IPR2018-00491
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL NRANIAN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, Cover
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00491
`Patent No. 7,934,843
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL NRANIAN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, Cover
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS............................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ............ 7
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART............................................. 7
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW.................................................................................11
`V. OPINIONS.....................................................................................................12
`A. Disclosures of Lynam ‘026 That Appear in the ‘451 Patent ..............12
`B.
`Construction of “Generally Views Towards A Blind Spot”...............15
`C.
`Construction of “Backing Plate”.........................................................20
`D. Henion ‘013 Discloses A Trailer Towing Mirror ...............................25
`E.
`SMR Provides An Insufficient Motivation To Modify Henion
`‘013. ...................................................................................................29
`Platzer ‘956 Does Not View Downwardly..........................................29
`F.
`G. Kondo Discloses A Single Mirror.......................................................31
`
`i
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I have been retained by patent owner Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.
`
`(“Magna”) to provide my opinion on certain matters regarding SMR Automotive
`
`Systems USA Inc. (“SMR”)’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,934,843 (“the ‘843 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein based on information and belief are believed to be true. I am
`
`over 21 years of age and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`At this stage, I have been asked to provide my opinions on certain
`
`discrete issues that are relevant to Magna’s Preliminary Patent Owner Response. I
`
`have not been asked to and do not opine regarding the ultimate issues addressed by
`
`SMR’s proposed grounds. The fact that I do not opine on any given issue in this
`
`declaration should not be construed as agreement with SMR’s positions. I reserve
`
`the right to provide additional opinions in the event that an IPR is instituted.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $350 per hour for time
`
`preparing this declaration. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Although I have a law degree, and I am licensed to practice before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, I have not been asked to opine on any
`
`legal issues. I will not be giving any legal opinions throughout this declaration and
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`throughout my work on this matter. My opinions provided herein are based on my
`
`engineering, technical, scientific, and business education and experience.
`
`6.
`
`My academic background is in engineering. I possess a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering, a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering, a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Juris Doctor
`
`from Wayne State University. I also received a Master of Business Administration
`
`from the University of Michigan. I also am a licensed Professional Engineer,
`
`Certified Project Management Professional, as well as a Lean Six Sigma Black
`
`Belt certified through the American Society for Quality and the International
`
`Quality Federation.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive industry experience in the automotive industry for
`
`multiple companies. Specifically, I worked as a design engineer, senior project
`
`engineer, design analysis engineer, technical specialist, and engineering manager
`
`in the automotive industry from 1985 to 2007. This included experience at Ford,
`
`General Motors, and Allied Signal. I worked at Allied Signal from 1992 to 1993,
`
`General Motors from 1993 to 1995, and Ford Motor Company from 1985 to 1992,
`
`and from 1995 to 2007.
`
`8. While at Ford, General Motors, and Allied Signal, I worked as a
`
`Product Design Engineer, a Senior Project Engineer, a Technical Specialist, a
`
`Design Analysis Engineer, and an Engineering Manager. My work included the
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`design and development of automotive safety systems and components for various
`
`different types of automotive applications. This included, among other things,
`
`testing and development of systems and components for active and passive safety.
`
`9.
`
`Areas of my work included both active and passive sensing systems
`
`which can be used in the vehicle interior or exterior, including the design and
`
`development of sensing components and systems that incorporate electromagnetic
`
`wave sensing and visual perception (including, but not limited to, vision, camera,
`
`radar, lidar, infrared ultraviolet, night vision, mirrors, and other optical devices,
`
`including those containing lenses and mirrors) as well as acoustical sensing. Areas
`
`of my work also specifically included vision systems, occupant ergonomic
`
`evaluations, user and occupant audio and visual perception, visual interfaces and
`
`displays, infrared, vision, mirrors, lenses, camera, sonar, acoustic, radar, lidar,
`
`sensing and detection technologies and systems. I also worked on sensing systems
`
`for various automotive applications, including sensor fusion technologies, for
`
`image and object detection, discrimination, and identification and the appropriate
`
`status notifications to vehicle drivers and occupants, and visual perception
`
`techniques and methods.
