Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,591,047
`)
`
`Issued: November 26, 2013
`)
`
`Application No.: 13/776,091
`)
`
`
`For: Exterior Sideview Mirror Assembly
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,591,047
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ...................................................... 2
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Grounds For Standing ........................................................................... 3
`D.
`Lead And Backup Counsel And Service Information .......................... 3
`E.
`Fee For Inter Partes Review ................................................................. 4
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)) ..................................... 4
`III.
`IV. Background ...................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The ’047 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art (“POSA”) ............................ 6
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 6
`1.
`“side-by-side” .............................................................................. 7
`V. Magna’s ’026 Publication Is Prior Art Under §§102(a) And (e) .................... 8
`VI. The ’047 Patent Is Entitled To An Effective Filing Date No Earlier
`Than August 5, 2010, So The ’026 Publication Is Also §102(b) Prior
`Art .................................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Background Law ................................................................................... 9
`B.
`Background Facts ................................................................................ 10
`1. Magna previously abandoned the two-mirror design of
`the ’712 patent family ............................................................... 10
`2. Magna impermissibly used the ’843 patent’s application
`to revive prosecution of the abandoned ’712 patent
`family ........................................................................................ 10
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`3. Magna’s defective attempt to antedate the prior art and
`claim priority to the ’712 patent family .................................... 13
`The examiner legally erred by finding the declaration
`sufficient to antedate the prior-art ’026 publication ................. 17
`The ’047 Patent Is Not Entitled To The Filing Date Of Earlier-
`Filed Applications Because The Relevant Portions Of The ’451
`And ’712 Patents Were Not Incorporated By Reference .................... 19
`The ’047 Patent’s Claims Are Not Supported By The ’666
`Application Regardless Of The Extent Of Incorporation By
`Reference ............................................................................................. 24
`1.
`The written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. §120 ........... 24
`2.
`The ’666 application lacks written description support for
`the ’047 patent’s claims even if the ’712 and ’451 patents
`were incorporated in their entireties ......................................... 25
`E. Magna’s Priority Claim is Defective ................................................... 32
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 1-6 And 11-40 Are Anticipated By The ’026
`Publication (Ex. 1011) ................................................................................... 33
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 34
`1.
`Preamble, [a], [b], [h] housing and back plate .......................... 35
`2.
`[c] A electrically-operated actuator .......................................... 36
`3.
`[l] Backing plate mounted to actuator ....................................... 36
`4.
`[e], [i] mirror elements .............................................................. 36
`5.
`[m] Reflective element substrates ............................................. 37
`6.
`[d], [f] Support portions ............................................................ 37
`7.
`[g] Mounted adjacently ............................................................. 38
`8.
`[j], [k], [n] Different and overlapping rearward fields of
`view ........................................................................................... 39
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Claim 2: Generally flat glass substrate ................................................ 40
`Claims 3-6 ........................................................................................... 40
`1.
`Claim 3: Divider ........................................................................ 40
`2.
`Claim 4: Molded wall ............................................................... 40
`3.
`Claim 5: Circumscribes the circumferential edge .................... 40
`4.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 41
`Claims 11-14, 32: Mirror and second portion shapes ......................... 41
`Claims 15-16 ....................................................................................... 42
`Claim 17: Tilting ................................................................................. 43
`Claims 18-28 ....................................................................................... 43
`1.
`Claim 18: Blind Spot ................................................................ 43
`2.
`Claims 19-24 ............................................................................. 43
`3.
`Claims 25-28: Overall FOV and Overlap ................................ 44
`Claims 29, 38: Fixed reflectance and curved substrate ....................... 44
`Claim 30: Attachments ........................................................................ 44
`Claims 31, 37: Glass substrate and curved substrate .......................... 45
`Claim 33: Heater element .................................................................... 45
`Claims 34-35 ....................................................................................... 45
`1.
`Claim 34: Driver-side ............................................................... 45
`2.
