` Design Research Engineering
`
`
`46475 DeSoto Court
`
`
`Novi, MI 48377
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Eric S. Winkel,
`Ph.D., P.E. In Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response -
`Case No. IPR2024-00098
`Bazooka Farmstar, LLC v. Nuhn Industries, Ltd.
`DRE Project Number: EW-241008
`
`
`Report Prepared For:
`Tom Leach
`Merchant & Gould, P.C.
`150 South Fifth St.
`Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`Submitted by:
`
`
`Eric S. Winkel, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI, CVFI
`Senior Consultant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`November 6, 2024
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 1 of 240
`
`

`

`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`BAZOOKA-FARMSTAR, LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`- vs. -
`
`NUHN INDUSTRIES LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________
`
`Case No: IPR2024-00098
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708
`
`_________________________
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF ERIC S. WINKEL, PH.D., P.E.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,541,708
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 2 of 240
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Invalidity by Anticipation, Obviousness, and Interpreting Claims
`Before the Patent Office ........................................................................ 2
`Secondary Considerations ..................................................................... 2
`B.
`C. Materials Considered ............................................................................. 5
`IV. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 6
`V.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13
`A.
`“Between” ........................................................................................... 13
`i.
`Nuhn’s ’708 Patent Figures. ..................................................... 14
`ii.
`Nuhn’s ’835 Patent Substitute Claims. ..................................... 16
`iii. Nuhn’s Pending Continuation Application. .............................. 23
`iv.
`Cited References in the ’708 Patent. ......................................... 24
`“Liquid Manure Pump” ....................................................................... 31
`i.
`Nuhn and Its Expert Admit that “Liquid Manure” Includes
`Low Solid Content Forms of Manure. ..................................... 32
`ii. Mr. Prairie’s Arguments Concerning Liquid Manure Are
`Wrong. ....................................................................................... 34
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIM 23 IS ANTICIPATED BY BENNETT-II ................. 38
`A.
`Independent Claim 23 ......................................................................... 39
`i.
`Bennett-II Discloses Wheels. .................................................... 40
`ii.
`Bennett-II Discloses Buoyant Elements Between a First
`Front Wheel and a First Rear Wheel and a Second Buoyant
`Element Between a Second Front Wheel and a Second Rear
`Wheel.” ..................................................................................... 41
`iii. Bennett-II Discloses Foam Filled Buoyant Chambers. ............ 42
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 3 of 240
`
`

`

`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1, 8-18, 21-28, AND 35-38 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY TRUXOR IN VIEW OF YOON OR CARRIER ................. 44
`A.
`Truxor Renders Obvious Buoyant Elements Positioned Between
`the Front Wheel and Rear Wheel on Each Side of the Vehicle. ......... 45
`Truxor Discloses a Dredging Pump Capable of Pumping Liquid
`Manure. ................................................................................................ 50
`The Combination of Truxor and Yoon or Carrier Discloses the
`Remote-Control Limitations of the Claims. A POSA Would Have
`Been Motivated to Combine Truxor and Carrier or Yoon with a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success. ................................................... 59
`Truxor Discloses the Claimed Combination of Elements. .................. 67
`D.
`Dependent Claims 8-16, 18, 22, 24-28, and 35-38. ............................ 68
`E.
`IX. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 8-18, 21-28, AND 35-38 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY SENWATEC IN VIEW OF YOON OR CARRIER ............ 69
`A.
`SenwaTec Renders Obvious Buoyant Elements Positioned
`Between the Front Wheel and Rear Wheel on Each Side of the
`Vehicle. ................................................................................................ 70
`SenwaTec Discloses a Dredging Pump Capable of Pumping
`Liquid Manure. .................................................................................... 76
`A POSA Would Have Had a Motivation to Combine SenwaTec
`with Yoon or Carrier with a Reasonable Expectation of Success. ..... 87
`SenwaTec Discloses the Claimed Combination of Elements. ............ 93
`D.
`Dependent Claims 8-16, 18, 22, 24-28, and 35-38.. ........................... 94
`E.
`X. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 17-18, 23-26, AND 35-38 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY THE COMBINATION OF PUCK AND BRYHAM .......... 96
`A.
`The Combination of Puck and Bryham Discloses Buoyant
`Elements Positioned Between the Front Wheel and Rear Wheel on
`Each Side of the Vehicle. .................................................................... 96
`The Combination of Puck and Bryham Discloses a Power Source
`Configured to Provide Power to Both the Ground Engaging
`Propulsion Structure and the Liquid Manure Pump. .........................102
`The Combination of Puck and Bryham Discloses Remote Control
`Configured to Control the Ground Engaging Means. .......................108
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 4 of 240
`
`

