throbber

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DBR FINANCE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`RUGGED CROSS HUNTING BLINDS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent 11,399,535
`Filing Date: June 11, 2021
`Issue Date: August 2, 2022
`Title: CAMOUFLAGE MATERIAL, FOR A HUNTING BLIND
`
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2024-00291
`________________
`
`Declaration of Michael Ellison, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 101
`
`
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Statement of Declarant .......................................................................... 3
`
`B. Materials Considered ............................................................................. 3
`
`C.
`
`Experience and Qualifications .............................................................. 4
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS ........................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................... 6
`
`The Prior Art ......................................................................................... 7
`
`Claim Construction Standard ................................................................ 7
`
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................14
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’535 PATENT ..........................................................22
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ......................................................................25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,375,968 B2 (Whybrew)(Ex.1002) .........................25
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,709,993 (Strength) (Ex.1003) ................................27
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,137,399 (Ransom)(Ex.1004) ..................................31
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,385,165 (Hazinski)(Ex.1005) .................................33
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................................34
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ...................................35
`
`Ground A: Obviousness of claims 1-5, 8-13 and 15-18 over
`Whybrew in view of Strength .............................................................35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...............................................................35
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ..................................................................61
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ..................................................................62
`
`Dependent Claim 4 ..................................................................63
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ..................................................................64
`
`Dependent Claim 8 ..................................................................69
`
`Page 2 of 101
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`7.(cid:1)
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`Dependent Claim 9 ..................................................................70(cid:1)
`
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................71(cid:1)
`
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................71(cid:1)
`
`10.(cid:1) Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................76(cid:1)
`
`11.(cid:1) Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................77(cid:1)
`
`12.(cid:1) Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................79(cid:1)
`
`13.(cid:1) Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................81(cid:1)
`
`14.(cid:1) Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................83(cid:1)
`
`15.(cid:1) Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................85(cid:1)
`
`(cid:1)
`
`Ground B: Obviousness of claims 6-7 and 19 over Whybrew in
`view of Strength and Ransom .............................................................87(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ..................................................................87(cid:1)
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ..................................................................90(cid:1)
`
`Independent Claim 19 .............................................................90(cid:1)
`
`Ground C: Obviousness of claim 14 over Whybrew in view of Strength
`and Hazinski ........................................................................................92(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................92(cid:1)
`
`CONCLUDING STATEMENT ....................................................................94(cid:1)
`
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX .....................................................................96(cid:1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`Page 3 of 101
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Statement of Declarant
`
`I have been engaged by DBR FINANCE, INC. (DBR), an Ohio corporation to
`
`1)
`
`opine on the patentability of U.S. Patent No. US 11,399,535 B2 (the `535 Patent),
`
`entitled CAMOUFLAGE MATERIAL FOR A HUNTING BLIND. My opinions
`
`are set forth herein. I submit this Declaration on behalf of DBR in connection with
`
`its request for inter partes review of the `535 Patent.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`2) The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education and
`
`experience as set forth below beginning in paragraph 14.
`
`3)
`
`I have reviewed various publications from the prior art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the `535 Patent. These publications, along with other materials I have
`
`reviewed, include those listed below:
`
`4) U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 (Seaton)(Ex. 1001).
`
`5) U.S. Patent No. 8,375,968 (Whybrew)(Ex. 1002).
`
`6) U.S. Patent No. 6,709,993 (Strength)(Ex. 1003).
`
`7) U.S. Patent No. 7,137,399 (Ransom)(Ex. 1004).
`
`8) U.S. Patent No. 5,385,165 (Huzinski)(Ex. 1005).
`
`9) File wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 (Ex.1006)
`
`
`Page 4 of 101
`
`- 3 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`10) Dictionary of Fiber and Textile Technology, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, 1990
`
`(Ex. 1008).
`
`11) Textile Science, Kathryn L Hatch, West Publishing, 1993 (Ex. 1009).
`
`12) Pitman, Donald, Many Uses of PVC Coated Polyester Yarns, J Coated Fabrics, vol
`
`9, Oct 1979, p. 138 (Ex. 1010).
