Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,147,077
`)
`
`Issued: April 3, 2012
`)
`
`Application No.: 13/071,174
`)
`
`
`For: Exterior Sideview Mirror System
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSE SASIAN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,147,077
`
`
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ............ 4
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN THIS
`DECLARATION ............................................................................................ 7
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW .................................................................................. 8
`A. Written Description .............................................................................. 8
`B.
`Incorporation By Reference .................................................................. 8
`C.
`Understanding Of Legal Principles Relevant To Anticipation And
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 9
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................ 11
`V.
`VI. THE ’077 PATENT ...................................................................................... 12
`The ’077 Patent’s Disclosure .............................................................. 13
`Application For The ’843 Patent ........................................................ 13
`VII. THE ’666 APPLICATION LACKS WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT
`FOR CLAIMS OF THE ’077 PATENT ....................................................... 14
`A. A POSA Would Not Understand The ’666 Patent Application To
`Incorporate With Particularity The Two-Mirror Assembly Of The
`’712 And ’451 Patent Family ............................................................. 21
`A POSA Would Not Understand The ’666 Application To Support
`The ’077 Patent’s Claims Even If The ’451 And ’712 Patents Were
`Fully Incorporated By Reference ....................................................... 27
`The Claims Of The ’077 Patent Are Directed To A Two-Mirror
`System ................................................................................................. 38
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 41
`A.
`“side-by-side” ..................................................................................... 41
`IX. THE PRIOR ART AND BACKGROUND EVIDENCE ............................. 43
`A.
`Prior Art Relied Upon For Anticipation ............................................. 43
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`1.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0072026 (“the
`’026 publication”) ..................................................................... 43
`Prior Art Relied Upon For Obviousness Combinations ..................... 43
`1.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0264011 (“the
`’011 publication”) ..................................................................... 43
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/44013 (“Henion”) ............... 45
`2.
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/81956 (“Platzer”) ................ 46
`3.
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,721,646 (“Catlin”) ........................................... 47
`4.
`Background Evidence ......................................................................... 47
`C.
`CLAIMS 1-17 AND 20-27 ARE ANTICIPATED BY THE ’026
`PUBLICATION ............................................................................................ 48
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 49
`1.
`Preamble, [a], [b] Exterior sideview mirror assembly ............. 49
`2.
`[d] Plano-auxiliary assembly .................................................... 50
`3.
`[n] Reflective Element Substrates ............................................ 52
`4.
`[e], [i], [v] Mounted adjacently and outboard, and further
`distant ....................................................................................... 52
`[c] Electrically-operated actuator ............................................. 55
`5.
`[f] Backing plate mounted to actuator ...................................... 57
`6.
`[h], [k], [l], [m] Support portions and capable of supporting ... 58
`7.
`[j] Polymeric substrate .............................................................. 60
`8.
`[g] Planar and auxiliary mirror fields of view, blind spot ........ 61
`9.
`[p] generally coplanar ............................................................... 62
`10.
`[o], [q], [r], [s], [t], [u] Demarcation ........................................ 63
`11.
`Claim 2: Three-degree Angle ............................................................. 68
`B.
`Claim 3: Outwardly and/or downwardly ............................................ 69
`C.
`Claim 4: Adhesive attachment ............................................................ 69
`D.
`Claims 5, 6, 11: Multiradius, spheric, and aspheric shapes ................ 70
`E.
`Claim 7: Curved portion ..................................................................... 72
`F.
`Claim 8: Wall ...................................................................................... 74
`G.
`Claim 9: Heater Element .................................................................... 75
`H.
`Claim 10: Subtended angle ................................................................. 76
`I.
`Claim 12: Relative sizes .................................................................... 77
`J.
`Claim 13: 1 to 24 feet behind ............................................................. 77
`K.
`Claim 14: substrate with metallic coating .......................................... 79
`L.
`M. Claims 15, 16: Electro-Optic Reflective Element .............................. 79
`N.
`Independent Claim 17 ......................................................................... 81
`1.
`Preamble, [a]-[m] ..................................................................... 81
`
`ii
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`O.
`P.
`Q.
`R.
`
`[n] Different, angled rearward field of view ............................ 83
`2.
`[o] Angling ............................................................................... 84
`3.
`[p] Planar and auxiliary field of view, blind spot ..................... 86
`4.
`[q] Reflective Element Substrates ............................................ 87
`5.
`[r] Rearward Field of View ...................................................... 88
`6.