`

`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Combination of Puck and Bryham Discloses a Vehicle
`Wherein Each Wheel is Powered by Its Own Variable Speed
`Hydraulic Motor. ...............................................................................113
`A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Puck and
`Bryham. .............................................................................................117
`A POSA Would Have Had a Reasonable Expectation of Success
`in Combining Bryham with Puck. .....................................................125
`G. Dependent Claims 18, 24-26, and 35-38. ..........................................136
`XI. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 17-18, 23-26, AND 35-38 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY THE COMBINATION OF PUCK AND BRYHAM
`AND BENNETT-II .....................................................................................136
`A.
`The Combination of Puck, Bryham, and Bennett-II Discloses
`Buoyant Elements Positioned Between the Front Wheel and Rear
`Wheel on Each Side of the Vehicle. ..................................................138
`The Combination of Puck, Bryham, and Bennett-II Disclose a
`Power Source Configured to Provide Power to Both the Ground
`Engaging Propulsion Structure and the Fluid Pump. ........................138
`The Combination of Puck, Bryham, and Bennett-II Disclose all
`the Remote Control Limitations. .......................................................139
`POSA Would Have Had a Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining Puck, Bryham, and Bennett-II. .......................................141
`Dependent Claims 18, 24-26, and 35-38. ..........................................142
`E.
`XII. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 1-38 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE
`COMBINATION OF TRUXOR, YOON OR CARRIER, AND
`MANURE-MANAGER ..............................................................................143
`A. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Truxor, Yoon
`or Carrier, and Manure-Manager. .....................................................143
`A POSA Would Have Had a Reasonable Expectation of Success
`in Combining Truxor, Yoon or Carrier, and Manure-Manager. .......147
`Dependent Claims 2-16, 18-20, 22, and 24-38. ................................151
`C.
`XIII. GROUND 7: CLAIMS 1-38 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE
`COMBINATION OF SENWATEC, YOON OR CARRIER, AND
`MANURE-MANAGER ..............................................................................155
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 5 of 240
`
`

`

`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`
`
`B.
`
`A. A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine SenwaTec,
`Yoon or Carrier, and Manure-Manager. ...........................................155
`A POSA Would Have Had a Reasonable Expectation of Success
`in Combining SenwaTec, Yoon or Carrier, and Manure-Manager. .156
`Dependent Claims 2-16, 18-20, 22, and 24-38. ................................158
`C.
`XIV. GROUND 8: CLAIMS 1-38 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE
`COMBINATION OF PUCK AND BRYHAM, (ALONE OR IN VIEW
`OF BENNETT-II), AND MANURE-MANAGER .....................................160
`XV. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUNESS ..............162
`A.
`The Challenged Claims Lack Nexus to Nuhn’s Secondary
`Considerations. ..................................................................................162
`i.
`Nuhn’s Gen 1 Lagoon Crawler (MY2014-MY2017) .............165
`ii.
`Nuhn’s Gen 2 Lagoon Crawler (My2018) ..............................176
`iii. Nuhn’s Gen 3 Lagoon Crawler (My2020-My2022) ...............190
`iv. Nuhn’s Crawler X ...................................................................205
`Nuhn’s Long Felt Unsolved Need Was Already Solved. .................222
`Nuhn’s Amphibious Vehicle Provided Only Expected Results. ......224
`The Lagoon Crawler Implemented Only Known Features. ..............226
`Bazooka’s Wolverine Product Is not a Copy of Nuhn’s Lagoon
`Crawler. .............................................................................................226
`XVI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................227
`APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................229
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 6 of 240
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`Bailey
`
`
`Bazooka or Petitioner
`
`Bennett
`
`Bennett-II
`
`Bradley
`
`Bryham
`
`Carrier
`
`Carrier-II
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`CRU
`
`IPR
`
`Knowles
`
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Definition
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2010/0144220
`(EX2084)
`
`Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2014/0288763
`(EX1016)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2021/0331752
`(EX1017)
`
`Great Britain Patent No. 2,366,218
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,314,395
`(EX1015)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2012/0185129
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,478,817
`
`Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,358,425
`
`The USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,256,692
`(EX1086)
`
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 7 of 240
`
`

