`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`Solar FlexRack and Northern States Metals Co.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEXTracker, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2021-00025
`U.S. Patent No. 9,806,669
`____________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF T. KIM PARNELL IN SUPPORT
`OF
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 9,806,669
`
`
`
`
`NSM EXHIBIT 1003
`NSM v. NEXTracker, IPR2021-00025
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 1(cid:1)
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`II.(cid:1) EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND ................................... 1(cid:1)
`
`III.(cid:1) UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW ...................................... 8(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Invalidity by Anticipation ....................................................................... 8(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`Invalidity by Obviousness ....................................................................... 8(cid:1)
`
`Interpreting Claims. ............................................................................... 12(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) Materials Relied on in Forming My Opinions ...................................... 13(cid:1)
`
`IV.(cid:1) THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART OF THE
`’669 PATENT .............................................................................................. 14(cid:1)
`
`V.(cid:1) BACKGROUND DISCUSSION OF SOLAR TRACKER
`TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 18(cid:1)
`
`VI.(cid:1) OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 20(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) US Patent Application 2002/0078945 (“Funger”) ................................ 21(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1) US Patent 8,671,930 B2 (“Liao”) .......................................................... 21(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1) Chinese Patent 101820236 (“’236 Patent”) ........................................... 21(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) Korean Patent No. 10-1017314 (“’314 Patent”) ................................... 21(cid:1)
`
`E.(cid:1) US Publication No. 2013/008431 (“Fitch”) .......................................... 22(cid:1)
`
`VII.(cid:1) OVERVIEW OF THE ’669 PATENT ......................................................... 22(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) Summary of the Alleged Invention ....................................................... 22(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1) The Specification of the ’669 Patent ..................................................... 22(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1) The Claims 1-13 of the ’669 Patent ....................................................... 24(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) The Priority Date of the ’669 Patent ..................................................... 24(cid:1)
`
`E.(cid:1) Prosecution History of the ’669 Patent .................................................. 25(cid:1)
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII.(cid:1) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 26(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) “Solar Collector” ................................................................................... 28(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1) “Guide Rail” .......................................................................................... 29(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1) “Rolling members” ................................................................................ 29(cid:1)
`
`IX.(cid:1) ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART SUPPORTING GROUNDS OF
`INVALIDITY ............................................................................................... 29(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) US Pat No. 8,671,930 (“Liao”) (EX1010) ............................................ 29(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1) US Pat App. No. 2002/0078945 (“Funger”) (EX1005) ........................ 40(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1) U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0008431 (“Fitch”) (EX1006) ............................... 62(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) Chinese Patent No. 101820236 (“’236”) (EX1011) ............................. 62(cid:1)
`
`E.(cid:1) Korean Patent No. 10-1017314 (“’314”) (EX1007) .............................. 66(cid:1)
`
`X.(cid:1) MOTIVATIONS TO COMBINE THE PRIOR ART AND
`OBVIOUSNESS ........................................................................................... 72(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) Combining the Disclosure of Liao to that of Funger ............................ 72(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1) Combining the Disclosure of the ’314 Patent to that of Funger ............ 74(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1) Combining the Disclosure of the ’236 Patent to that of Liao ................ 76(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) Combining the Disclosure of the ’314 Patent into that of Liao ............ 79(cid:1)
`
`E.(cid:1) Combining the Disclosure of Funger with that of Liao ......................... 82(cid:1)
`
`XI.(cid:1) CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 83(cid:1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`I, T. Kim Parnell, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Northern States Metals Company
`
`(“NSM”) to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions
`
`concerning the validity of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,806,669 (EX1001; “the
`
`’669 Patent”) entitled “Single-Axis Follower Support System for a Solar
`
`Collector”. I have been informed that the ’669 patent is assigned to NEXTracker,
`
`Inc. (“NEXTracker”).
`
`II. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`
`I am a trained Professional Mechanical Engineer (PE) licensed in the
`
`2.