`
`10. My work specifically involved the testing and development of the
`
`aforementioned systems. This included both laboratory tests and technology
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`assessments, as well as testing in various real world driving situations and traffic
`
`events.
`
`11. My responsibilities also included technology assessments and proper
`
`supplier and sourcing evaluation and selection, quoting and bidding, and the
`
`overall source selection for numerous technologies. For example, while at Allied
`
`Signal, I specifically prepared numerous extensive proposals and responses for
`
`many different domestic, European, Asian, and Pacific Rim requests for quotations
`
`(“RFQs”) in the hopes of winning awards as the Tier 1 supplier chosen for many
`
`original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) programs. I was involved in both
`
`winning awards and non-winning awards on numerous programs for different
`
`OEMs. While at General Motors and Ford, I was an integral part of many cross-
`
`functional teams involved in the sourcing selection, request for information
`
`(“RFI”) and RFQ processes and evaluations, and ultimate evaluation and decision
`
`as to which suppliers were chosen for purchase order (“PO”) awards on numerous
`
`vehicle programs.
`
`12. My responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with Federal
`
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Economic Commission for Europe
`
`(“ECE”) regulations, Industry Standards, Corporate Standards, various
`
`international government regulations, and Due-Care Requirements. I also testified
`
`as a corporate representative and expert witness on behalf of Ford. In that role, I
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`have analyzed, verified, and testified regarding compliance with FMVSS
`
`requirements, including FMVSS 111.
`
`13. My work over the years has also included analyses involving
`
`statistical information from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
`
`and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) databases. My work also
`
`involved extensive inspection, investigation, and analysis of field events involving
`
`automotive safety systems. I am also certified in accident reconstruction through
`
`Northwestern University, and I have performed numerous real-world assessments
`
`of accident causation as part of my investigations. I have specifically assessed
`
`accidents involving lane change incidents.
`
`14.
`
`I also conducted numerous system and component evaluations,
`
`laboratory tests, supplier and technology assessments, quality and reliability
`
`evaluations, as well as developed design validation plans and reports and failure
`
`modes and effects analyses to design and develop automotive safety, sensing,
`
`vison, and electrical electronic systems, including the integration of sensor fusion
`
`technologies. I also conducted numerous vehicle test track (I am qualified as a
`
`Ford Level II certified test track driver), rough road, obstacle, lane change,
`
`braking/stopping, maneuverability, on-road, off-road, as well as numerous crash
`
`and sled tests, for vehicular safety systems testing, development, design, prove-out,
`
`verification, and validation.
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`15.
`
`Subsequent to my employment at Ford, I worked as a Systems
`
`Engineer for Raytheon and General Dynamics, as well as a contractor and civilian
`
`employee for the U.S. Army. My work has included, among other things, sensor
`
`development and visual perception, including camera, optical systems, viewers,
`
`lenses, mirrors, and visual displays. I currently work at the Tank and Automotive
`
`Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan,
`
`where I work on systems for military ground vehicle systems, which extensively
`
`involve the application of automotive technologies, including those related to
`
`automotive safety systems.
`
`16. My current responsibilities include working with internal scientists,
`
`researchers and technical staff, as well as outside collaborators and universities, to
`
`develop technologies, innovation, and inventions for the protection of our soldiers
`
`and the enhancement of our soldiers’ survivability in military vehicles. My
`
`responsibilities include and have included technologies involving camera and
`
`vision systems (including those involving mirrors and lenses), Command, Control,
`
`Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
`
`(C4ISR) systems, 360-degree surveillance, optical systems, visual perception and
`
`identification, interface displays, acoustic, ultrasonic, infrared, radar, night vision,
`
`and electromagnetic wave sensing, sensor fusion integration, algorithm, and
`
`pattern recognition development, sensor information discrimination and
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`identification, active and passive safety system development, and occupant injury
`
`mitigation.