`

`
`
`Abbreviation
`Lyseng
`
`Melnikov
`
`Manure-Manager
`
`
`Manure-Manager II
`
`Nuhn Pump
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`POSA
`
`Puck
`
`PTAB
`
`Respondent
`
`Tews
`
`
`The ’125 Application
`
`The ’133 Provisional
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`Definition
`Ron Lyseng, Float your boat in a slurry moat,
`The Western Producer (August 29, 2013).
`
`Russian Patent Application No. 2012137830/11
`(EX1023-EX1024)
`
`MANURE MANAGER, Jan./Feb. 2011
`(EX1112)
`
`MANURE MANAGER, July/Aug. 2011
`(EX1113)
`
`Patent Owner’s Pump Disclosed in Manure-
`Manager
`(EX1112, 27).
`
`Nuhn Industries Ltd.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2014/0112093
`(EX1014)
`
`U.S. Patent Trials and Appeals Board
`
`Patent Owner or Nuhn Industries Ltd.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,118,138
`(EX1093)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 17/590,125
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`61/805,133
`
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 8 of 240
`
`

`

`
`
`Abbreviation
`The ’224 Patent
`
`The ’422 Patent
`
`The ’425 Patent
`
`The ’425 Prosecution
`
`The ’425 Reexamination
`
`The ’425 Reexamination
`Request
`
`The ’557 Patent
`
`The ’557 Reexamination
`
`The ’557 Reexamination
`Request
`
`The ’598 Provisional
`
`The ’636 Patent
`
`The ’638 Patent
`
`The ’708 Patent
`
`The ’758 Patent
`
`The ’789 PCT
`
`The ’835 Patent
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`Definition
`U.S. Patent No. 11,448,224
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,710,422
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,358,425
`
`The Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 11,358,425
`
`The Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`11,358,425
`
`The Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,358,425
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,974,557
`
`The Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`10,974,557
`
`The Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,974,557
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`61/867,598
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,694,636
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,124,638
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,541,708
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,944,758
`
`PCT Application No. PCT/CA2014/050,789
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,491,835
`
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 9 of 240
`
`

