Yita, LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`IPR2020-01139 (U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186)
`IPR2020-01142 (U.S. Patent No. 8,833,834)
`
`October 12, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`EX1100
`Yita v. MacNeil
`IPR2020-01139
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Asserted References
`
`IPR2020-01139
`
`Ground 1
`
`IPR2020-01142
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`’186 patent,
`claims 1-7
`
`’834 patent,
`claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9,
`12, 13-15
`’834 patent,
`claims 2, 3, 6, 7,
`10, 11
`
`Rabbe (EX1005), Yung (EX1006), Gruenwald (EX1007)
`
`Rabbe, Yung, Gruenwald
`
`Rabbe, Yung, Gruenwald, Sturtevant (EX1011)
`
`-01139 Pet., 27; -01139 DI, 15, 28; -01142 Pet., 23; -01142 DI, 7, 38.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`The challenged independent claims – ’186 patent, claim 1.
`
`Pre.
`
`1[a]
`
`1[b]
`
`1[c]
`
`1[d]
`
`1[e]
`
`1[f]
`
`A vehicle floor tray thermoformed from a sheet of thermoplastic polymeric
`material of substantially uniform thickness, comprising
`
`a central panel substantially conforming to a floor of a vehicle foot well
`
`the central panel of the floor tray having at least one longitudinally disposed
`lateral side and at least one transversely disposed lateral side
`
`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
`
`the first panel of the floor tray joined to the central panel of the floor tray by a
`curved transition
`
`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
`
`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
`
`1[g]
`1[h]
`1[i]
`
`1[j]
`
`1[k]
`
`1[l]
`
`1[m]
`
`a reservoir disposed in the central panel of the floor tray
`a plurality of upstanding, hollow, elongate baffles disposed in the reservoir
`each of the baffles having at least two ends remote from each other
`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
`the baffles each having a width, in any horizontal direction, of more than two
`times its thickness
`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
`any portion of the reservoir connected to a remote portion of the reservoir by
`a path formed around ends of the baffles.
`
`-01139 Pet., 35-60; -01139 POR, 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`

`The challenged independent claims – ’834 patent, claims 1, 5, 9.
`
`1[h]
`
`5[h]
`
`at least 90 percent of that one-third of the outer surfaces of the first, second
`and third tray walls which are closest to the respective top margins of the first,
`second or third tray walls being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective
`foot well walls
`
`the first, second and third tray walls each having an upper margin, at least 90
`percent of that one-half of the outer surfaces of the first, second and third tray
`walls which are closest to the respective upper margins of the first, second or
`third tray walls being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective foot well
`walls
`
`9[h]
`
`at least 50 percent of the outer surfaces of the first, second and third tray walls
`being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective foot well walls
`
`
`
`
`
`’834 patent claims are similar to ’186, but instead of
`“closely conforming,” they recite “substantially
`conform” and add a 1/8 inch tolerance for a portion of
`the outer surfaces
`-
`’834 patent claims also specify a third tray wall
`
`’834 patent claims do not recite:
`- Thermoformed (instead they recite “molded” or
`“formed”)
`Integrally formed walls (instead they recite that
`the walls are “joined”)
`- Thermoplastic material (instead they recite
`“polymeric material”)
`
`-
`
`
`
`Independent claim 13 does not recite any level of
`conformance
`
`-01142 EX1001, 20:4-24:19.
`
`-01142 Pet., 31-46, 53-54, 57; -01142 Pet. Reply, 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`

