.
`
`II. Qualifications and Experience
`A copy of my curriculum vitae (“CV”) is submitted with this
`4.
`
`declaration as Exhibit 1032. While not intended to be exhaustive, my CV provides
`
`a substantially complete list of my education, relevant experience, academic and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`employment history, publications, professional activities, and speaking
`
`engagements.
`
`5.
`
`I am an expert in many aspects of plastic and polymer materials,
`
`plastic part design, tool design, and plastics processing and have been an expert
`
`since before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’186 patent, October 29, 2004.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Doctorate in Plastics Engineering from the University of
`
`Massachusetts – Lowell in 1996 and a Bachelor of Science in Chemical
`
`Engineering, from the University of Detroit in 1972.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently a Professor Emeritus at Penn State University (since
`
`2014) and have been a tenured professor there since 1992. While at Penn State, I
`
`established the Plastics Engineering Technology program at Penn State Behrend in
`
`Erie, Pennsylvania and I have taught all aspects of plastic and polymer materials,
`
`plastic part design, tool design, and plastics processing.
`
`8. My industry experience includes serving as Principal Researcher at
`
`Plastics Services Network (1995-Present), Program Manager at Avery
`
`International, Fasson Division (1987-1988), Manager of Engineering at Associated
`
`Enterprises/3M (1985-1987), Group Leader at Standard Oil Company/Energy
`
`Conversion Devices (1981-1984), and Senior Engineer at Standard Oil Company,
`
`Research Center (1972- 1981).
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 40 journal articles, conference
`
`2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`papers, workshop publications, technical reports, and book chapters on topics
`
`relating to the plastics industry.
`
`10.
`
`I have participated in, and been an active member of, professional
`
`conferences, including the following: Annual Technical Conference (ANTEC) and
`
`Annual Thermoforming Conferences and Certification Committees. Dates and
`
`other conferences attended can be found in my CV. EX1032.
`
`11.
`
`I have been a member of several professional organizations, including
`
`the following: Society of Plastic Engineers (SPE), Plastics Engineers Certification
`
`Committee, American Institute Chemical Engineers (AIChE), and Accreditation
`
`Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) Committee.
`
`12.
`
`I am an inventor/co-inventor of six U.S. Patents relating to plastics
`
`technology. Patent numbers can be found in my CV. EX1032.
`
`13.
`
`I am very familiar with and have practical commercial experience
`
`with the design and manufacture of plastic and elastomer products as of the earliest
`
`priority date of the ’186 patent.
`
`14.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’186 patent and its
`
`file history (EX1002), and I have considered each of the documents cited herein, in
`
`light of general knowledge in the art (i.e., field) before October 29, 2004. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my more than 45 years’ of experience,
`
`education, and knowledge in the relevant art. In formulating my opinions, I have
`
`3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`before October 29, 2004.
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated for the services I am providing for Petitioner
`
`at my standard consulting rate of $375 per hour. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any
`
`other proceedings, or any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review or
`
`any other proceedings.
`
`III. Legal Principles
`A. Obviousness
`It is my understanding that obviousness is a basis for unpatentability. I
`16.
`
`understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the claimed subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art. I understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis should consider the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, the differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art, and any secondary considerations of nonobviousness, which
`
`include, for example, commercial success, praise of the invention, a long-felt need,
`
`or failure of others. I understand that obviousness can be based on a single prior art
`
`reference or a combination of references that either expressly or inherently disclose
`
`4
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`or suggest all limitations of the claimed invention. In an obviousness analysis,
`
`inferences and creative steps that POSA would employ can be taken into account. I
`
`understand that a prior art reference is available for obviousness evaluation not
`
`only for what the reference discloses but also for what the reference suggests.
`
`17.
`
`I also understand that design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt adoptions and variations of a work even if that work is in another field of
`
`endeavor. If a POSA can implement a predictable variation, the variation is
`
`obvious and not patentable. Similarly, an improvement to one device is obvious to
`
`apply to improve similar devices unless the technique requires more than ordinary
`
`skill.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that where the only difference between the prior art and
`
`the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a
`
`device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than
`
`the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art
`
`device. Nor does scaling a known article distinguish the new article over the prior
`
`art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the size, shape, or configuration of a claimed
`
`structure may be a matter of design choice that a POSA would have found obvious
`
`absent persuasive evidence that a particular size, shape, or configuration of the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`claimed subject matter was significant or produced unexpected functionality or
`
`results.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that it may be obvious to try a solution even if that
`
`solution was significantly more expensive. The focus of the obviousness analysis is
`
`on technical feasibility, not economic feasibility.