`[s] Total field of view ............................................................... 89
`7.
`[t] Fixed Reflectance Mirror Reflector ..................................... 89
`8.
`Claim 20: Reflective Element Substrates ........................................... 90
`Claim 21: flat and curved substrates with metallic coating ................ 91
`Claims 22, 23: Spherical Curvature .................................................... 92
`Independent Claim 24 ......................................................................... 93
`1.
`Preamble, [a]-[m] ..................................................................... 93
`2.
`[n]-[q] overlap with claim 17 ................................................... 96
`3.
`[r] Fixed Reflectance Mirror Reflector .................................... 97
`Claim 25: Substrates ........................................................................... 98
`S.
`Claim 26: backing plate partition ....................................................... 99
`T.
`Claim 27 ............................................................................................ 101
`U.
`XI. CLAIMS 1, 17, 18-19, AND 24 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER
`THE COMBINATION OF THE ’026 AND ’011 PUBLICATIONS ........ 102
`A.
`Claims 1, 17 and 24 .......................................................................... 102
`B.
`Claim 18 ............................................................................................ 103
`C.
`Claim 19 ............................................................................................ 103
`D. Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 106
`XII. CLAIMS 17, 22, AND 25-27 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER
`THE COMBINATION OF HENION, pLATZER, AND CATLIN ........... 109
`A.
`Claim 17 ............................................................................................ 110
`1.
`Preamble, [a], [b] Exterior Sideview Mirror Assembly ......... 110
`2.
`[c] Electrically-Operated Actuator ......................................... 111
`3.
`[d] Plano-auxiliary Assembly ................................................. 113
`4.
`[e] Mounted Adjacently .......................................................... 115
`5.
`[f] Backing Plate Mounted to Actuator .................................. 118
`6.
`[g], [p] Planar and Auxiliary Field of View, Blind Spot ........ 121
`7.
`[h], [k], [l], [m] Support Portions and Capable of
`Supporting .............................................................................. 124
`[i] Auxiliary Mirror Outboard ................................................ 126
`[j] Polymeric Substrate ........................................................... 132
`
`8.
`9.
`
`iii
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`
`10.
`11.
`12.
`13.
`14.
`
`[n] Different, Angled Rearward Field of View ...................... 136
`[o] Angled Second Support Portion ....................................... 138
`[q] Reflective Element Substrates .......................................... 139
`[r] Outwardly and Downwardly ............................................. 142
`[s] Driver’s-Side Assembly, At Least 25 Degrees to Side of
`Automobile ............................................................................. 145
`[t] Fixed Reflectance .............................................................. 152
`15.
`Claim 22 ............................................................................................ 154
`1.
`Spherical Curvature ................................................................ 154
`Claim 24 ............................................................................................ 156
`1.
`Elements [a]-[q] ...................................................................... 156
`2.
`[r] Fixed Reflectance, Spherically Bent, Metallic Reflector
`Coating ................................................................................... 156
`Claim 25 ............................................................................................ 158
`1.
`[a] Glass Substrate, Metallic Reflector Coating ..................... 158
`2.
`[b] Adapted Backing Plate ..................................................... 158
`Claim 26 ............................................................................................ 159
`1.
`[a] Demarcation Element ........................................................ 159
`2.
`[b] Adapted Backing Plate ..................................................... 161
`Claim 27 ............................................................................................ 161
`1.
`[a] Driver’s-Side Assembly .................................................... 161
`2.
`[b] At Least 25 Degrees to Side of Automobile ..................... 161
`XIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 162
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I have been retained by SMR Automotive Systems USA Inc. (“SMR”)
`
`to provide my opinion concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,147,077
`
`(attached to the accompanying Petition and henceforth referred to as “the ’077
`
`patent”) in support of SMR’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,147,077.
`
`2.
`
`I have extensive academic and industry experience with optical
`
`engineering. Specifically, I have over thirty years of academic and industry
`
`experience in the field of optical sciences and optical engineering in general,
`
`including optical instrumentation, optical design, and optical fabrication and
`
`testing.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently a full-time, tenured Professor of Optical Sciences at the
`
`College of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, a
`
`position I have held since 2002. As a professor, I teach and perform research in the
`
`field of optical design. For example, I teach my students how to design lenses and
`
`mirrors and how to think about light so that they can design useful optical systems.
`
`4.
