UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Inc.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`General Electric Co.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: IPR2022-01279
`
`EXHIBIT 1032
`
`DECLARATION OF WEI QIAO, Ph.D.
`
`SGRE EX1032.0001
`SGRE v. GE, IPR2022-01279
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 4
`The Applicable Law ........................................................................................ 8
`III.
`A.
`General Patent Law ............................................................................... 9
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 9
`B.
`C.
`Principles of Claim Construction ........................................................ 10
`D.
`Anticipation ......................................................................................... 12
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 14
`E.
`Introduction to the ’705 Patent ...................................................................... 17
`A.
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 17
`Specification Disclosure of the ’705 Patent ........................................ 19
`B.
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’705 Patent ............................................... 32
`Post-Grant Proceedings ....................................................................... 35
`D.
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633 ................................... 36
`1.
`2.
`Reexamination Control No. 90/012,587 ................................... 38
`Reexamination Control No. 90/012,880 ................................... 40
`3.
`4.
`The Vestas IPR .......................................................................... 43
`Prior Litigation Involving the ’705 Patent .......................................... 46
`E.
`Inconsistencies in GE’s Arguments in Post-Grant Proceedings ................... 60
`A.
`GE’s Interpretation of “Remain Connected.” ..................................... 60
`GE’s Interpretation of “Approximately Zero Volts.” ......................... 71
`B.
`VI. Claim Constructions ...................................................................................... 76
`VII. Summary of Prior Art .................................................................................... 78
`A.
`The General State of the Art Prior to 2006 ......................................... 79
`B.
`Hudson ................................................................................................. 94
`Teodorescu ........................................................................................ 108
`C.
`D.
`Deng .................................................................................................. 119
`
`V.
`
`i
`
`SGRE EX1032.0002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`X.
`
`VIII. Level of Skill in the art ................................................................................ 127
`IX. Anticipation by Hudson ............................................................................... 127
`Introduction ....................................................................................... 127
`A.
`Analysis of Claim 1 ........................................................................... 129
`B.
`Preamble .................................................................................. 129
`1.
`Element [1.1] ........................................................................... 132
`2.
`3.
`Element [1.2] ........................................................................... 136
`Element [1.3] ........................................................................... 142
`4.
`Element [1.4] ........................................................................... 144
`5.
`6.
`Element [1.5] ........................................................................... 146
`Obviousness over Hudson and Teodorescu. ................................................ 154
`Introduction ....................................................................................... 154
`A.
`B. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 155
`Claim Analysis .................................................................................. 158
`C.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 158
`1.
`a.
`Preamble ....................................................................... 158
`b.
`Element [1.1] ................................................................ 162
`c.
`Element [1.2] ................................................................ 166
`d.
`Element [1.3] ................................................................ 174
`e.
`Element [1.4] ................................................................ 178
`f.
`Element [1.5] ................................................................ 182
`Claim 2 .................................................................................... 194
`a.
`Preamble ....................................................................... 194
`b.
`Element [2.1] ................................................................ 195
`c.
`Element [2.2] ................................................................ 198
`d.
`Element [2.3] ................................................................ 202
`e.
`Element [2.4] ................................................................ 207
`f.
`Element [2.5] ................................................................ 209
`g.
`Element [2.6] ................................................................ 209
`h.
`Element [2.7] ................................................................ 211
`i.
`Element [2.8] ................................................................ 213
`j.
`Element [2.9] ................................................................ 216
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`SGRE EX1032.0003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`3.
`
`Element [2.10] .............................................................. 218
`k.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................... 220
`a.
`Preamble ....................................................................... 220
`b.
`Element [3.1] ................................................................ 221
`c.
`Element [3.2] ................................................................ 224
`d.
`Element [3.3] ................................................................ 227
`XI. Obviousness over Hudson and Deng ........................................................... 232
`A.
`Introduction ....................................................................................... 232
`B. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 233
`Analysis of Claim 1 ........................................................................... 236
`C.
`Preamble .................................................................................. 236
`1.
`Element [1.1] ........................................................................... 240
`2.
`3.
