`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00533
`Patent No. 8,783,882
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL NRANIAN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER MAGNA MIRRORS OF AMERICA, INC.’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, Cover
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED .. 7
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................. 7
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW ....................................................................... 11
`V. OPINIONS .......................................................................................... 12
`A. Disclosures of Lynam ‘026 That Appear in the ‘451 Patent .... 12
`B.
`Construction of “Backing Plate” ............................................... 15
`C.
`Henion ‘013 Discloses A Trailer Towing Mirror ..................... 20
`D.
`SMR Provides An Insufficient Motivation To Modify
`Henion ‘013. .............................................................................. 24
`SMR Fails To Demonstrate A Motivation To Combine
`Henion ‘013 And Platzer ‘956. ................................................. 25
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. i
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I have been retained by patent owner Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.
`
`(“Magna”) to provide my opinion on certain matters regarding SMR Automotive
`
`Systems USA Inc. (“SMR”)’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,783,882 (“the ‘882 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein based on information and belief are believed to be true. I am
`
`over 21 years of age and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`At this stage, I have been asked to provide my opinions on certain
`
`discrete issues that are relevant to Magna’s Preliminary Patent Owner Response. I
`
`have not been asked to and do not opine regarding the ultimate issues addressed by
`
`SMR’s proposed grounds. The fact that I do not opine on any given issue in this
`
`declaration should not be construed as agreement with SMR’s positions. I reserve
`
`the right to provide additional opinions in the event that an IPR is instituted.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $350 per hour for time
`
`preparing this declaration. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Although I have a law degree, and I am licensed to practice before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, I have not been asked to opine on any
`
`legal issues. I will not be giving any legal opinions throughout this declaration and
`
`1
`
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`throughout my work on this matter. My opinions provided herein are based on my
`
`engineering, technical, scientific, and business education and experience.
`
`6. My academic background is in engineering. I possess a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering, a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering, a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a Juris Doctor
`
`from Wayne State University. I also received a Master of Business Administration
`
`from the University of Michigan. I also am a licensed Professional Engineer,
`
`Certified Project Management Professional, as well as a Lean Six Sigma Black
`
`Belt certified through the American Society for Quality and the International
`
`Quality Federation.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive industry experience in the automotive industry for
`
`multiple companies. Specifically, I worked as a design engineer, senior project
`
`engineer, design analysis engineer, technical specialist, and engineering manager
`
`in the automotive industry from 1985 to 2007. This included experience at Ford,
`
`General Motors, and Allied Signal. I worked at Allied Signal from 1992 to 1993,
`
`General Motors from 1993 to 1995, and Ford Motor Company from 1985 to 1992,
`
`and from 1995 to 2007.
`
`8. While at Ford, General Motors, and Allied Signal, I worked as a
`
`Product Design Engineer, a Senior Project Engineer, a Technical Specialist, a
`
`Design Analysis Engineer, and an Engineering Manager. My work included the
`
`
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`design and development of automotive safety systems and components for various
`
`different types of automotive applications. This included, among other things,
`
`testing and development of systems and components for active and passive safety.
`
`9.
`
`Areas of my work included both active and passive sensing systems
`
`which can be used in the vehicle interior or exterior, including the design and
`
`development of sensing components and systems that incorporate electromagnetic
`
`wave sensing and visual perception (including, but not limited to, vision, camera,
`
`radar, lidar, infrared ultraviolet, night vision, mirrors, and other optical devices,
`
`including those containing lenses and mirrors) as well as acoustical sensing. Areas
`
`of my work also specifically included vision systems, occupant ergonomic
`
`evaluations, user and occupant audio and visual perception, visual interfaces and
`
`displays, infrared, vision, mirrors, lenses, camera, sonar, acoustic, radar, lidar,
`
`sensing and detection technologies and systems. I also worked on sensing systems
`
`for various automotive applications, including sensor fusion technologies, for
`
`image and object detection, discrimination, and identification and the appropriate
`
`status notifications to vehicle drivers and occupants, and visual perception
`
`techniques and methods.
