UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SHARKNINJA, INC.,
`SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC,
`SHARKNINJA MANAGEMENT LLC, AND
`SHARKNINJA SALES COMPANY,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01323
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,589,660
`
`Declaration of Daniel M. Nosenchuck, Ph.D. in Support of Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,660
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 1 of 139
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`II.
`SCOPE OF OPINIONS ................................................................................... 3
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ........................................ 4
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 4
`V.
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................... 6
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 6
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`VI. TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’660 PATENT ...................................................... 8
`B.
`Overview of the ’660 Patent .................................................................. 8
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 14
`D.
`Effective Filing Date ........................................................................... 16
`E.
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 16
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE INVALIDITY GROUNDS AND PRIOR ART ....... 16
`A.
`Invalidity Grounds ............................................................................... 16
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,943,182 (“Hoblingre”) (Exhibit 1004) ................... 17
`C.
`EP 0 791 758 A1 (“Mouhot”) (Exhibit 1005, Exhibit 1006) .............. 20
`D. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0265022 (“Maclaine”)
`(Exhibit 1007) ...................................................................................... 22
`U.S. Patent No. 6,161,244 (“Jeannet”) (Exhibit 1008) ....................... 26
`E.
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 27
`
`i
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 2 of 139
`
`

`

`IX. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS ......................... 28
`A. Ground 1: Hoblingre Anticipates Claims 1-9, 15, 23, 24, and 32 ...... 28
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 28
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2.................................................................... 41
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3.................................................................... 42
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4.................................................................... 43
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5.................................................................... 45
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6.................................................................... 46
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7.................................................................... 47
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8.................................................................... 48
`9.
`Dependent Claim 9.................................................................... 49
`10. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 50
`11. Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................. 51
`12. Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 52
`13. Dependent Claim 32 ................................................................. 53
`Ground 2: Hoblingre in View of Maclaine Renders Obvious
`Claims 1-9, 15, 18, 23, 24, and 30-32 ................................................. 54
`1. Motivation to Combine Hoblingre and Maclaine ..................... 54
`2.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 57
`3.
`Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 58
`4.
`Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 59
`5.
`Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................. 62
`6.
`Dependent Claim 31 ................................................................. 62
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 3 of 139
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Ground 3: Hoblingre in View of Maclaine and Jeannet Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-9, 15, 18, 23, 24, 30-34 ......................................... 63
`1. Motivation to Combine Hoblingre, Maclaine, and Jeannet ...... 63
`2.
`Independent Claim 33 ............................................................... 65
`3.
`Dependent Claim 34 ................................................................. 72
`D. Ground 4: Mouhot Anticipates Claims 1-9, 15, 23, 24, and 32 .......... 73
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 74
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2.................................................................... 88
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3.................................................................... 90
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4.................................................................... 91
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5.................................................................... 93
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6.................................................................... 96
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7.................................................................... 97
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8.................................................................... 99
`9.
`Dependent Claim 9.................................................................. 100
`10. Dependent Claim 15 ............................................................... 102
`11. Dependent Claim 23 ............................................................... 103
`12. Dependent Claim 24 ............................................................... 104
`13. Dependent Claim 32 ............................................................... 106
`Ground 5: Mouhot in View of Maclaine Renders Obvious
`Claims 1-9, 15, 18, 23, 24, and 30-32 ............................................... 106
`1. Motivation to Combine Mouhot and Maclaine....................... 107
`2.
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................... 109
`3.
`Dependent Claim 15 ............................................................... 110
`
`E.
`
`iii
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 4 of 139
`
`

`

`F.
`
`Dependent Claim 18 ............................................................... 112
`4.
`Dependent Claim 30 ............................................................... 114
`5.
`Dependent Claim 31 ............................................................... 115
`6.
`Ground 6: Mouhot in View of Maclaine and Jeannet Renders
`Obvious Claims 33 and 34 ................................................................ 116
`1. Motivation to Combine Mouhot, Maclaine, and Jeannet ....... 116
`2.
`Independent Claim 33 ............................................................. 117
`3.
`Dependent Claim 34 ............................................................... 124
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............ 125
`X.
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 126
`
`iv
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 5 of 139
`
`

