UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`WEBER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01557
`Patent No. 10,639,812
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD HOOPER, PH.D., P.E. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 10,639,812
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Weber EX1003
`IPR2020-01557
`U.S. Patent No. 10,639,812
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`WEBER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01557
`Patent No. 10,639,812
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD HOOPER, PH.D., P.E. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 10,639,812
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Weber EX1003
`IPR2020-01557
`U.S. Patent No. 10,639,812
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 7
`IV. List of Documents I Considered in Formulating My Opinions ...................... 9
`V.
`Legal Principles .............................................................................................10
`A.
`Claim construction ..............................................................................10
`B.
`Basis of my analysis with respect to obviousness ...............................10
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................12
`VII. State of the Art Before May 1, 2010 .............................................................13
`A.
`Food article slicing machines are well-known and widely used. ........13
`1.
`The 2006 904 manual discloses a food article slicing machine
`that uses a pivoting product bed conveyor which allows the
`food article to advance to the slicing area. ................................13
`Lindee discloses a food article slicing machine that has
`independent, belt-driven food grippers. ....................................20
`The 2010 904 manual discloses a food slicing machine with a
`“gate” and independently driven upper conveyor assemblies. .24
`4. WO ’237 discloses a slicing machine with a “gate” and
`“gripper.” ...................................................................................24
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0307304
`describes independently driven food product feeds. .................26
`Sandberg discloses a food slicer that loads new food product
`while slicing an existing food product. .....................................27
`7. Mathues discloses details relating to the conveyor drive system
`of a food slicer. ..........................................................................28
`VIII. Both the 2006 904 manual and 2010 904 manual are prior art. ....................29
`A.
`The 2006 904 Manual was publicly available by November 15, 2007.
` .............................................................................................................30
`The 2010 904 Manual was publicly available by February 15, 2010. 35
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`IX. Overview of the ’812 Patent ..........................................................................38
`A.
`Prosecution History of the ’812 Patent ...............................................41
`B.
`“food article gripper” (independent claim 1) ......................................42
`Summary of Grounds .....................................................................................44
`X.
`XI. Ground 1: Claims 1–5 and 8–11 would have been obvious over the 2006 904
`manual, Lindee, and Sandberg. .....................................................................45
`A. Overview of the 2006 904 manual ......................................................45
`B.
`Overview of Lindee .............................................................................52
`C.
`Overview of Sandberg .........................................................................55
`D.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................57
`1.
`The combination teaches the preamble. ....................................72
`2.
`The combination teaches the “slicing” limitation. ....................73
`3.
`The combination teaches the “food article loading” limitation.
` ...................................................................................................75
`The combination teaches the “feed apparatus” limitations.......78
`The combination teaches the “gripper” limitation. ...................81
`The combination teaches the “upper conveyor assembly”
`limitation. ..................................................................................84
`The combination teaches the “stop gate” limitation. ................86
`The combination teaches the “lift tray” limitation. ..................89
`The combination teaches the “stop gate” in the support position
`limitation. ..................................................................................93
`10. The combination teaches the “stop gate” as a “door” limitation.
` ...................................................................................................95
`11. A POSA would have been motivated to use the timing belt
`gripper actuation disclosed in Lindee with the slicer disclosed
`in the 2006 904 manual. ............................................................96
`12. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`implementing the combination. ..............................................102
`Claim 2 ..............................................................................................104
`Claim 3 ..............................................................................................107
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`E.
`F.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`G.
`Claim 4 ..............................................................................................111
`Claim 5 ..............................................................................................114
`H.
`Claim 8 ..............................................................................................117
`I.
`Claim 9 ..............................................................................................119
`J.
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................123
`K.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................127
`L.
`XII. Ground 2: Claims 6-7 would have been obvious over the 2006 904 manual,
`Lindee, Sandberg, and Mathues. .................................................................130
`A. Overview of Mathues ........................................................................130
`B.
`Claim 6 ..............................................................................................131
`C.
`Claim 7 ..............................................................................................134
`XIII. Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 8-11 would have been obvious over the 2010 904
`manual and Lindee. ......................................................................................137
`A. Overview of the 2010 904 manual ....................................................138
`B.
`Overview of Lindee ...........................................................................138
`C.
`Overview of Sandberg .......................................................................141
`D.
`Claim 1 ..............................................................................................143
`1.
`The combination teaches the preamble. ..................................158
`2.
`The combination teaches the “slicing” limitation. ..................159
`3.