`
`State of California. I hold three academic degrees: a B.E.S. in Engineering Science
`
`(with Highest Honors) from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1978, followed
`
`by a M.S. and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University in
`
`1979 and 1984, respectively.(cid:1)(cid:1)
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I am an ASME Fellow and an IEEE Senior Member. ASME is the
`
`American Society of Mechanical Engineers and IEEE is the Institute of Electrical
`
`& Electronics Engineers. These are the primary professional organizations for
`
`Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. There is significant cross-over in terms of
`
`combination electro-mechanical devices that need a multi-disciplinary background.
`
`I am a Board Member of IEEE-CNSV (Consultants’ Network of Silicon Valley). I
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`am also a member of IEEE-CE (Consumer Electronics), IEEE-VTS (Vehicular
`
`Technology Society), and IEEE-EPS (Electronics Packaging Society), which
`
`focuses specifically on the electronics industry and electronic components,
`
`manufacturing, and testing. I have served as an officer for several of these groups
`
`including as Chair of the IEEE-SCV (Santa Clara Valley) Section (over 12,000
`
`members in Silicon Valley), Chair of IEEE-CNSV (Consultants’ Network of
`
`Silicon Valley), and Vice Chair/Treasurer of IEEE-VTS (Vehicular Technology
`
`Society). I am also a Member of ASM International (Materials Information
`
`Society) and SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) International. I am Vice-
`
`Chair of the NAFEMS Composites Working Group (CWG) which focuses on
`
`modeling and applications of composite materials.(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)
`
`4.
`
`
`
`I currently work as an independent consultant through Parnell
`
`Engineering & Consulting (PEC). I consult for high-tech industry and legal firms
`
`regarding patents, product liability, failure analysis, reliability, and product
`
`design/development issues. I have over 30 years of professional experience using
`
`and combining analysis, simulation, and laboratory measurement to understand and
`
`solve engineering problems in a variety of industries and applications. Many of my
`
`projects involve products with both electrical and mechanical components and
`
`require a multi-disciplinary approach and expertise.(cid:1)(cid:1)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`I have consulted and performed inspections for several projects
`
`involving alternative energy technology. My work includes projects on solar
`
`tracker technology, photovoltaics, batteries, and wind energy. My project work on
`
`solar tracker systems includes analysis of major structural failure and near total
`
`destruction sustained by a large-scale, international, solar photovoltaic installation
`
`due to wind damage. The system design had several deficiencies that resulted in
`
`substantial energy transferred from wind forces applied to the solar panels down
`
`through the support structure and the drivetrain. Deficiencies in the design and
`
`implementation of the tracker system led directly to the loss. I had the opportunity
`
`to inspect the damage, determine the root cause of the failures, and validate the
`
`redesign to avoid recurrence. This TTi tracker failure occurred in 2007 and the
`
`project work began in 2008 with additional projects over later years. This project
`
`work and other experience related to solar tracker technology greatly informed my
`
`understanding of the commercialized state-of-the-art then and in later years. (cid:1)
`
`6.
`
`
`
`I have direct experience with solar tracker technology patents and
`
`have studied numerous patents in this field. My projects focused on tracker
`
`technology and other related technology existing before June, 2007. Many
`
`different drive systems and support structure configurations have been proposed
`
`over a period of years. Before photovoltaic systems came into wide use, many
`
`similar tracker drive and support technologies were developed for solar-thermal
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`systems using mirrors to focus solar radiation onto thermal collectors. Trackers for
`
`both photovoltaic and solar-thermal systems have very similar design requirements
`
`and objectives. Both types must track the sun daily as it moves from east (sunrise)
`
`to west (sunset). They need to return to a neutral parking position over night and
`
`then rotate back to the east to begin a new daily tracking cycle. These design
`
`concepts for solar-thermal systems may be readily adapted to use with trackers for
`
`photovoltaic panels. (cid:1)
`
`7.
`
`
`
`I have studied design and ruggedization of a variety of components
`
`and systems that must withstand severe service and environmental conditions in
`
`the field such as wind turbines, blades, and support structures. This experience
`
`further includes analyses of materials and material behavior, including elasticity,
`
`flexibility, and impact, in addition to deep technical experience with composites,
`
`polymeric materials, and manufacturing methods. (cid:1)
`
`8.