`The challenged independent claims – ’834 patent, claims 1, 5, 9.
`
`Pre.
`
`1[a]
`
`1[b]
`
`1[c]
`
`1[d]
`
`A system including a vehicle and a floor tray for consumer installation into a
`predetermined foot well of the vehicle, the system comprising
`
`a vehicle foot well having a floor, a substantially longitudinally disposed first
`foot well wall upstanding from the floor, a substantially transversely disposed
`second foot well wall upstanding from the floor and joined to the first foot well
`wall, a substantially longitudinally disposed third foot well wall upstanding
`from the floor and joined to the second foot well wall; and
`
`a vehicle floor tray molded from a sheet of polymeric material of substantially
`uniform thickness
`
`a central panel of the tray substantially conforming to the floor of the vehicle
`foot well
`
`a substantially longitudinally disposed first tray wall joined to the central panel
`by a curved transition and standing up from the central panel to substantially
`conform to the first foot well wall
`
`1[e]
`
`1[f]
`
`1[g]
`
`1[h]
`
`a substantially transversely disposed second tray wall joined to the central
`panel and to the first tray wall by respective curved transitions and standing up
`from the central panel, the second tray wall substantially conforming to the
`second foot well wall
`a substantially longitudinally disposed third tray wall joined to the central
`panel and to the second tray wall by respective curved transitions and standing
`up from the central panel
`the central panel and first, second and third tray walls each having an outer
`surface facing the vehicle foot well and an inner surface opposed to the outer
`surface, a thickness of the central panel and of the, first, second and third tray
`walls measured between the outer surface and the inner surface thereof being
`substantially uniform throughout the tray
`at least 90 percent of that one-third of the outer surfaces of the first, second
`and third tray walls which are closest to the respective top margins of the first,
`second or third tray walls being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective
`foot well walls
`
`
`
`9[h]
`
`Claim 9 is nearly identical to claim 1, with the only
`substantive difference being in the last limitation.
`at least 50 percent of the outer surfaces of the first, second and third tray walls
`being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective foot well walls
`
`
`
`5[h]
`
`Claim 5 is nearly identical to claim 1, with the only
`substantive difference being in the last limitation.
`the first, second and third tray walls each having an upper margin, at least 90
`percent of that one-half of the outer surfaces of the first, second and third tray
`walls which are closest to the respective upper margins of the first, second or
`third tray walls being within one-eighth of an inch of the respective foot well
`walls
`-01142 Pet., 31-46, 53-54, 57; -01142 POR, 11-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`

`

`The challenged independent claims – ’834 patent, claim 13.
`
`Pre.
`
`A vehicle floor tray for installation by a consumer in a vehicle foot well, the
`vehicle floor tray formed from a sheet of polymeric material of substantially
`uniform thickness and system comprising
`
`13[a]
`
`a substantially horizontal central panel
`
`13[b]
`
`13[c]
`
`13[d]
`
`a first tray wall joined to the central panel by a curved transition, the first tray
`wall standing up from the central panel and being substantially longitudinally
`disposed
`
`a second tray wall joined to the central panel and to the first tray wall by
`respective curved transitions, the second tray wall standing up from the central
`panel and being substantially transversely disposed
`
`a third tray wall joined to the central panel and to the second tray wall by
`respective curved transitions, the third tray wall standing up from the central
`panel and being substantially longitudinally disposed
`
`13[e]
`
`13[f]
`
`13[g]
`
`the central panel having a general portion with an upward facing general
`surface and a reservoir portion with an upwardly facing general surface, the
`general surface of the reservoir portion disposed vertically below the general
`surface of the general portion; and
`a plurality of elongate, spaced-apart hollow baffles formed within the reservoir
`portion to stand up from the general surface of the reservoir portion
`each of the general portion of the central panel, the reservoir portion of the
`central panel, the baffles and the first, second and third tray walls having an
`outer surface adapted to face a respective surface of a vehicle foot well and an
`inner surface opposed to the outer surface, a thickness measured between the
`respective inner and outer surfaces of the first tray wall, second tray wall, third
`tray wall, general portion of the central panel, reservoir portion of the central
`panel and the baffles being substantially uniform throughout the tray
`
`-01142 Pet., 58-64; -01142 POR, 11-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`

`

`Custom thermoformed floor trays were known in the prior art.
`
`MacNeil’s Mr. Sherman:
`
`EX1047, 47:14-17.
`
`EX1018, 0002.
`
`-01139 Pet., 8-10; -01139 Pet. Reply, 9; -01142 Pet., 7-10; -01142 Pet. Reply, 10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1017, 0003.
`
`EX1017, 0001.
`
`77
`
`