`
`13) Maureen M Grasso, Effect of Textile Properties on the Bidirectional Solar-Optical
`
`Properties of Shading Fabrics, Textile Research Journal, 62(5), 247-257, May 1992
`
`(Ex. 1011).
`
`C. Experience and Qualifications
`
`14) I joined the faculty of the School of Textiles at Clemson University in 1984. (The
`
`name of that unit is now the Department of Materials Science and Engineering.)
`
`My initial teaching responsibilities included an overview course of textile
`
`fundamentals, which I taught for several semesters, and an undergraduate course in
`
`fiber science. I also taught graduate courses in fiber physics and fiber formation
`
`during my tenure at Clemson.
`
`15) I am now Professor Emeritus in the Department of Materials Science and
`
`Engineering in the College of Engineering, Computing, and Applied Sciences at
`
`Clemson. I served as a professor at Clemson from 1984 through 2014, at which
`
`time I retired from active teaching and research. Since my retirement in 2014, I
`
`have been active in the Emeritus College serving on several committees.
`
`
`Page 5 of 101
`
`- 4 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`16) Prior to joining the faculty at Clemson, I received two degrees in physics from the
`
`University of California, Davis campus (UCD): BS (1971) and MA (1973). I was
`
`awarded a PhD in polymer fiber physics by UCD in 1982. Prior to that, I received
`
`an AA degree in engineering from Sierra College (California) in 1967.
`
`17) I was a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the Physics Department at UCD, 1971 –
`
`1973. From 1982 – 1983 I was a Lecturer in the Division of Textiles and Clothing
`
`(UCD). Overlaying these appointments, from 1975 – 1984, I was a Staff Research
`
`Associate in the Division of Textiles and Clothing (UCD).
`
`18) After obtaining my physics masters, I was a Lecturer, Physics and Mathematics
`
`Departments from 1973 – 1974 at California State University, Chico. During my
`
`time at UCD, I was a part time Instructor in the Physics Department at Diablo
`
`Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA 1982 – 1983.
`
`19) I have been an active member of The Fiber Society
`
`(https://www.thefibersociety.org/), an organization regarding research related to
`
`the science and engineering of fibers and fibrous materials, serving as the Society
`
`Secretary and attending and presenting at global conferences.
`
`20) I am a member of the Materials Research Society, an organization of materials
`
`researchers worldwide that promotes communication for the advancement of
`
`interdisciplinary materials research and technology. I sponsored graduate student
`
`presentations at those meetings. I also am a member of the American Physical
`
`
`Page 6 of 101
`
`- 5 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`Society and American Chemical Society. My presentations have predominantly
`
`related to fiber science or specialized fabrics.
`
`
`
`II.
`
` LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS
`
`21) I understand that in writing this Declaration I am obliged to follow existing
`
`applicable law. I have therefore been asked to apply the following legal principles
`
`to my analysis, and I have done so.
`
`A. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`22) I understand that my assessment of the claims of prior art patents must be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood by
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the patent filing,
`
`reading the prior art patents in light of the specifications and file history of those
`
`patents. For this Petition, I understand that a PHOSITA would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in physics, mechanical engineering, textile engineering, or a
`
`similar discipline, or at least two years of design experience in the field of hunting
`
`blinds.
`
`23) I am informed and understand that various factors can be considered in
`
`determining a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). I am informed
`
`and understand that those factors include: (1) the educational level of the
`
`individual; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art, (3) prior art solutions to
`
`
`Page 7 of 101
`
`- 6 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`those problems, (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made, (5)
`
`sophistication of the technology, and (6) education level of active workers in the
`
`field.
`
`24) My analysis and opinions regarding the claims of the `535 Patent have been based
`
`on the perspective of a PHOSITA as defined above. As described above and as
`
`shown in my CV, I have extensive experience in the field of textiles and materials.