`
`
`
`I have direct experience with manufacturing in multiple industries
`
`during my consulting career. This work began in the 1980s and includes various
`
`projects up to the present time. These applications include consumer electronics,
`
`biomedical, medical device, automotive, petrochemical, paper, metal forming,
`
`specialty materials and others. Equipment at issue often involves injection
`
`molding, metal forming and machining, semiconductor packaging, pipelines and
`
`piping components, pressure vessels, sensors and control systems. (cid:1)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`
`
`I began my professional career in 1978 at Bell Laboratories in
`
`Indianapolis, IN as a Member of Technical Staff (MTS) with a focus on design and
`
`development of telephone electro-mechanical components. I worked at Bell Labs
`
`before and during my Stanford M.S.M.E. degree, and Bell Labs supported me for
`
`that degree. I took a leave of absence from Bell Labs and returned to Stanford in
`
`1980 to pursue a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and completed the degree in
`
`1984. I then joined SST Systems, Inc. as a Principal Engineer for 2 years from
`
`1984-1986. In 1986, I joined Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. as a Senior
`
`Engineer in the Mechanics and Materials Department. I was promoted to
`
`Managing Engineer in 1990. I worked on a wide range of projects as a consultant
`
`including aspects such as product failures, product design, and medical device
`
`development. The company went public in 1990 as “The Failure Group”, but then
`
`changed its name to Exponent in the mid-1990’s. In 1998 I was promoted to
`
`Senior Managing Engineer at Exponent. I joined Rubicor Medical, Inc. in 1999 as
`
`Director of Research & Development. When I left in 2000, I started independent
`
`engineering consulting under Parnell Engineering & Consulting (PEC). I have been
`
`an independent consultant from 2000 to the present. During that time, I also
`
`worked for MSC Software as a Senior Manager (2006-2010) in software Product
`
`Management. (cid:1)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
` At MSC Software I led a corporate wind energy initiative and also the
`
`revival of a software product to predict fatigue life of components and systems. I
`
`was a Senior Manager in the Product Management group where I contributed in
`
`areas such as the User Experience, testing and evaluation of nonlinear simulation
`
`tools, and also training. I was an MSC Software technical staff member from
`
`2006-2010 and also consulted with MSC Software extensively from 2000-2018.(cid:1)
`
`11.
`
`
`
`I was a full-time member of the Mechanical Engineering faculty at
`
`Santa Clara University from 2010-2012 and taught classes in Manufacturing,
`
`Material Science, Mechanical Design, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Composite
`
`Materials, and Mechanisms. During this time, I served as the Faculty Advisor for
`
`several Senior Design Projects. These “real world” Capstone Design Projects
`
`encompassed design, system integration, and manufacturing aspects and provided
`
`the students with a full product development experience. I also taught graduate
`
`courses in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University from 1995-1996. I have
`
`delivered numerous invited presentations, short-courses, and seminars on a range
`
`of technical topics to professional organizations. Some topics include Mechanical
`
`Design for Reliability (MDfR) courses tailored to specific types of products and
`
`industries, and Medical Device Technology. I also taught several courses
`
`involving the application of simulation and analysis tools and how to better utilize
`
`simulation in the design cycle to reduce time and improve product reliability. (cid:1)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`12.
`
` My project work includes studies for a broad range of consumer
`
`products, equipment, and manufacturing methods. Over the years I have also
`
`consulted in the areas of structural mechanics, shock and vibration sensitivity,
`
`fracture and fatigue, and finite element analysis of structures. My practice
`
`encompasses design, failure analysis, and reliability issues. My expert work often
`
`involves intellectual property matters. (cid:1)
`
`13.
`
` A more comprehensive record of my professional background and
`
`technical qualifications is reflected in my curriculum vitae, which is attached
`
`hereto as EX1004. A list of my expert engagements is included in my curriculum
`
`vitae.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`I am not and have not been employed by FlexRack or NSM. Counsel
`
`for NSM retained me to provide my independent and objective analysis of the
`
`issues raised by NEXTracker in the Complaint (EX1015) filed June 25, 2020. I am
`
`not and have not been employed by any of the parties associated with this action.
`
`15.
`
` My billing rate as a testifying expert for this case is $500 per hour for
`
`consulting and $600 per hour for testimony.
`
`16.