`
`10. My work specifically involved the testing and development of the
`
`aforementioned systems. This included both laboratory tests and technology
`
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`assessments, as well as testing in various real world driving situations and traffic
`
`events.
`
`11. My responsibilities also included technology assessments and proper
`
`supplier and sourcing evaluation and selection, quoting and bidding, and the
`
`overall source selection for numerous technologies. For example, while at Allied
`
`Signal, I specifically prepared numerous extensive proposals and responses for
`
`many different domestic, European, Asian, and Pacific Rim requests for quotations
`
`(“RFQs”) in the hopes of winning awards as the Tier 1 supplier chosen for many
`
`original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) programs. I was involved in both
`
`winning awards and non-winning awards on numerous programs for different
`
`OEMs. While at General Motors and Ford, I was an integral part of many cross-
`
`functional teams involved in the sourcing selection, request for information
`
`(“RFI”) and RFQ processes and evaluations, and ultimate evaluation and decision
`
`as to which suppliers were chosen for purchase order (“PO”) awards on numerous
`
`vehicle programs.
`
`12. My responsibilities also included ensuring compliance with Federal
`
`Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Economic Commission for Europe
`
`(“ECE”) regulations, Industry Standards, Corporate Standards, various
`
`international government regulations, and Due-Care Requirements. I also testified
`
`as a corporate representative and expert witness on behalf of Ford. In that role, I
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`have analyzed, verified, and testified regarding compliance with FMVSS
`
`requirements, including FMVSS 111.
`
`13. My work over the years has also included analyses involving
`
`statistical information from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
`
`and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) databases. My work also
`
`involved extensive inspection, investigation, and analysis of field events involving
`
`automotive safety systems. I am also certified in accident reconstruction through
`
`Northwestern University, and I have performed numerous real-world assessments
`
`of accident causation as part of my investigations. I have specifically assessed
`
`accidents involving lane change incidents.
`
`14.
`
`I also conducted numerous system and component evaluations,
`
`laboratory tests, supplier and technology assessments, quality and reliability
`
`evaluations, as well as developed design validation plans and reports and failure
`
`modes and effects analyses to design and develop automotive safety, sensing,
`
`vison, and electrical electronic systems, including the integration of sensor fusion
`
`technologies. I also conducted numerous vehicle test track (I am qualified as a
`
`Ford Level II certified test track driver), rough road, obstacle, lane change,
`
`braking/stopping, maneuverability, on-road, off-road, as well as numerous crash
`
`and sled tests, for vehicular safety systems testing, development, design, prove-out,
`
`verification, and validation.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`15. Subsequent to my employment at Ford, I worked as a Systems
`
`Engineer for Raytheon and General Dynamics, as well as a contractor and civilian
`
`employee for the U.S. Army. My work has included, among other things, sensor
`
`development and visual perception, including camera, optical systems, viewers,
`
`lenses, mirrors, and visual displays. I currently work at the Tank and Automotive
`
`Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan,
`
`where I work on systems for military ground vehicle systems, which extensively
`
`involve the application of automotive technologies, including those related to
`
`automotive safety systems.
`
`16. My current responsibilities include working with internal scientists,
`
`researchers and technical staff, as well as outside collaborators and universities, to
`
`develop technologies, innovation, and inventions for the protection of our soldiers
`
`and the enhancement of our soldiers’ survivability in military vehicles. My
`
`responsibilities include and have included technologies involving camera and
`
`vision systems (including those involving mirrors and lenses), Command, Control,
`
`Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
`
`(C4ISR) systems, 360-degree surveillance, optical systems, visual perception and
`
`identification, interface displays, acoustic, ultrasonic, infrared, radar, night vision,
`
`and electromagnetic wave sensing, sensor fusion integration, algorithm, and
`
`pattern recognition development, sensor information discrimination and
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`identification, active and passive safety system development, and occupant injury
`
`mitigation.