`
`B. The Prior Art
`
`
`25) I understand that applicable patent law provides categories of information that
`
`constitute prior art that may be used to anticipate patent claims or to render them
`
`obvious. I understand that for a reference to qualify as prior art to a particular
`
`patent claim under the relevant law, that reference must have been made, known,
`
`used, published, or patented, or must have been the subject of a patent application
`
`by another person, before the priority date of the patent in question, and in this
`
`matter, must satisfy one of the standards of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`C. Claim Construction Standard
`
`
`26) In making this Declaration, I have been asked to review the terms in the `535
`
`Patent claims to determine what a PHOSITA would have understood those terms
`
`to have meant at the time of the alleged invention. In addition, I have been
`
`informed that, in an inter partes review proceeding, the claim terms under
`
`consideration are to be construed using the same claim construction standard used
`
`
`Page 8 of 101
`
`- 7 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. I further
`
`understand that under the Phillips standard, the claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a PHOSITA at the
`
`time of the invention, consistent with the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`My opinions regarding the meaning of claim terms of the `535 Patent are based on
`
`the construction of the claim terms using the Phillips standard in view of the
`
`specification and the prosecution history of the `535 Patent.
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`
`27) I understand that to be valid, a patent claim must be novel, and that a claim is
`
`invalid if it is anticipated by a single prior art reference. I further understand that a
`
`reference anticipates if it discloses each and every element of the claim and enables
`
`a PHOSITA to make and use the claimed invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`
`28) I also understand that even if a claim of a patent is not anticipated that claim is still
`
`invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at
`
`the time the invention was made.
`
`
`Page 9 of 101
`
`- 8 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`29) I understand further that the condition “at the time the invention was made” in an
`
`obviousness determination is imposed to rule out impermissible hindsight.
`
`Accordingly, permissible reasoning takes into account only knowledge which was
`
`within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
`
`made and does not include knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure in
`
`the patent under analysis. I also understand that an opining expert is required to
`
`analyze prior art from the perspective of a PHOSITA and may not simply provide
`
`his or her own personal conclusions.
`
`30) I also understand that an obviousness determination includes several factual
`
`inquiries, including: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3)
`
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) taking into
`
`consideration any secondary indicia (objective evidence) of non-obviousness.
`
`31) I also understand that such objective evidence of non-obviousness may include: (1)
`
`a long felt but unsolved need that was satisfied by the claimed invention; (2)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention; (3) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the claimed invention; (4) praise by experts of the claimed invention
`
`with factual support; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others for reasons
`
`related to the alleged non-obviousness of the claimed invention; (6) the failure of
`
`others; (7) the teaching away of others; (8) skepticism by experts; and (9) evidence
`
`
`Page 10 of 101
`
`- 9 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`that competitors in the marketplace have copied the invention instead of using the
`
`prior art. I also understand that in order to establish non-obviousness there must be
`
`a demonstrated relationship, or nexus, between any such secondary indicia and the
`
`claimed invention; i.e., there must be objective evidence of non-obviousness
`
`attributable to the claimed invention.
`
`32) I further understand that near simultaneous invention by two or more equally
`
`talented inventors working independently may or may not be an indication of
`
`obviousness when considered in light of all the circumstances.
`
`33) I understand that a conclusion of obviousness can be based on a combination of
`
`multiple prior art references. I understand that rationales that may support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`(B) Simply substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`(C) Using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in
`
`the same way;
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`Page 11 of 101
`
`- 10 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`(E) Using an obvious-to-try solution, i.e., choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F) Applying known work in one field of endeavor to yield variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(G) Applying some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference disclosures to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`34) I further understand that an analysis of obviousness should recognize that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives design trends.
`
`35) I also understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and if a
`
`PHOSITA would recognize the technique would improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, then using that technique would be obvious to a PHOSITA unless
`
`actual application of that technique is beyond his or her skill.
`
`36) I also understand that practical and common-sense considerations should guide an
`
`analysis of obviousness, because familiar items may have obvious uses beyond
`
`their primary purposes. I further understand that applying common sense does not
`
`require a specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. Rather, applying
`
`common sense requires a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory
`
`generalizations and false deductions.
`
`
`Page 12 of 101
`
`- 11 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`37) I also understand that, when addressing a problem, a PHOSITA will often be able
`
`to fit together the disclosures of multiple publications. In this regard, I understand
`
`that an analysis of obviousness may consider inferences and creative steps that a
`
`PHOSITA would normally employ.