`

`Abbreviation
`The ’015 Litigation
`
`Truxor
`
`Truxor-II
`
`Truxor-III
`
`Truxor-IV
`
`SenwaTec
`
`Sundstrom
`
`USPTO
`
`Yoon
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`Definition
`United States District Court for the Southern
`District of Iowa, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-
`00015-SMR.
`
`DOROTEA MEKANISKA AB, TRUXOR
`AMPHIBIAN TOOL CARRIER
`(EX1006)
`
`DOROTEA MEKANISKA AB, TRUXOR
`AMPHIBIAN TOOL CARRIER (2013)
`(EX1024)
`
`DOROTEA MEKANISKA AB, TRUXOR
`AMPHIBIAN TOOL CARRIER (2013)
`(EX1025)
`
`DOROTEA MEKANISKA AB, TRUXOR
`AMPHIBIAN TOOL CARRIER
`(EX1026)
`
`SENWATEC-SCHRÖER UMWELT-&
`GEWÄSSERTECHNOLOGIE GMBH & CO. KG,
`LIGHT AMPHIBIOUS BOAT/VEHICLE “AMPHI-
`KING®” SWT--AB380
`(EX1012)
`
`The Sundstrom Stir Dredge
`(Shown and described in EX1110, EX1114,
`EX1115, and EX1118, 10:09-12:03)
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`KR Publication No. 20130016490
`(EX1010-EX1011)
`
`
`viii
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 10 of 240
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by Merchant & Gould P.C. to serve as an
`1.
`
`independent expert on behalf of Bazooka in the above-referenced matter to provide
`
`my technical review, analysis, and opinions concerning the validity of claims 1-38
`
`of the ’708 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`I previously executed a declaration relating to the validity of the ’708
`
`Patent claims, which I understand was filed with Bazooka’s petition for inter partes
`
`review of the ’708 Patent as EX1004. I am providing this declaration as a supplement
`
`to my prior declaration to address the arguments made by Nuhn and Mr. Prairie in
`
`conjunction with Nuhn’s Patent Owner Response. See Paper 21 and EX2099.
`
`3.
`
`I routinely take continuing education courses to expand on my
`
`knowledge base and to stay current with new developments in mechanical and
`
`marine engineering fields. A list of such continuing education and professional
`
`development activities is provided in an updated version of my curriculum vitae.
`
`EX1116. In addition, I have authored more than 30 technical publications in
`
`technical journals and conference symposia on topics including fluid mechanics,
`
`acoustics, dynamics and vibrations, and impact/injury biomechanics. A list of
`
`technical publications is provided in my updated curriculum vitae. My updated
`
`curriculum vitae also contains a list of all other cases in which, during the previous
`
`4 years, I testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 11 of 240
`
`

`

`4. My efforts on this case continue to be billed at a rate of $250 per hour,
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`
`
`with reimbursement for expenses incurred. I have no financial interest in the dispute
`
`between Bazooka and Nuhn, and my compensation is not contingent upon the
`
`outcome of this IPR.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`A summary of my opinions regarding the validity of claims 1-38 of
`5.
`
`the ’708 Patent is provided in my previous declaration. EX1004, ¶¶12-20. My
`
`opinions on these topics remain unchanged since the filing of that declaration.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I am not an attorney. My understanding of patent law and the applicable
`6.
`
`legal principles and standards comes from explanations provided to me by counsel.
`
`A.
`
`Invalidity by Anticipation, Obviousness, and Interpreting Claims
`Before the Patent Office
`7. My prior declaration, executed on November 3, 2023, outlines my
`
`understanding of various aspects of patent law, including invalidity by anticipation,
`
`obviousness, and interpreting claims before the USPTO. EX1004, Section III.A-C.
`
`B.
`8.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`I understand that there are a number of secondary considerations that
`
`may serve as objective indicia of non-obviousness. I understand that secondary
`
`considerations are weighed against any prima facie showings of obviousness.
`
`Therefore, I understand that the mere presence of secondary considerations is not
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 12 of 240
`
`

