`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,783,882
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,783,882
`)
`
`Issued: July 22, 2014
`)
`
`Application No.: 14/054,004
`)
`
`
`For: Extended Field of View Exterior Mirror Element For Vehicle
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`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 ’882 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 ’882 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 prosecuted, and abandoned, a two-
`mirror design in the ’712 patent family .................................... 10
`2. Magna impermissibly used the ’843 patent’s application
`to revive prosecution of the abandoned ’712 patent
`family ........................................................................................ 11
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`4.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`3. Magna’s defective attempt to antedate the prior art and
`claim priority to the ’712 patent family .................................... 14
`The examiner legally erred by finding the declaration
`sufficient to antedate the prior-art ’026 publication ................. 18
`The ’882 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 ‘882 patent’s Claims Are Not Supported By The ’666
`Application Regardless Of The Extent Of Incorporation By
`Reference ............................................................................................. 25
`1.
`The written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 120 .......... 25
`2.
`The ’666 application lacks written description support for
`the ‘882 patent’s claims even if the ’712 and ’451 patents
`were incorporated in their entireties ......................................... 26
`E. Magna’s Priority Claim is Defective ................................................... 34
`VII. Ground 1: Claims 1-20 Are Anticipated By The ’026 Publication (Ex.
`1011) .............................................................................................................. 36
`A.
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................ 37
`1.
`Preamble, [a], [b], [l] housing and polymeric back plate ......... 38
`2.
`[c] A electrically-operated actuator .......................................... 40
`3.
`[k] Backing plate mounted to actuator ...................................... 40
`4.
`[d], [f] Support portions ............................................................ 41
`5.
`[e], [h] mirror elements ............................................................. 41
`6.
`[g] Mounted adjacently ............................................................. 42
`7.
`[i], [j] Different and overlapping rearward fields of view ........ 44
`8.
`[n], [o] “overall rearward field of view” ................................... 45
`9.
`[m] Reflective Element Substrates ........................................... 45
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`J.
`K.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 14 – Metallic coating on auxiliary with
`spherically convex bent glass substrate and main planar mirror ........ 45
`Claim 4 – Rearward field of view ....................................................... 46
`Claim 5 – Tilted downward ................................................................. 47
`Claim 6 – Blind spot ............................................................................ 48
`Claim 8 – Overlapping fields of view ................................................. 48
`Claim 9 – Fixed reflectance ................................................................ 49
`Claim 10 – Adhesive or mechanical attachment ................................. 49
`Claim 12 – Heater element .................................................................. 49
`Claim 13 – metallic reflector coating types ........................................ 49
`Independent Claim 15 ......................................................................... 50
`1.
`All but elements 15[g] and [i] addressed in Claim 1 ................ 50
`2.
`[g] Metallic Reflector ................................................................ 50
`3.
`[i] Matching curvature .............................................................. 51
`Claims 16-17 ....................................................................................... 51
`Independent Claim 18 ......................................................................... 51
`1.
`All but elements 18[g] addressed in Claim 1 ............................ 51
`2.
`[g] Fixed reflectance ................................................................. 52
`Claims 19-20: Same as claims 4-5 ...................................................... 52
`N.
`VIII. Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 3, 18, and 20 Would Have Been Obvious Over
`Henion (Ex. 1012), Platzer (Ex. 1013), Catlin (Ex. 1034), Silvestre
`(Ex. 1037), and Yamabe (Ex. 1038) .............................................................. 52
`A. Overview ............................................................................................. 53
`B.
`The Asserted Prior Art ........................................................................ 53
`
`L.
`M.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/44013 (Ex. 1012,
`“Henion”) .................................................................................. 53
`International Pub. No. WO 2001/81956 (Ex. 1013,
`“Platzer”) ................................................................................... 54
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,721,646 (Ex. 1034, “Catlin”) ........................... 54
`3.
`FR 2650982 (Ex. 1037, “Silvestre”) ......................................... 55
`4.
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,984,048 (Ex. 1038, “Yamabe”) ....................... 55
`5.
`C. Motivation To Combine ...................................................................... 55
`D.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 56
`1.
`Preamble, [a] Mirror Housing ................................................... 56
`2.
`[b] Backing Plate ....................................................................... 57
`3.
`[c] Actuator ............................................................................... 58
`4.
`[d] Plano Mirror ........................................................................ 58
`5.
`[f] Auxiliary Mirror ................................................................... 60
`6.
`[e], [h] Rearward Field of View ................................................ 60
`7.
`[g] Mounted Adjacently, Side-By-Side, And Not
`Superimposed ............................................................................ 61
`[i] Overlapping FOVs ............................................................... 63
`[j] Angled .................................................................................. 63
`[k] Common Actuator ............................................................... 64
`[l] Polymeric Molding ............................................................... 65
`[m] Reflective Element Substrate ............................................. 68
`[n] At Least About 25 Degrees ................................................. 69
`[o] Combined FOV of less than about 50 degrees .................... 71
`
`8.
`9.
`10.
`11.
`12.
`13.