`

`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,589,660
`1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 11,589,660
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Nosenchuck
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 4,943,182 (“Hoblingre”)
`1005 Certified Translation of European Patent Application No. EP0791758
`(“Mouhot”)
`1006 European Patent Application No. EP0791758 (“Mouhot”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0265022 (“Maclaine”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,161,244 (“Jeannet”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,715,847 (“Rolf”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 7,876,373 (“Ochi”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 6 of 139
`
`

`

`I, Daniel Mark Nosenchuck, declare as follows:
`I have been retained by counsel for SharkNinja Inc., SharkNinja
`1.
`
`Operating LLC, SharkNinja Management LLC, and SharkNinja Sales Company
`
`(“Petitioners”) to submit a Declaration in support of the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,660 (“the Petition”), which I understand has been
`
`assigned to Dyson Technology Limited. (“Dyson” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to opine on whether the ’660 patent is rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art. My opinions are based on my experience, knowledge, and
`
`skill in fluid mechanics and heat transfer, as well as in product development
`
`including the design and manufacture of personal care appliances, including hair
`
`dryers. In preparation for this declaration, I have reviewed the ’660 patent, its
`
`prosecution history, and all exhibits cited in this Declaration and in the Petition.
`
`3.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my experience and knowledge, and/or
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the Patent Owner. Further, I may
`
`also consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary
`
`opinions, including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`4. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This Declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`1
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 7 of 139
`
`

`

`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`5.
`
`I am being paid at my normal hourly rate for my work on this matter. I
`
`have no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the Petition.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`I received a B.S. degree in Aerospace Engineering and Mechanical
`6.
`
`Engineering from Syracuse University, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Aeronautics
`
`from the California Institute of Technology.
`
`7.
`
`In August, 1983, I joined the faculty of Princeton University as an
`
`Assistant Professor, where I became Associate Professor of Mechanical and
`
`Aerospace Engineering in 1988. I have taught classes in Thermodynamics and Heat
`
`Transfer, Fluid Dynamics, Viscous Flows, Energy Conversion and the Environment,
`
`Applications
`
`to Transportation, Mechanical Design, and Entrepreneurial
`
`Engineering (Product Design and Marketing). My curriculum vitae is submitted
`
`herewith as Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`I have conducted extensive research in fluid mechanics and heat
`
`transfer, including use of turbo-machines. My research has further included flow
`
`control, drag reduction and development of a special-purpose architecture computer
`
`for complex flow simulations (Navier-Stokes Computer). I have worked in
`
`Hollywood as a consultant on special-effects related to hydrodynamics and
`
`2
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 8 of 139
`
`

`

`ballistics, and in 1984 I received an Academy of Television Arts and Sciences
`
`Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Special Visual
`
`Effects, for the ABC television movie, “The Day After.”
`
`9.
`
`I have 10-15 years of experience in product development including the
`
`design and manufacture of personal care appliances, including curling irons, curlers,
`
`make-up mirrors and hair dryers. I am the named inventor on 12 issued patents,
`
`including D398,074 “Hair Dryer,” U.S. Patent No. 5,841,943 “Ducted flow hair
`
`dryer with multiple impellers,” and U.S. Patent No. 6,011,903 “Reduced-noise
`
`ducted flow hair dryer with multiple impellers and ambient air inlets.” This work
`
`was commercialized and extensively marketed by Revlon as the “Get Quiet” hair
`
`dryer.
`
`10.
`
`In addition, in 2015 I was retained as an expert for TF3 Limited in the
`
`matter of the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118, IPR2015-00649.
`
`11.
`
`If asked, I will testify regarding my qualifications, background, and
`
`experience in the field of personal care appliances.
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF OPINIONS
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`12.
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’660 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in view of Hoblingre (Ex. 1004)
`
`(Ground 1), the combination of Hoblingre and Maclaine (Ex. 1007) (Ground 2), the
`
`3
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 9 of 139
`
`