`Claim 35: Subtended angle ....................................................... 46
`M. Claim 36: Relative sizes ...................................................................... 46
`N.
`Claims 39-40 ....................................................................................... 46
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`H.
`I.
`J.
`K.
`L.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`
`VIII. Ground 2: Claims 7-10 Would Have Been Obvious Over The ‘026
`Publication And The ’011 Publication (Ex. 1036) ........................................ 46
`A.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 47
`B.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 47
`C.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 47
`D.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 48
`E. Motivation To Combine ...................................................................... 48
`IX. Ground 3: Claims 1, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-27, 33-34, 35, And 39 Would
`Have Been Obvious Over Henion (Ex. 1012), Platzer (Ex. 1013),
`Catlin (Ex. 1034), Silvestre (Ex. 1037), And Yamabe (Ex. 1038) ................ 48
`A. Overview ............................................................................................. 48
`B.
`The Asserted Prior Art ........................................................................ 49
`1.
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/44013 (Ex. 1012,
`“Henion”) .................................................................................. 49
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/81956 (Ex. 1013,
`“Platzer”) ................................................................................... 50
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,721,646 (Ex. 1034, “Catlin”) ........................... 50
`3.
`FR 2650982 (Ex. 1037, “Silvestre”) ......................................... 50
`4.
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,984,048 (Ex. 1038, “Yamabe”) ....................... 51
`5.
`C. Motivation To Combine ...................................................................... 51
`D.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 53
`1.
`Preamble, [a] Mirror housing .................................................... 53
`2.
`[b] Backing plate ....................................................................... 54
`3.
`[c] Actuator ............................................................................... 54
`4.
`[d] Plano mirror ......................................................................... 55
`
`2.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`E.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`[f] Auxiliary mirror ................................................................... 56
`[e], [i] Rearward FOV ............................................................... 57
`[g] Mounted adjacently, side-by-side, and not
`superimposed ............................................................................ 57
`[h] Polymeric molding .............................................................. 59
`8.
`[j] Overlapping FOVs ............................................................... 61
`9.
`[k] Angled ................................................................................. 61
`10.
`[l] Common actuator ................................................................. 62
`11.
`[m] Reflective element substrate .............................................. 63
`12.
`[n] About 2º-20º overlap ........................................................... 64
`13.
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 68
`1.
`Less than about 20º ................................................................... 68
`Claim 16: About 15º-50º ..................................................................... 70
`F.
`Claim 18: Blind spot ........................................................................... 72
`G.
`Claim 19: About 0.75º-5º .................................................................... 73
`H.
`Claim 20: Convex-curved substrate, reflector coating ........................ 76
`I.
`Claim 22: Convex-curved backing plate ............................................. 77
`J.
`Claim 23: Spherical curvature ............................................................. 78
`K.
`Claim 24: Spherical backing plate ...................................................... 78
`L.
`M. Claim 25: At least about 25º ................................................................ 79
`N.
`Claim 26: Less than about 50º ............................................................. 81
`O.
`Claim 27: About 5º-15º overlap .......................................................... 82
`P.
`Claim 33: Auxiliary heater element .................................................... 82
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`Q.
`Claim 34: Driver-side assembly .......................................................... 82
`Claim 35: At least about 25º FOV ...................................................... 82
`R.
`Claim 39: About 5º-15º overlap .......................................................... 83
`S.
`Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 83
`X.
