`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