`Element [1.2] ........................................................................... 243
`Element [1.3] ........................................................................... 249
`4.
`Element [1.4] ........................................................................... 252
`5.
`6.
`Element [1.5] ........................................................................... 256
`XII. Secondary Considerations ........................................................................... 265
`XIII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 266
`XIV. Declaration in Lieu of Oath ......................................................................... 266
`
`iii
`
`SGRE EX1032.0004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`I, Wei Qiao, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I understand that Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Inc. (“SGRE”) is
`
`petitioning the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705 (“the ’705 Patent”). I have been
`
`retained by SGRE to offer technical opinions relating to the ’705 Patent and certain
`
`prior art references relating to its subject matter.
`
`
`
`I am a member of the faculty of the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (“UNL”). Currently, I am the
`
`Clyde Hyde Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UNL and the Chair
`
`of its Electrical Engineering Graduate Program. I joined UNL in 2008 when my
`
`department was called the Department of Electrical Engineering. I have worked at
`
`UNL for the past fourteen years. EX1031 is a true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae.
`
`
`
`I have several academic degrees. I earned Bachelor of Engineering and
`
`Master of Engineering degrees in electrical engineering from Zhejiang University,
`
`China, in 1997 and 2002, respectively. I earned a Master of Science degree in High
`
`Performance Computation for Engineered Systems from Singapore-MIT Alliance
`
`
`
`1
`
`SGRE EX1032.0005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`(SMA), Singapore, in 2003. I received a Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology in 2008.
`
` My Ph.D. dissertation was entitled “Integrated Control of Wind Farms,
`
`FACTS Devices and the Power Network Using Neural Networks and Adaptive
`
`Critic Designs.”
`
`
`
`Since I joined UNL, I have continued my research in the area of control of
`
`wind turbines, including control for low-voltage and zero-voltage ride-through of
`
`wind turbines. I have extended my research to condition monitoring of wind
`
`turbines. I have supervised 19 Ph.D. students as they completed their dissertation
`
`research at UNL. Among the 19 Ph.D. dissertations that I supervised, seven are
`
`directed to control and condition monitoring of wind turbines. In addition, I have
`
`supervised five postdoctoral researchers, three of which worked on condition
`
`monitoring of wind turbines under my supervision.
`
`
`
`I have published over 270 peer-reviewed journal and conference proceeding
`
`papers. EX1031 lists many of my published papers. More than 100 of my peer-
`
`reviewed publications concern condition monitoring and control of wind turbines.
`
`
`
`I am an inventor of 10 granted patents:
`
`W. Qiao and X. Gong, “Detecting faults in turbine generators,” U.S.
`Patent 10,359,473B2;
`
`
`
`2
`
`SGRE EX1032.0006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`L. Wu, Y. Zhao, and W. Qiao, “Methods of estimating a position of a
`rotor in a motor under transient and systems thereof,” U.S. Patent No.
`10,333,439B2;
`W. Qiao, T. Kim, and L. Qu, “Rechargeable multicell battery,” U.S.
`Patent No. 10,297,855 B2;
`W. Qiao, Z. Wang, and L. Qu, “Monitoring aging of power
`semiconductor devices based on case temperature,” U.S. Patent No.
`10,288,672 B2;
`W. Qiao, L. Qu, and H. Wang, “Electromagnetic power converter,”
`U.S. Patent No. 10,290,417 B2;
`W. Qiao, Z. Zhang, and L. Qu, “Direct torque control of AC electric
`machines,” U.S. Patent No. 9,831,812 B2;
`L. Wu, Y. Zhao, and W. Qiao, “Methods of estimating a position of a
`rotor in a motor under transient and systems thereof,” U.S. Patent No.
`9,577,555 B2;
`L. Wu, Y. Zhao, and W. Qiao, “Drive systems including sliding mode
`observers and methods of controlling the same,” U.S. Patent No.
`9,088,241 B2;
`W. Qiao and X. Gong, “Detecting faults in wind turbines,” U.S. Patent
`No. 10,591,519 B2; and
`W. Qiao, J. Wang, and L. Qu, “Detecting faults in wind turbines,” U.S.