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 84
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,591,047 (the “’047 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Jose Sasian (“Sasian Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jose Sasian
`
`Exhibit B to Defendant's First Supplemental Initial Non-
`Infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions, Magna
`Mirrors of America, Inc. v. SMR Automotive Mirrors UK Ltd. et al.,
`No. 1:17-cv-00077 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2017)
`Exhibit C to Defendant's First Supplemental Initial Non-
`Infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions, Magna
`Mirrors of America, Inc. v. SMR Automotive Mirrors UK Ltd. et al.,
`No. 1:17-cv-00077 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2017)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,591,047 (the “’047 FH”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`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. 7,842,154 (the “’154 patent”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,522,451 (the “’451 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,717,712 (the “’712 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,167,294 (the “’294 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/851,045 (the “’045 application”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`the ’045 and ’666 applications
`U.S. Patent No. 8,783,882 (the “’882 patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,783,882 (the “’882 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/776,247 (the “’247 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/776,091 (the “’091 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/054,004 (the “’004 application)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,756 (the “’756 patent”)
`
`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”)
`Certified English Translation of French Republic Patent Application
`Publication No. 2,650,982 (“Silvestre”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,984,048 (“Yamabe”)
`
`George 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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`FMVSS 111 – Rearview Mirrors (Other Than School Buses)
`(October 28, 1999)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`SMR Automotive Systems USA, Inc. (“SMR”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 8,591,047, “Exterior Rearview Mirror
`
`Assembly,” Ex. 1001.
`
`SMR is part of one of the world’s largest manufacturers of rearview mirrors.
`
`Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. (“Magna”) sued SMR for infringement, accusing
`
`various two-piece mirrors SMR supplies to major automakers, such as the
`
`following allegedly from a Chevrolet Traverse:
`
`
`
`2d Am. Compl. 19 (Ex. 1010).
`
`The ’047 patent’s claims are unpatentable for two reasons. First, Magna’s
`
`older, expired, and abandoned two-mirror patents anticipate the claims. A
`
`publication from that family – the ’026 publication (Ex. 1011) – is prior art under
`
`§§102(a) and (e) under the earliest filing date on the face of the ’047 patent, and
`
`§102(b) art under its actual earliest effective filing date.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`Second, the claims Magna asserted in litigation against SMR would have
`
`been obvious over SMR prior art that teaches using two separate mirrors in one
`
`assembly:
`
`Henion Fig. 2 (Ex. 1012).
`
`The Board therefore should institute review and find all of the ’047 patent’s
`
`
`
`claims unpatentable.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`SMR and the following other entities are real parties-in-interest:
`
`Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group Holdings Ltd., SMR Automotive Mirror
`
`Parts and Holdings UK Limited, SMR Mirrors UK Limited, SMR Automotive
`
`Mirrors UK Limited, SMR Automotive Mirror Systems Holding Deutschland
`
`GmbH, SMR Automotive Mirrors Stuttgart GmbH, SMR Automotive Vision
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Systems Mexico S.A. de C.V., and SMR Automotive Servicios Mexico S.A. de
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`C.V.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Magna asserted the ’047 patent in Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. v.
`
`Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group Holdings Limited, et al., 1:17-cv-00077-
`
`RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.).
`
`SMR is also filing IPR petitions challenging asserted U.S. Pat. Nos.
`
`7,934,843; 8,128,244; 8,147,077; 8,267,534; 8,550,642; 8,783,882; 8,899,762; and
`
`9,694,750. Magna is prosecuting another related patent application: No.
`
`15/638,661.
`
`C. Grounds For Standing
`SMR certifies that the ’047 patent is available for IPR and that SMR is not
`
`barred from requesting this proceeding.
`
`D. Lead And Backup Counsel And Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), SMR
`
`designates the following lead counsel:
`
`• Charles H. Sanders (Reg. No. 47,053), charles.sanders@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 200 Clarendon Street;
`
`Boston MA 02116; 617.948.6022.
`
`• Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724), jonathan.strang@lw.com,
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000;
`
`Washington, DC 20004-1304; 202.637.2362.
`
`• Anant K. Saraswat (Reg. No. 76,050), anant.saraswat@lw.com,
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP; 200 Clarendon Street;
`
`Boston MA 02116; 617.880.4576.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney from SMR is attached. SMR
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`E.
