UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DYSON TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND DYSON, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`OMACHRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT GIACHETTI
`
`REGARDING
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,327,607
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 0
`I.
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. Documents and Materials Considered ............................................................. 9
`IV. Legal Principles ............................................................................................. 10
`V.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 13
`VI. Technology Background ................................................................................ 14
`VII. Background of the ’607Patent ....................................................................... 14
`A.
`Summary of The ’607Patent’s Specification ...................................... 15
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’607Patent ................................................ 16
`C.
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims .............................................. 17
`VIII. Background of the Prior Art .......................................................................... 18
`A.
`Liddell.................................................................................................. 18
`B.
`Organ ................................................................................................... 20
`C.
`DC14Manual ....................................................................................... 21
`D.
`Lim ...................................................................................................... 23
`E.
`Simpson ............................................................................................... 24
`F.
`Soler ..................................................................................................... 24
`IX. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 25
`X.
`Invalidity Opinions: ’607Patent..................................................................... 26
`A. Ground 1: Liddell Anticipates Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-13 ...................... 27
`1.
`Liddell Anticipates Claims [1]/[12]/[13] .................................. 27
`2.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [3] ................................................... 52
`3.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [4] ................................................... 54
`4.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [6] ................................................... 56
`5.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [7] ................................................... 61
`6.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [8] ................................................... 64
`7.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [9] ................................................... 65
`8.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [10] ................................................. 67
`9.
`Liddell Anticipates Claim [11] ................................................. 69
`Ground 2: Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claims 1 and 3-13 ................................................................. 70
`1. Motivation To Combine ............................................................ 70
`2.
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claims [1]/[12]/[13]/[11] ............................................ 76
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [3] ..................................................................... 89
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [4] ..................................................................... 90
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 2
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [5] ..................................................................... 92
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [6] ..................................................................... 94
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [7] ..................................................................... 94
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [8] ..................................................................... 95
`Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [9] ..................................................................... 95
`10. Liddell Alone Or In Combination With Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [10] ................................................................... 96
`Ground 3: The Liddell, Organ, And DC14Manual Combination
`Renders Obvious Claim 10 ................................................................. 97
`1. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 98
`2.
`Liddell In Combination With Organ And DC14Manual
`Renders Obvious Claim [10] ..................................................100
`D. Ground 4: The Liddell And Lim Combination Renders Obvious
`Claim 14; And The Liddell, Organ, And Lim Combination
`Renders Obvious Claim 14 ...............................................................102
`Ground 5: The Simpson and Liddell Combination Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-4 and 6-13 ............................................................106
`1. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................106
`2.
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claims [1]/[12]/[13] ................................................................116
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [2] .................................................................................128
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [3] .................................................................................129
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [4] .................................................................................130
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [6] .................................................................................131
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [7] .................................................................................131
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [8] .................................................................................133
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [9] .................................................................................135
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 3
`
`

`

`F.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [10] ...............................................................................136
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [11] ...............................................................................136
`Ground 6: The Simpson, Liddell, And Organ Combination Renders
`Obvious Claims 1 and 3-13 ...............................................................137
`1. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................137
`2.
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell and Organ
`Renders Obvious Claims
`[1]/[2]/[3]/[6]/[7]/[8]/[9]/[10]/[11]/[12]/[13] ..........................137
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [4] .................................................................................138
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [5] .................................................................................139
`G. Ground 7: The Simpson, Liddell, And DC14Manual Combination
`Renders Obvious Claim 10; And The Simpson, Liddell, Organ,
`And DC14Manual Combination Renders Obvious Claim 10 ...........140
`1. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................140
`2.
`Simpson In Combination With Liddell And
`DC14Manual; and Simpson In Combination With
`Liddell, Organ, And DC14Manual Renders Obvious
`Claim [10] ...............................................................................141
`H. Ground 8: The Simpson, Liddell, And Lim Combination Renders
`Obvious Claim 14; And The Simpson, Liddell, Organ, And Lim
`Combination Renders Obvious Claim 14 .........................................143
`Ground 9: The Soler And Liddell Combination Renders Obvious
`Claims 1-4, 6-9, And 11-13 ...............................................................144
`1. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................144
`2.