`
`17.
`
`I have been qualified to testify as an expert in over 20 cases involving
`
`automotive safety systems.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed
`
`summary of my background, experience, and publications, is being submitted
`
`concurrently.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`19.
`The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed SMR’s Petition and all
`
`Exhibits thereto, as well as SMR’s Petition and Exhibits in IPR2018-00505,
`
`IPR2018-00506, IPR2018-00517, IPR2018-00520, IPR2018-00533, IPR2018-
`
`00536, IPR2018-00541, IPR2018-00545.
`
`20. My opinions are further guided by my understanding of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as further defined below) as of
`
`the claimed May 20, 2003 priority date of the ‘843 patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21.
`I understand that patent validity is assessed from the standpoint of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention.
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`22.
`
`I understand that SMR has asserted that a POSA at the relevant time
`
`would have had “a M.S. in Optics, Optical Engineering, or similar studies in a
`
`related field (e.g., Physics or Mechanical Engineering) with 2-3 years of
`
`experience in the optics/mechanical industry.” I disagree.
`
`23. A POSA in the field of the ‘843 patent would necessarily have
`
`experience working in the automotive industry. The ‘843 patent claims are
`
`directed to “[a]n exterior sideview mirror system suitable for use on an
`
`automobile.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. According to the specification, the specific
`
`problem that the claimed invention solves is to “reduce, if not eliminate[], an
`
`automobile’s blind spot.” Id., 20:20-21. The specification explains that the
`
`claimed invention does so in a manner that is superior to prior art blind spot
`
`mirrors for several reasons. First, it “provides a seamless rearvision function
`
`whereby the image of a side approaching/side overtaking other vehicle is
`
`substantially seamlessly maintained as the image of the overtaking or approaching
`
`vehicle transitions from being principally and substantially viewed by the driver of
`
`the vehicle … in the plano reflective element to be seen in the auxiliary reflective
`
`element.” Id., 20:28-36. Second, the claimed invention allows “a driver [to]
`
`simultaneously and similarly move the auxiliary element and the plano element so
`
`as to position their respective rearward fields of view, and to achieve this within
`
`the relatively restricted space available in a standard automobile-sized exterior
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`sideview mirror assembly.” Id., 12:42-48. And third, the claimed invention “has
`
`manufacturing advantages, particularly for exterior sideview mirror assembly
`
`manufacturers who can procure a plano-multiradius reflective element assembly
`
`module from a mirror reflector supplier and then mount the plano-multiradius
`
`reflective element assembly module onto an actuator.” Id., 15:13-19.
`
`24. A mechanical engineer, optical engineer, or someone with an M.S. in
`
`optics who does not have experience in the automotive industry would not be
`
`familiar with the requirements necessary in order to provide an exterior automotive
`
`mirror that is useful and convenient to drivers without being distracting, that is
`
`desirable for automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and that
`
`complies with federal regulatory requirements. For example, the ‘843 patent
`
`specification discloses that the plano element should be of a size sufficient “to
`
`provide the driver of the automobile a view of a level road surface extending to the
`
`horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to the driver’s
`
`side of the automobile at the widest point, extending 8 feet out from the tangent
`
`plane 35 feet behind the driver’s eyes.” Id., 12:48-13:5; see also id., 15:20-46
`
`(describing similar requirement). A POSA would recognize that this field of view
`
`is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111. Ex. 1040, 20. A person
`
`without experience in the automotive industry would not necessarily have the
`
`understanding and experience of designing, developing, and testing vehicle
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`components and systems to comply with this requirement and the other
`
`requirements of FMVSS, while also still meeting industry standards and
`
`requirements for reliability, quality, durability, performance, manufacturing, and
`
`assembly. A person without experience in the automotive industry would also not
`
`necessarily understand that vehicle components and systems must also be designed
`
`and developed to meet due care requirements, beyond the minimal safety standards
`
`established by FMVSS regulations. This requires work in the automotive industry
`
`and an understanding of how automobiles are used in the real world.