`

`
`enough to overcome a strong showing of obviousness unless the objective evidence
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`is sufficient to overcome the prima facie showing of obviousness.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations that may be used to support
`
`an argument of non-obviousness include: (1) whether the patent owner’s invention
`
`solved a long felt but unsolved need; (2) whether others have failed to successfully
`
`solve the problem solved by the patent owner’s invention; (3) the commercial
`
`success of products that embody the patent owner’s claims; (4) the presence of
`
`unexpected results; (5) praise of the invention by others in the same industry; and
`
`(6) copying of the invention.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that there must be concrete evidence of the presence of
`
`secondary considerations to serve as objective indicia of non-obviousness. I
`
`understand that the patent owner must present evidence that is more substantial than
`
`mere assertions that the considerations are present. Therefore, I understand that
`
`secondary considerations that lack substantial evidentiary support do not weigh in
`
`favor of the non-obviousness of a patent owner’s claims.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that, to serve as objective indicia of non-obviousness, there
`
`must be a nexus between the secondary considerations and the inventiveness of the
`
`claims. Therefore, I understand that the existence of secondary considerations due
`
`to reasons that are not related to the inventiveness of the patent owner’s claims will
`
`not indicate that the claims are non-obvious.
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 13 of 240
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I understand that a patentee is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`
`
`nexus between the asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim
`
`if the patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and that
`
`the product is the invention disclosed and claimed. Thus, I understand that
`
`presuming a nexus is appropriate when the patentee shows that the asserted objective
`
`evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features
`
`and is coextensive with them. On the other hand, I understand that when the product
`
`that is commercially successful is not coextensive with the patented invention the
`
`patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus. I understand that a patent claim is
`
`not coextensive with a product that includes a critical unclaimed feature that is
`
`claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the product’s functionality.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that when the patent owner’s claims are embodied in a
`
`product, it is indicative of non-obviousness if the product produces unexpected
`
`results. I also understand that what is unexpected for the sake of unexpected results
`
`is judged from the point of view of the POSA. Therefore, I understand that a POSA
`
`having a higher level of expertise in the field of endeavor would have a more
`
`rigorous standard for what results are unexpected compared to a POSA having less
`
`expertise in the field.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the copying by market competitors of a product that
`
`embodies the patent owner’s claims is a secondary consideration that may serve as
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 14 of 240
`
`

`

`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness. I understand that copying is only equivocal
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`evidence of non-obviousness when there are no other compelling indicia of non-
`
`obviousness present. Thus, solely copying would not suffice as strong evidence of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim-embodying product’s fulfillment of a long felt
`
`but unsolved need in the field of endeavor is a secondary consideration that may
`
`serve as objective indicia of non-obviousness for the claims. Alternatively, I
`
`understand that a product that fulfills a need that has already been solved by the prior
`
`art is not indicative of non-obviousness.
`
`C. Materials Considered
`In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I have relied on
`16.
`
`my own knowledge, experience, and expertise, as well as the knowledge of a POSA
`
`in the relevant timeframe. In addition, I have reviewed and relied upon all documents
`
`and materials referenced in my declarations submitted in conjunction with IPR Nos.
`
`IPR2023-01161; IPR2024-00004; and IPR2024-00098 and Reexamination Nos.
`
`90/019,428; 90/019,290; 90/019,302; and 90/019,482. I have also reviewed and
`
`considered the declarations of Douglas Prairie submitted in conjunction with each
`
`of these IPRs, as well as the additional materials provided in Appendix A.
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 15 of 240
`
`

`

`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`17. The ’708 Patent describes that as-excreted “[m]anure produced during
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`animal husbandry … is transferred by washing [with water] to a pit or lagoon for
`
`storage,” (EX1001, 1:35-38) after which the diluted “[l]iquid manure … [is]
`
`irrigate[d] onto farm land for disposal.” EX1032, 1:14-17 (emphasis added)
`
`(incorporated-by-reference).
`
`18. When stored in a lagoon, liquid manure stratifies into layers including
`
`a bottom sludge layer 130 with settled solids (brown, below), a watery liquid
`
`supernatant layer 128 (orange) above the sludge layer, and occasionally, a crust 126
`
`of floating fibrous material (yellow). EX1014, ¶¶[0003]-[0004], [0034], FIG. 4.
`
`Before irrigating the lagoon onto farmland for fertilizer, lagoons may be agitated by
`
`pumping the watery liquid supernatant layer and shooting it against the nutrient rich
`
`sludge layer and crust so that the nutrients at the bottom of the lagoon are moved
`
`into suspension within the watery upper supernatant layer. Id., ¶[0004]. As shown
`
`by Puck and recognized by others, POSAs understood that pumping this watery
`
`supernatant layer was more efficient than pumping the sludge at the bottom of the
`
`lagoon. See, e.g., id., FIG. 4; EX1038, 5 (“[O]perators float the intake 18 to 24 inches
`
`below the surface and do not use an intake strainer (Figure 9). This keeps the intake
`
`free of floating debris, and above the sludge layer at the bottom of the lagoon.”). At
`
`that point, conventional farmland irrigation (water pumping) equipment may be used
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 16 of 240
`
`