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claims [1]/[12]/[13] ................................................................162
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [2] .................................................................................185
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [3] .................................................................................187
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [4] .................................................................................188
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [6] .................................................................................189
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [7] .................................................................................191
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [8] .................................................................................195
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [9] .................................................................................197
`Soler In Combination With Liddell Renders Obvious
`Claim [11] ...............................................................................198
`Ground 10: The Soler, Liddell, And Organ Combination Renders
`Obvious Claims 4-5 ...........................................................................199
`1. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................199
`2.
`Soler In Combination With Liddell And Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [4] ...................................................................201
`Soler In Combination With Liddell And Organ Renders
`Obvious Claim [5] ...................................................................202
`K. Ground 11: The Soler, Liddell, And Lim Combination Renders
`Obvious Claim 14 ..............................................................................203
`XI. Secondary Considerations Of Non-Obviousness ........................................204
`
`
`J.
`
`10.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 5
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Robert Giachetti. I have been retained by Dyson Technology
`
`Limited and Dyson, Inc. (collectively “Dyson” or “Petitioners”) as an
`
`independent expert in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I understand Dyson is challenging the validity of claims 1-14 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,327,607 (the “’607Patent”) in this petition for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”). I refer to these as the “Challenged Claims.”
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references invalidate the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`4.
`
`I am a salaried employee of Fusion Engineering, LLC. Fusion Engineering
`
`is being compensated for my time in connection with this matter at the
`
`consulting rate of $410 per hour. My compensation is not affected by the
`
`content of my opinions, testimony, or the outcome of this matter.
`
`5.
`
`The prior art references on which my opinions are based are:
`
`• U.K. Patent Publication GB2,399,780A (“Liddell”)
`• U.K. Patent Publication GB2,372,434A (“Organ”)
`• U.S. Patent No. 1,940,609 (“Simpson”)
`• Dyson DC14 Owner’s Manual (“DC14Manual”)
`• U.S. Patent Publication US2004/0237482A1 (“Lim”)
`• U.S. Patent 5,267,371 (“Soler”)
`In my opinion, the Challenged Claims are invalid based on the following:
`
`6.
`
`• Liddell anticipates claims 1, 3-4, and 6-13.
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`• Liddell alone or in combination with Organ renders obvious claims
`1 and 3-13.
`• The combination of Liddell, Organ, and DC14Manual renders
`obvious claim 10.
`• The combination of Liddell and Lim renders obvious claim 14; or
`the combination of Liddell, Organ, and Lim renders obvious claim
`14.
`• The combination of Simpson and Liddell renders obvious claims
`1-4 and 6-13.
`• The combination of Simpson, Liddell, and Organ renders obvious
`claims 1-13.
`• The combination of Simpson, Liddell, and DC14Manual renders
`obvious claim 10; or the combination of Simpson, Liddell, Organ
`and DC14Manual renders obvious claims 10.
`• The combination of Simpson, Liddell, and Lim renders obvious
`claim 14; or the combination of Simpson, Liddell, Organ and Lim
`renders obvious claim 14.
`• The combination of Soler and Liddell renders obvious claims 1-4
`and 6-13.
`• The combination of Soler, Liddell, and Organ renders obvious
`claims 4-5.
`• The combination of Soler, Liddell, and Lim renders obvious claim
`14.
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in Illinois and Oklahoma, with over
`7.
`
`20 years of experience in mechanical engineering. My experience in
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`machinery and mechanisms spans numerous industries; I have worked
`
`directly designing mechanical systems and machinery, and I have
`
`consulted on the operation of machinery in various fields, including
`
`consumer products, commercial products, and industrial products.
`
`8.
`
`I am employed by Fusion Engineering, LLC, where I have worked since
`
`November of 2020. Fusion is an engineering firm that provides
`
`multidisciplinary engineering consulting services.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently the Director of Mechanical Engineering at Fusion. In this
`
`role, I am responsible for providing engineering consulting services in
`
`mechanical engineering, coordinating client outreach, coordinating
`
`marketing materials, and recruiting.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently a Member of ASTM (American Society for Testing and
`
`Materials) and ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) where
`
`I sit on several committees, including the Power Transmission Gearing
`
`Committee (ASME), which looks at transferring movement with belts and
`
`gears. I am also on ASTM’s F15 Consumer Product Committee, which
`
`handles matters such as consumer product safety guidelines. I am also a
`
`member of the ICPHSO (International Consumer Products Health &
`
`Safety Organization) group, and attend ICPHSO conferences, which cover
`
`health and safety issues relevant to consumer products.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I hold a Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Ph.D. degree in Mechanical
`
`Engineering. I have Minors in Physics (as an undergraduate) and
`
`Mechanics and Aeronautics (as a graduate student). I have taught courses
`
`in Physics, Mechanical Engineering, and Biomechanics across three
`
`universities.