`
`
`
`I have not received any compensation for this Declaration beyond my
`
`normal hourly rate based on the time I have spent studying the issues in this
`
`litigation. My compensation is in no way dependent on the outcome of this matter.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW
`
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purpose of this report, I have been
`
`17.
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and
`
`opinions as presented herein.
`
`A.
`
`Invalidity by Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`
`
`I understand that a patent is invalid as anticipated only if each and
`
`every element and limitation of that claim is publicly disclosed—either expressly
`
`or inherently—in a single prior art reference. I understand that such anticipation
`
`requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of the claim
`
`arranged as in the claim. I further understand that for a step or limitation to be
`
`inherent in a reference, the step or limitation must necessarily and inevitably occur
`
`or be present when one follows the teachings of the reference.
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity by Obviousness
`
`19.
`
`
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the field of the technology of the patent at the time the invention was made. A
`
`claim that is obvious may be unpatentable even if all of the requirements cannot be
`
`found in a single prior-art reference.
`
`20.
`
`
`
`I understand that obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of a
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. I also understand that a POSITA is presumed to have been
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`aware of and be able to understand the disclosures of all pertinent prior art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention.
`
`21.
`
` As part of this inquiry, I understand and have considered the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that someone would have had at the time of the invention.
`
`To determine the level of ordinary skill, I have considered the levels of education
`
`and experience of persons working in the field; the types of problems encountered
`
`in the field; and the sophistication of the technology. (see Section IV).
`
`22.
`
`
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention as a whole would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA in view of the prior art, and in light of the general
`
`knowledge in the art at the time the invention was made. I also understand that the
`
`invention may be deemed obvious when a POSITA would have reached the
`
`claimed invention through routine experimentation.
`
`23.
`
`
`
`I understand that one may establish obviousness by combining or
`
`modifying the disclosures of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. 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 to render the claimed invention obvious. I understand that the
`
`reason to combine prior art references can come from a variety of sources, not just
`
`the prior art itself or the specific problem the patentee was trying to solve, but that
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`it cannot come from hindsight recognition of the benefits or advantages of the
`
`combination. I also 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 POSITA.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`I understand that when there is some recognized reason to solve a
`
`problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`
`POSITA has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
`
`grasp. If such an approach leads to the anticipated success, it is likely not the
`
`product of innovation, but rather of ordinary skill and common sense. In such a
`
`circumstance, when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing
`
`the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one
`
`would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`25.
`
`
`
`I understand that when considering the obviousness of an invention,
`
`one should also consider whether there are any objective indicia that support the
`
`non-obviousness of the invention. I further understand that objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness include failure of others, copying, unexpected results, information
`
`that “teaches away” from the claimed subject matter, perception in the industry,
`
`commercial success, and long-felt but unmet need. I also understand that in order
`
`for objective indicia of non-obviousness to be applicable, the indicia must have
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`some sort of nexus to the subject matter in the claim that was not known in the art.
`
`I understand that this nexus includes a factual connection between the patentable
`
`subject matter of the claim and the objective indicia alleged.
`
`26.
`
` Finally, I understand that Patent Examiners at the USPTO rely upon
`
`certain exemplary rationales in reviewing patent applications to understand
`
`whether the subject matter of the claims is obvious. I understand that the following
`
`is the list of exemplary rationales relied upon by Patent Examiners at the USPTO:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods,
`
`or products) in the same way;
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) “Obvious to try” – Choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F) 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(G) 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.
`
`Interpreting Claims.
`
`C.
`I understand that inter partes review (“IPR”) is a proceeding before
`
`27.
`
`
`
`the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for evaluating the
`
`validity of issued patent claims. I understand that, in this inter partes review, a
`
`claim term is construed as it would be understood by a POSITA in view of the
`
`patent’s specification and prosecution history. I understand that the “specification”
`
`of a patent includes all the figures, discussion, and claims within the patent. I
`
`understand that the USPTO will look to the specification and prosecution history to
`
`see if there is a definition for a given claim term, and if not, will apply the
`
`understanding of a POSITA at the time in which the alleged invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`
`
`I understand that the proper construction of any given claim will seek
`
`to give meaning to all of the claim limitations. I further understand that it is
`
`inappropriate to adopt a claim construction that renders limitations of the claim
`
`superfluous or functionally meaningless.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`29.