`
`Fee For Inter Partes Review
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-6 and 11-40 are anticipated by the ’026
`
`publication (Ex. 1011)
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 7-10 would have been obvious over the ’026
`
`publication and the ’011 publication (Ex. 1036)
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 1, 15-16, 18-20, 22-27, 33-35, and 39 would have
`
`been obvious over Henion (Ex. 1012), Platzer (Ex. 1013), Catlin (Ex.
`
`1034), Silvestre (Ex. 1037), and Yamabe (Ex. 1038).
`
`All challenged claims are also unpatentable for any additional reasons
`
`identified with respect to their dependent claims.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’047 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’047 patent relates to an automobile sideview mirror. The claims recite
`
`an “exterior sideview mirror assembly” with two separate mirrors, one flat and one
`
`curved. Specifically, claim 1 recites a “main plano” (flat) mirror and a separate
`
`“auxiliary non-plano curved mirror element” both attached to the same backing
`
`plate. Figure 16 shows an example:
`
`
`
`As explained herein, Figure 16, and all disclosures of a two-mirror design,
`
`were copied into an application to which the ’047 patent claims priority from an
`
`earlier-filed patent family which had been abandoned for years. Before insertion of
`
`this material, all previous applications in the ’047 patent’s family only described a
`
`single, continuous mirror with a flat portion and a curved portion.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`B.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art (“POSA”)
`A POSA would have had at the relevant time 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. This
`
`description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill may
`
`compensate for less experience, and vice-versa, e.g., a B.S. in the above fields with
`
`4-6 years of experience in the industry. Sasian Decl. ¶¶16-18.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Because the ’047 patent has not expired, the Board applies the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This is different from—and broader than—the
`
`standard applied in district court. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793
`
`F.3d 1306, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2015).1
`
`All claim terms, including those not specifically addressed in this section,
`
`have been accorded their broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`
`1 SMR does not concede that the meanings of any claim terms are as broad under
`
`the Phillips rubric as they are under the broadest reasonable interpretation. SMR
`
`reserves the right to argue alternative and narrower definitions in district court.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`1.
`“side-by-side”
`All challenged claims require primary and secondary mirrors “adjacently
`
`disposed … in a side-by-side relationship and [] not superimposed with one mirror
`
`element on top of the other mirror element.” See, e.g., ’047 patent cl. 1. Magna has
`
`asserted in litigation that a secondary mirror located in a corner of the primary
`
`mirror (as depicted below using a mirror allegedly from a Chevrolet Traverse) is in
`
`a “side-by-side relationship” with the primary mirror:
`
`
`
`2d Am. Compl. 19 (Ex. 1010).
`
`For purposes of this petition under the “broadest reasonable construction”
`
`standard, Petitioner adopts Magna’s interpretation of “side-by-side” as including
`
`an arrangement of mirrors that face each other along two edges (e.g., where a
`
`secondary mirror is in the corner of a primary mirror). Regardless, even under a
`
`narrower construction of “side-by-side,” the challenged claims would still be
`
`invalid for the reasons discussed herein.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`
`V. Magna’s ’026 Publication Is Prior Art Under §§102(a) And (e)
`As petitioner, SMR bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating
`
`unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d
`
`1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015). SMR has met its initial burden of production for
`
`purposes of institution by proffering the 026 publication (Ex. 1011) as invalidating
`
`art. The ’026 publication is “by another” because it names three inventors –
`
`Lindahl, Fuchs, and Lynam – whereas the ’047 patent names just one inventor,
`
`Lynam. Furthermore, the ’026 publication arises from an application filed
`
`December 20, 2000 and was published on June 13, 2002, which is before the
`
`earliest claimed priority date on the face of the ’047 patent, May 20, 2003. If
`
`Magna attempts to offer evidence that the ’047 patent claims and relevant
`
`disclosure in the ’026 publication have a common inventive entity, that evidence
`
`should be subject to cross examination during the trial phase of the requested IPR.