`
`12.
`
`I have been recognized as an expert in mechanical power transmission
`
`equipment, and I serve on the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
`
`(ASME) Power Transmission and Gearing Committee. I have also
`
`participated, by invitation, in the National Council of Examiners for
`
`Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Mechanical Professional Activities
`
`and Knowledge Studies (PAKS) committee. This committee reviews and
`
`evaluates the problems and problem types that appear on the Mechanical
`
`Engineering Professional Engineering exam for licensure as a Professional
`
`Engineer.
`
`13. For the past 30 years, I have been involved in the area of machine design
`
`and applications of machine design. These machines and products have
`
`ranged from children’s mattresses to garden hoses, pressure cookers,
`
`electronic tire/raft inflators, and industrial equipment including conveyors.
`
`14.
`
`In approximately 1993-1994, I was a part of a team that developed and
`
`built a functioning autonomous, battery-powered vacuum cleaner. This
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`design and development project involved analyzing the layout and
`
`inclusion of various vacuum-cleaner components, such as surface
`
`agitators, air filtration units, motors, fluid flow paths, batteries, and other
`
`electronic and mechanical components.
`
`15. From 2003-2008, I was employed by the University of Wisconsin-
`
`Madison’s Biomechanics laboratory in the Department of Kinesiology,
`
`where I was also a teaching assistant in biomechanics. While there, my
`
`research responsibilities included designing equipment with ergonomic
`
`handles for efficient use. While teaching biomechanics at the University
`
`of Wisconsin-Madison, I regularly instructed on the proper use of canes,
`
`crutches, and arm crutches in relationship to biomechanical principles,
`
`taking into consideration user ergonomics.
`
`16. From 2008-2020, I was employed by Exponent, Inc., where I worked as a
`
`Senior Managing Engineer. At Exponent, I worked on various mechanical
`
`engineering projects that frequently related to consumer product design,
`
`machinery design, product and machinery performance, and human
`
`interaction with consumer products and industrial equipment.
`
`17.
`
`In approximately 2010-2013, I conducted an engineering analysis of
`
`vacuum cleaner products. In particular, I single-handedly developed tests
`
`to assess the dust-collection efficacy of various physical-media filters used
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`in bagless, cyclonic vacuum cleaners. My work on this project included
`
`product tear-downs to analyze the efficacy and safety of these vacuum
`
`cleaners and their filters. I also developed a protocol for nationwide in-
`
`home testing of vacuum cleaner filtration system efficacy across climates,
`
`as well as a protocol for analyzing the materials collected by the vacuum
`
`cleaners and their filters. This analysis considered, among other things,
`
`the size of particulates that were collected by vacuum cleaner cyclones and
`
`filters.
`
`18.
`
`In approximately 2010-2014, I conducted an analysis of collets—a pipe
`
`and
`
`tube connection device––under dynamic fluid pressurization
`
`conditions. After initial and traditional methods of testing the collets,
`
`which included X-Rays and geometric measurements, failed to identify the
`
`source of collet failure, I developed novel tests intended to mimic real-
`
`world conditions. These novel tests involved a hydro-static test and a
`
`dynamic test. The hydro-static test involved exposing the collets to
`
`extended periods of pressurized conditions. The dynamic test involved
`
`development of a computer-controlled manifold system that could
`
`selectively pressurize, de-pressurize, and drain collets in various sequences
`
`to determine the difference in performance. The novel tests I developed
`
`successfully determined the root cause of the collet failures.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In approximately 2012-2017, I performed a wholistic safety and efficacy
`
`analysis of various consumer vacuum-sealer products. In particular, I
`
`conducted tear-down analyses, reviewed the vacuum-sealers’ performance
`
`for safety and functionality considerations, analyzed the function and
`
`operation of vacuum pumps, analyzed fluid flow paths, and analyzed the
`
`operation of small valves. I further worked with an electrical engineer to
`
`review the safety of the products’ internal electronics.
`
`20. Since approximately 2013 to the present, I have used principles of
`
`biomechanics, as well as principles of physics, to analyze the effect on a
`
`user or nearby operator of pressure cookers that failed, ejecting hot liquid.
`
`This work involved analyses of, among other things, forces that are applied
`
`to pressure cookers, the physics involved in the operation of pressure
`
`cookers, and biomechanical principles.