`The combination teaches the “food article loading” limitation.
` .................................................................................................159
`The combination teaches the “feed apparatus” limitations.....160
`The combination teaches the “gripper” limitation. .................161
`The combination teaches the “upper conveyor assembly”
`limitation. ................................................................................161
`The combination teaches the “stop gate” limitation. ..............162
`The combination teaches the “lift tray” limitation. ................162
`The combination teaches the “stop gate” in the support position
`limitation. ................................................................................163
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`10. The combination teaches the “stop gate” as a “door” limitation.
` .................................................................................................164
`11. A POSA would have been motivated to use the timing belt
`gripper actuation disclosed in Lindee with the slicer disclosed
`in the 2010 904 manual. ..........................................................164
`12. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`when incorporating the timing belt gripper actuation disclosed
`in Lindee with the slicer disclosed in the 2010 904 manual. ..166
`Claim 2 ..............................................................................................166
`E.
`Claim 3 ..............................................................................................170
`F.
`Claim 4 ..............................................................................................172
`G.
`Claim 5 ..............................................................................................174
`H.
`Claim 8 ..............................................................................................176
`I.
`Claim 9 ..............................................................................................178
`J.
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................180
`K.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................183
`L.
`XIV. Ground 4: Claims 6–7 would have been obvious over the 2010 904 manual,
`Lindee, Sandberg, and Mathues. .................................................................186
`A. Overview of Mathues ........................................................................186
`B.
`Claim 6 ..............................................................................................187
`C.
`Claim 7 ..............................................................................................189
`XV. There is no Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness .......................................190
`XVI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................191
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Introduction
`I, Richard Hooper, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Weber, Inc.
`
`(“Weber”) for the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate,
`
`which is $350 per hour. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of
`
`this IPR. I understand that the petition for IPR involves U.S. Patent No. 10,639,812
`
`(EX1001, “the ’812 patent”). The ’812 patent names Scott A. Lindee, James E.
`
`Pasek, David Hancock, and Thomas C. Wolcott as inventors. EX1001, ’812 patent,
`
`Cover Page. I further understand that, according to the USPTO records, that the ’812
`
`patent is currently assigned to Provisur Technologies, Inc. (“Provisur”). I understand
`
`that the earliest possible priority date for the ’812 patent is May 1, 2010.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’812 patent and its file
`
`history, EX1002, and I have considered each of the documents cited herein and
`
`general knowledge of the art (i.e., field) before May 1, 2010. In formulating my
`
`opinions, I have relied upon my more than 35 years’ experience, education, and
`
`knowledge in the relevant art. In formulating my opinion, I have also considered the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) before May 1, 2010. A
`
`summary of my opinions follows.
`
`II. Executive Summary
`4. The ’812 patent claims a food article slicing machine. The slicing
`
`machine uses a lift tray assembly to move the food articles from a staging position
`
`to an elevated position. In the elevated position, the food articles are located at the
`
`beginning of a feed path. Also, while in the elevated position, a food article feed
`
`apparatus disclosed over the lift tray assembly engages the food articles. The food
`
`article feed apparatus includes grippers. A driven endless conveyor belt is used in
`
`cooperation with the gripper to advance the food articles along the feed path to a
`
`slicing station. However, a stop gate prevents the food articles from entering the
`
`slicing station. The stop gate supports the food articles in the elevated position. Once
`
`the food articles are ready for slicing, the stop gate pivots and permits the food
`
`product to advance to the slicing station. A knife in the slicing station slices the food
`
`articles into slices. Once the product is nearly completely sliced, the stop gate pivots
`
`to allow the end piece of the food product to be ejected way from the slicing blade
`
`once the gripper releases the end piece.
`
`5. As discussed in this Declaration, the prior art taught all of the features of
`
`the ’812 patent’s claimed food article slicing apparatus. And as further discussed in
`
`this Declaration, well before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’812 patent
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`(May 1, 2010), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to
`
`combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed food article slicing
`
`apparatus, and they would have had a reasonable expectation of success when
`
`implementing that combination.