`

`combination of Hoblingre, Maclaine, and Jeannet (Ex. 1008) (Ground 3), Mouhot
`
`(Ex. 1005) (Ground 4), the combination of Mouhot and Maclaine (Ground 5), the
`
`combination of Mouhot, Maclaine, and Jeannet (Ground 6)
`
`13. This Declaration, including the exhibits cited herein, sets forth my
`
`opinions on these topics. It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’660
`
`patent would have been obvious based on the combination listed above.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`14. The materials I considered and relied upon in preparing my Declaration
`
`and forming my opinions include all exhibits cited in this Declaration and the
`
`Petition, including the ’660 patent, the file history of the ’660 patent, and all of the
`
`relevant prior art.
`
`15.
`
`I also have relied on my professional experience, knowledge, and skill
`
`in fluid mechanics and heat transfer, as well as in product development including the
`
`design and manufacture of personal care appliances, including hair dryers in
`
`reaching the opinions expressed in this Declaration.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this Declaration, I was asked to
`16.
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The ’660 patent relates
`
`to the field of attachment mechanisms for appliances. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`4
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 10 of 139
`
`

`

`17.
`
`I understand that various factors, such as the education level of those
`
`working in the field, sophistication of the technology, types of problems encountered
`
`in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and speed at which innovations are
`
`made, may help establish the level of skill in the art. In determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I have taken into account these factors as well as my years
`
`of experience in the personal care appliance industry related to the subject matter of
`
`the ’660 patent.
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the
`
`equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or technical degree in Mechanical or Aerospace
`
`Engineering or another engineering or design-related field. In addition, it is my
`
`opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the equivalent of at least
`
`one year’s worth of experience in research, design and/or development related to
`
`appliances. Additional education could substitute for experience, and vice versa. To
`
`the extent that the preamble of the independent claims of the ’660 patent are found
`
`to be limiting, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least
`
`one year’s worth of experience in research, design, and/or development related to
`
`handheld appliances (or other comparable industrial design), including hair care
`
`appliances at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, September
`
`1, 2016.
`
`5
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 11 of 139
`
`

`

`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that terms appearing in the patent claims are to be
`19.
`
`interpreted according to their “ordinary and customary meaning” in an IPR
`
`proceeding. In determining the ordinary and customary meaning, the words of a
`
`claim are first given their plain meaning as they would have been understood by one
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in
`
`light of the specification and file history. I understand that, under limited
`
`circumstances, evidence external to the patent and its prosecution may be used to
`
`determine the meaning attributed by one of skill in the art at the time of the effective
`
`filing date of the claimed invention. I have followed this approach in my analysis,
`
`and have applied the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms of the Challenged
`
`Claims throughout my analysis in this Declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as they
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention. For purposes of my analysis, and for
`
`the reasons explained below, I have applied a date of September 1, 2016, as the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention in my analysis.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`21.
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`6
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 12 of 139
`
`

`

`art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which the claimed invention pertains. I have reviewed AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been informed that the framework for determining
`
`obviousness involves considering the following factors: (i) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter;
`
`(iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (iv) any objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness as set forth in the case of Graham v. John Deere Company. I have been
`
`informed that in the case of KSR International Company v. Teleflex, the Supreme
`
`Court reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness that was previously set
`
`forth in the case of Graham v. John Deere Company.
`
`23.
`
`I have further been informed that the “objective” (or “secondary”)
`
`evidence of non-obviousness includes things such as: (1) a long-felt but unmet need
`
`in the prior art that was satisfied by the claimed invention; (2) commercial success
`
`or the lack of commercial success of the claimed invention; (3) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the claimed invention; (4) praise of the claimed invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the claimed invention; and (7) contemporaneous and independent
`
`invention by others.
`
`7
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 13 of 139
`
`