`

`Integral panels with curved transitions were known in the prior art.
`MacNeil’s Mr. Sherman:
`
`MacNeil’s Dr. Osswald:
`
`EX1049, 56:6-11.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 9; -01142 Pet. Reply, 10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`88
`
`EX1047, 56:16-57:12.
`
`

`

`Rabbe discloses a floor tray with the claimed panels.
`
`-01139 Pet., 28-29, 37-40, 41-42, 47, 68.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`99
`
`

`

`Rabbe discloses a floor tray with the claimed panels.
`
`-01142 Pet., 34-37, 39-40, 42-43, 45-46, 56.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1010
`
`

`

`Yung discloses curved transitions between panels and a reservoir
`with baffles as claimed.
`
`-01139 Pet., 42-46, 48-55, 57-60; -01142 Pet., 37-39, 40-43.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1111
`
`

`

`Gruenwald discloses thermoforming techniques.
`
`EX1007, 0016 (p. 1).
`
`-01139 Pet., 41; -01142 Pet., 34.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1007, 0017 (p. 2).
`1212
`
`

`

`Gruenwald discloses thermoforming techniques.
`
`EX1007, 0050 (p. 35).
`
`-01139 Pet., 37, 43, 56; -01142 Pet., 29, 37-38, 44-45.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1313
`
`EX1007, 0052 (p. 37).
`
`EX1007, 0182 (p. 167).
`
`

`

`MacNeil’s definition of a POSA specifically requires
`thermoforming.
`MacNeil’s Dr. Osswald:
`
`-01139 POR, 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1414
`
`EX2041, ¶40.
`
`

`

`A POSA would have been motivated to thermoform Rabbe’s floor
`tray using Gruenwald’s techniques.
`
` “Because Rabbe is silent on the exact materials and process for making its floor tray, a POSA would have
`looked to common materials and processes known in the art and within the basic knowledge of a POSA.
`EX1003, ¶124.” -01139 Pet., 36; see also -01142 Pet., 47.
`- “This would have, of course, included thermoplastic materials and thermoforming processes. See supra Section II; EX1003,
`¶¶50-55, 124.” -01139 Pet., 36.
`- “A POSA would have also been aware of numerous other prior-art floor trays made of thermoplastic using the low-cost,
`versatile thermoforming process. EX1003, ¶165; see supra Section II.A. This would have motivated a POSA to
`manufacture Rabbe’s floor tray using a thermoforming process because of the suitability of thermoplastics and the
`thermoforming process to fulfill Rabbe’s purpose.” -01139 Pet., 61-62; see also -01142 Pet., 47.
`- “Thermoforming Rabbe’s floor tray from a sheet of thermoplastic, as disclosed in Yung, would have been a simple
`combination of known prior art elements (Rabbe’s floor tray and Yung’s thermoplastic) according to a known technique
`(thermoforming) to achieve predictable results (thermoformed floor tray).” -01139 Pet., 37.
`- “Thus, combining the teachings of Rabbe and Yung (and Gruenwald) would have been applying a known technique
`(thermoforming) to a known product (vehicle floor tray) that yielded predictable results (vehicle floor tray fitting the
`contours of vehicle interior). EX1003, ¶165.” -01139 Pet., 62; see also -01142 Pet., 48.
` A POSA “would have recognized advantages of thermoforming,” -01139 Pet., 37; see also -01142 Pet., 29:
`- “the low cost of molds” EX1007, 35 (0050).
`- “the short lead time required for tooling up” EX1007, 35 (0050).
` “[A] POSA would have considered ways to control thinning because thin areas are points of weakness.
`EX1003, ¶167. And a POSA would have appreciated that vehicle floor trays need to avoid puncture from
`sharp objects, for example, a high-heeled shoe or debris. Id.” -01139 Pet., 63; see also -01142 Pet., 48-49.
`
`-01139 Pet., 36-37, 61-63; -01142 Pet., 29, 47-49.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1515
`
`