`
`38) I also understand that a particular combination of prior art may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious for a PHOSITA to try that combination. For
`
`example, when there is a design need or a market pressure to solve a problem,
`
`and/or there exists a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success, a PHOSITA has good reason to pursue the
`
`known options within his or her technical grasp. I understand that if this leads to
`
`anticipated success, it is likely that the result is not of innovation but of ordinary
`
`skill and common sense.
`
`39) I also understand that a combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is presumed to be obvious when that combination does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. Work known in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`that work for use in either the same field or a different field, based on design
`
`incentives and other market forces. If a technique has been used to improve some
`
`device, and a PHOSITA can implement a predictable variation of that technique,
`
`then that variation is likely unpatentable.
`
`
`Page 13 of 101
`
`- 12 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`40) I further understand that to be proper for use in an analysis of obviousness, a
`
`reference must teach art that is analogous to the claimed invention. I also
`
`understand that under a correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the claimed invention can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`41) I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference, without the
`
`need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found
`
`explicitly or inherently in that single reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense or technical knowledge of a PHOSITA. For example, combining two
`
`embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent likely does not
`
`require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`42) I also understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if it merely involves
`
`simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
`
`43) I understand further that, in an analysis of obviousness, two items of prior art need
`
`not be like two puzzle pieces that must fit together perfectly. For example, a
`
`claimed invention may be found obvious if a PHOSITA would view rearrangement
`
`as an obvious matter of design choice.
`
`44) I also understand that an analysis of obviousness requires a comparison between
`
`the properly construed claim language and the prior art on a limitation-by-
`
`limitation basis.
`
`
`Page 14 of 101
`
`- 13 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`45) Textiles, broadly defined, is one of the technologies at issue. In addition, coating,
`
`printing, and structural frameworks are relevant. I provide here an introduction to
`
`these technologies.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`46) The term “solar shade” often refers to a type of window covering that is designed
`
`to block a certain amount of light (and related heat) from passing through the shade
`
`into an interior space. The protection afforded by such shade fabrics depends on
`
`the materials used, the openness of the fabric (aka cover factor), and the color of
`
`the fabric. Ex. 1011, p. 256.
`
`47) The “openness” (aka cover factor) of the fabric (i.e., the spaces between the yarns)
`
`makes it possible to see through the shade while also blocking a certain amount of
`
`light and heat. Depending on the relative light levels on the two sides of the shade,
`
`these shades can function as a one-way viewing privacy screen. The openness is
`
`given as a percentage, with a lower percentage number indicating a greater opacity.
`
`Ex. 1008, p. 36.
`
`48) More detail on the functionality of this type of fabric is described below after a
`
`discussion of the pertinent aspects of fabric design and production.
`
`
`Page 15 of 101
`
`- 14 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TEXTILES PRODUCTION AND STRUCTURES
`
`49) This section provides a limited overview of the basic “building blocks” of fabric,
`
`including production of fibers, yarns, and fabrics.
`
`50) FIBER: A fiber is a unit of matter, either natural or manufactured, that forms the
`
`basic element of fabrics. A fiber is normally characterized as having a length at
`
`least 100 times its diameter, which is generally quite small. The term fiber refers to
`
`units that can be manufactured into a yarn and then made into a fabric by various
`
`methods discussed below. Important fiber properties include elasticity, fineness
`
`(diameter), uniformity, durability, and luster (brightness).
`
`51) The type of material that makes up the fiber determines the property range of the
`
`fiber. Although many other types of polymers are available, the synthetic polymer
`
`types most often encountered in shading fabrics are polyester, nylon, and
`
`polyolefin. It was recognized in 1979 and perhaps earlier, that polyester,
`
`particularly when vinyl coated, is ideal in many respects for use in shading
`
`applications. Ex.1010. The vinyl coating makes the fabric quite durable, and
`
`polyester yarns give the fabrics excellent tensile and tear strength.