`14.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`E.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`Claim 2 – Auxiliary mirror is spherically convex-curved with
`reflector coating ................................................................................... 72
`Claim 3 – Spherical backing plate....................................................... 73
`Independent Claim 18 ......................................................................... 74
`1.
`Preamble and [a]-[f], [h-i], [k-p] ............................................... 74
`2.
`[g] Fixed reflectance ................................................................. 74
`3.
`[j] About 2 to 20 degrees .......................................................... 74
`Claim 20 – Tilted downward and/or forward ...................................... 78
`H.
`IX. Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 82
`X.
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 83
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 25
`ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00539, Paper 33 (Mar. 3, 2015) .......................................................... 10
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 23
`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) .............................................................. 16, 17, 18
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 32
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 24
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 10, 21
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 21, 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
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 17
`Medtronic Corevalve v. Edwards Lifesciences,
`741 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 35
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. ITC,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 32
`Novozymes v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences,
`723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 25, 32
`Ex Parte Schatz,
`Appeal No. 2007-1335, 2007 WL 2814106 (BPAI Sept. 21, 2007) .................. 18
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 10
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 10
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 6
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. ITC,
`757 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 24
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 21, 22, 23
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................... 1, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 132 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 19
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 ......................................................................................... 16, 17, 20
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b) .......................................................................................... 17, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 41.201 ................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Chisum § 10.05 .................................................................................................. 17, 18
`MPEP § 211 ............................................................................................................. 19
`MPEP § 715 ............................................................................................................. 17
`MPEP § 715.01(a) .................................................................................................... 15
`MPEP § 715.07 ........................................................................................................ 17
`MPEP § 716.10 ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,783,882 (the “’882 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian In Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,783,882 (“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. 8,783,882 (the ‘882 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”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`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
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,721,646 (“Catlin”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`Certified English Translation (and original-language version) 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
`FMVSS 111 – Rearview Mirrors (Other Than School Buses)
`(October 28, 1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,591,047 (the “’047 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,562,157 (the “’157 patent”)
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`SMR Automotive Systems USA, Inc. (“SMR”) requests inter partes review
`
`of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,783,882, “Extended Field Of View Exterior
`
`Mirror Element For Vehicle,” Ex. 1001.
`
`SMR is part of the Samvardhana Motherson Reflectec Group, one of the
`
`world’s largest manufacturers of rearview mirrors in the world. 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 ’882 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 ’882 patent, and
`
`§ 102(b) art under its actual earliest effective filing date.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`Second, the claims Magna has 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 ’882 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:
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`GmbH, SMR Automotive Mirrors Stuttgart GmbH, SMR Automotive Vision
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`Systems Mexico S.A. de C.V., and SMR Automotive Servicios Mexico S.A. de
`
`C.V.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Magna asserted the ’882 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; 8,267,534; 8,550,642;
`
`8,591,047; 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 ’882 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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`• 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
`
`§ 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 1-20 are anticipated by the ’026 publication (Ex.
`
`1011)
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 3, 18, and 20 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 8,783,882
`
`
`IV. Background
`A. The ’882 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’882 patent relates to an automobile sideview mirror. The claims recite
`
`an “exterior sideview mirror assembly” with two separate mirrors, one flat and one
`
`curved. Sasian Decl. ¶¶ 67-69. (Ex. 1002). Specifically, claim 1 recites a “main
`
`plano” mirror (flat) 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, along with all disclosures of a two-mirror design,
`
`were copied into an ancestor of the ’882 patent from an earlier-filed patent family
`
`which had been abandoned for years. Before insertion of this material, all previous
`
`applications in the ’882 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 8,783,882
`
`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 ’882 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 8,783,882
`
`1.
`“side-by-side”
`All challenged claims require that the primary and secondary mirrors be
`
`“adjacently disposed at said mirror backing plate element in a side-by-side
`
`relationship and are not superimposed with one mirror element on top of the other
`
`mirror element.” See, e.g., ’882 patent claim 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 the
`
`term “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 as depicted above). 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 8,783,882
`
`
`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 ’882 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 ’882 patent, May 20, 2003. If Magna attempts to
`
`offer evidence that the ’882 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 ’882 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 ’882 patent is entitled only to the actual filing date of its ancestor U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,934,843 (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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`The ’882 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 ’882 patent’s claims. At
`
`best, the ’882 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 (Ex.
`
`1016) and 6,717,712 (Ex. 1017), the latter of which arose from the ’026
`
`publication.
`
`This is insufficient for the ’666 application itself to support the ’882 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 ’882 patent’s claimed two-
`
`mirror subject matter because the ’666 application itself is directed to a single
`
`mirror design.
`
`In addition, the ’882 patent is not entitled to an earlier date because its
`
`priority claim (and the claim of two of its ancestors) are defective.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`U.S.C. § 120; Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998). There
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`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.
`
`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 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Fig. 5A-5H & cl. 1 (Ex. 1017); ’294 patent Fig. 5A-5H & cl. 1 (Ex. 1018). The
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of USP 8,783,882
`
`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
`
`of the ’712 patent that the mirror include a “frame element assembly” with a “first
`
`open portion” and “second open portion.” ’712 patent cl. 1. After the ’