`Patent No. 10,852,214 B2.
`
`EX1031.
`
`
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`I was elevated in November 2019 “for contributions to condition monitoring and
`
`control of power electronics interfaced rotating machine systems.” I received the
`
`2021 IEEE Power Electronics Society Sustainable Energy Systems Technical
`
`Achievement Award “for contributions to condition monitoring and control of power
`
`electronics interfaced sustainable energy systems.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`SGRE EX1032.0007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`My opinions provided in this declaration are based on my review of the
`
`documents referenced herein, including the following listed documents, and my
`
`experience in the field:
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705 to Barker, et al., entitled “Method and
`Apparatus for Operating Electrical Machines,” filed Oct. 20, 2006.
`
`Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended
`Determination on Remedy and Bond, Certain Variable Speed Wind
`Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1218
`(Sept. 10, 2021).
`
`Notice of Commission Determination to Review in Part a Final Initial
`Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 as to One Patent
`and No Violation as to Another Patent, Certain Variable Speed Wind
`Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1218
`(Nov. 12, 2021).
`
`Jury Verdict Form, General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus.
`Ltd., No. 3-10-cv-00276 (N.D. Tex.), dated Mar. 8, 2012.
`
`Disclaimer in Patent Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), IPR2015-01015,
`Exhibit 2001 (Aug. 13, 2018).
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX1001
`
`EX1002
`
`EX1003
`
`EX1004
`
`EX1006
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent Application s.n. 11/551,430.
`
`EX1007
`
`Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`7,629,705, Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633, dated May 24,
`2011.
`
`EX1008
`
`Decision Granting Inter Partes Reexamination, Reexamination
`Control No. 95/000,633, mailed July 27, 2011.
`
`EX1009
`
`4
`
`SGRE EX1032.0008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`Description
`
`Decision Granting Petition to Terminate Inter Partes Reexamination
`of Claims 1-6, Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633, mailed Sept.
`19, 2014.
`
`Decision on Appeal, Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633, mailed
`Mar. 31, 2016.
`
`Wall, et al., “Turbogenerator With Electrical Brake,” U.S. Patent No.
`6,784,565, filed February 15, 2002 and granted August 31, 2004.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Notice of Defective Paper in
`Reexamination, Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633, filed Nov.
`28, 2011.
`
`Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.71,
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633, dated Aug. 13, 2015.
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705,
`Reexamination Control No. 90/012,587, filed May 14, 2012.
`
`Nielsen, “Method for Controlling a Power-Grid Connected Wind
`Turbine Generator During Grid Faults and Apparatus
`for
`Implementing
`Said Method,”
`International Application
`WO 2004/070936, published August 19, 2004.
`
`in Ex Parte
`to Office Action
`Patent Owner’s Response
`Reexamination, Reexamination Control No. 90/012,587, filed Jan.
`14, 2013.
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate,
`Reexamination Control No. 90/012,587, dated June 21, 2013.
`
`Request For Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705,
`Reexamination Control No. 90/012,880, filed May 24, 2013.
`
`Anaya-Lara, et al., Fault Current Contribution of DFIG Wind
`Turbines, Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, February 15-
`17, 2005.
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`
`EX1014
`
`EX1015
`
`EX1016
`
`EX1017
`
`EX1018
`
`EX1019
`
`EX1020
`
`
`
`5
`
`SGRE EX1032.0009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`Description
`
`Decision Granting Ex Parte Reexamination, Reexamination Control
`No. 90/012,880, dated Aug. 1, 2013.
`
`in Ex Parte
`to Office Action
`Patent Owner’s Response
`Reexamination, Reexamination Control No. 90/012,880, filed Feb. 6,
`2014.
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate, Reexamination
`Control No. 90/012,880, dated Apr. 1, 2014.
`
`EX1023
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 15-17 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705 Under 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100, Vestas-American Wind Technology, Inc. v. General
`Electric Co., IPR2018-01015, paper 2, filed May 2, 2018.
`
`EX1024
`
`Inter Partes Review, Vestas-American Wind
`Institution of
`Technology, Inc. v. General Electric Co., IPR2018-01015, paper 9
`(PTAB Nov. 14, 2018).