`
`25.
`
`For example, in applications specific to this patent, an engineer with
`
`experience in the automotive industry would understand the added complexities in
`
`designing automotive side-view mirror systems that safely provide the requisite
`
`information to the driver (such as whether a vehicle is in the blind spot) to
`
`maximize the ability of the driver to visually perceive and cognitively understand
`
`the information. An engineer with experience in the automotive industry would
`
`also understand the need to minimize driver confusion regarding objects appearing
`
`in the side view mirror and the need to minimize driver distraction and enable to
`
`driver to focus attention on the view forward of the vehicle. Engineers with
`
`experience in the automotive industry would recognize that the ‘843 patent alludes
`
`to these types of design considerations when it discusses, for example, that the
`
`invention “provides a seamless rearvision function whereby the image of a side
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`approaching/side overtaking other vehicle is substantially seamlessly maintained as
`
`the image of the overtaking or approaching vehicle transitions from being
`
`principally and substantially viewed by the driver of the vehicle … in the plano
`
`reflective element to be seen in the auxiliary reflective element.” Ex. 1001, 20:28-
`
`36.
`
`26. Based on the field that the ‘843 patent is directed to, the levels of
`
`education and experience of persons working in the field in the relevant time, the
`
`types of problems encountered in the field, and the sophistication of the
`
`technology, a POSA at the time of the ‘843 patent priority date would have had a
`
`M.S. in an engineering discipline relevant to automotive component design (e.g.,
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or optical engineering), as well as
`
`2-3 years of experience in the automotive industry designing components for
`
`automobiles.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW
`27.
`I have been informed that claims of unexpired patents in an IPR are
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation, when reading the claims in light of
`
`the specification and the teachings in the patent. I also have been informed that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation should account for how the claims themselves
`
`and the specification inform a POSA as to which ordinary definition the patentee
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`was using. I further have been informed that claims should not be construed so
`
`broadly that they are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.
`
`V.
`
`OPINIONS
`A.
`Disclosures of Lynam ‘026 That Appear in the ‘451 Patent
`28.
`I understand that SMR asserts that each limitation of claims 1-23 and
`
`27-39 of the ‘843 patent are disclosed by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0072026
`
`(“Lynam ‘026”).
`
`29.
`
`Lynam ‘026 is a published patent application that is a continuation-in-
`
`part of the application that issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,522,451 (“the ‘451 patent”).
`
`30.
`
`The majority of the material from Lynam ‘026 that SMR maps to the
`
`claims of the ‘843 patent also appears in the ‘451 patent. Exhibit 2012 is an
`
`annotated copy of Lynam ‘026, with the paragraphs that also appear in the ‘451
`
`patent highlighted.
`
`31.
`
`SMR’s mapping of the disclosures of Lynam ‘026 to the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘843 patent demonstrates that the ‘451 patent also fully discloses
`
`the claim limitations of the ‘843 patent as arranged in the ‘843 patent. For each
`
`limitation of claims 1-23 and 27-39 of the ‘843 patent, SMR relies on one or more
`
`paragraphs of Lynam ‘026 that also appear in the ‘451 patent, as show in the chart
`
`below.