`
`As part of my academic and research responsibilities I am frequently
`
`involved with the design, fabrication, and testing of optical devices. Prior to
`
`receiving tenure, I was an Associate Professor of Optical Sciences at the University
`
`of Arizona from 1995 to 2001. Prior to joining the University of Arizona faculty,
`
`1
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`I was a member of the technical staff of AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1990 to
`
`1995. From 1984 to 1987, I was a Research Assistant, and from 1988 to 1990, I
`
`was a Research Associate, in the Optical Sciences Center at the University of
`
`Arizona. From 1976 to 1984, I was an optician at the Institute of Astronomy at the
`
`University of Mexico.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the
`
`University of Mexico in 1982, a Master of Science degree in Optical Sciences from
`
`the University of Arizona in 1987, and a Ph.D. degree in Optical Sciences from the
`
`University of Arizona in 1988. My research areas include optical design,
`
`fabrication, and testing of optical instruments, astronomical optics, diffractive
`
`optics, opto-mechanical design, light in gemstones, lithography optics, and light
`
`propagation.
`
`6.
`
`At the University of Arizona, I have taught the courses Lens Design
`
`OPTI 517 (1997-present), Introduction to Aberrations OPTI 518 (2005-present),
`
`Advanced Lens Design OPTI 595A (2008, 2012, 2017), Illumination Optics
`
`Seminar (1997-2000), Introduction to Opto-mechanics OPTI 690 (1998, 2001,
`
`2003, 2004, 2005) and Optical Shop Practices OPTI 597A (1996-present). I teach
`
`students how to design mirrors, including their field of view specifications, how to
`
`grind, polish, and test aspheric mirrors, how to mount mirrors properly so that their
`
`physical integrity is preserved under a variety of loads, and how to align mirrors. I
`
`2
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`have experience in flat, curved, and aspheric mirror fabrication and mounting, and
`
`in the chemical and vacuum deposition of reflective metals on substrates.
`
`7.
`
`I have directed several theses and dissertations in the areas of lens and
`
`mirror design. I have lectured regarding my work, and have published, along with
`
`students and colleagues, over one hundred scientific papers in the area of optics.
`
`These include technical papers, patents, and thesis research done under my
`
`direction, related to lens and mirror design. For example, “Two-mirror telescope
`
`design with third-order coma insensitive to decenter misalignment,” “Double-
`
`curvature Surfaces in Mirror System Design,” "Four-mirror optical system for
`
`large telescopes," and "Flat-field, anastigmatic, four-mirror optical system for
`
`large telescopes."
`
`8.
`
`As part of my research responsibilities at the University of Arizona, I
`
`am often involved in projects that have included automotive optics, and mirrors
`
`and prism in periscopic systems.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1995, I have been a consultant and have provided to industry
`
`solutions to a variety of projects that include flat and curved mirrors and opto-
`
`mechanics design. I also have consulted in the area of plastic optics. I hold several
`
`patents and patent applications related to optical mirrors.
`
`10.
`
`I have been a topical editor and reviewer for the peer-reviewed journal
`
`Applied Optics. I am a fellow of the International Society for Optics and Photonics
`
`3
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`(SPIE), a fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA), and a lifetime member
`
`of the Optical Society of India.
`
`11.
`
`I have served as a co-chair for the conferences "Novel Optical
`
`Systems: Design and Optimization" (1997-2006), "Optical systems alignment,
`
`tolerancing, and verification" (2007-2017), and “International Optical Design
`
`Conference,” (2002). I have taught in Japan (2014, 2016, and 2017) the course:
`
`Advanced Lens Design: Art and Science.
`
`12.
`
`I have been an editor of approximately 17 published conference
`
`proceedings from SPIE. I am the author of the book, "Introduction to Aberrations
`
`in Optical Imaging Systems," by Cambridge University Press, 2013. I am named
`
`as an inventor on approximately 12 U.S. patents.
`
`13. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of
`
`my background, experience, and publications, is attached to the accompanying
`
`Petition.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`14. 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 the following documents:
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,147,077 (the “’077 patent”)
`
`4
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`
`
`1003
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jose Sasian
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,843 (the “’843 patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,934,843 (the “’843 FH”)
`
`Second Amended Complaint, Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. v.
`Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group Holdings Ltd., et al., No.