`
`EX1025
`
`Order Granting Joint Motions to Terminate Proceedings Due to
`Settlement after Institution and Granting Joint Requests to Treat
`Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information 35
`U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74, Vestas-American Wind
`Technology, Inc. v. General Electric Co., IPR2018-01015, paper 35
`(PTAB July 1, 2019).
`
`Hearing Transcript, Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine
`Generators and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1218, pp.
`110-203 (June 7, 2021).
`
`Trial Transcript Vol. 2B, General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy
`Industries, Ltd., No. 3-10-cv-00276 (N.D. Tex.), pp. 1-15 (Feb. 29,
`2012).
`
`Respondents’ Post-Hearing Initial Brief, Certain Variable Speed
`Wind Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-
`1218 (July 12, 2021) (Public).
`
`EX1026
`
`EX1027
`
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`
`
`6
`
`SGRE EX1032.00010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`Description
`
`Complainant General Electric’s Responsive Post-Hearing Brief,
`Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components
`Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1218 (July 16, 2021) (Public).
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`
`Claim Construction Order, General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy
`Indus., Ltd., 2011 WL 13201880 (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2011).
`
`Joint Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions, Certain Variable
`Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`337-TA-1218 (Dec. 3, 2020).
`
`Hansen, et al., “Review of Contemporary Wind Turbine Concepts
`and their Market Penetration,” Wind Engineering, vol. 28, no. 3, pp.
`247-263 (2004).
`
`Gasch, R., et al., J. WIND POWER PLANTS: FUNDAMENTALS, DESIGN,
`CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, Chapter 3, SOLARPRAXIS
`(2002).
`
`Janssen, et al., “Low Voltage Ride Through for Wind Turbine
`Generators,” U.S. Patent No. 6,921,985, filed Jan. 24, 2003, and
`granted July 26, 2005.
`
`E.ON Netz, “Supplemental Network Connection Rules for Wind
`Energy Systems,” published Dec. 1, 2001.
`
`“Interconnection for Wind Energy,” Order 661, 111 FERC ¶ 61,353
`(FERC June 2, 2005).
`
`E.ON Netz, “Grid Code: High and Extra High Voltage,” published
`Aug. 1, 2003.
`
`“Interconnection for Wind Energy,” Order 661A (FERC Dec.12,
`2005).
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX1030
`
`EX1031
`
`EX1033
`
`EX1035
`
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`
`EX1038
`
`EX1039
`
`EX1040
`
`EX1041
`
`EX1042
`
`7
`
`SGRE EX1032.00011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`Description
`
`National Grid Co. plc, “Grid Code Changes to Incorporate New
`Generation Technologies and DC Interconnectors,” GCRP 04/15
`(May 2004).
`
`Exhibit
`
`EX1043
`
`Hudson, “Control System for Doubly Fed Induction Generator,” WO
`2004/098261 A2, published Nov. 18, 2004.
`
`EX1044
`
`Teodorescu, et al., “Flexible Control of Small Wind Turbines With
`Grid Failure Detection Operating in Stand-Alone and Grid-
`Connected Mode,” IEEE Trans. Pwr. Elecs., vol. 19, no. 5 (Sept.
`2004).
`
`Deng, et al., “System and Method for Synchronizing the Phase Angle
`for an AC Power Source in Parallel Operation with a Grid,” U.S.
`Patent No. 6,362,988, filed June 29, 2000, and granted Mar. 26, 2002.
`
`Complainant General Electric’s Corrected Pre-Hearing Brief,
`Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components
`Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1218 (May 14, 2021) (Public).
`
`Akhmatov, et al., “A Dynamic Stability Limit of Grid-Connected
`Induction Generators,” Proc. IASTED, pp. 235-244 (2000)
`(“Akhmatov-2000”)
`
`Akhmatov, “Variable-speed Wind Turbines with Doubly-fed
`Induction Generators Part II: Power System Stability,” Wind
`Engineering, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 171-188 (2002) (“Akhmatov-2002”).
`
`EX1045
`
`EX1046
`
`EX1048
`
`EX1049
`
`EX1050
`
`Patent Owner's Respondent Brief Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.68,
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,633, filed Sept. 9, 2013.