`
`
`
`I present a more detailed explanation of certain claim terms from the
`
`’669 Patent in Section VIII (“Claim Construction”) below.
`
`D. Materials Relied on in Forming My Opinions
`
`30.
`
`
`
`In forming my opinions as expressed in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on my own knowledge, experience, and expertise, as well as the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA (defined below) in the relevant timeframe. In addition, I have reviewed
`
`and relied upon the following list of materials, and any other cited reference, in this
`
`declaration:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`the ’669 Patent (EX1001);
`
`Prosecution History of the ’669 Patent (EX1002);
`
`United States District Court Complaint NEXTRACKER INC.
`
`v. SOLAR FLEXRACK and NORTHERN STATES METALS
`
`COMPANY, 1-20-cv-00849 (EX1015);
`
`US Publication No. 2002/0078945 (“Funger”) (EX1005);
`
`US Publication No. 2013/0008431 (“Fitch”) (EX1006)
`
`US Patent 8,671,930 B2 (“Liao”), (EX1010);
`
`Chinese Patent 101820236 (“’236 Patent”), (EX1011), and its
`
`certified translation (EX1012);
`
`Korean Patent No. 10-1017314 (“’314 Patent”), (EX1007), and
`
`its certified translation (EX1008);
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Definition of “guide rail” Webster’s Third New International
`
`Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, (1993) (EX1014);
`
`Definition of “solar collector” Merriam-Webster online
`
`Dictionary, (EX1018)
`
`National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Rotation Angle for
`
`the Optimum Tracking of One-Axis Trackers,” July 2013
`
`(EX1017)
`
`•
`
`The documents cited herein.
`
`IV. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART OF THE
`’669 PATENT
`
`31.
`
` The ’669 Patent claims “A single-axis tracker support system for at
`
`least one solar collector, …”. (EX1001, 6:63-64). “…in particular of the type
`
`photovoltaic panel.” (EX1001, 1:7-8). A key emphasis and stated advantage of the
`
`’669 Patent involves shifting the axis of rotation from the center of the “torque
`
`tube” (the primary horizontal tube structure) to an axis that is at or close to the
`
`center of gravity of the solar panels. Since the solar panels represent a significant
`
`proportion of the rotating mass, this axis of rotation greatly reduces the energy
`
`needed to track the position of the sun.
`
`32.
`
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art ("POSITA") is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`
`relevant art at the time of the alleged invention. Based upon my understanding of
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`the Asserted Patent specifications and claims, it is my opinion that the relevant
`
`Field of Technology or (“art”) with respect to the ’669 Patent is “solar tracker
`
`technology, mechanical systems”.
`
`33.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that the following five factors inform the
`
`analysis for determining the level of ordinary skill in the art: (1) type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with
`
`which
`
`innovations are made;
`
`(4) sophistication of
`
`the
`
`technology; and
`
`(5) educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). I apply these factors in the paragraphs below in providing
`
`my opinion as to the level of one having ordinary skill in the art with respect to the
`
`’669 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that the disclosure of patents and
`
`prior art references are to be viewed from the perspective of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I provide my opinion
`
`from the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest
`
`alleged priority date for the ’669 patent.
`
`35.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that the earliest priority date for the ’669 patent
`
`is Nov. 5, 2014. (for additional details regarding the priority date of the
`
`’669 Patent, see Section VII.D). Based on this information, I have considered
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`2014 and earlier as the appropriate time period for a POSITA to consider available
`
`prior art.
`
`36.
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the
`
`invention would have needed to understand many important factors related to solar
`
`tracker systems. This understanding must include how solar tracker systems
`
`function in general, understand mechanisms that may be used to achieve the
`
`motion and tracking of the arrays, understand the dynamics in rotating
`
`commercial-scale solar arrays, understand the magnitude of potential wind loading
`
`on an array of solar panels and the corresponding support structure, and how to
`
`detect and minimize extreme environmental loading.
`
`37.