`1:17-CV-77 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 17, 2017) (“2d Am. Compl.”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0072026 (the “’026
`publication”)
`
`WO 2001/44013 (“Henion”)
`
`WO 2001/81956 (“Platzer”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/197,666 (the “’666 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,522,451 (the “’451 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,717,712 (the “’712 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/851,045 (the “’045 application”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`the ’045 and ’666 applications
`
`JAMES MAXWELL, PLASTICS IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY 114
`(Woodhead Publishing Limited 1994) (“Maxwell”)
`
`N. G. MCCRUM, C. P. BUCKLEY, & C. B. BUCKNALL, PRINCIPLES OF
`POLYMER ENGINEERING (Oxford Science Publications 2d ed. 2011)
`(1997) (“Bucknall”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,721,646 (“Catlin”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,793,542 (“Kondo”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0264011 (the “’011
`Publication”)
`
`5
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`Certified English Translation of French Republic Patent No.
`2,650,982 (“Silvestre”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,984,048 (“Yamabe”)
`
`G. Platzer, The Geometry of Automotive Rearview Mirrors – Why
`Blind Zones Exist and Strategies to Overcome Them, SAE Technical
`Paper 950601 (1995)
`
`NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEP’T
`OF TRANSPORTATION, DOC. NO. TP111V-00, LABORATORY TEST
`PROCEDURE FOR FMVSS 111 – REARVIEW MIRRORS (OTHER THAN
`SCHOOL BUSES) (October 28, 1999)
`
`
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`
`
`15. My opinions are additionally guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the ’077
`
`patent at the relevant time. As discussed herein, in my opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the claims of the ’077 patent to
`
`be described in the ’666 application. Nevertheless, because I understand that the
`
`’077 patent attempts to claim priority to the application for U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,717,712, filed in 2003, I was also asked to consider a date of 2003 for the purpose
`
`of determining how a person or ordinary skill would have understood the claims.
`
`The choice of 2003 vs. a later date did not affect my analysis of the meaning of the
`
`claim terms.
`
`6
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN
`THIS DECLARATION
`16. To analyze the level of skill in the art, I have considered the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions, rapidity of innovation,
`
`sophistication of technology, and educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`17. The ‘077 patent field of invention relates to side-view mirror
`
`assemblies for vehicles that include a main mirror and an auxiliary mirror. The
`
`problem addressed in the ’077 patent requires knowledge of geometrical optics,
`
`optical elements including flat and curved mirrors, optical specifications,
`
`alignment of optics, fabrication of optics, mechanical design, and visual optics.
`
`18. The relevant field, therefore, is comprised of people having an
`
`engineering degree or its equivalent. In particular, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in this art (“POSA”) will have had at the time of invention a M.Sc. 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. This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill
`
`may make up for less experience, and vice-versa, e.g., a B.S. in the above fields
`
`with 4-6 years of experience in the industry.
`
`7
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW
`A. Written Description
`19.
`I understand that a patent claim has sufficient written description
`
`support in a patent application when that application (including its as-filed claims)
`
`describes the claimed invention, with all of its limitations, in a manner that is
`
`understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore shows that the
`
`inventor actually invented the invention claimed. I also understand that describing
`
`an obvious variant of the claimed invention is not sufficient. The person of ordinary
`
`skill must conclude that the application itself (including its as-filed claims) fully
`
`sets forth the claimed invention, by describing it in words, figures, diagrams, and
`
`the like.
`
`B.
`Incorporation By Reference
`20. With respect to incorporation by reference in the context of patents
`
`and patent applications, I understand that in order for a first document to validly
`
`incorporate material by reference from a second document, the first document must
`
`state with detailed particularity what material is incorporated and identify where in
`
`the second document that material may be found. I further understand that the
`
`Board evaluates the particularity required for sufficient incorporation by reference
`
`from the point of view of a POSA: material is validly incorporated if a POSA
`
`8
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`would understand a document to sufficiently incorporate subject matter by
`
`reference.
`
`C. Understanding Of Legal Principles Relevant To Anticipation
`And Obviousness
`I understand that a prior art reference can anticipate a patent claim
`
`21.
`
`when the prior art’s disclosure renders the claim’s disclosure not novel. I
`
`understand that in order to anticipate a patent claim, a prior art reference must teach
`
`every element of the claim, expressly or inherently. In analyzing anticipation, I
`
`understand that it is important to consider the scope of the claims, the level of skill
`
`in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject
`
`matter set forth in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`of the claim would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`9
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`23.