`
`EX1051
`
`
`III. THE APPLICABLE LAW
`
`I am not an attorney, and I am not providing any expert opinions on the law.
`
`However, I have been advised of certain basic legal principles applicable to my
`
`
`
`8
`
`SGRE EX1032.00012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`analysis in this report, and I have applied those principles in forming my opinions.
`
`Those principles are provided below:
`
`A. General Patent Law
`I understand that determining the validity of a patent requires a two-step
`
`
`
`analysis. First, the meaning and scope of the patent claims are construed, and
`
`second, the construed claims are compared to the prior art.
`
`
`
`I understand that, in the context of an inter partes review, the prior art may
`
`comprise patents or printed publications. I also understand that a “printed
`
`publication” is a publication sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art
`
`and depends upon dissemination and accessibility.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand there is a concept in patent law known as the “person having
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art” (“POSITA,” for short). I understand that this concept refers
`
`to a person who is trained in the relevant technical field of a patent without
`
`possessing extraordinary or otherwise exceptional skill. I further understand that
`
`factors such as the educational level of those working in the field, the sophistication
`
`of the technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish the
`
`
`
`9
`
`SGRE EX1032.00013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`level of skill in the art. I understand the level of skill of the persons of ordinary skill
`
`is to be assessed at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`Principles of Claim Construction
`C.
`I understand that, to construe the meaning of a claim term, a court will first
`
`look to the claim language itself and its usage in context with other claim terms. I
`
`understand that courts will defer to the ordinary and customary meaning that the
`
`terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`
`
`I also understand that a court will look to intrinsic evidence if the meaning of
`
`the term to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention is not apparent. I have been informed that this intrinsic evidence includes
`
`the context of the words in the claim, the specification of the patent, and the
`
`prosecution history of the patent. In fact, I understand that the specification is
`
`considered the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. I understand
`
`that, while the specification is to be used to interpret terms presented in a claim, it is
`
`impermissible to import limitations from the specification into a claim.
`
` Also, I have been informed that a patentee can become their own
`
`“lexicographer” by defining terms within the patent however they wish, as long as
`
`10
`
`SGRE EX1032.00014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`they do so explicitly. For evidence that the patentee intended to become their own
`
`lexicographer, I understand that the court may look to the intrinsic evidence.
`
`
`
`I understand that the prosecution history is an important source of intrinsic
`
`evidence and generally relevant to the proper interpretation of a claim. For example,
`
`I have been informed that the prosecution history can provide additional context that,
`
`in addition to the written description, is helpful in interpreting the claims. Further, I
`
`have been informed that prosecution history is useful in determining what the
`
`patentee believed they originally were claiming, and whether the patentee has
`
`narrowed a potential claim construction in an amendment or argument to distinguish
`
`the claims over the prior art. Thus, I understand prosecution history is relevant in
`
`claim construction.
`
`
`
`If the meaning of a term is clear from the claim language and the intrinsic
`
`evidence, I understand that the claim construction must stop there. I have been
`
`informed that only if the meaning of the asserted claims cannot be determined after
`
`assessing the intrinsic evidence, may extrinsic evidence be considered. I have been
`
`informed that such extrinsic evidence may include expert testimony, dictionaries,
`
`and well-known treatises. Even if extrinsic evidence is considered, the claim
`
`construction may not be inconsistent with the construction mandated by the intrinsic
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`11
`
`SGRE EX1032.00015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`
`
`I understand that, when a dependent claim recites elements that are comprised
`
`by an element of an independent claim, the element that appears in the independent
`
`claim has a scope broad enough to encompass the elements of the dependent claim.
`
`D. Anticipation
`It is my understanding that, to prove anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (the
`
`
`
`pre-America Inventions Act version), the challenger of a patent’s validity must show
`
`that all elements of a claim were present in a previous method or system that was
`
`described in a single prior art reference. To anticipate a claim, the prior art reference
`
`does not have to use the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the
`
`claim must have been disclosed, either stated expressly or inherently, to a POSITA
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, so that looking at that one prior art reference,
`
`that person could make and use the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`I understand that a prior art document anticipates a claim when it expressly
`
`discloses every limitation of the claim within the four corners of the document and
`
`those limitations are arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.