`
`17.
`
`I have been qualified to testify as an expert in over 20 cases involving
`
`automotive safety systems.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed
`
`summary of my background, experience, and publications, is being submitted
`
`concurrently.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`19. The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed SMR’s Petition and all
`
`Exhibits thereto, as well as SMR’s Petition and Exhibits in IPR2018-00491
`
`IPR2018-00505, IPR2018-00506, IPR2018-00517, IPR2018-00520, IPR2018-
`
`00536, IPR2018-00541, IPR2018-00545.
`
`20. My opinions are further guided by my understanding of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as further defined below) as of
`
`the claimed May 20, 2003 priority date of the ‘882 patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21.
`I understand that patent validity is assessed from the standpoint of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`22.
`
`I understand that SMR has asserted that a POSA at the relevant time
`
`would have had “a M.S. in Optics, Optical Engineering, or similar studies in a
`
`related field (e.g., Physics or Mechanical Engineering) with 2-3 years of
`
`experience in the optics/mechanical industry.” I disagree.
`
`23. A POSA in the field of the ‘882 patent would necessarily have
`
`experience working in the automotive industry. The ‘882 patent claims are
`
`directed to “[a]n exterior sideview mirror assembly suitable for use on a vehicle.”
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1. According to the specification, the specific problem that the
`
`claimed invention solves is to “reduce[], if not eliminate[], an automobile’s blind
`
`spot.” Id., 20:54. The specification explains that the claimed invention does so in
`
`a manner that is superior to prior art blind spot mirrors for several reasons. For
`
`example, first, it “provides a seamless rearvision function whereby the image of a
`
`side approaching/side overtaking other vehicle is substantially seamlessly
`
`maintained as the image of the overtaking or approaching vehicle transitions from
`
`being principally and substantially viewed by the driver of the vehicle … in the
`
`plano reflective element to be seen in the auxiliary reflective element.” Id., 20:61-
`
`21:2. Second, the claimed invention allows “a driver [to] simultaneously and
`
`similarly move the auxiliary element and the plano element so as to position their
`
`respective rearward fields of view, and to achieve this within the relatively
`
`restricted space available in a standard automobile-sized exterior sideview mirror
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`assembly.” Id., 13:6-11. And third, the claimed invention “has manufacturing
`
`advantages, particularly for exterior sideview mirror assembly manufacturers who
`
`can procure a plano-multiradius reflective element assembly module from a mirror
`
`reflector supplier and then mount the plano-multiradius reflective element
`
`assembly module onto an actuator.” Id., 15:43-49.
`
`24. A mechanical engineer, optical engineer, or someone with an M.S. in
`
`optics who does not have experience in the automotive industry would not be
`
`familiar with the requirements necessary in order to provide an exterior automotive
`
`mirror that is useful and convenient to drivers without being distracting, that is
`
`desirable for automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and that
`
`complies with federal regulatory requirements. For example, the ‘882 patent
`
`specification discloses that the plano element should be of a size sufficient “to
`
`provide the driver of the automobile a view of a level road surface extending to the
`
`horizon from a line, perpendicular to a longitudinal plane tangent to the driver’s
`
`side of the automobile at the widest point, extending 8 feet out from the tangent
`
`plane 35 feet behind the driver’s eyes.” Id., 13:24-32; see also id., 15:65-16:9
`
`(describing similar requirement). A POSA would recognize that this field of view
`
`is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111. Ex. 1040, 20. A person
`
`without experience in the automotive industry would not necessarily have the
`
`understanding and experience of designing, developing, and testing vehicle
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`components and systems to comply with this requirement and the other
`
`requirements of FMVSS, while also still meeting the stringent automotive industry
`
`standards and rigorous requirements for reliability, quality, durability,
`
`performance, manufacturing, and assembly. A person without experience in the
`
`automotive industry would also not necessarily understand that vehicle
`
`components and systems must also be designed and developed to meet due care
`
`requirements, beyond the minimal safety standards established by FMVSS
`
`regulations. This requires work in the automotive industry and an understanding of
`
`how automobiles are used in the real world.