`
`52) Regardless of their material composition, synthetic fibers are manufactured using
`
`extrusion by forcing the material in liquid form through a spinneret (a plate with
`
`
`Page 16 of 101
`
`- 15 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`many tiny holes), which forms filaments, and then solidifying, stretching, and
`
`winding the filaments onto a tubular package. A spin finish solution is applied
`
`prior to stretching in order to reduce static. Ex.1009.
`
`53) YARN: A yarn consists of a continuous strand of staple fibers or filaments (the
`
`word fiber refers to pieces of a filament and derives from the natural fibers such as
`
`cotton) in a form suitable for constructing a textile fabric. Yarns can be spun yarns,
`
`from staple fibers, or filament yarns. The diameter of the yarn is referred to as
`
`fineness. Fineness can be measured indirectly for a yarn of known polymer density
`
`by measuring the mass per unit length, sometimes called Denier (g/9km) or Tex
`
`(g/km). With the known density, the cross-sectional area of the yarn can be
`
`determined. Yarns can be produced from a single type of fiber or a blend of fibers.
`
`Slashing is the application of a coating to the yarn, called the sizing, which is most
`
`often a starch or synthetic resin, and is done in order for the yarn to withstand the
`
`rigors of fabric production. Ex.1009.
`
`54) FABRIC: A fabric is a planar textile structure produced by interlacing yarns. The
`
`details relating to fabric construction, which include, among other things, the style,
`
`width, type of knit or weave, fabric count (yarns per inch in warp and fill), and
`
`overall weight (oz/sq yard) of the fabric, are as follows, based on the overarching
`
`type of fabric, (e.g., woven or knitted). Since in the present case only woven
`
`fabrics are cited, we limit our discussion to plain weaves. Ex.1009.
`
`
`Page 17 of 101
`
`- 16 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`55) WOVEN: A woven fabric consists of a system or pattern of intersecting or
`
`interlacing warp and fill yams. The yarns which run in the lengthwise direction of a
`
`woven fabric are wound individually on a large tube, the beam, and are referred to
`
`as the warp yarns (see discussion below on the elements of weaving machines).
`
`Filling yarns are inserted crosswise to the fabric. [Fig 1] There are several insertion
`
`methods in use. Ex.1009.
`
`FIGURE 1. Elements of generalized woven fabric (Ex.1009, p. 318)
`
`
`
`
`
`56) PLAIN WEAVE: For plain weaves, each filling yam passes successively over and
`
`under each warp yarn, alternating each row. [Fig 2]
`
`
`Page 18 of 101
`
`- 17 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`FIGURE 2. Plain weave (Ex.1009, p. 321)
`
`
`
`WEAVING MACHINE ELEMENTS
`
`57) Referring to the drawing in Figure 3, a basic loom can be seen to be made up of a
`
`warp beam containing the warp yarns, then harnesses containing the heddles (a
`
`heddle is a wire-like structure with a hole in the middle through which a warp yarn
`
`passes). The harnesses are followed by the reed (a comb-like structure that the
`
`warp yarns pass through), then an insertion method such as a shuttle containing a
`
`bobbin of the filling yarn, and finally the cloth beam or roll. Ex.1009.
`
`58) To set up the loom for weaving, the warp yarns are drawn one-by-one toward the
`
`front of the loom, passing through the heddles, then through the reed, then over the
`
`loom frame and attached to the cloth roll. Figure 3 shows a loom with two
`
`harnesses, the number needed to make plain weave cloth. Ex.1009.