`

`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Rabbe and
`Yung.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`“With no specific manufacturing methods disclosed by Rabbe, the logical path for a POSA would have been to turn to
`references specifying known materials and methods for cost-effective manufacturing of vehicle floor trays,” which
`would “have led a POSA to Yung.” -01139 Pet., 61; see also -01142 Pet., 47.
`-
`“Rabbe’s disclosure of ‘semi-rigid rubber or other material having the same properties,’ EX1005, Abstract, would have suggested to a
`POSA to consider thermoplastics, well-known materials in the art, and thus logically thermoforming, which was well known for shaping
`thermoplastics. See supra Section II; EX1003, ¶124.” -01139 Pet., 36.
`“Rabbe’s ‘protective tray [is] produced from semi-rigid rubber or another material having the same properties.’ EX1005, 1:16–18. This
`discloses or suggests a polymeric material. EX1003, ¶128.” -01142 Pet., 33.
`“to improve Rabbe’s ‘corrugated…lengthwise’ baffles by making them hollow (as Yung disclosed), taking advantage of
`the lighter weight afforded by thermoformed parts with raised features” -01139 Pet., 64-65; see also -01142 Pet., 50.
`“A POSA would have been motivated to include such a reservoir, as Yung specifically discloses, for example, in order to
`‘collect the muck on the shoes together’ and make it ‘convenient for people to take the mat out to wash.’ EX1006, ¶13;
`EX1003, ¶147.” -01139 Pet., 50; see also -01142 Pet., 60.
`Yung fulfills express purposes of Rabbe:
`-
`“[A] POSA would have sought to use a material for Rabbe’s floor tray with sufficient rigidity. EX1003, ¶171. It would have been within
`the basic knowledge of a POSA that polyethylene (PE)—disclosed by Yung—is a thermoplastic that offers sufficient rigidity after
`thermoforming to accomplish Rabbe’s functional goal of pressing the unit against the side walls of the vehicle.” -01139 Pet., 65; see also -
`01142 Pet., 51.
`“[A] POSA would have sought to use a lightweight, durable, and waterproof material (e.g., polyethylene disclosed by Yung) to fulfill an
`express purpose of Rabbe—easy removal of the tray for convenient cleaning. EX1003, ¶¶172-173.” -01139 Pet., 66; see also -01142 Pet.,
`51-52.
`
`-
`
`-01139 Pet., 36, 50, 61, 64-66; -01142 Pet., 33, 47, 50-52, 60.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1616
`
`

`

`A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`arriving at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“[A] POSA would have known that three-dimensional data modeling of the vehicle foot well was readily generated by
`technology existing before October 2004. EX1003, ¶175.” -01139 Pet., 67; see also -01142 Pet., 52.
`“Many prior-art CMM machines were suitable to conduct a step-by-step touch and record process that created a 3D
`computer model of parts with complex shapes/curvatures.” -01139 Pet., 67; see also -01142 Pet., 52-53.
`“[A] POSA would have been able to make molds for different vehicle interiors (or different areas of a vehicle’s interior)
`and adjust the mold-making process to achieve even greater conformity with the vehicle interior. EX1003, ¶176.” -
`01139 Pet., 68; see also -01142 Pet., 53.
`“[B]efore 2004, thermoforming technology was old, well-known, and predictable.” -01139 Pet., 68; see also -01142
`Pet., 53.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`-01139 EX1003, ¶175; see also -01142 EX1003, ¶162.
`
`-01139 Pet., 67-68; -01142 Pet., 52-53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01139 EX1003, ¶175; see also -01142 EX1003, ¶162.
`
`1717
`
`

`

`MacNeil’s allegations of no reasonable expectation of success arguments
`contradict the state of the art.
`
`MacNeil’s argument:
`
`Yita’s Mr. Perreault:
`
`-01139 POR, 49; -01142 POR, 50.
`Yita’s Mr. Perreault:
`
`EX1044, ¶45.
`
` Hemmelgarn:
`- “Coordinate
`measuring machines
`(CMMs) are well
`known in the art.”
`EX1035, 1:12-13.
`- “As is known in the
`art, there are several
`types of CMM
`configurations.”
`EX1035, 1:26-27.
`
`EX1044, ¶42.
`-01139 Pet., 67; -01139 POR, 49; -01139 Pet. Reply, 23-24; -01142 Pet., 52; -01142 POR, 50; -01142 Pet. Reply, 23-24.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1060, 4.
`
`1818
`
`