`
`To be anticipatory, a prior art reference must further enable one skilled in the art to
`
`make the anticipating subject matter.
`
`
`
`I further understand that, even when a prior art document does not expressly
`
`disclose every limitation of the claim, it may inherently anticipate the claim when
`
`
`
`12
`
`SGRE EX1032.00016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`the reference’s disclosure makes it clear to persons of ordinary skill that the missing
`
`descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference. I
`
`understand that the question of whether missing descriptive matter is inherent in a
`
`prior art reference may be answered by looking to extrinsic evidence. I further
`
`understand that inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities,
`
`and the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
`
`not sufficient.
`
`
`
`I understand that, generally speaking, material can become prior art to a patent
`
`in several ways, including:
`
`a.
`
`the invention being known or used by others in this country, or patented
`
`or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention
`
`thereof by the applicant for patent,
`
`b.
`
`the invention being patented or described in a printed publication in this
`
`or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year
`
`prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
`
`c.
`
`the invention being described in either (1) a published application for
`
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`
`patent, or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the
`
`United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.
`
`13
`
`SGRE EX1032.00017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`
`I understand that, in inter partes reviews, the PTO has jurisdiction to consider
`
`only prior art printed publications and patents. The PTO does not consider prior art
`
`that arises from other sources such as from a public use or a product sale, for
`
`example.
`
`Obviousness
`E.
`It is my understanding that, to prove that a claim is invalid for obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (the pre-America Invents Act version), the challenger of its
`
`validity must prove that, for example, two or more prior art references in
`
`combination disclose, expressly or inherently, every claim limitation and also that
`
`the claim, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the alleged invention was made.
`
`
`
`It is my understanding that the relevant standard for obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) is as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`In determining whether or not a patented invention would have been obvious,
`
`
`
`I understand that the following so-called “Graham” factual inquiries must be made:
`
`14
`
`SGRE EX1032.00018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time
`
`the alleged invention was made; and (4) any secondary considerations, including
`
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`
`
`I understand that a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
`
`merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was independently known in the
`
`prior art. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. The
`
`challenger of a patent’s validity must prove that, at the time of the claimed invention,
`
`there was a reason that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`field of the invention to combine the known elements in a way the claimed invention
`
`does, taking into account such factors as:
`
`a.
`
`whether the claimed invention was merely the predictable result of
`
`using prior art elements according to their known function(s);
`
`b.
`
`whether the claimed invention amounted to nothing more than using a
`
`known technique to improve similar devices or methods in the same way;
`
`c.
`
`whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known
`
`problem in the relevant field;
`
`d.
`
`whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining
`
`elements claimed in the invention;
`
`
`
`15
`
`SGRE EX1032.00019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`
`e.
`
`whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the
`
`claimed invention;
`
`f.
`
`whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements, such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and
`
`g.
`
`whether the change resulted more from design incentives or other
`
`market forces.
`
` To find the invention obvious in light of a prior art combination, the prior art
`
`combination must have provided a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`
`I further understand that it is not permissible to use hindsight in assessing
`
`whether a claimed invention is obvious. Rather, I understand that, to assess
`
`obviousness, one places oneself in the shoes of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field of technology at the time the alleged invention was made who is trying
`
`to address the issues or solve the problems faced by the inventor, considering only
`
`what was known at the time of the invention and ignoring current knowledge of the
`
`inventions.
`
` Regarding the fourth step in the four-step process for assessing obviousness
`
`(the so-called Graham inquiries), specifically the step involving “objective
`
`considerations,” I have been told that some of the factors that may be considered are
`
`
`
`16
`
`SGRE EX1032.00020
`
`

`

`Declaration of Wei Qiao, Ph.D.
`EX1032
`
`those of copying, a long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, commercial
`
`success, unexpected results created by the claimed invention, unexpected properties
`
`of the claimed invention, licenses showing industry respect for the invention,