`
`25. For example, in applications specific to this patent, an engineer with
`
`experience in the automotive industry would understand the added complexities in
`
`designing automotive side-view mirror systems that safely provide the requisite
`
`information to the driver (such as whether a vehicle is in the blind spot) to
`
`maximize the ability of the driver to visually perceive and cognitively understand
`
`the information. An engineer with experience in the automotive industry would
`
`also understand the need to minimize driver confusion regarding objects appearing
`
`in the side view mirror and the need to minimize driver distraction and enable the
`
`driver to focus attention on the view forward of the vehicle. Engineers with
`
`experience in the automotive industry would recognize that the ‘882 patent alludes
`
`to these types of design considerations when it discusses, for example, that the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`invention “provides a seamless rearvision function whereby the image of a side
`
`approaching/side overtaking other vehicle is substantially seamlessly maintained as
`
`the image of the overtaking or approaching vehicle transitions from being
`
`principally and substantially viewed by the driver of the vehicle … in the plano
`
`reflective element to be seen in the auxiliary reflective element.” Ex. 1001, 20:61-
`
`21:2.
`
`26. Based on the field that the ‘882 patent is directed to, the levels of
`
`education and experience of persons working in the field in the relevant time, the
`
`types of problems encountered in the field, and the sophistication of the
`
`technology, a POSA at the time of the ‘882 patent priority date would have had a
`
`M.S. in an engineering discipline relevant to automotive component design (e.g.,
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or optical engineering), as well as
`
`2-3 years of experience in the automotive industry designing components for
`
`automobiles.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND LAW
`27.
`I have been informed that claims of unexpired patents in an IPR are
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation, when reading the claims in light of
`
`the specification and the teachings in the patent. I also have been informed that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation should account for how the claims themselves
`
`and the specification inform a POSA as to which ordinary definition the patentee
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`was using. I further have been informed that claims should not be construed so
`
`broadly that they are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`A. Disclosures of Lynam ‘026 That Appear in the ‘451 Patent
`28.
`I understand that SMR asserts that each limitation of claims 1-20 of
`
`the ‘882 patent are disclosed by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0072026 (“Lynam
`
`‘026”).
`
`29. Lynam ‘026 is a published patent application that is a continuation-in-
`
`part of the application that issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,522,451 (“the ‘451 patent”).
`
`30. The majority of the material from Lynam ‘026 that SMR maps to the
`
`claims of the ‘882 patent also appears in the ‘451 patent. Exhibit 2012 is an
`
`annotated copy of Lynam ‘026, with the paragraphs that also appear in the ‘451
`
`patent highlighted.
