`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,267,534
`)
`
`Issued: September 18, 2012
`)
`
`Application No.: 13/336,018
`)
`
`
`For: Exterior Rearview Mirror Assembly
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,267,534
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`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 ’534 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art (“POSA”) ............................ 6
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 6
`V. Magna’s ’026 Publication Is Prior Art Under §§ 102(a) And (e) ................... 7
`VI. The ’534 Patent Is Entitled To An Effective Filing Date No Earlier
`Than August 5, 2010, So The ’026 Publication Is Also § 102(b) Prior
`Art .................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Background Law ................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Background Facts .................................................................................. 9
`1. Magna previously prosecuted, and abandoned, a two-
`mirror design in the ’712 patent family ...................................... 9
`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 8,267,534
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`3. Magna’s defective attempt to antedate the prior art and
`effectively claim priority to the ’712 patent family .................. 13
`The examiner legally erred by finding the declaration
`sufficient to antedate the prior-art ’026 publication ................. 18
`The ’534 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 .................... 20
`The ’534 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 ’534 patent’s claims even if the ’712 and ’451 patents
`were incorporated in their entireties ......................................... 25
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 1-20 Are Anticipated By The ’026 Publication (Ex.
`1011) .............................................................................................................. 33
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 33
`1.
`Preamble, [a] bracket, [b] casing .............................................. 34
`2.
`[c] Single mirror support for both mirrors ................................ 36
`3.
`[d], [e] Primary and spotting mirrors ........................................ 37
`Independent Claim 7 ........................................................................... 38
`1.
`[a]-[e]......................................................................................... 38
`2.
`[f] Flat glass substrate ............................................................... 38
`Independent Claim 13 ......................................................................... 39
`1.
`Elements 13[a]-[e], [g] .............................................................. 39
`2.
`[f] Spotting mirror angle ........................................................... 39
`D. Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 40
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claims 2, 8, 14 – Support portions for primary and spotting
`mirror ................................................................................................... 40
`Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 16 – Mirror support portions’
`features ................................................................................................ 41
`Claim 5, 11, 17 - Spotting portion forward ......................................... 42
`G.
`Claim 6, 12, and 18 - Spotting portion rearward ................................ 43
`H.
`Claim 19 – Spotting mirror field of view ............................................ 44
`I.
`Claim 20 - Spotting mirror angle ........................................................ 44
`J.
`VIII. Ground 2: Claims 13 And 20 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Henion (Ex. 1012) And Platzer (Ex. 1013) ................................................... 44
`A. Overview ............................................................................................. 45
`B.
`The Asserted Prior Art ........................................................................ 45
`1.
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/44013 (Ex. 1012,
`“Henion”) .................................................................................. 45
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/81956 (“Platzer,” Ex.
`1013) ......................................................................................... 46
`C. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 47
`D.
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 48
`1.
`Preamble, [a] bracket ................................................................ 48
`2.
`[b] Casing .................................................................................. 50
`3.
`[c] Single mirror support for both mirrors ................................ 51
`4.
`[d] Primary mirror ..................................................................... 52
`5.
`[e] Spotting Mirror .................................................................... 53
`6.
`[f] Spotting mirror angle ........................................................... 56
`7.
`[g] Flat glass substrate .............................................................. 56
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`E.
`Claim 20 – Spotting mirror angle ........................................................ 57
`IX. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 60
`X.