`
`VI. The ’047 Patent Is Entitled To An Effective Filing Date No Earlier Than
`August 5, 2010, So The ’026 Publication Is Also §102(b) Prior Art
`The ’047 patent is entitled only to the actual filing date of its predecessor
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,843 (Ex. 1008), August 5, 2010. The ’047 patent is not
`
`entitled to an earlier effective filing date because the immediate parent of the ’843
`
`patent, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/197,666 (“the ’666 application”) (Ex.
`
`1014), does not provide written description support for the ’047 patent’s claims. At
`
`best, the ’047 patent’s claims find support only in two patents referenced in
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`passing in the ’666 application’s specification: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,522,451 (“the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`’451 patent,” Ex. 1016) and 6,717,712 (“the ’712 patent,” Ex. 1017), the latter of
`
`which arose from the ’026 publication. This is insufficient for the ’666 application
`
`to support the ’047 patent’s claims.
`
`First, only the portions of the ’451 and ’712 patents regarding the field of
`
`view (“FOV”) – not the two-mirror structure – were incorporated by reference in
`
`the ’666 application. Second, even if the ’451 and ’712 patents were incorporated
`
`in their entireties (and they were not), a POSA would conclude that the ’666
`
`application does not show possession of the ’047 patent’s claimed two-mirror
`
`subject matter because the ’666 application is directed to a single mirror design.
`
`A. Background Law
`For a claim to be entitled to the benefit of an earlier-filed application, the
`
`earlier application must provide written description support. 35 U.S.C. § 120;
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998). There must also be a
`
`continuous chain of co-pending applications, each supporting the claimed subject
`
`matter. Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “This
`
`requirement prevents an inventor from ‘overreaching’ in a later-filed application as
`
`to the scope of what was invented at the time of the earlier-filed application.”
`
`ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2013-00539, Paper 33 at
`
`12-13 (Mar. 3, 2015).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`Magna overreached here. Magna improperly revived prosecution of an
`
`abandoned family. Magna then continued to prosecute patents, including the ’047
`
`patent, directed to the subject matter of that abandoned family.
`
`B.
`
`Background Facts
`1. Magna previously abandoned the two-mirror design of
`the ’712 patent family
`The ’712 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’451 patent, and in turn has
`
`one continuation, U.S. Patent No. 7,167,294 (“the ’294 patent,” Ex. 1018). All
`
`three patents in this family (the “’712 family”) relate to a sideview mirror with a
`
`two-mirror design having a flat primary mirror and a separate, curved auxiliary
`
`mirror. See, e.g., ’451 patent Fig. 5A-5H & cl. 1 (Ex. 1016); ’712 patent Fig. 5A-
`
`5H & cl. 1 (Ex. 1017); ’294 patent Fig. 5A-5H & cl. 1 (Ex. 1018). The examiner of
`
`the ’712 family repeatedly rejected the as-filed claims, forcing Magna to add
`
`several claim limitations, such as the requirement in claim 1 of the ’712 patent that
`
`the mirror include a “frame element assembly” with “first” and “second” “open
`
`portion[s].” ’712 patent cl. 1 (Ex. 1017). After the ’294 patent issued on January
`
`23, 2007, Magna did not file any further continuations.
`
`2. Magna impermissibly used the ’843 patent’s application to
`revive prosecution of the abandoned ’712 patent family
`Magna filed the ’843 patent’s application, Appl. No. 12/851,045 (“the ’045
`
`application,” Ex. 1019) on August 5, 2010, ostensibly as a continuation of the ’666
`
`application. ’843 FH 1145 (Ex. 1009). Although Magna called the ’045 application
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`a continuation of the ’666 application, Magna actually used it to impermissibly
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`reinitiate prosecution of the earlier-filed ’712 patent family, which had not had a
`
`pending application for nearly four years, before a new examiner, thus improperly
`
`reviving its ability to draft claims directed to the ’712 patent family’s two-element
`
`mirrors.