`
`21.
`
`In approximately 2013-2016, I used industry testing methods and
`
`developed and designed novel experiments and testing related to fluid flow
`
`analysis for a consumer garden hose. The analysis involved testing the
`
`hose’s strength, durability, environmental performance (temperature and
`
`UV exposure), and material selection in connection with user operation. I
`
`further designed computer-controlled pressurization and de-pressurization
`
`systems for these garden hoses. The system was initially powered
`
`6
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`pneumatically with compressed air driven through a manifold in
`
`conjunction with a tank of water. When scaled, the system involved two
`
`parallel pumps that pressurized two groups of manifolds using computer-
`
`controlled valves in series to pressurize and de-pressurize expandable
`
`garden hoses. Developing this system involved, among other things,
`
`selecting the appropriate fluid power components and optimizing fluid
`
`flow paths.
`
`22.
`
`In approximately 2015, I applied my biomechanical background to the use
`
`of cane handles, which involved assessing the amount of force to be
`
`applied to the handle and developing a handle that could both support that
`
`amount of force reliably and house a battery for novel electronics that were
`
`embedded in the cane.
`
`23.
`
`In approximately 2015-2017, I investigated various properties of a garden
`
`hose ball valve. I worked as a part of a team to investigate valve properties,
`
`including materials, geometry, and seal selection. We further investigated
`
`fluid flow through the valve to ensure that the flow was optimized by
`
`analyzing valve shape with the Bernoulli equation.
`
`24.
`
`In approximately 2016, I conducted an analysis of a cordless, handheld
`
`consumer leaf blower. In particular, I analyzed the functioning, operation,
`
`and failure of blower motors and fans in relation to the direction of fluid
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`flow within a consumer leaf blower. This analysis concerned, among other
`
`things, consideration of fluid flow and mechanical design of leaf blowers,
`
`specifically regarding fan blade failure and its potential impact on the
`
`consumer-operator.
`
`25.
`
`In approximately 2017-2018, I conducted an efficacy analysis of hand
`
`grips for ergonomic handheld hose nozzles. This analysis included a
`
`review of handheld nozzles in the marketplace that were advertised as
`
`ergonomic, as well as biomechanically modelling postures expected to be
`
`associated with the ergonomic handheld nozzles. To biomechanically
`
`model these handheld nozzles, I used a program called 3DSSPP, which
`
`models, among other things, human balance and effort levels. This
`
`program can be used calculate human joint torque based on operator input,
`
`which I used (and continue to use) to analyze the ergonomics of holding
`
`various handles, including handles for household consumer products.
`
`26.
`
`I further used 3DSSPP to model biomechanics for use in household
`
`consumer products and industrial products. For example, in my paper,
`
`Analytical Model for Estimating Knee Loads During Ladder Climbing,
`
`published in the 2013 edition of the ASME International Mechanical
`
`Engineering Congress Exposition, I discussed how force output at the
`
`hands based on arm posture influences the forces within the knee joint. At
`
`8
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`a high level, this involved analyzing the ergonomics of how posture
`
`influences likely force output of limbs, particularly in connection with
`
`household consumer products, specifically ladders.
`
`27.
`
`In approximately 2018-2020, I analyzed the operation of computer-
`
`controlled blowers, manifolds, valves, and sensors in consumer air
`
`mattresses. In particular, the analysis concerned the ability to control and
`
`maintain constant air pressure within air mattresses at particular pressure
`
`set points. This analysis concerned, among other things, fluid dynamics,
`
`fluid flow, fluid path selection, and changes in pressure.
`
`28.
`
`In 2021, I published a paper, Characterization of the Release of Heated
`
`and Pressurized Water from a Pressure Cooker, in the Journal of Burns.
`
`In this paper, I analyzed and described how fluid is ejected from a pressure
`
`cooker as a result of a flash boil event. In this analysis, I considered the
`
`operation of an exemplary household pressure cooker, analyzing fluid
`
`dynamics resulting from the trade-off between volume of liquid and
`
`pressure on fluid dynamics and its effect on consumer-users.
`
`29.
`
`I have provided my full background in the curriculum vitae that is attached
`
`as Exhibit 1003.
`
`III. DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`30.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`education, training, knowledge, and experience in the relevant field of the
`
`art, as well as information pertaining to the documents described below.