`
`21.
`
`I am also informed and understand that a patent claim is unpatentable
`
`as obvious if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention
`
`to a POSA to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that whether there are any relevant differences between
`
`the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all of the pertinent
`
`art at the time of the invention. The person of ordinary skill is not an automaton
`
`and may be able to fit together the teachings of multiple references employing
`
`ordinary creativity and common sense. And a POSA has the ability to use familiar
`
`items with obvious uses in another context or beyond their primary purposes.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that I do not need to look for a precise teaching in the
`
`prior art directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention. I understand that I
`
`may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`skill in the art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the
`
`invention. For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the
`
`prior art and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make
`
`it more likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of
`
`known elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art
`
`teaches away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make
`
`it more likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not
`
`obvious. I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior art
`
`to the invention for obviousness.
`
`B. Motivation to Combine
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`24.
`
`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating
`
`that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of
`
`prior art. I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to combine the applied references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art, or
`
`from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, any
`
`7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`need or problem known in the field at the time and addressed by the patent may
`
`provide a reason for combining elements of the prior art. I also understand that
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply both his
`
`skill and common sense in trying to combine the known options in order to solve
`
`the problem.
`
`25.
`
`In determining whether a piece of prior art would have been combined
`
`with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, the following are examples of approaches and
`
`rationales that may be considered:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results.
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`results.
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products
`in the same way.
`• Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready
`for improvement to yield predictable results.
`• Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try”
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`reasonable expectation of success).
`• 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art.
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention with a
`reasonable expectation of success.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that the patent must be read and understood through the
`26.
`
`eyes of a POSA at the time of the priority date of the claims. To determine the
`
`appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors
`
`may be considered: (a) the types of problems encountered by those working in the
`
`field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the sophistication of the technology in
`
`question, and the rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (c) the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field; and (d) the educational level of the
`
`inventor(s).
`
`27.
`
`In light of the disclosed technology in the ’186 patent, a POSA would
`
`typically have a bachelor’s degree in engineering: plastics, mechanical, or a closely
`
`related field, or equivalent formal training, education, or practical experience in a
`
`field relating to plastic product design, material science, or manufacturing. This
`
`person would also have a minimum of three to five years of experience in plastics
`
`engineering, manufacturing, plastic product design, or a related industry. This
`
`9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`description is an approximation and a higher level of training or practical
`
`experience might make up for less education, and vice-versa.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, the level of skill of a POSA would be the same in
`
`either 2012 or 2004 although, of course, the prior art a POSA would have
`
`knowledge of would be different.
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`29. Removable, rubberized or plastic floor mats have been an important
`
`part of automotive interiors for more than 50 years. EX1010; EX1011. Generations
`
`of drivers have recognized the need for such articles in order to protect or restore
`
`the interior of a vehicle at or around the feet of the driver in an area known as the
`
`foot well. These mats have been constructed from a variety of rubberized and
`
`plastic materials and manufacturing methods, including, thermoforming.
`
`A. Thermoforming Generally
`30. Thermoforming came into existence approximately 100 years ago
`
`when early plastic materials were extruded into flat sheets. EX1008, 0019 (“More
`
`than a century ago, celluloid or camphor-solvated cellulose nitrate, was the only
`
`malleable semi-synthetic plastic. It was cut or rolled into sheet and made pliable
`
`with steam. When soft, it was squeezed into shape in matched dies or rolled into
`
`tubes and inflated against metal walls to produce parts. It was also draped over
`
`wooden forms.”). The term “thermoforming” is used generally in the plastics
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`industry to describe techniques for producing useful plastic articles from a flat
`
`sheet of plastic using heat as a softener. EX1008, 0019. “In its simplest concept,
`
`thermoforming is simply the manual draping of a temporarily softened sheet over a
`
`simple mold shape.” EX1008, 0019.
`
`31. One of the attractive aspects of thermoforming is the versatility and
`
`relative low cost of the molds. EX1008, 0028. These molds can be made from
`
`wood, plaster, or metal. EX1008, 0029.
`
`In contrast to most plastic molding processes, relatively low
`temperatures and pressures are normally employed in thermoforming.
`For this reason prototype tooling becomes often sufficient to produce
`the few parts that are needed. Depending on many variables, the
`material for making such molds can be selected from wood, plaster,
`casting resins, glass fiber-reinforced plastics, white metal alloys, or
`reinforced, sprayed, or galvanic deposited metal shells.