`
`6. Claims 1 – 5 and 8 – 11 of the ’812 patent would have been obvious in
`
`view of the disclosure of the 2006 904 manual (“the 2006 904 manual”) (EX1005),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,628,237 to Lindee et al. (“Lindee”) (EX1006), and U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2009/0145272 to Sandberg et al. (“Sandberg”)
`
`(EX1012). Claims 6 – 7 of the ’812 patent would have been obvious in view of the
`
`disclosure of the 2006 904 manual, Lindee, Sandberg, and U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2008/0016999 to Mathues et al. (“Mathues”) (EX1013). As
`
`discussed in further detail below, both the 2006 904 manual and Lindee disclose
`
`slicers like those claimed in the ’812 patent. The 2006 904 manual discloses a stop
`
`gate. And Lindee discloses a slicer with a driven endless conveyor belt that is used
`
`in cooperation with a gripper to advance the food articles along the feed path to a
`
`slicing station. Sandberg discloses a loading procedure for a slicer and Mathues
`
`describes a drive mechanism for a food slicing machine.
`
`7. As further discussed herein, a POSA would have had a reason to combine
`
`the 2006 904 manual’s disclosed slicer with a driven endless conveyor belt used in
`
`cooperation with a gripper, such as the one disclosed in Lindee. Specifically,
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`although the 2006 904 manual discloses using an upper conveyor assembly and a
`
`gripper, the 2006 904 manual does not expressly show how the gripper is moved
`
`along the feed path. Accordingly, a POSA would have been motivated to look to the
`
`prior art for additional details regarding how to actuate the food article grippers along
`
`the feed path of the slicing machine. This would have led a POSA to Lindee. Lindee
`
`– which is also directed to a food slicer using a gripper – teaches using a driven
`
`endless conveyor belt in cooperation with a gripper. A POSA would have been
`
`motivated to implement Lindee’s driven endless conveyor belt to operate a gripper
`
`in the 2006 904 manual’s machine because the combination permits the operator to
`
`drive the food products into the slicing station with independency of feed rates,
`
`allowing for finer controllability over slice width and weight. Also, as further
`
`discussed herein, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success when
`
`implementing Lindee’s gripper conveyor system on the slicer disclosed in the 2006
`
`904 manual. Specifically, Lindee’s conveyor belt system is used for the same
`
`purpose as it would be used in the 2006 904 manual’s slicer. Accordingly, a POSA
`
`need only refer to Lindee regarding how to implement the conveyor belt system. As
`
`detailed below, a POSA would have been motivated to use a loading procedure like
`
`that disclosed in Sandberg to increase efficiency. Finally, a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to use a drive mechanism like that disclosed Mathues to increase the
`
`reliability of the machine, as also detailed below.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`8. Additionally, Claims 1 – 5 and 8 – 11 of the ’812 patent would have been
`
`obvious in view of the disclosure of the 2010 904 manual (“the 2010 904 manual”)
`
`(EX1009), Lindee, and Sandberg. Claims 6 – 7 of the ’812 patent would have been
`
`obvious in view of the disclosure of the 2010 904 manual, Lindee, Sandberg, and
`
`Mathues. As discussed in further detail below, both the 2010 904 manual and Lindee
`
`disclose slicers like those claimed in the ’812 patent. The 2010 904 manual discloses
`
`a stop gate. And Lindee discloses a slicer with a driven endless conveyor belt that is
`
`used in cooperation with a gripper to advance the food articles along the feed path
`
`to a slicing station. Sandberg discloses a loading procedure for a slicer and Mathues
`
`describes a drive mechanism for a food slicing machine.
`
`9. As detailed below, a POSA would have had a reason to combine the 2010
`
`904 manual’s disclosed slicer with a driven endless conveyor belt used in
`
`cooperation with a gripper, such as the one disclosed in Lindee. Specifically,
`
`although the 2010 904 manual discloses using an upper conveyor assembly and a
`
`gripper, the 2010 904 manual does not expressly show how the gripper is driven
`
`along the feed path. Accordingly, a POSA would have been motivated to look to the
`
`prior art for ways to actuate the food article grippers along the feed path of the slicing
`
`machine. This motivation would have led a POSA to Lindee. As stated above,
`
`Lindee teaches using a driven endless conveyor belt in cooperation with a gripper to
`
`drive the gripper along a feed path. A POSA would have been motivated to
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`implement Lindee’s driven endless conveyor belt to drive the gripper along a feed
`
`path in the 2006 904 manual’s machine because it enables the drive of the food
`
`product into the slicing station with an independency of feed rates. This would have
`
`increased the controllability of the food slicing operation because Lindee’s drive
`
`mechanism allows for independently driven gripper conveyor systems, which in turn
`
`allows each of the product feeds to have independent control of slice thickness.