`
`31.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’607Patent and its file
`
`history, as well as the Liddell, Organ, DC14Manual, Lim, Simpson, and
`
`Soler prior art references on which my opinions are based. Other
`
`references I have reviewed are mentioned below. These references and
`
`documents reflect the state of the relevant art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention and the background knowledge of a POSA.
`
`32.
`
`I have also reviewed the Patent Owner (“PO”)’s infringement contentions
`
`served in the related litigation, SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Dyson, Inc.,
`
`No. 1:23-cv-12372 (D. Mass.) (the “Litigation”).
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`33. Dyson’s counsel has informed me of certain legal standards. I am not an
`
`attorney. I have applied these understandings in my analysis as detailed
`
`below. I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is invalid if it is
`
`obvious, and that obviousness requires that the claim be obvious from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention. I have been informed and understand that a claim
`
`may be obvious in view of a single prior art reference, or may be obvious
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`in view of a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art may be determined by considering such factors as the education level
`
`of those working in the field, the sophistication of the technology, the types
`
`of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those
`
`problems, and the speed at which innovations are made. I have been
`
`informed and understand that not all of these factors need be considered
`
`and that one or more of these factors may control.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an obviousness analysis is based
`
`on several factors, including the scope and content of the prior art, what
`
`differences, if any, existed between the alleged invention and the prior art,
`
`and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed and understand that to determine whether a claim is
`
`obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
`(1) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known
`
`concepts combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield
`
`predictable results; (2) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could
`
`implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(3) whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`11
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of success
`
`by those skilled in the art; (4) whether a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have recognized a reason to combine known elements in the manner
`
`described in the claim; (5) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in
`
`the prior art to make the modification or combination of elements claimed
`
`in the patent; and (6) whether the innovation applies a known technique
`
`that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`I further have been informed and understand that while it may be helpful
`
`to identify a reason for this combination, common sense should guide and
`
`no rigid requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine is required.
`
`38.
`
`I further have been informed and understand that certain factors called
`
`secondary considerations may be considered in evaluating the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the alleged invention,
`
`skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, unexpected results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but
`
`unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged invention, the
`
`failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`12
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I have been informed and
`
`understand that there must be a nexus—a connection—between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the alleged invention. I also have been
`
`informed and understand that contemporaneous and independent invention
`
`by others is a secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a prior art reference may
`
`expressly or inherently describe a limitation of a claim. I have been
`
`informed and understand that if the prior art necessarily includes or
`
`functions in accordance with a claim’s limitation, then the prior art
`
`inherently discloses that limitation. I have been informed and understand
`
`that to establish inherency, the evidence must make clear that the missing
`
`descriptive matter is necessarily present in the item of prior art and that it
`
`would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`In my opinion, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) in the
`40.
`
`subject matter of the ’607Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`mechanical engineering or a similar field and 2-3 years of experience in
`
`machine design, including machines that include fluid dynamics or fluid
`
`paths, such as vacuum cleaners. Additional education could offset less
`
`experience and vice versa, and a POSA could have also obtained similar
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`knowledge and experience through other means.
`
`41.
`
`I have been a POSA since at least 2003. The opinions I am offering are
`
`from the perspective of a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. For
`
`the purposes of my opinions below, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`relevant time frame is the relevant priority date for the Challenged Claims.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`42. The Challenged Claims are directed to vacuum cleaner configurations and
`
`features, including, first and second cyclonic cleaning stages, a motor, the
`
`alignment of airflow path segments, and one or more handles. See Ex1001,
`
`Claims.
`
`43.
`
`I have reviewed the ’607Patent’s specification and these configurations do
`
`not purport to solve a technical problem.
`
`44.
`
`I have also reviewed the file history of the ’607Patent. None of the
`
`references I rely upon in forming my invalidity opinions appear to have
`
`been before the patent office.
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, as set forth in more detail below, these undisclosed
`
`references invalidate every claim of the ’607Patent.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE ’607PATENT
`46. The ’607Patent is titled “Hand Carriable Surface Cleaning Apparatus.”
`
`Ex1001, Title. The ’607Patent issued on June 25, 2019, from U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dyson Ex1002
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Application No. 15/181,537, which was filed on June 14, 2016. Id., Cover.
`
`The ’607Patent claims priority, through multiple applications, to U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/870,175, which was filed on
`
`December 15, 2006. Id., 1:6-21.
`
`Summary of The ’607Patent’s Specification
`A.
`47. The ’607Patent “relates to a surface cl