`
`To do so, Magna copied the entire ’712 patent specification (except the
`
`Background and Summary) into the ’045 application and drafted claims directed to
`
`the ’712 family’s purported invention:
`
`Magna inserted the ’712 patent’s disclosure into the as-filed ’045 application at the
`
`front of the Detailed Description. See Ex. 1020 (comparing ’045 and ’666
`
`applications). In filing the ’045 application, Magna stated that it was a copy of the
`
`parent application (’843 FH 1145), but then corrected itself, stating that the ’045
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`application adds “Figures 9-[23]2 and discussion thereof, which are from U.S.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`Patent 6,717,712, which is incorporated by reference in the present application and
`
`its priority applications” and “new claims 1-92.” ’843 FH 1146; Ex. 1020
`
`(computer-generated redline showing differences between the ’045 and ’666
`
`applications).
`
`This insertion of the ’712 patent’s disclosure expanded the ’045 application
`
`to roughly four times the size of its parent, the ’666 application. The number of
`
`figures increased from 9 to 33 (including new Figures 13A-H, 14, 14A, 14B), and
`
`the text grew from 16 pages (14 pages of description, 2 pages of claims) to 68
`
`pages (37 pages of description, 31 pages of new claims). Compare Ex. 1014 (’666
`
`application) with Ex. 1019 (’045 application); see also Ex. 1020 (computer-
`
`generated redline).
`
`The substance of the ’045 application changed drastically, too. The ’712
`
`patent described and claimed an assembly with two separate mirrors (one planar
`
`and the other curved). Sasian Decl. ¶¶56-58 (Ex. 1002). The ’045 application’s
`
`parent, the ’666 application, described achieving a similar field of view to the ’712
`
`patent’s two-mirror assembly using just one reflective element having an ultrathin
`
`and flexible layer of glass. Sasian Decl. ¶¶38-46. Magna improperly transformed
`
`
`2 Magna incorrectly stated “Figures 9-22.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`this brief performance comparison touting the benefits of a single reflective
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`element into an opportunity to revive prosecution of the two-mirror assembly.
`
`To be clear, no member of the ’843 patent family, including the ’047 patent,
`
`claimed priority to the ’712 patent family. Before the disclosure of the ’712 patent
`
`was inserted into the ’045 application, the ’451 and ’712 patents were only briefly
`
`mentioned with incorporation by reference language, among over 100 other
`
`documents (Sasian Decl. ¶61), in the ’666 application.
`
`3. Magna’s defective attempt to antedate the prior art and
`claim priority to the ’712 patent family
`In his first and only Office Action on the merits during prosecution of
`
`Application 13/776,091 (“the ’091 application,” Ex. 1025) (which issued as the
`
`’047 patent), the examiner rejected pending claims 1-6 and 11-40 as anticipated by
`
`the ’026 publication. ’047 FH 163-172 (Ex. 1006).3 The examiner concluded that
`
`the ’026 publication was prior art “by another.” ’047 FH 163-164.
`
`Just five days later, Magna responded that the ’026 publication was not prior
`
`art. Magna incorrectly and incoherently contended that because “Lynam ‘026
`
`published prior to the priority date of the presently claimed invention” it “cannot
`
`be cited as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).” ’047 FH 208. Magna also
`
`contended that (i) the pending application was entitled to its provisional
`
`
`3 Claims 41-98 were withdrawn due to an earlier restriction requirement.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`application’s filing date because ’712 patent and its parent, the ’451 patent, were
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,591,047
`
`incorporated in all the earlier applications from which the ’091 application claimed
`
`priority, and (ii) the ’451 and ’712 patents’ applications demonstrated conception
`
`and reduction to practice before the ’026 publication. ’047 FH 209-210.
`
`Magna did not submit evidence sufficient to prove either point. Instead,
`
`Magna made multiple misleading arguments and submitted evidence that confused
`
`the issues. First, Magna assumed, but did not expressly contend or demonstrate,
`
`that the ’451 and ’712 patents were incorporated in their entireties. ’047 FH 209.
`
`Second, Magna did not contend that the relevant material from the ’026
`
`publicati