`
`31. SMR’s mapping of the disclosures of Lynam ‘026 to the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘882 patent demonstrates that the ‘451 patent also fully discloses
`
`the majority of the claim limitations of the ‘882 patent as arranged in the ‘882
`
`patent. The limitations of claims 1-20 of the ‘882 patent for which SMR relies on
`
`one or more paragraphs of Lynam ‘026 that also appear in the ‘451 patent are
`
`shown in the chart below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`Limitation
`
`Lynam ‘026 disclosure cited by SMR
`that also appears in the ‘451 patent
`
`¶¶ 41, 50-51, 53, Figs. 1-3, 6
`
`Pages of SMR
`Petition Where
`Limitation Is
`Discussed
`Petition, 38-39, 50,
`51-52
`
`Preamble,
`1[a], [b], [l],
`15[a], [b],
`18[a], [b]
`1[c], 15[c],
`18[c]
`1[k], 15[m],
`18[l]
`1[d], [f],
`15[d], [f],
`18[d], [f]
`1[e], [h],
`15[e], [j],
`18[e], [i]
`1[g], 15[h],
`18[h]
`1[i], 15[l],
`18[k]
`
`
`
`
`
`¶ 41, Fig. 3
`
`Petition, 40, 50, 51-52
`
`¶¶ 41-42, 58, Figs. 3, 6
`
`Petition, 40, 50, 51-52
`
`¶¶ 42, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6
`
`Petition, 41, 50, 51-52
`
`¶¶ 42-43, 45, 49, 58-59, 61, Figs. 3,
`5A-H, 6-7
`
`Petition, 41-42, 50,
`51-52
`
`¶¶ 42, 44-45, 50-52, 59, 61, Figs. 3,
`5A-5H, 6-7
`¶¶ 52, 59, 61, Figs. 3, 6-7
`
`Petition, 42-43, 50,
`51-52
`Petition, 44, 50, 51-52
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitation
`
`1[n], 15[p],
`18[o]
`1[m], 15[o],
`18[n]
`2, 3, 7, 11, 14
`
`6
`9, 18[g]
`10
`12
`13
`15[g]
`15[i]
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`Lynam ‘026 disclosure cited by SMR
`that also appears in the ‘451 patent
`
`¶¶ 46, 61
`
`¶¶ 43, 47-48, 55
`
`Pages of SMR
`Petition Where
`Limitation Is
`Discussed
`IPR2018-00506,
`Petition, 461
`Petition, 45, 50, 51-52
`
`¶¶ 5, 42-43, 45, 47-48, 50-53, 55, 59,
`83, Figs. 3, 6
`¶¶ 3, 52, 58-59, 61
`¶¶ 43, 47, 55, 83
`¶¶ 43, 47, 50, 55, 83
`¶¶ 41-42, 46, 54, 58-59, 61, Fig. 1
`¶¶ 41-42, 45, 47, 55, 58-59, Fig. 1
`¶¶ 45, 47, 55, 83, Fig. 3
`¶¶ 42, 50, 52-53, 59, Figs. 3, 6
`
`Petition, 45-46
`
`Petition, 48
`Petition, 49, 52
`Petition, 49
`Petition, 49
`Petition, 49-50
`Petition, 50-51
`Petition, 51
`
`32.
`
`I agree with SMR that each of the paragraphs of Lynam ‘026 cited
`
`above disclose the limitations of the ‘882 patent claims for which SMR cites those
`
`paragraphs. Because each of these paragraphs also appear in the ‘451 patent, the
`
`
`1 SMR cited ¶¶ 46 and 61 as disclosing a limitation requiring an overall FOV of
`greater than 25 degrees, similar to limitations 1[n], 15[p], and 18[q] of the ‘882
`patent, in IPR2018-00506. SMR therefore admits that these paragraphs disclose
`limitations 1[n], 15[p], and 18[q] of the ‘882 patent as well.
`14
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`‘451 patent discloses all of the limitations of the ‘882 that appear in the chart
`
`above.
`
`B. Construction of “Backing Plate”
`33.
`I understand that claims 1, 15, and 18 of the ‘882 patent require a
`
`“mirror backing plate element.”
`
`34. Claims 1, 15, and 18 include a number of additional requirements for
`
`the “backing plate,” including that it has the main plano mirror element “disposed
`
`at a first portion,” the auxiliary non-plano curved mirror element “fixedly disposed
`
`at a second portion,” that the “auxiliary non-plano curved mirror element that is at
`
`said second portion of said mirror backing plate element is angled relative to said
`
`main plano mirror element that is at said first portion of said mirror backing plate
`
`element,” and that it “mounts to said actuator, such that movement of said mirror
`
`backing plate element by said actuator simultaneously and similarly moves said
`
`main plano element and said auxiliary non-plano curved mirror element.”