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 12
`
`
`
`Limitation
`
`Lynam ‘026 disclosure cited by SMR
`that also appears in the ‘451 patent
`
`¶¶ 41, 57, 59, 61, Figs. 1, 7
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`Pages of SMR
`Petition Where
`Limitation Is
`Discussed
`Petition, 37
`
`Preamble,
`1[a], [b]
`1[d]
`1[q]
`1[e], [i]
`1[c]
`1[f]
`1[h], [k], [l],
`[m]
`1[j]
`1[g], [p]
`1[n]
`1[o]
`2
`3, 13
`4
`5, 6
`7, 8
`9
`10, 11
`12
`16
`
`Petition, 37-38
`¶¶ 42-43, 45, 49, 58-59, 61, Fig. 3
`Petition, 38
`¶¶ 43, 47, 48, 55
`¶¶ 42, 44, 45, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-8 Petition, 38-39
`¶ 41
`Petition, 39
`¶¶42, 58, Figs. 3, 6
`Petition, 40
`¶¶42, 43, 45, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6
`Petition, 40-41
`
`¶¶ 50-51, 53
`3, 52, 58-59, 61
`¶¶ 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-7
`¶¶ 52, 59
`¶¶ 48, 72, Figs. 3, 6
`¶¶42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6, 7
`¶¶ 42, 50-53, 59, 61, Figs. 3-4, 6, 7
`¶ 51
`¶¶ 50-53
`¶ 59
`¶ 42, 50-53, 59, 61, Figs. 3-4, 6, 7
`¶¶42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6, 7
`¶ 50
`
`13
`
`Petition, 41
`Petition, 41
`Petition, 41-42
`Petition, 42
`Petition, 42
`Petition, 42-43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 43
`Petition, 44
`Petition, 44
`Petition, 44
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 13
`
`
`
`Limitation
`
`Lynam ‘026 disclosure cited by SMR
`that also appears in the ‘451 patent
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`Pages of SMR
`Petition Where
`Limitation Is
`Discussed
`Petition, 44
`
`17, 18, 19, 30,
`31
`20, 35
`21, 22
`23
`27
`14, 15
`28, 29
`34
`32, 33
`36-39
`
`¶¶ 41-42, 43, 44-45, 47, 55, 47-61, 83
`
`¶¶ 43, 47, 55
`¶¶ 50, 53, Figs. 3, 6
`¶¶ 42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6, 7
`¶ 54
`¶¶ 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-7
`¶¶ 46, 61
`¶ 59
`¶ 49
`¶¶ 43, 47, 48, 55, 59, 83
`
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 45
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 46
`Petition, 47
`
`32.
`
`I agree with SMR that each of the paragraphs of Lynam ‘026 cited
`
`above disclose the limitations of the ‘843 patent claims for which SMR cites those
`
`paragraphs. Because each of these paragraphs also appear in the ‘451 patent, the
`
`‘451 patent discloses all of the limitations of claims 1-23 and 27-39 of the ‘843
`
`patent.
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`B.
`33.
`
`Construction of “Generally Views Towards A Blind Spot”
`I understand that claim 1 of the ‘843 patent includes the following
`
`limitation, which requires that the field of view of the auxiliary reflective element
`
`“generally views towards a blind spot”:
`
`wherein, when said exterior sideview mirror assembly is
`attached to the side of the automobile, the field of view
`of said plano reflective element generally views
`rearwardly of the equipped automobile and the field of
`view of said auxiliary reflective element generally views
`towards a blind spot in the side lane adjacent the side of
`the automobile to which said exterior sideview mirror
`assembly is attached, said blind spot being generally
`outside the rearward field of view of said plano reflective
`element when said plano reflective element is viewed by
`a driver of the equipped automobile when said exterior
`sideview mirror assembly is attached to the side of the
`automobile;
`
`34.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “generally views towards a
`
`blind spot” to a POSA based on the claims and the specification of the ‘843 patent
`
`requires the principal axis of the field of view of the auxiliary reflective element to
`
`view into the blind spot. The specification discusses the direction that the
`
`reflective elements of the mirror assembly view by discussing where the principal
`
`axis of those reflective elements view. For example, when explaining that the field
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`of view of the auxiliary reflective element may be angled and directed
`
`downwardly, it states that “the principal axis of the rearward field of view of the
`
`plano element is directed generally parallel to the road” and “the principal axis of
`
`the rearward field of view of the multiradius element is angled and directed
`
`generally downwardly.” Ex. 1001, 13:27-58. When explaining that the field of
`
`view of the auxiliary reflective element may be directed outwardly and
`
`downwardly, the specification states “[w]ith the tilted orientation of reflective