`EX1007, 54.
`
`32.
`
`“In most cases a fraction of the atmospheric pressure is sufficient to
`
`do all the forming. This can be readily attained by utilizing a partial vacuum
`
`between the sheet and the mold or by pressurizing an air chamber to which the
`
`sheet has been sealed.” EX1007, 1-2.
`
`33. Lower pressures mean that molding costs for thermoforming are low
`
`when compared to competitive molding technologies such as injection molding,
`
`which rely on much higher pressures. EX1008, 0028 (“Relatively low forming
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`pressures are needed and so mold costs are low and products of relatively large
`
`size are fabricated economically.”).
`
`34. Thermoforming uses a thermoplastic as opposed to a thermosetting
`
`plastic. Thermoplastics differ from thermosetting plastics in that thermoplastics are
`
`nearly linear (or branched) polymers, which become soft on heating and become
`
`hard on cooling. EX1008, 0073-0074. Some common types of thermoplastics are
`
`polyethylene, PVC, and polystyrene, nylon, and acetate. EX1008, 0022.
`
`Thermosetting plastics are cross-linked polymers, which become soft only on first
`
`heating, then with pressure get hard permanently on cooling due to chemical
`
`changes by chemical cross-linking and polymerization. EX1008, 0072-0074. Once
`
`cured, thermosetting plastics are unaffected by heat or solvents, which makes them
`
`unsuitable for use in thermoforming. EX1008, 0073-0074 (“Although certain
`
`thermosetting polymers such as rubber soften above their glass transition
`
`temperatures, the tight three-dimensional network of most rigid thermosetting
`
`polymers restricts the gross deformation necessary in thermoforming.”).
`
`35. Most thermoplastics used for thermoforming start with a sheet of
`
`uniform thickness. EX1008, 0601. Sheets of thermoplastic are available in both
`
`thin-gauge, heavy-gauge, and intermediate-gauge thicknesses. EX1008, 0601.
`
`Thin-gauge thermoplastics typically have a thickness less than about 60 mils, 0.060
`
`in, or 1500 µm and they are often used to package consumer products such as
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`blister packs and clam-shell style packages. EX1008, 0601, 0143. Heavy-gauge
`
`thermoplastics are typically thicker than 120 mils, 0.120 in, or 3000 µm, and they
`
`are thus used for more durable products. EX1008, 0601.
`
`36. Naturally, the starting sheet of the thermoforming process has an
`
`initial surface area. As the sheet is formed and stretched, new surface areas are
`
`created. EX1007, 35 (“Under all thermoforming conditions in which pieces are
`
`shaped from a flat sheet or film, the surface area must become larger and,
`
`therefore, the gauge thickness thinner.”) Accordingly, the surface area of the
`
`thermoformed product is greater than the surface area of the original sheet.
`
`EX1007, 35. The increased surface area comes from a reduction of thickness of the
`
`starting sheet. EX1008, 0525 (“The nature of the thermoforming process is biaxial
`
`deformation and thinning of a rubbery elastic sheet. Thus, the average part
`
`thickness is substantially less than the initial sheet thickness.”1); see also EX1007,
`
`35.
`
`37. Not only will a thermoformed part have wall thicknesses that are
`
`substantially thinner than the original sheet of thermoplastic used to form the part,
`
`but the degree of thinning will also vary, creating a thermoformed part having
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,382,186
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`substantially variable wall thicknesses depending on the stretching that occurred
`
`locally to the area in question. Throne explains the phenomenon as follows:
`
`By its very nature of the stretching and forming process called
`thermoforming, the product so produced has wall thicknesses that are
`not uniform. Stretching nearly always occurs only in the plastic sheet
`that is free of the wall. The last area of the mold to be covered by sheet
`is usually the thinnest. Traditionally, the thinnest walls of female parts
`are in the bottom three-dimensional corners. The thinnest walls on male
`parts can be in the outside three-dimensional corners or in the inside
`three- dimensional corners.
`EX1008, 0527.
`
`38. The amount of thinning depends mostly on geometry, although the
`
`polymer type has some impact as well. EX1008, 0544. Figure 7.44 of Throne
`
`shows computer-generated finite element analysis (FEA) of a thermoformed part,
`
`comparing thermoformed wall thickness of several polymers. The range in
`
`thickness can be quite substantial, with the thickest portions at 0.26 cm and the
`
`thinnest por