`

`
`to pump the nutrient-rich liquid manure mixture onto farmland for fertilization.
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`EX1032, 1:14-17; EX1037, 64; EX1061, 15; EX1063, 88; EX1099, ¶7. Using this
`
`irrigation equipment, liquid manure is transferred “at a much faster rate than
`
`hauling,” making the application process more efficient. EX1061, 15.
`
`
`
`EX1014, FIG. 4 (annotated).
`
`
`19.
`
`It is with this context that a POSA, having a familiarity with liquid
`
`manure, would have understood the pumping requirements of the vehicle of the ’708
`
`Patent. A POSA would have understood that an agitated liquid manure lagoon could
`
`have, and likely would have, a total solids content of less than about 5% because
`
`“[m]anure that has a TS concentration of less than 5 percent … can be irrigated ….
`
`for land application of liquids from lagoons.” EX1060, 81. And POSAs would have
`
`understood that, pre-agitation, the supernatant layer has a lower solids content than
`
`the post-agitation liquid manure mixture, because the solids in the sludge and crust
`
`portions of the lagoon would not yet be mixed within the watery supernatant layer.
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 17 of 240
`
`

`

`
`POSAs would have understood that, since conventional irrigation pumps could
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`pump 5% total solid post-agitation mixtures onto farm fields, such pumps would also
`
`pump the near water-like consistency of pre-agitation supernatant to agitate the
`
`lagoon into a homogeneous mixture.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that Nuhn and Mr. Prairie have proposed an alternative
`20.
`
`definition for a POSA as “a livestock farmer or commercial manure applicator
`
`familiar with manure agitation equipment or an engineer with at least 2 years of
`
`experience designing agricultural equipment and knowledge of manure agitation
`
`equipment.” Paper 20 at 7; EX2004, ¶64.
`
`21. Along with his own definition, Mr. Prairie offers two criticisms
`
`(EX2099, ¶¶59-60) of my previously provided POSA definition. EX1004, ¶60. First,
`
`Mr. Prairie alleges that my definition excludes those most familiar with manure
`
`agitation equipment. EX2099, ¶59. Second, Mr. Prairie criticizes my definition as
`
`being overly generic and made without reference or regard to the sole application
`
`for the claimed vehicle – manure lagoon agitation/pumping. Id., ¶60. These
`
`criticisms miss the mark. As explained in more detail below, livestock farmers and
`
`manure applicators would not possess the requisite expertise on a variety of topics
`
`pertinent to a remotely controlled amphibious pumping vehicle. In addition, Mr.
`
`Prairie is incorrect in his suggestion that my POSA definition is made without regard
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 18 of 240
`
`