`
`
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the
`
`time of the invention of the ’669 Patent would have possessed at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in mechanical engineering (or an equivalent degree/experience) with
`
`sufficient experience in designing, manufacturing, and erecting and/or trouble-
`
`shooting photovoltaic tracker systems. The type of experience is as relevant as the
`
`length of experience. For, example, direct experience with designing, maintaining,
`
`erecting or trouble-shooting photovoltaic tracker systems is more relevant than
`
`general mechanical experience. The more direct experience that involves an
`
`understanding of how the topographical and environmental factors relate to the
`
`mechanical design, installation, and maintenance of solar tracker systems, the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`better. Additional practical field experience associated with solar tracker systems
`
`and design considerations may substitute for some portion of the education.
`
`Additional education or academic experience may also substitute for some of the
`
`direct design, fabrication, and field experience with solar tracker systems.
`
`38.
`
`
`
`I have discussed the level of skill for a POSITA with technical
`
`representatives of NSM. Understanding the essential requirements and the overall
`
`process of field preparation and system erection is especially important for the
`
`economics of bringing a large-scale, photovoltaic tracker system online. The
`
`ability to handle site variabilities and construction tolerances are of high
`
`importance in this regard. There are clear tradeoffs in maintenance access with
`
`equipment and staff and site utilization depending on choices such as
`
`independently driving each row of panels versus a drive system that links several
`
`rows of panels together to drive in parallel. Many factors in the design involve
`
`tradeoffs with installation cost, site utilization, and other inter-dependent
`
`considerations. Due to the extraordinary design complexities in the field, a
`
`POSITA with respect to the ’669 Patent will have a high-level of problem solving
`
`acumen and would seek solutions to mechanical problems not only in the field of
`
`solar trackers, but would look to other areas of mechanical and structural
`
`technology (such as, for example, satellite dish installation and tracking) to find
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`similar solutions to similar problems confronted in the solar tracker field. It is also
`
`my understanding that it is common for a POSITA to be a professional engineer.
`
`39.
`
`
`
`I have used my education and experience as described above, as well
`
`as my understanding of the knowledge, creativity, and experience of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), in forming the opinions expressed in this
`
`report, as well as any other materials discussed herein.
`
`40.
`
` Based on my education, professional experience, and expert
`
`experience, I believe that I qualify as understanding and possessing the knowledge
`
`and skills of a POSITA as of Nov. 5, 2014 (the priority date of the ’669 Patent, see
`
`Section VII.D), and I have a sufficient level of knowledge, experience, and
`
`expertise to provide an expert opinion in the technology field of the ’669 Patent.
`
`41.
`
` All technical opinions that I provide herein with respect to the
`
`’669 Patent and the prior art are given in the context of a POSITA at the time of
`
`the invention of the ’669 Patent.
`
`V. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION OF SOLAR TRACKER
`TECHNOLOGY
`
`42.
`
` To better illustrate my analysis of the ’669 Patent claims, I provide
`
`some further background in this section.
`
`43.
`
` The ’669 Patent addresses the desire to locate the axis of rotation for the
`
`torque tubes and solar panels near the plane of the solar panels. This location for the
`
`axis of rotation minimizes the energy required to rotate the solar panel system to
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`provide tracking. The title of the ’669 Patent is: “Single-Axis Follower Support
`
`System for a Solar Collector”. (EX1001, 1:1-2).
`
`44.
`
` Solar tracking systems rotate photovoltaic or other sunlight receiving
`
`modules (such as mirrors for solar-thermal systems) to track the motion of the sun
`
`over the course of the day. Horizontal, single-axis solar trackers, as noted by the
`
`’669 patent, are often the most cost effective, as such trackers can simply rotate
`
`solar panels to face from east to west, to track the sun over the course of the day.
`
`Then at night, they can return to the east facing position in order to repeat this
`
`standard cycle starting the following day. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-13). In the event of high
`
`winds, it is important for the system to rotate to a “parking position”, where the
`
`loading of the wind on the solar panels is minimized. This position is typically a
`
`“neutral” or “flat” orientation so that the panel projected area facing the wind is
`
`minimized.
`
`45.
`
` A POSITA would have considered art from dual-axis trackers to be
`
`relevant to the development of single-axis trackers. Dual-axis trackers are also
`
`used to provide the tracking function for photovoltaic panels. The dual-axis
`
`trackers share the basic trac