`
`Specifically, Lindee’s conveyor belt system is used for the same purpose as it would
`
`be used in with the 2010 904 manual’s slicer. Accordingly, a POSA need only refer
`
`to Lindee regarding how to implement the conveyor belt system. A POSA would
`
`have been motivated to use a loading procedure like that disclosed in Sandberg to
`
`increase efficiency. Finally, a POSA would have been motivated to use a drive
`
`mechanism like that disclosed Mathues to increase the reliability of the machine.
`
`10. Further, I have reviewed the ’812 patent file history and am not otherwise
`
`aware of any publicly available evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness that
`
`would support the patentability of the claims the ’812 patent.
`
`11. Therefore, I conclude that the challenged claims would have been obvious
`
`in view of the disclosures in the prior art references for the reasons articulated in this
`
`declaration.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`III. Background and Qualifications
`12. My education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Rice University in 1985, a Master of Science Degree in
`
`Biomedical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1990, and a Ph.D.
`
`in Robotics and Automation from the University of Texas at Austin in 1994. While
`
`at the University of Texas, I also taught graduate and undergraduate courses in
`
`robotics and automation, instrumentation and controls, and technical writing.
`
`13. After my graduate training, I was the Chief Scientist of the Robotics
`
`Research Group at the University of Texas, from 1994 to 1997. In that role, I
`
`supervised more than fifty graduate engineering students developing robots,
`
`computer-controlled machines and automation systems. Many of these graduate
`
`engineering students had experience and training very much like that of the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) discussed later in this declaration.
`
`14. In my professional experience at Eaton Corporation I was a principal
`
`engineer in the robotics automation group. Later as the Chief Engineer at the Textron
`
`Systems plant in Austin, I oversaw an engineering and development organization
`
`with engineers, designers and technicians numbering almost one hundred personnel.
`
`Again, many of these engineers and technicians had experience and training very
`
`much like that of the POSA discussed later in this declaration.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`15. In one of my current research and development projects, we are
`
`developing an optical grading system for sandwich toppings (lettuce, tomatoes,
`
`pickles, etc.) based on image acquisition and analysis. The image analysis
`
`implements a convolutional neural network artificial intelligence that grades the
`
`quality of each portion and determines whether a robot puts the topping on a
`
`sandwich or in a reject stream. The image analysis also determines the best location
`
`and orientation for the robot to place the topping on the sandwich to be most
`
`appealing to the consumer.
`
`16. I have been the technical leader of dozens of teams designing and
`
`deploying automated, computer-controlled manufacturing systems. My specific
`
`technical contributions have focused on the motion planning algorithms, robot
`
`kinematics, sensors and controllers. I have authored or co-authored more than thirty-
`
`five peer-reviewed publications, five copyrighted software systems, and written
`
`hundreds of thousands of lines of machine control software.
`
`17. My Curriculum Vitae contains further details on my education,
`
`experience, publications, and other qualifications to render an expert option. My
`
`work on this case is being billed at a rate of $350 per hour, with reimbursement for
`
`actual expenses. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this IPR.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`IV. List of Documents I Considered in Formulating My Opinions
`18. In formulating my opinions, I considered all of the references cited in this
`
`Declaration, including the documents listed below.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`
`1001
`1002
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,639,812 to Lindee et al. (“’812 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,639,812
`
`English language Weber 904 Slicer Operating Manual (“the 2006
`904 manual”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,628,237 to Lindee et al. (“Lindee”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0307304 to Weber
`
`European Patent Application No. EP0713753 to Lindee et al.
`
`English language Weber 904 Slicer Operating Manual (“the 2010
`904 manual”)
`
`Declaration of Jörn Schreiber
`
`Declaration of Carsten Reisz
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0145272 to Sandberg et al.
`(“Sandberg”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0016999 to Mathues et
`al.(“Mathues”)
`World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO
`2010/011237 to Lindee et al.
`German language Weber 904 Slicer Operating Manual (“the 2006
`904 manual”)
`Declaration of Frank Rypel
`
`Declaration of David Frett
`
`Bryan Salvage, Just the Right Slice, Meat & Poultry (August
`2008)
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`1019
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`Description
`
`Web Homepage
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20051108022254/http:/www.webersl
`icer.com:80/ (November 8, 2005)
`
`V. Legal Principles
`A. Claim construction
`19. I understand that claim terms should be construed under the Phillips
`
`standard. I understand that, according to the Phillips standard, claim terms should
`
`be construed according to the terms’ meaning as understood by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`claim terms should be construed in light of the specification. I also understand that
`
`the prosecution history of the patent should be consulted in determining claim
`
`meaning. In this declaration, I have construed the terms according to their ordinary
`
`and customary meanings as understood by a POSA in view of the specification.