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 24
`ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00539, Paper 33 (Mar. 3, 2015) ............................................................ 9
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 22
`Comcast Cable Comm’n, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00950, Paper 12 (Sep. 20, 2017) ......................................................... 24
`In re Costello,
`717 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................. 15, 16, 17
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc) ............................................................ 31
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 23
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 8, 20
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 20, 23
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. v. Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec
`Group Holdings Limited, et al.,
`1:17-cv-00077-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.) ................................................................. 3
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`
`Medichem v. Rolabo,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 15
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. ITC,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 30
`Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................ 16, 24, 25, 31
`Ex Parte Schatz,
`No. 2007-1335, 2007 WL 2814106 (BPAI Sept. 21, 2007) ......................... 17, 18
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 8
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 9
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 6
`X2Y Attenuators v. ITC,
`757 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 23
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 21, 22
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 19
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 132 ........................................................................................................ 19
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 ......................................................................................... 13, 17, 19
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b) .......................................................................................... 16, 17
`37 C.F.R. § 41.201 ................................................................................................... 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Chisum on Patents § 10.05 ....................................................................................... 16
`MPEP ....................................................................................................................... 15
`MPEP § 715 ............................................................................................................. 17
`MPEP § 715.01(a) .............................................................................................. 14, 16
`MPEP § 715.07 ........................................................................................................ 16
`MPEP § 716.10 .................................................................................................. 14, 16
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,267,534 (“the ’534 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian In Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,267,534 (“Sasian Decl.”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jose Sasian
`
`Exhibit B to Defendant's First Supplemental Initial Non-
`Infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions served
`on Nov. 3, 2017, Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. v. SMR
`Automotive Mirrors UK Ltd. et al., No. 1:17-cv-00077 (W.D. Mich.)
`
`Exhibit C to Defendant's First Supplemental Initial Non-
`Infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability Contentions served
`on Nov. 3, 2017, Magna Mirrors of America, Inc. v. SMR
`Automotive Mirrors UK Ltd. et al., No. 1:17-cv-00077 (W.D. Mich.)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,267,534 (the “’534 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/851,045 (“the ’045 application”)
`
`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”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`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”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`the ‘045 and ‘666 applications
`
`RESERVED
`
`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”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,420,756 (the “’756 FH”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`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”)
`
`1034
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,721,646 (“Catlin”)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`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 FMVSS 111 – REARVIEW MIRRORS (OTHER THAN
`SCHOOL BUSES) (October 28, 1999)
`
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`SMR Automotive Systems USA, Inc. (“SMR”) requests inter partes review
`
`of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,267,534, “Exterior Rearview Mirror
`
`Assembly,” Ex. 1001.
`
`SMR is part of the Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group, one of the
`
`largest manufacturers of rearview mirrors in the world. SMR develops produces,
`
`and distributes exterior mirrors, interior mirrors, blind spot detection systems and a
`
`wide range of other automotive components. Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.
`
`(“Magna”) has sued SMR for infringement, accusing various two-piece mirrors
`
`SMR supplies to major automotive manufacturers including Ford, Nissan,
`
`Hyundai, Chevrolet, and Fiat, such as the following allegedly from a Chevrolet
`
`Traverse:
`
`
`
`2d Am. Compl. 19 (Ex. 1010).
`
`The ’534 patent’s claims are unpatentable for two reasons. First, Magna’s
`
`older, expired, and abandoned two-mirror patents anticipate the claims. A
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`publication from that family – the ’026 publication (Ex. 1011) – is prior art under
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`§§ 102(a) and (e) under the earliest filing date on the face of the ’243 patent, and §
`
`102(b) art under its actual earliest effective filing date.
`
`Second, the claims Magna has asserted in litigation against SMR would have
`
`been obvious over SMR’s own patent prior art, which teaches using two separate
`
`mirrors in one assembly:
`
`
`
`Henion Fig. 2. (Ex. 1012).
`
`The Board therefore should institute review and find all of the ’534 patent’s
`
`claims unpatentable. SMR should be free to continue to supply its products to the
`
`world’s major manufacturers without interference from Magna’s invalid patent.
`
`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:
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group Holdings Ltd., SMR Automotive Mirror
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`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
`
`Systems Mexico S.A. de C.V., and SMR Automotive Servicios Mexico S.A. de
`
`C.V.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Magna asserted the ’534 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 Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions challenging
`
`asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,934,843; 8,128,244; 8,147,077; 8,550,642; 8,591,047;
`
`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 ’534 patent is available for inter partes review 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:
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`• 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,
`
`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
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 506269.