`

`
`to “the sole application for the claimed vehicle.” Id. Contrary to his assertions, as
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`explained more below, my definition is based on the technical fields and technical
`
`training and background of a technical expert on the various topics pertinent to a
`
`remotely controlled amphibious pumping vehicle.
`
`22. As support for his POSA definition, Mr. Prairie states that the ’708
`
`Patent has been classified as being directed to “amphibious vehicles specially
`
`adapted for particular purposes” and “manure” handling. EX2099, ¶62. Mr. Prairie
`
`also opines that the claimed vehicle has no “utility in doing anything other than
`
`operating in manure lagoons.” Id., ¶63. Mr. Prairie is wrong.
`
`23. As the PTAB correctly found in its institution decision, the ’708 Patent
`
`claims are not limited to livestock farmer or commercial manure applicators. Paper
`
`10 at 9. Instead, the summary of the invention and preamble of the claims are
`
`directed to a general “amphibious pumping vehicle.” EX1001, 1:58-59; 8:39. While
`
`the ’708 Patent does provide some discussion of liquid manure pumping, it also
`
`discusses various other uses for the vehicle and pump, such as driving the vehicle on
`
`land across “wet or muddy conditions” and “pumping fluid from rivers, ponds, lakes,
`
`[and]
`
`rain water storage
`
`reservoirs.” EX1001, 2:23-26; EX1032, 4:3-8
`
`(incorporated-by-reference).
`
`24. Mr. Prairie’s POSA definition is fundamentally flawed on multiple
`
`levels. First, Mr. Prairie opines that a POSA may be “a livestock farmer or
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 19 of 240
`
`

`

`
`commercial manure applicator familiar with manure agitation equipment.”
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`EX2099, ¶64. Aside from utilizing various implements and equipment, experience
`
`as a livestock farmer or a commercial manure applicator would not include any
`
`training or education related to engineering design. Simply because a farmer or
`
`applicator has experience using equipment does not necessarily make them
`
`knowledgeable about the various engineering and design principles. This is akin to
`
`suggesting that a commercial truck driver would be a POSA for engineering design
`
`topics for heavy trucks because of their experience utilizing and driving trucks.
`
`However, no amount of field use experience provides a commercial truck driver with
`
`the knowledge and expertise on engineering topics such as diesel engine
`
`performance, power transmission systems, electrical controls, etc., on tractor-trailer
`
`systems. Mr. Prairie is wrong because there is no basis for asserting that farmers and
`
`manure applicators have specific knowledge and expertise pertinent to designing
`
`remote-control amphibious pumping vehicles.
`
`25. While a livestock farmer or manure applicator may certainly be capable
`
`of servicing or performing maintenance on farming equipment, as Mr. Prairie
`
`alleges, a farmer is not equipped to design a multi-functional amphibious vehicle
`
`like the one described in the ’708 Patent. Rather, this is a task that would be
`
`performed by an engineer. Addressing marine propulsion, marine hydrodynamics,
`
`and stability; selecting and designing hydraulic and mechanical systems for power
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 20 of 240
`
`

`

`
`transmission systems; and implementing remote control and software systems are
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`activities that engineers perform on a regular basis. They are not activities ordinarily
`
`performed by livestock farmers or manure applicators.
`
`26. Second, Mr. Prairie opines that a POSA could alternatively be “an
`
`engineer with at least 2 years of experience designing agricultural equipment and
`
`knowledge of manure agitation equipment.” Id. Mr. Prairie’s alternative definition
`
`is also incorrect. Agricultural equipment is a broad category and there are many
`
`different types of agricultural products and equipment, the overwhelming majority
`
`of which differ significantly from remote-control amphibious pumping vehicles.
`
`Importantly, Mr. Prairie has not shown, nor has he even attempted to show, how two
`
`years’ experience designing “agricultural equipment” would correlate to the design
`
`of remote-control amphibious pumping vehicles. There are many types of
`
`agricultural equipment and, to my knowledge, very few incorporate technologies for
`
`remote control of amphibious vehicles that need to be propelled and controlled on
`
`both land and water.
`
`27. Mr. Prairie has not provided any technical support that his hypothetical
`
`POSA with two years’ experience designing agricultural equipment would have
`
`encountered remote control systems, let alone remote-control systems for
`
`amphibious vehicles and/or pump systems. Mr. Prairie has not demonstrated that his
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1079
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 21 of 240
`
`

`

`
`hypothetical POSA would have any experience or training in marine propulsion
`
`Declaration of Eric S. Winkel
`U.S. Patent 11,541,708
`
`systems, hydrostatics/stability, or hydrodynamics of floating vessels.
`
`28. Furthermore, as the PTAB acknowledges, Petitioner’s definition of a
`
`POSA properly includes