`
`element 314, reflective element 314 provides a field of view with a principal axis
`
`that sweeps outwardly and downwardly with respect to the principal axis of the
`
`field of view of reflective element 312.” Ex. 1001, 19:13-17. In the field of optics,
`
`a “principal axis” is “a line passing through the center of the surface of a lens or
`
`spherical mirror.” Ex. 2013 at 1539. A POSA would therefore understand that the
`
`“principal axis” of a field of view, as discussed in the specification of the ‘843
`
`patent, is a line drawn at the center of the field of view. A POSA would have
`
`understood that a reflective element’s field of view aims “towards” where its
`
`principal axis is pointed, because that is what the center of the field of view is
`
`directed at. A POSA would have understood from the language of claim 1 that the
`
`field of view of the auxiliary reflective element need only view “generally”
`
`towards the blind spot, meaning that the principal axis could be pointed anywhere
`
`in the blind spot, rather than necessarily directly at the center of the blind spot.
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`35. A POSA reading claim 1 of the ‘843 patent as of the priority date of
`
`the ‘843 patent would have understood that the “generally views towards a blind
`
`spot” limitation distinguishes the invention over prior art spotter mirrors that have
`
`a wide field of view but that do not have the field of view of an auxiliary reflective
`
`element angled toward the blind spot. The contrast between these mirrors can be
`
`seen in the diagrams below:
`
`Views generally towards a blind spot
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior art
`
`See Ex. 1001, 13:16-26, 19:37-57, Fig. 22 (depicting field of view according to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed invention).
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`36.
`
`In these diagrams, the field of view of a main plano reflective element
`
`is shown in blue, and the field of view of an auxiliary reflective element is shown
`
`in green. The diagram on the left depicts an auxiliary field of view that generally
`
`views towards the blind spot, as required by claim 1 of the ‘843 patent. The
`
`diagram on the right depicts the field of view of a prior art spotter that is not angled
`
`to generally view towards the blind spot.
`
`37. Because the prior art spotter (diagram on the right) is not aimed
`
`toward the blind spot, in order to see into the blind spot it must have a very wide
`
`field of view that extends further inward toward the side of the vehicle, as well as
`
`further outward past the field of view of the primary reflective element. The field
`
`of view of the auxiliary reflective element also fully overlaps with the field of view
`
`of the primary reflective element.
`
`38.
`
`The excessively wide field of view of the prior art spotter is more
`
`difficult for drivers to use. In order for the auxiliary reflective element’s field of
`
`view to be so wide, the radius of curvature of the auxiliary reflective element must
`
`be small, causing the image of a passing vehicle seen in the auxiliary reflective
`
`element to be small and distorted. Moreover, because the majority of the field of
`
`view of the auxiliary reflective element overlaps fully with the primary reflective
`
`element field of view or views further inward into the cabin of the equipped
`
`vehicle, it is more difficult for a driver to determine and distinguish at a glance that
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`a vehicle is in the blind spot. Because of the excessively wide field of view of the
`
`prior art spotter, the driver cannot quickly determine at a glance that a vehicle
`
`visible in the auxiliary reflective element is actually in the blind spot, rather than
`
`being further rearward in the side lane. In contrast, for a mirror assembly
`
`constructed according to claim 1 of the ‘843 patent, a passing vehicle will initially
`
`appear prominently in the auxiliary reflective element, enabling the driver to
`
`quickly determine at a glance that the side lane is not clear and that it is not safe to
`
`change lanes. Moreover, angling as in the ‘843 patent avoids the need for the field
`
`of view of the auxiliary reflective element to be excessively large such that image
`
`size is so small and distance distortion is so great that the driver cannot safely
`
`make a lane change based on an instant glance at the auxiliary reflective element.