`
`III.
`
`Identification Of Challenges (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-26 are anticipated by the ’026 publication (Ex.
`
`1011).
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 13 and 20 would have been obvious over Henion
`
`(Ex. 1012) and Platzer (Ex. 1013).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`All challenged claims are also unpatentable for any additional reasons
`
`identified with respect to their dependent claims.
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’534 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ‘534 patent relates to an automobile rearview mirror. The claims recite
`
`an “exterior rearview mirror assembly” with two separate mirrors, one flat and one
`
`curved. Sasian Decl. ¶¶ 69-74 (Ex. 1002). For example, claim 1 recites a “primary
`
`mirror” and a curved “spotting mirror…disposed adjacent said primary mirror,”
`
`both “fixedly secured to said single mirror support” that is “movably secured
`
`within said mirror casing.” Figure 16 shows an example:
`
`As explained herein, Figure 16, along with all disclosures of a two-mirror
`
`design, were copied into an ancestor of the ’534 patent from an earlier-filed patent
`
`family that had been abandoned for years. Before insertion of this material, all
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`previous applications in the ’534 patent’s family only described a single,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`continuous mirror with a flat portion and a curved portion.
`
`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 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. Sasian Decl. ¶¶ 16-18.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Because the ’534 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 have been accorded their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation and none require an express construction.
`
`
`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 8,267,534
`
`
`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 of a trial by proffering U.S. Pat. Publ. 2002/0072026 (“the
`
`’026 publication,” (Ex. 1011) as invalidating art. The ’026 publication is “by
`
`another” because it names three inventors – John Lindahl, Hahns Y. Fuchs, and
`
`Niall Lynam – whereas the ‘534 patent names just one inventor, Lynam.
`
`Furthermore. 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 ‘534 patent, May 20, 2003.
`
`If Magna attempts to offer evidence that the ’534 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 inter
`
`partes review proceeding.
`
`VI. The ’534 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 ’534 patent is entitled only to the actual filing date of its ancestor, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,934,843 (“the ’843 patent,” Ex. 1008). The ’843 patent’s application
`
`was filed August 5, 2010, which is well over one year after the ’026 was published
`
`in 2002.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`The ’534 patent is not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because
`
`the ’843 patent’s immediate parent, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/197,666 (Ex.
`
`1014) does not provide written description support for the ’534 patent’s claims. At
`
`best, the ’534 patent’s claims find support only in two patents referenced in
`
`passing in the ’666 application’s specification: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,522,451 and
`
`6,717,712 (Ex. 1017), the latter of which arose from the ’026 publication. But this
`
`is insufficient for the ’666 application to support the ’534 patent claims. First, only
`
`the portions of the ’451 and ’712 patents regarding the field of view – not any
`
`portions related to 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 ’534 patent’s claimed two-mirror
`
`subject matter because the ’666 application itself 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 for the claim. 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
`
`subject matter presently claimed. Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Cir. 2012). “This requirement prevents an inventor from ‘overreaching’ in a later-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`filed application as to the scope of what was invented at the time of the earlier-filed
`
`application by requiring that the invention be described ‘in such detail that . . .
`
`future claims can be determined to be encompassed within the . . . original
`
`creation.’” ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2013-00539,
`
`Paper 33 at 12-13 (Mar. 3, 2015) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
`
`1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`Magna overreached here. Magna improperly revived prosecution of an
`
`abandoned family by transforming the application for the ’843 patent into that of
`
`the patent family Magna had abandoned.
`
`B.