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination would have been obvious. I also understand that in
`
`assessing whether a claim would have been obvious one must consider whether the
`
`claimed improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions. I understand that there need not be a
`
`precise teaching in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter of a claim
`
`because one can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`skill in the art would employ. I further understand that a person of ordinary skill
`
`is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight
`
`combination of components selectively culled from the prior art. I understand that
`
`in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or problem known in the field at the time
`
`of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
`
`elements. For example, I understand that it is important to consider whether there
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that known
`
`techniques can have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and that in many
`
`10
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`cases a person of ordinary skill can fit the teachings of multiple pieces of prior art
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I
`
`further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on
`
`whether the claim would have been obvious.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`evidence of commercial success of the invention, evidence of a long-felt need that
`
`was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence
`
`that an invention achieved a surprising result. I further understand that such
`
`evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the elements of a claim, in
`
`order to be relevant. I am unaware of any such secondary considerations for the
`
`’077 patent.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`27. As I describe in further detail below, my opinion is that the claims of
`
`the ’077 patent, all of which are directed to an automotive exterior rear sideview
`
`mirror assembly containing a flat primary mirror and a curved auxiliary mirror,
`
`lack written description support in the application to which the ’077 patent claims
`
`11
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`priority – the ’666 application. The ’666 application is directed at a single mirror
`
`assembly rather than a two mirror assembly, but contains a brief statement of
`
`incorporation by reference relating to the ’712 patent, which discloses a two mirror
`
`assembly. As I describe herein, a POSA would not have understood this brief
`
`statement to constitute incorporation by reference of the ’712 patent’s two-mirror
`
`assembly. Further, even if the ’712 patent’s two mirror assembly were fully
`
`incorporated by reference into the ’666 application, a POSA would still not
`
`understand the ’666 application to provide sufficient written description support
`
`for a two-mirror assembly.
`
`28.
`
`It is also my opinion that certain claims of the ’077 patent would have
`
`been anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art references disclosed herein.
`
`Specifically, it is my opinion that claims 1-17 and 20-27 of the ’077 patent are
`
`anticipated by the ’026 publication; claims 1, 17, 18-19, and 24 would have been
`
`rendered obvious by the ’026 publication in combination with the ’011 publication;
`
`claim 17 is unpatentable over Henion in combination with Catlin and Platzer;
`
`claims 22, 24, and 25-26 are unpatentable over Henion, and claim 27 is
`
`unpatentable over Henion in combination with Platzer
`
`VI. THE ’077 PATENT
`29.
`I have reviewed the ’077 patent. The ’077 patent is entitled to an
`
`effective filing date of August 5, 2010 or later because the claims of the ’077 patent
`
`12
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`do not have written description support in the previous patent applications in the
`
`’077 patent’s family, as illustrated below.
`
` The ’077 Patent’s Disclosure
`30. The ’077 patent discloses a driver’s-side exterior sideview mirror
`
`system for automobiles. See, e.g., ’077 patent at 1:65-3:33 & Fig. 16. The system
`
`is comprised of an assembly containing two separate mirrors – a flat (plano-
`
`reflective) primary mirror for viewing areas rearward and sideward of the driver,
`
`and an auxiliary curved or secondary mirror providing a wide-angled field of view
`
`(“FOV”) capable of viewing into the area not covered by the primary mirror (the
`
`driver’s “blind spot”). ’077 patent at 1:65-3:33 & Figs. 11, 13-16. The primary
`
`and secondary mirrors may be at an angle relative to each other to provide the
`
`driver a wider total field of view. Id. at 1:65-3:33 & Figs. 11, 14. This angling
`
`may be accomplished by placing the primary and secondary mirrors on separate,
`
`angled portions of a molded plastic backing plate. Id. at 1:65-3:33 & Figs. 3, 6.
`
` Application For The ’843 Patent
`31.
`I have considered the application for the ’843 patent. I understand
`
`that the ’077 patent claims priority through the ’843 patent, which I understand to
`
`be important to understanding the ’077 patent’s priority date.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that applicant filed the application for the ’843 patent
`
`(Appl. No. 12/851/045, the “’045 application”) on August 5, 2010. ’843 FH 1145.
`
`13
`
`SMR USA
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jose Sasian In Support Of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,147,077
`
`
`The application noted that it was a continuation of the application for the ’154
`
`patent (the ’666 application). ’843 FH 1145.
`
`33.
`
`I am informed that the specification of the ’712 patent was copied into
`
`the ’045 application.
`
`34.
`
`I have reviewed a computer-generated comparison of the ’045 and
`
`’666 applications showing that the majority of the ’712 patent’s specification was
`
`copied into the ’045 application that is atta