`

`VI. TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’660 PATENT
`A. Conventional Attachment Mechanisms
`24. By September 1, 2016, the earliest asserted priority date of the
`
`ʼ660 Patent, the technology relevant to the ’660 Patent was well developed. In this
`
`Section, I present an overview of relevant aspects of the technology in the
`
`’660 Patent that would have been known and available to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) as of around September 2016. The prior art and other
`
`references upon which I rely was published prior to September 2016. As of at least
`
`2016, and for decades prior, bayonet attachments have been ubiquitous in a variety
`
`of different applications—particularly in various handheld appliances—to allow, for
`
`example, for ease of attachment and removal of various attachments. For example,
`
`bayonet attachments were used in handheld appliances, such as hair dryers. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,715,847 to Rolf et al., filed in 1995, discloses attaching a “hair styling
`
`implement,” or attachment, to a “hair dryer” by “[u]sing a rotating motion of the hair
`
`styling implement 10 relative to the hair dryer 14” to lock “projections” on the
`
`attachment within “recesses” in the hair dryer with “a bayonet-type connection.” Ex.
`
`1009, 4:41-48.
`
`8
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 14 of 139
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1009, FIG. 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,876,373 to Ochi et al., filed in 2007, discloses a camera with
`
`interchangeable lenses that includes a “lens side mount 14…coupled with the camera
`
`side mount 13 by means of a bayonet mechanism” where “the lens unit 12 is
`
`interchangeably attached to the camera body 11.” Ex. 1010, 5:1-10.
`
`9
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 15 of 139
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1010, FIG. 13.
`
`B. Overview of the ’660 Patent
`25. The ’660 Patent claims only a single improvement and provides a brief
`
`disclosure. The ’660 patent relates to the connection mechanism between a handheld
`
`appliance, specifically a hair care appliance such as “a hot styling device,” and an
`
`attachment. Ex. 1001, 1:11-13. The problem the ’660 Patent purports to solve is
`
`providing “a solid connection between the attachment and the appliance for when
`
`hair is under tension with an easily removable attachment when required,” Ex. 1001,
`
`10
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 16 of 139
`
`

`

`1:29-32, by implementing “a curved slot,” which the ’660 patent describes as being
`
`“advantageous over a traditional bayonet fitting.” Ex. 1001, 7:18-37. An example
`
`attachment mechanism is illustrated below:
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1a.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIGS. 6a, 6b.
`
`26. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`11
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 17 of 139
`
`

`

`1. A handheld appliance having a body and an attachment,
`the body comprising an attachment mechanism having a
`first slot and an actuator, the attachment comprising a first
`protrusion configured to engage with the first slot, wherein
`the actuator has a first position and a second position and
`the actuator is slidably moved from the first position
`towards the second position in a longitudinal direction of
`the body as the first protrusion engages with the first slot;
`wherein the body extends along a longitudinal axis and the
`first slot extends both radially around and axially along the
`body.
`Ex. 1001, cl. 1.
`
`27. The only advance that the ’660 patent alleges to provide is to the
`
`attachment mechanism. Ex. 1001, 1:36-39. The sole alleged improvement, “a curved
`
`slot” which is “advantageous over a traditional bayonet fitting,” is not described in
`
`detail in the ’660 patent. Ex. 1001, 7:18-37. For example, depending on the materials
`
`used in the body and the attachment, there would be a minimum geometrical slope
`
`of the slot at which, and beyond, binding of the protrusion in the slot would occur,
`
`and prevent further insertion. The curved slot allows the connection to be made by
`
`“push[ing] the attachment 20 onto the body 210 a relatively short amount” after
`
`which point “the actuator 50 completes the movement.” Ex. 1001, 7:18-37.
`
`28. This single alleged advance, however, was not new at the time of filing.
`
`Bayonet-type couplings were “well known and employed in many fields,” and had
`
`12
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 18 of 139
`
`