`
`Background Facts
`1. Magna previously prosecuted, and abandoned, a two-
`mirror design in the ’712 patent family
`The ’712 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’451 patent. The ’712 patent
`
`in turn has one continuation, U.S. Patent No. 7,167,294 (Ex. 1018). All three
`
`patents in this family (referred to herein as the “’712 family”) relate to a side-view
`
`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 & claim 1 (Ex. 1017); ’294 patent Fig. 5A-5H & claim 1. The
`
`examiner of the ’712 family repeatedly rejected the as-filed claims of these patents,
`
`forcing Magna to add several claim limitations, such as the requirement in claim 1
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`of the ’712 patent that the mirror include a “frame element assembly” with a “first
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`open portion” and “second open portion.” ’712 patent claim 1. After the ’294
`
`patent issued on January 23, 2007, Magna did not file any further continuations in
`
`the family.
`
`2. Magna impermissibly used the ’843 patent’s application to
`revive prosecution of the abandoned ’712 patent family
`The ’843 patent’s application, Appl. No. 12/851,045 (“the ’045 application
`
`(Ex. 1007) was filed on August 5, 2010, ostensibly as a continuation of the ’154
`
`patent’s application, the ’666 application. ’843 FH 1145 (Ex. 1009). Although
`
`Magna called the ’045 application a continuation of the ’666 application, Magna
`
`actually used the ’045 application to impermissibly reinitiate prosecution of the
`
`earlier-filed ’712 patent family, which had not had a pending application for nearly
`
`four years, before a new examiner. Magna thus improperly revived its ability to
`
`draft claims directed to the ’712 patent family’s two-element mirrors. Magna
`
`proceeded to acquire twelve new patents with 367 new claims in under seven
`
`years, all directed to the abandoned ’712 patent’s disclosure.
`
`To revive prosecution of the ’712 patent’s abandoned family, Magna copied
`
`the entire ’712 patent specification (except the Background and Summary of
`
`Invention) into the ’045 application and drafted claims directed to the ’712
`
`family’s purported invention:
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`
`
`Magna inserted the ’712 patent’s disclosure into the as-filed ’045 application at the
`
`front of the Detailed Description. See Ex. 1020 (comparing the ’045 and ’666
`
`applications). With its filing of the ’045 application, Magna stated that the attached
`
`application was a copy of the parent application (’843 FH 1145), but then corrected
`
`itself, stating that the ’045 application adds “Figures 9-[23]2 and discussion
`
`thereof, which are from U.S. 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
`
`2 Magna incorrectly stated “Figures 9-22.”
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`the text grew from 16 pages (14 pages of description, 2 pages of claims) to 68
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`pages (37 pages of description, 31 pages of new claims). Compare Ex. 1014 (’666
`
`application) with Ex. 1007 (’045 application); 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) which work together to achieve a wide field of view. See
`
`Sasian Decl. ¶¶ 56-58. 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 this brief performance
`
`comparison touting the benefits of a single reflective element into an opportunity
`
`to revive prosecution of the two-mirror assembly from the abandoned ’712 patent.
`
`To be clear, no member of the ’843 patent family, including the ’534 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.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,267,534
`
`3. Magna’s defective attempt to antedate the prior art and
`effectively claim priority to the ’712 patent family
`In the first and only Office Action on the merits during prosecution of the
`
`application that led to the ’534 patent, U.S. Application No. 13/336,018 (“the ’018
`
`application,”) the Examiner rejected pending claims as anticipated by the ’026
`
`publication and obvious over combinations of three U.S. patents to Black, Platzer,3
`
`and Richard. ’534 FH 145-156 (Ex. 1006).
`
`With respect to the ’026 publication, the examiner concluded that it was §
`
`102(e) prior art because it was “by another,” and invited Magna to submit a Rule
`
`132 declaration establishing that “any invention disclosed but not claimed in the
`
`reference was derived from the inventor of this application” and is therefore not
`
`“by another,” or to antedate the reference “by an appropriate showing under 37
`
`CFR 1.131.” ’534 FH 146-47.
`
`Four days later, Magna argued in response that the ’026 publication and
`
`Platzer ’312 were not prior art. Magna first contended—n