`

`MacNeil’s allegations of no reasonable expectation of success arguments
`contradict the state of the art.
`
`MacNeil’s argument:
`
`Yita’s Mr. Perreault:
`
`-01139 POR, 49; -01142 POR, 50.
`
` Hemmelgarn:
`- “the software performs
`three-dimensional
`geometric analysis”
`EX1035, 5:47-52.
`- “dimensions and
`geometries may then be
`calculated, compared,
`evaluated, stored, or
`printed-out as required.”
`EX1035, 5:47-52.
`
`-01139 Pet., 67; -01139 POR, 49; -01139 Pet. Reply, 24-25; -01142 Pet., 52; -01142 POR, 50; -01142 Pet. Reply, 24-25.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1044, ¶46.
`
`1919
`
`

`

`Close Conformance: The Petitions relied on more than the disputed sentence
`in Rabbe.
`“Rabbe discloses that ‘[t]he floor 1 is totally covered’ and ‘[t]he raised edges 2 and 3 conform to the topography of the interior and do not
`change the aesthetics desired by the manufacturer.’ Id.; EX1003, ¶60.” -01139 Pet., 10, 28; see also -01142 Pet., 9, 24.
`
`“The ‘raised edges (2) [are] of unequal heights conforming to the interior contour of the vehicle.’ Id., 2:8-10. … and ‘[t]he rigidity of the
`material used presses the unit against the side walls of the vehicle.’ Id., 1:16-20; EX1003, ¶¶61-62.” -01139 Pet., 11, 28-29; see also -01142
`Pet., 9-10, 24.
`
`Rabbe “states that ‘[t]he thinness of the material used only encroaches on a few millimeters of the space designed by the vehicle
`manufacturer, and thus does not change the desired aesthetic aspect.’ [EX1005], 1:24-26. A POSA would have understood this indicates a
`desire to closely conform the floor tray walls to the walls of the vehicle foot well because close conformance would be required to “not
`change the desired aesthetic aspect” of the foot well. EX1003, ¶109.” -01139 Pet., 29; see also -01142 Pet., 25.
`
`“Rabbe’s ‘[] floor 1 is totally covered’ and the mat ‘does not change the desired aesthetic aspect’ of the vehicle as designed by the
`manufacturer. EX1005, Abstract, 1:24–26. This is consistent with Rabbe’s teaching that the floor and sidewalls ‘perfectly conform’ to the
`vehicle interior.” -01139 Pet., 42.
`
`“Additionally, given the relatively low mold-cost for thermoforming molds, a POSA would have been able to make molds for different
`vehicle interiors (or different areas of a vehicle’s interior) and adjust the mold-making process to achieve even greater conformity with
`the vehicle interior. EX1003, ¶176. Indeed, Rabbe describes a ‘perfect’ level of conformity that ‘does not change the desired aesthetic
`aspect of the vehicle as designed by the manufacturer.’ EX1005, 1:24–26; EX1003, ¶176.” -01139 Pet., 68; see also -01142 Pet., 53.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Furthermore, Rabbe discloses that “[t]he rigidity of the material used presses the unit against the side walls of the vehicle.” EX1005, 1:19-
`20, Abstract (“the rigidity presses the raised edges against the walls”).) In view of this, a POSA would have understood Rabbe’s side panels
`are touching the sidewalls of the vehicle foot well, which, of course, is less than one-eighth of an inch. EX1003, ¶150.” -01142 Pet., 46
`-01139 Pet., 10-11, 28-29, 42, 68; -01139 Pet. Reply, 3-5; -01142 Pet., 9-10, 24-25, 31-33, 35, 46, 53; -01142 Pet. Reply, 4-6.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2020
`
`

`

`Close Conformance: The Petitions relied on more than the disputed sentence
`in Rabbe.
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`-01139 EX1003, ¶109.
`
`-01139 Pet., 29, 68; -01142 Pet., 46, 53.
`
`-01142 EX1003, ¶150.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01139 EX1003, ¶176.
`2121
`
`

`

`Close Conformance: The Institution Decisions relied on more than the
`disputed sentence in Rabbe.
`
`-01139 DI, 13-14; see also -01142 DI, 15-16.
`-01139 DI, 13-14; -01139 Pet. Reply, 3-5; -01142 DI, 15-16, 33; -01142 Pet. Reply, 4-6.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2222
`
`-01142 DI, 33.
`
`

`

`Rabbe discloses the conformance limitations regardless of which translation
`is used.
`
`Mr. Dawson’s translation
`“The flexibility of the material used makes it very handleable and the rigidity
`presses the raised edges against the walls. [] The floor 1 is totally covered.
`The raised edges 2 and 3 conform to the topography of the interior and do
`not change the aesthetics desired by the manufacturer.” EX1005, Abstract.
`
`“the sides of which perfectly conform to the contour of the vehicle interior at
`the feet of the driver.” EX1005, 1:4-5.
`
`Dr. Popp’s translation
`“The pliability of the material used gives it good handling and the stiffness
`flattens the raised edges against the walls. [] The floor 1 is entirely covered.
`The raised edges conform to the relief of the passenger compartment 2 and 3,
`and do not change the aesthetic appearance sought by the manufacturer.”
`EX2024, 10.
`“for which rims perfectly conform to the relief of the vehicle interior, near
`the driver’s feet.” EX2024, 11:2-3.
`
`“raised edges (2) of unequal heights conforming to the interior contour of the
`vehicle, particularly the location of the wheels (3).” EX1005, 2:8-9.
`
`“raised edges (2) with unequal heights following the interior relief of the
`vehicle, in particular the wheel wells (3).” EX2024, 12:2-3.
`
`“The protective tray, produced from semi-rigid rubber or another material
`having the same properties, conforms to the contour of the vehicle interior,
`and thanks to the flexibility thereof, handling and installation are easy. The
`rigidity of the material used presses the unit against the side walls of the
`vehicle.” EX1005, 1:16-20.
`“The thinness of the material used only encroaches on a few millimeters of
`the space designed by the vehicle manufacturer, and thus does not change
`the desired aesthetic aspect.” EX1005, 1:24-26.
`
`“The protection-tray, made of semi-rigid rubber or another material having
`the same properties, follows the relief of the passenger compartment and
`because of the pliability thereof the handling and placement thereof are
`simple. The stiffness of the material used flattens the assembly against the
`lateral walls of the vehicle.” EX2024, 11:13-17.
`“The thinness of the material used only infringes a few millimeters into the
`space designed by the vehicle manufacturer and therefore does not change
`the aesthetic appearance sought.” EX2024, 11:20-22.
`
`-01139 Pet., 10-12, 28-29, 41-42, 68; -01142 Pet., 9-10, 23-25, 36, 46, 53; -01139 Pet. Reply, 3-6; -01142 Pet. Reply, 3-7.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2323
`
`

`

`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1041, ¶30.
`
`Relief and contour are synonyms.
`
` Definition: “relief … 5 the projection of
`sculptured forms from a flat surface 6
`the differences in height, collectively,
`of land forms shown as by lines on a
`map”
` Thesaurus: “relief … 5 [The raised
`portions of a sculptural decoration or
`map] projection, contour,
`configuration”
`
`EX1062.
` Definition: “relief … 3 (The extent of)
`variation in elevation of an area,
`geographical feature, etc.; difference in
`height from the surrounding terrain”
`EX2049.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 6; -01142 Pet. Reply, 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1041, ¶31.
`
`2424
`
`

`

`Raised edges 2 does not refer only to a top perimeter.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: “Rabbe’s references to raised edges … refers to the upper perimeter of the tray.” -01139 Sur-reply, 16-17.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 1.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 2.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 4.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 5.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3.
`Mr. Dawson’s
`translation
`“raised edges (2) of unequal
`heights conforming to
`the interior contour of the
`vehicle, particularly the
`location of the wheels (3).”
`EX1005, 2:8-9.
`
`Dr. Popp’s translation
`
`“raised edges (2) with
`unequal heights following
`the interior relief of the
`vehicle, in particular the
`wheel wells (3).” EX2024,
`12:2-3.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 4-7; -01142 Pet. Reply, 5-7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2525
`
`

`

`Raised edges 2 does not refer only to a top perimeter.
`
`Mr. Dawson’s translation
`“A protective tray for automobile or other vehicle, characterized
`by the fact that the edges of the protection are raised over the full
`periphery, of unequal heights following the contour encountered,
`in order to form a tray, produced from semi-rigid rubber or other
`material having the same properties, intended for protect ion of
`the floor and interior walls of vehicles against any dirt.” EX1005,
`claim 1.
`“The protective tray according to claim 1, characterized in that
`the raised edges conform to the contour of the vehicle interior
`(3).” EX1005, claim 2.
`
`Dr. Popp’s translation
`“A protection-tray for automobile or other vehicle, characterized
`by the fact that the protective edges are raised over the entire
`perimeter, by unequal heights according to the relief encountered,
`in order to form a tray, made of semi-rigid rubber or another
`material having the same properties, intended to protect the floor
`and the interior walls of the vehicle against any dirt.” EX2024,
`claim 1.
`“The protection-tray according to claim 1, characterized in that
`the raised edges conform to the relief of the passenger
`compartment (3).” EX2024, claim 2.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 4-7; -01142 Pet. Reply, 5-7.
`
`EX1005, FIG. 3.
`EX1005, FIG. 1.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2626
`
`

`

`MacNeil’s comparison of Rabbe’s drawings to the Lada Niva scan is
`irrelevant because Rabbe’s drawings are not production drawings.
`MacNeil’s argument: “the floor trays Rabbe shows in Figures 3 and 4 do not come close to conforming to the foot well
`walls of a Lada Niva 4x4.” -01139 POR, 27.
`MacNeil’s Mr. Granger:
`
`MacNeil’s Mr. Granger:
`
`EX2126, ¶114.
`
`EX2126, ¶124.
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 7-8; -01139 POR, 35; -01142 Pet. Reply, 8-9; -01142 POR, 30-31.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1048, 194:15-17.
`
`2727
`
`

`

`MacNeil’s bodily incorporation arguments are irrelevant.
`
` “MacNeil maintains an improper ‘blinkered focus on individual
`documents,’ Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013),
`rather than the ‘expansive and flexible approach’ required by the Supreme
`Court, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007).
`MacNeil’s arguments presuppose that the exact materials and
`configurations of Rabbe and Yung’s embodiments need to be combined.
`These arguments are irrelevant; a POSA is ‘a person of ordinary creativity,
`not an automaton.’ Id. at 420−21.” -01139 Pet. Reply, 10-11; see also -
`01142 Pet. Reply, 11-12.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 10-11; -01142 Pet. Reply, 11-12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2828
`
`

`

`Rabbe is not limited to thermosets.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: “Rabbe’s tray is made of semi-rigid rubber, which
`is not a thermoplastic and not thermoformable.” -01139 POR, 13-14.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`
`
`“semi-rigid rubber or another material having the same properties”
`EX1005, 1:16-17.
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`
`
`EX1041, ¶80.
`“Patent Owner’s position is premised on an overly narrow reading of Rabbe’s
`material. Rabbe discloses that its protective tray is ‘produced from semi-rigid
`rubber or another material having the same properties.’ Ex. 1005 1:17–18
`(emphasis added). We do not read ‘same properties’ as narrowly as Patent Owner
`does.” -01142 DI, 21.
`MacNeil’s Dr. Osswald’s textbook:
`
`EX1041, ¶79.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 13; -01142 Pet. Reply, 14; -01142 DI, 21.
`
`EX2072, 22.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2929
`
`

`

`Undercuts do not preclude thermoforming.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Undercuts in Rabbe cannot be thermoformed. -01139 POR, 44-45.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1041, ¶85.
`
`Yita’s Mr. Strachan:
`
`EX1042, ¶67.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 15; -01142 Pet. Reply, 16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3030
`
`EX1007, 0067 (p. 52).
`
`

`

`Rabbe does not disclose stitching or gluing multiple pieces together.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Rabbe is assembled from multiple pieces rather than integrally formed. -01139 POR, 42-45.
`MacNeil’s Dr. Osswald:
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1049, 182:12-14.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1041, ¶64.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 14; -01142 Pet. Reply, 15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX2039, 185:14-20.
`
`EX1041, ¶65.
`
`3131
`
`

`

`Rabbe does not have a deep draw that would discourage thermoforming.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Rabbe’s tray would have been too deep for
`thermoforming. -01139 POR, 45.
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 15-16; -01142 Pet. Reply, 16-17.
`
`EX1044, ¶¶82-83.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1041, ¶89.
`
`3232
`
`

`

`Flanges do not preclude thermoforming.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Rabbe’s flanges suggest piecewise assembly. -01139 POR, 45.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1041, ¶87.
`
`EX1053, FIG. 4.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 15-16; -01142 Pet. Reply, 16-17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1053, 6:21-40.
`
`3333
`
`

`

`Rabbe does not disclose sharp corners, let alone in a way that would
`discourage using curved transitions as explained for the combination.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Rabbe discloses sharp corners that suggest piecewise assembly. -01139 POR, 45.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1041, ¶88.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 15-16; -01139 Pet., 45-46; -01142 Pet. Reply, 16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`-01139 EX1003, ¶137.
`
`3434
`
`

`

`Rabbe’s folding does not cut against the combination.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Heavy-gauge thermoformed product could not fold as desired by Rabbe. -01139 POR, 63-64.
`
`EX1005, 2:11-13.
`
`MacNeil’s Dr. Popp:
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`EX1046, 88:15-19.
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 12; -01142 Pet. Reply, 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX1041, ¶151.
`
`3535
`
`

`

`Yung does not teach away.
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Yung teaches away because “it teaches solving the problem of mats sliding by using foam
`particles to create friction.” -01139 POR, 60-61.
` Spectralytics case: “Instead, the jury
`could find, based on the expert
`testimony, that prior Swiss-style
`machines taught away from embracing
`vibrations to improve cutting accuracy
`because all prior machines improved
`accuracy by dampening vibrations.”
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649
`F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`-01139 Pet. Reply, 11; -01142 Pet. Reply, 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3636
`
`EX1041, ¶148.
`
`

`

`Yung’s middle layer is not limited to polyethylene foam.
`
`Yita’s Dr. Koch:
`
`MacNeil’s argument: Yung’s middle layer is polyethylene foam and
`Yita “proposes ripping the flexible, foamed PE middle layer out of
`Yung.” -01139 POR, 56, 62.
`“A POSA would have also been aware of numerous other prior-art floor trays made
`of thermoplastic using the low-cost, versatile thermoforming process. EX1003,
`¶165; see supra Section II.A. This would have motivated a POSA to manufacture
`Rabbe’s floor tray using a thermoforming process because of the suitability of
`thermoplastics and the thermoforming process to fulfill Rabbe’s purpose[.]” -01139
`Pet., 61-62; see also -01142 Pet., 47.
`
`“Thermoforming Rabbe’s floor tray from a sheet of thermoplastic, as disclosed in
`Yung, would have been a simple combination of known prior art elements (Rabbe’s
`floor tray and Yung’s thermoplastic) according to a known technique (thermoforming)
`to achieve predictable results (thermoformed floor tray).” -01139 Pet., 37.
`
`“(e.g., polyethylene disclosed by Yung)” -01139 Pet., 66; see also -01142 Pet., 51
`(“sought to use a material like polyethylene”).
`
`EX1006, ¶11.
`-01139 Pet., 37, 61, 66; -01139 Pet. Reply, 16-17; -01142 Pet., 47, 51; -01142