`
`39. Moreover, because the auxiliary reflective element as claimed in the
`
`‘843 patent is specifically and narrowly aimed towards the blind spot, the auxiliary
`
`reflective element can be made smaller while still providing a sufficiently-sized
`
`view of a passing vehicle present in the blind spot. This enables achieving a high
`
`ratio between the width of the plano reflective element and the width of the
`
`auxiliary reflective element while still meeting the ‘843 patent’s objective of
`
`“achiev[ing] this within the relatively restricted space available in a standard
`
`automobile-sized exterior sideview mirror assembly.” Ex. 1001, 12:45-48; see
`
`also id., 8:5-13 (disclosing width ratios of “most preferably greater than 2.5 in
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`order to provide a large, unit magnification plano element 150 as the principal rear
`
`viewing portion of plano-multiradius reflective element assembly 130 and
`
`providing multiradius element 155 as a smaller, auxiliary, separate, wide-angle
`
`viewing portion”).
`
`C.
`40.
`
`Construction of “Backing Plate”
`I understand that claim 1 of the ‘843 patent requires a “backing plate,”
`
`which first appears in the following limitation:
`
`said plano reflective element and said auxiliary reflective
`element supported at a backing plate element, said
`backing plate element mounting to said actuator such that
`movement of said backing plate element of said plano-
`auxiliary reflective element assembly by said actuator
`simultaneously and similarly moves said plano reflective
`element and said auxiliary reflective element;
`
`41. Claim 1 includes a number of additional requirements for the
`
`“backing plate,” including that it has “a first support portion supporting said plano
`
`reflective element and a second support portion supporting said auxiliary reflective
`
`element” and that there is “an angling of said second support portion of said
`
`backing plate element … to said first support portion of said backing plate
`
`element.”
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`42.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “backing plate” to a POSA
`
`based on the claims and the specification of the ‘843 patent is “a rigid structure that
`
`supports the rear surfaces of the primary and auxiliary reflective elements.”
`
`43.
`
`This interpretation is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “plate,”
`
`which is a “rigid body.” Ex. 2014, 1344. Two support structures connected by a
`
`flexible hinge or bellows would not be “rigid,” and therefore a POSA would have
`
`understood that such a structure is not a “backing plate.”
`
`44.
`
`This interpretation is also consistent with the specification of the ‘843
`
`patent, which states that the backing plate is a “rigid polymeric substrate capable of
`
`supporting plano element 50 and multiradius element 155” that has “a flat portion
`
`… that corresponds to and is aligned with plano element 150” and “a curved
`
`portion … that corresponds to and is aligned with multiradius element 155,” and
`
`that is “formed as a single element.” Ex. 1001, 8:21-34. This interpretation is also
`
`consistent with the “backing plate” depicted in Figures 11 and 14, which are
`
`reproduced below and which show the “backing plate” at number 160.
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`45.
`
`This interpretation is also consistent with the description in the
`
`specification that the backing plate elements are at an angle or are angled relative
`
`to one another, rather than being adjustable with respect to one another. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:19-20 (“section AA to BB of backing plate element 160’ is angled to
`
`section BB to CC”), 10:27-28 (“the angling of section AA to BB to section BB to
`
`CC”), 14:24-25 (“portion AA to BB of backing plate element 160’ is generally
`22
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00491
`
`angled to portion BB to CC of backing plate 160’”) (all emphases added).
`
`Similarly claim 1 of the ‘843 patent requires “an angling” on the backing plate. A
`
`rigid backing plate sets “the angling” of the reflective elements; a flexible,
`
`adjustable support structure does not have a set, specific angling.
`
`46. A POSA would also understand that the backing plate claimed in the
`
`‘843 patent provides manufacturing advantages, since the backing plate can be
`
`molded as a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