`

`been in use and patented for decades prior to the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’660 patent. Ex. 1004, 1:13-14. For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,943,182
`
`(“Hoblingre”) (Ex. 1004) issued in 1990 and expressly discloses an improved
`
`bayonet fastener having curved slots in a manner indistinguishable from the ’660
`
`patent. Hoblingre’s fastener allows a connection to be made through “a simple axial
`
`force, the angular displacement occurring automatically under the effect of the
`
`exerted pressure” due to the shape of its helical slot. Ex. 1004, 2:58-3:36.
`
`Hoblingre’s mechanism is easy to use, “does not require any precise handling,” is
`
`“extremely reliable and safe,” and is “very easily dismantled.” Ex. 1004, 3:14-40.
`
`The allegedly novel attachment mechanism is also disclosed in European Patent
`
`Application No. EP0791758 (“Mouhot”) (Ex. 1005), published
`
`in 1997.
`
`Furthermore, the use of bayonet couplings in various handheld appliances was
`
`disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0265022 (“Maclaine”)
`
`(Ex. 1007) and U.S. Patent No. 6,161,244 (“Jeannet”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`29. As explained in detail below, each of the Challenged Claims of the ’660
`
`patent is anticipated by Hoblingre or Mouhot and/or rendered obvious by Hoblingre
`
`or Mouhot in view of Maclaine and Jeannet. The Board should institute inter partes
`
`review to invalidate the Challenged Claims of this patent, which never should have
`
`issued.
`
`13
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 19 of 139
`
`

`

`30. As explained in detail below, the sole alleged improvement claimed in
`
`the ’660 Patent—a bayonet fastener having curved slots—was well-known and
`
`explicitly disclosed decades prior to the earliest possible priority date of the ’660
`
`Patent by at least Hoblingre or Mouhot and/or rendered obvious by Hoblingre or
`
`Mouhot in view of Maclaine and Jeannet.
`
`Ex. 1001, cl. 1.
`
`Prosecution History
`C.
`31. Below is my understanding of the relevant prosecution history of the
`
`’660 Patent.
`
`32. The application that issued as the ’660 Patent—Application No.
`
`15/689,705 (“the ’705 application”)—was filed August 27, 2017 and purports to
`
`claim priority from to GB Application No. 1614825 filed on September 1, 2016. Ex.
`
`1002, 357. The independent claims as originally filed did not recite the sole alleged
`
`improvement—curved slots.
`
`33. After a restriction requirement by the Examiner, the Applicant elected
`
`originally-filed claim 1 to an appliance. Ex. 1002, 221-223.
`
`34. On September 18, 2020, the Examiner issued a 102 rejection over
`
`WO95/20339 (“Vasey”), a referenced cited by the Applicant, and indicated that
`
`claims 20-23 and 34-38 recited allowable subject matter including a chamfer feature
`
`as recited in the unelected species. Ex. 1002, 192-198.
`
`14
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 20 of 139
`
`

`

`35. On January 19, 2021 the Applicant amended independent claim 1 to
`
`recite “the actuator is moved from the first position towards the second position in a
`
`longitudinal direction of the body as the protrusion engages with the first slot” to
`
`distinguish the claims over Vasey. Ex. 1002, 186-190.
`
`36. On April 26, 2021, the Examiner allowed claims 1-25, 32-40 and issued
`
`a 102 rejection of other claims not challenged in this proceeding. Ex. 1002, 155-158.
`
`37.
`
`In response to amendments made to unchallenged claims, on September
`
`29, 2021, the Examiner withdrew his indication of allowability and rejected claims
`
`1-7, 9-23, 32-35, 39, and 40 over McCarthy U.S. Patent No. 3,280,439 (“McCarthy”)
`
`and indicated that dependent claim 8, reciting “wherein the body extends along a
`
`longitudinal axis and the first slot extends both radially round and axially along the
`
`body,” and dependent claim 24, reciting a “user operated button which engages with
`
`the actuator” recited allowable subject matter. Ex. 1002, 100-107.
`
`38.
`
`It was not until December 22, 2021, over four years after the U.S.
`
`application was filed that the Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include the
`
`allowable features of claim 8—the “the first slot extends both radially round and
`
`axially along the body.” Ex. 1002, 82-89. The Applicant also amended claim 24 to
`
`be drafted in independent form.
`
`39. On April 13, 2022, the Examiner withdrew his indication of
`
`allowability and issued a 102 rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, 19, 23-25, and 32-40
`
`15
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 21 of 139
`
`