`
`59) The harnesses are connected to a shedding mechanism that causes to warp yarns to
`
`be locally separated vertically, forming the shed, so a fill yarn can be inserted. The
`
`
`Page 19 of 101
`
`- 18 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`function of the reed is to keep the warp yarns separated from one another by a
`
`prescribed amount. After each filling insertion or pick, the reed moves toward the
`
`front, referred to as beating up, pressing the new fill yarn against the previous one,
`
`forming the cloth. Then the shed is re-formed by the heddles changing vertical
`
`position, and another fill is inserted and the process repeats. The cloth is wound
`
`onto the cloth roll. Tension in the cloth is maintained by the cloth roll being driven,
`
`winding up the cloth while the warp beam has brakes that resist the pulling by the
`
`cloth roll. [Fig. 3]
`
`FIGURE 3. Weaving loom elements (Ex.1009, p. 337)
`
`
`
`TEXTILE PARAMETERS AND SHADE FABRIC
`
`60) OPENNESS AND OPACITY
`
`61) Fabric, yarn, and fiber properties have a combined effect on the transmission and
`
`reflection of light by the fabric at different angles of light incidence. That article
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`Page 20 of 101
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`explained that the openness (openness is the conceptual opposite of fabric cover,
`
`the textile term generally used), which is dependent upon how close the yarns are
`
`to each other, has a marked effect on transmission, especially with perpendicular
`
`incidence. In addition, the yarn structure and the fiber translucence also had a
`
`strong influence on transmission. Reflection has an interesting dependence on yarn
`
`and fiber type especially, as well as fabric structure. Ex.1011.
`
`62) As reflected in the discussion of loom elements, the reed can establish the amount
`
`of spacing between the warp yarns, as the pressure with which the reed beats up
`
`the cloth can determine how tight the filling yarns are to one another. Other
`
`parameters that affect openness include the fineness of the yarn and the type of
`
`weave. Ex.1009.
`
`63) The color of the fabric has a marked impact on the light shading and the thermal
`
`transmittance of a solar shade fabric. Darker fabrics will absorb some of the light
`
`as heat from the sunlight and reemit it, but they provide for good viewing through
`
`the fabric to the outside and reduce glare. Lighter-colored fabrics provide better
`
`heat resistance and interior illumination. Ex.1011.
`
`64) THICKNESS AND WEIGHT: Thickness of the fabric affects both the weight and
`
`the opaqueness. Fabric thickness has components of fiber type and size, yarn size,
`
`and fabric construction. Ex.1011.
`
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 101
`
`- 20 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`FABRIC TREATMENTS
`
`65) Coating: A fabric may be coated with a polymer film in order to improve
`
`functional aspects. Polymers commonly in use include polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
`
`and polyacrylonitrile (PAN). Ex.1011. Other polymers are available. Application
`
`methods include extrusion coating, film coating, and dip coating in which the
`
`fabric is immersed in a vat. Extrusion coating uses equipment similar to that used
`
`for fiber production, as just discussed, except that the spinneret is replaced by a slit
`
`die (film extrusion). The fabric is passed under the die. Slit extrusion is also used
`
`to make the films used in film coating. Ex.1011.
`
`66) PRINTING: Printing refers to the creation of patterns on the surface of the fabric
`
`using ink-like liquids. There are many methods employed in commercial printing.
`
`Screen printing, both flat- and roller-screen are common. The screen has holes in it
`
`corresponding to the desired pattern to be imparted to the fabric. The printing
`
`medium (the ink) is forced through the holes and onto the fabric. Engraved rollers
`
`are also used in textile printing. Digital inkjet printing is one of the most modern
`
`ways of printing textile fabrics. In this method, a printing pattern can be directly
`
`printed onto the fabric with an inkjet printer controlled by a computer, without any
`
`need for making printing screens or engraved rollers. Ex.1008, p.122.
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 101
`
`- 21 -
`
`DBR Finance, Inc., Ex. 1007
`
`

`

`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’535 PATENT
`
`67) The ’535 patent presents a camouflage structure (hunting blind) 10’ comprising a
`
`frame 12’ that includes several flexible frame members 14’, 16’ and a textile fabric
`
`covering as shown below (Ex. 1001; Fig. 9). According to the independent claims,
`
`at least two of the flexible frame members 14’ are spaced apart from one another
`
`along a side of the structure, and at least two of the flexible frame members 16’ are
`
`spaced apart from one another along a roof of the structure (Ex. 1001; claims 1,
`
`19); however, it is unclear from Figure 9 how the frame members 16’ define a roof
`
`of the structure, and no corresponding description exists to ascertain what is
`
`intended by such language. It would appear from the figure that frame members
`
`16’ define a base for the structure.
`
`(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)
`(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:12)
`
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:10)
`
`(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)
`
`(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)
`(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:8)(ci

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket