UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`YITA LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`MACNEIL IP LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01142
`Patent No. 8,833,834
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL E. KOCH, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,833,834
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`EX1003
`Yita v. MacNeil
`IPR2020-01142
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`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 ’834 Patent ..........................................................................45
`A.
`The ’834 Patent Background ...............................................................45
`B.
`The ’834 Patent Specification and Drawings ......................................47
`C.
`’834 Patent Challenged Claims ...........................................................51
`D.
`Summary of the ’834 Patent’s Prosecution History ............................59
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................65
`E.
`Legal Standard .....................................................................................65
`
`E.
`F.
`
`i
`
`

`

`1.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`“thickness . . . being substantially uniform throughout the
`tray” ...........................................................................................65
`VIII. Summary of Grounds .....................................................................................67
`IX. Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12–15 Based on
`Rabbe (French Publication No. 2547252) in view of Yung (U.S. Pre–
`Grant Publication No. 2002/0045029) and Gruenwald
`(“Thermoforming: A Plastics Processing Guide”) ........................................68
`A. Overview of Rabbe ..............................................................................69
`B.
`Overview of Yung ...............................................................................72
`C.
`Overview of Gruenwald ......................................................................76
`D.
`Independent Claim 1 ...........................................................................78
`1.
`Element 1[Preamble]: “A system including a vehicle and
`a floor tray for consumer installation into a
`predetermined foot well of the vehicle, the system
`comprising” ...............................................................................99
`Element 1[a]: “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” .........................................................................................101
`Element 1[b]: “a vehicle floor tray molded from a sheet
`of polymeric material of substantially uniform thickness” ....102
`Element 1[c]: “a central panel of the tray substantially
`conforming to the floor of the vehicle foot well” ...................103
`Element 1[d]: “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” ...................106
`
`2.
`
`5.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`8.
`
`9.
`
`7.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`Element 1[e]: “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” .........109
`Element 1[f]: “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” ........................................112
`Element 1[g]: “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” .............................115
`Element 1[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” ..........................117
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Rabbe, Yung,
`and Gruenwald and arrived at the claimed vehicle floor tray. ..........119
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ..................................................126
`Independent Claims 5 and 9 ..............................................................129
`Claim 4 ..............................................................................................134
`Claims 8, 12, and 15 ..........................................................................137
`Claims 13 and 14 ...............................................................................140
`1.
`Elements 13[preamble] through 13[d] and 13[g] ...................149
`2.
`Element 13[e]: “the central panel having a general
`portion with an upward facing general surface and a
`reservoir portion with an upwardly facing general
`
`6.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`J.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`surface, the general surface of the reservoir portion
`disposed vertically below the general surface of the
`general portion; and” ...............................................................150
`Element 13[f]: “a plurality of elongate, spaced-apart,
`hollow baffles formed within the reservoir portion to
`stand up from the general surface of the reservoir
`portion” ...................................................................................153
`Element 13[g]: “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” .........................................................................................156
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................159
`5.
`X. Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 based on
`Rabbe (French Publication No. 2547252) in view of Yung (U.S. Pre–
`Grant Publication No. 2002/0045029), Gruenwald (“Thermoforming:
`A Plastics Processing Guide”), and Sturtevant (U.S. Patent No.
`2,657,948) ....................................................................................................161
`A. Overview of Sturtevant .....................................................................162
`B.
`Claim 2 ..............................................................................................164
`1.
`Element 2[a]: “The system of claim 1, wherein the
`vehicle foot well has a substantially horizontally and
`longitudinally disposed sill plate located in an outboard
`direction from the foot well floor” ..........................................167
`Element 2[b]: “the tray having a sill plate panel joined to
`the central panel to extend horizontally therefrom in an
`outboard direction” .................................................................169
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`Element 2[c]: “the sill plate having a top surface and the
`sill plate panel having a bottom surface, the sill plate
`panel bottom surface substantially conforming to the top
`surface of the sill plate” ..........................................................171
`C. Motivation to Combine Sturtevant with Rabbe, Yung, and
`Gruenwald .........................................................................................173
`Claims 6 and 10 .................................................................................175
`Claim 3 ..............................................................................................177
`1.
`Element 3[a]: “The system of claim 2, wherein the
`vehicle foot well has a sill curve joined to the third wall
`and the sill plate, the sill curve curving in a forward
`direction from a substantially horizontal to an upstanding
`disposition” .............................................................................180
`Element 3[b]: “the tray having a sill curve panel joined to
`the third tray wall and to the sill plate panel by respective
`curved transitions” ..................................................................182
`Element 3[c]: “an outer surface of the sill curve panel
`substantially conforming to the sill curve of the vehicle
`foot well.” ................................................................................185
`Claims 7 and 11 .................................................................................186
`F.
`XI. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness .......................................................189
`XII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................190
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`LIST OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,382,186 to MacNeil et al., issued February 26,
`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”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 4,280,729 to Morawski, issued July 28, 1981
`(“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
`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. 8,382,186 to MacNeil et al., issued February 26,
`2013 (“’186 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
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`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. 8,833,834 (“the
`
`’834 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 ’834 patent is MacNeil IP LLC
`
`(“MacNeil” or “Patent Owner”). In this declaration, I will first discuss the
`
`technology background related to the ’834 patent and then provide my analyses
`
`and opinions on claims 1-15 of the ’834 patent.
`
`3.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the ’834 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 8,833,834
`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 alleged priority date of the ’834 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 8,833,834
`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 the 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 the 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 alleged priority date of the ’834 patent.
`
`14.
`
`In preparing this Declaration I have reviewed the ’834 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 8,833,834
`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 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`or suggest all limitations of the claimed invention. In an obviousness analysis,
`
`inferences and creative steps that a 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 8,833,834
`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 8,833,834
`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 8,833,834
`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 8,833,834
`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; and
`• 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 ’834 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 8,833,834
`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. The significance of these dates is discussed
`
`below.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`wooden forms.”). The term “thermoforming” is used generally in the plastics
`
`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
`
`relatively 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,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,833,834
`Declaration of Paul E. Koch, Ph.D.
`
`which rely on much higher pressures. EX1008, 0028 (“Relatively low forming
`
`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