`
`Basis of my analysis with respect to obviousness
`B.
`20. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves properly construing a
`
`patent claim and then comparing that claim to the prior art to determine whether the
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious to a POSA in view of the prior art, and
`
`in light of the general knowledge in the art.
`
`21. I also understand that obviousness can be established by combining or
`
`modifying the teachings of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. I
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`understand that the reason to combine prior art references must be shown. This
`
`reason to combine can come from a variety of sources, not just the prior art itself or
`
`the specific problem the patentee was trying to solve. I understand that the references
`
`themselves need not provide a specific hint or suggestion of the alteration needed to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention. The analysis may include recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense available to a skilled person that does not necessarily
`
`require explanation in any reference. It is also my understanding that where there is
`
`a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, there
`
`must also be a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.
`
`22. I also understand that a combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. I also understand that when there is a design need or market pressure to solve
`
`a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, the
`
`combination would have been obvious to try and a POSA would have had good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to
`
`the anticipated outcome, then that outcome is likely a product not of innovation, but
`
`of ordinary skill and common sense, and therefore is considered obvious.
`
`23. I understand that when a POSA would have reached the claimed invention
`
`through routine optimization, the invention may be deemed obvious. I also
`
`understand that such routine optimization involves testing an element or parameter
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`that is termed a “results-effective” variable (that is, a variable that achieves a
`
`recognized result). And I understand that routine optimization involves using only
`
`routine techniques and ordinary skill of one in the relevant art.
`
`24. I understand that for a reference to be used to show that a claim is obvious,
`
`the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. I understand that a
`
`reference is analogous to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field
`
`of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different problem, or if
`
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if it
`
`is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. I understand that a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent based on the problem faced by the inventor as
`
`reflected in the specification, either explicitly or implicitly.
`
`25. I understand that when considering the obviousness of an invention, one
`
`should also consider whether there are any objective indicia (also known as
`
`secondary considerations) that support the non-obviousness of the invention. I
`
`understand that objective indicia of non-obviousness include commercial success,
`
`long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, praise in the industry, and unexpected
`
`superior results.
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`26. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the technical field of the
`
`’812 patent at the relevant time would typically have had (1) a bachelor’s degree (or
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of
`
`experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar
`
`field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working on food processing and/or
`
`packaging systems (or in a similar field). A POSA may have also worked as part of
`
`a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only her or his own skills, but of others
`
`on the team, e.g., to solve a given problem.
`
`27. A POSA in the technical field of the ’812 patent would have had
`
`knowledge of the technical literature including relevant operating manuals
`
`concerning food processing and packaging systems before May 2010. A POSA may
`
`have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her
`
`own skills, but also the skills of others on the team to solve a given problem.
`
`VII. State of the Art Before May 1, 2010
`28. I understand that the earliest claimed priority date for the ’812 patent is
`
`May 1, 2010. Therefore, the following overview and discussion throughout this
`
`Declaration present the state of the art before May 1, 2010.
`
`A.
`
`Food article slicing machines are well-known and widely used.
`The 2006 904 manual discloses a food article slicing machine
`1.
`that uses a pivoting product bed conveyor which allows the
`food article to advance to the slicing area.
`29. The 2006 904 manual is an operating manual for a “Slicer CCS 904”
`
`product sold by Weber, Inc. and associated brands. EX1005, 1. The 2006 904 manual
`
`discloses a food article slicing machine (“904 slicer”) that has a “loading and infeed
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 10,639,812
`
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`area.” EX1005, 10. The loading and infeed area of the 904 slicer “consists of
`
`assemblies that are used to move the [food] products to the slicing area.” EX1005,
`
`10. The 904 slicer is capable of slicing more than one food article at a time. EX1005,
`
`220, 232-233. The loading and infeed area and the slicing area are identified in the
`
`annotated figure below. A touch screen for user inputs in on the far left of the image.
`
`
`
`EX1005, FIG. 14 (annotated).
`30. The loading and infeed area includes a product conveyor belt. EX1005,
`
`25, 40. The product conveyor belt “can be loaded semi-automatically by the operator
`
`or automatically by a module connected upstream” of the 904 slicer. EX1005, 39.
`
`Once the product conveyor belt is loaded with a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