`

`over U.S. Patent No. 3,955,064 (“Demetrio”), a reference that the Applicant had
`
`previously cited in an earlier communication with the Office during prosecution. Ex.
`
`1002, 64-70.
`
`40. On July 12, 2022, the Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite
`
`“the actuator is slidably moved from the first position towards the second position
`
`in a longitudinal direction of the body as the protrusion engages with the first slot”
`
`to distinguish the claims from Demetrio. Ex. 1002, 43-56.
`
`41.
`
`In response, on October 14, 2022, the Examiner issued a notice of
`
`allowance, Ex. 1002, 29-33, and the ’660 Patent issued on February 28, 2023.
`
`D. Effective Filing Date
`42. For purposes of my analysis I have assumed that the effective filing
`
`date of the ’660 patent is September 1, 2016, which is the filing date of GB
`
`Application No. 1614825, the foreign priority application.
`
`E. Challenged Claims
`I understand that Petitioners are challenging the validity of claims 1-9,
`43.
`
`15, 18, 23, 24, and 30-34 of the ’660 Patent in the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`to which this Declaration will be attached.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE INVALIDITY GROUNDS AND PRIOR ART
`Invalidity Grounds
`A.
`44. Based on my review and analysis of the materials cited herein, my
`
`opinions regarding the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art in the 2016
`
`16
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 22 of 139
`
`

`

`timeframe, and my training and experience, it is my opinion that the challenged
`
`claims of the ’660 Patent are invalid based on at least the following grounds:
`
`Claims
`1-9, 15, 23, 24,
`32
`1-9, 15, 18, 23,
`24, 30-32
`1-9, 15, 18, 23,
`24, 30-34
`1-9, 15, 23, 24,
`32
`1-9, 15, 18, 23,
`24, 30-32
`1-9, 15, 18, 23,
`24, 30-34
`
`Grounds
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`Statutory Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Prior Art
`Hoblingre
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Hoblingre and Maclaine
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Hoblingre, Maclaine, and
`Jeannet
`Mouhot
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Mouhot and Maclaine
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Mouhot, Maclaine, and
`Jeannet
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 4,943,182 (“Hoblingre”) (Exhibit 1004)
` U.S. Patent No. 4,943,182 (“Hoblingre”), titled “Rapid fastener of the
`45.
`
`bayonet type,” issued on July 24, 1990. I understand that Hoblingre therefore
`
`qualifies as prior art to the ’660 Patent under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Hoblingre
`
`was not cited or discussed during prosecution of the ’660 Patent.
`
`46. As explained in more detail in the specific Grounds of Invalidity
`
`analyzed below, it is my opinion that Hoblingre discloses or teaches every element
`
`of the claimed invention of the ’660 Patent as claimed in claim 1. Hoblingre discloses
`
`a “rapid fastener of the bayonet type,” Ex. 1004, Title, for connecting “in the axial
`
`17
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 23 of 139
`
`

`

`direction and in rotation of two elements.” Ex. 1004, Abstract. The first element
`
`comprises a “socket” having “at least one helical slot” and an “axially slidable” ring
`
`that includes “longitudinal slot[s]” that are “laterally offset relative to the entrance”
`
`of the helical slot. Ex. 1004, Abstract. The ring is “biased by a spring” “toward the
`
`entrance of the socket.” Ex. 1004, Abstract. The second element comprises a “stem”
`
`with a “driving pin” that, “in entering the helical slot, urges back the ring but is
`
`guided under the action of the spring” and the edges of the slots in the ring “toward
`
`the inner end of the helical slot” to create a secure connection. Ex. 1004, Abstract.
`
`18
`
`SharkNinja Ex. 1003
`SharkNinja et al. v. Dyson Technology Limited,
`IPR2023-01323
` Page 24 of 139
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1004, FIGS. 1 (top, excerpt), 2 (bottom).
`
`47. Having reviewed Ho