`
`35. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “backing plate” to a POSA
`
`based on the claims and the specification of the ‘882 patent is “a rigid structure that
`
`supports the rear surfaces of the primary and auxiliary reflective elements.”
`
`36. This interpretation is consistent with the ordinary meaning of “plate,”
`
`which is a “rigid body.” Ex. 2014, 1344. Two support structures connected by a
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`flexible hinge or bellows would not be “rigid,” and therefore a POSA would have
`
`understood that such a structure is not a “backing plate.”
`
`37. This interpretation is also consistent with the specification of the ‘882
`
`patent, which states that the backing plate is a “rigid polymeric substrate capable of
`
`supporting plano element 50 and multiradius element 155” that has “a flat portion
`
`… that corresponds to and is aligned with plano element 150” and “a curved
`
`portion … that corresponds to and is aligned with multiradius element 155,” and
`
`that is “formed as a single element.” Ex. 1001, 8:57-9:2. This interpretation is
`
`also consistent with the “backing plate” depicted in Figures 11 and 14, which are
`
`reproduced below and which show the “backing plate” at number 160.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`
`
`38. This interpretation is also consistent with the description in the
`
`specification that the backing plate elements are at an angle or are angled relative
`
`to one another, rather than being adjustable with respect to one another. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:54-55 (“section AA to BB of backing plate element 160’ is angled to
`
`section BB to CC”), 10:62-63 (“the angling of section AA to BB to section BB to
`
`CC”), 14:55-56 (“portion AA to BB of backing plate element 160’ is generally
`
`angled to portion BB to CC of backing plate 160’”) (all emphases added).
`
`Similarly claims 1, 15, and 18 of the ‘882 patent require that the auxiliary mirror
`
`element on the backing plate “is angled” relative to the main mirror on the backing
`
`plate. A rigid backing plate ensures that the auxiliary mirror “is angled” relative to
`
`the main mirror; a flexible, adjustable support structure does not have a set,
`
`specific angling.
`
`39. Furthermore, in addition to what I have discussed above, a POSA
`
`would also understand that the backing plate claimed in the ‘882 patent provides
`17
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`manufacturing advantages, since the backing plate can be molded as a single
`
`component, with pre-set dimensions and surfaces configured to fit the placement of
`
`the plano reflective element and the auxiliary reflective element. The ‘882 patent
`
`specification also explains that this provides manufacturing benefits for the
`
`exterior sideview mirror manufacturers “who can procure a plano-multiradius
`
`reflective element assembly module from a mirror reflector supplier and then
`
`mount the plano-multiradius reflective element assembly module onto an
`
`actuator.” Id., 15:43-49.
`
`40. There is another embodiment that is disclosed in the specification of
`
`the ‘882 patent wherein the two reflective elements are “separately and
`
`independently mounted.” Ex. 1001, 21:41-43. In this embodiment, the auxiliary
`
`reflective element is fixedly mounted to the mirror casing, and only the primary
`
`reflective element is adjustable, which means that the angling between the two
`
`reflective elements is adjusted when the primary reflective element is repositioned.
`
`See id., 21:26-36. This embodiment is not claimed by the ‘882 patent because all
`
`of the claims of the ‘882 patent require that both reflective elements are mounted
`
`to a single “backing plate.” Because the ‘882 patent teaches providing for
`
`independent adjustability of the mirror elements by separately mounting them, a
`
`POSA would have understood that the “backing plate” of the claims of the ‘882
`
`patent does not allow for independent adjustability of the reflective elements.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`41. The rigid backing plate with a fixed angle between the primary and
`
`auxiliary reflective elements provides benefits for drivers. Because the backing
`
`plate provides a fixed angle, the angling is set by the manufacturer, and the driver
`
`does not need to worry about correctly adjusting the auxiliary reflective element,
`
`which introduces the potential for user error. The driver can adjust the plano
`
`reflective element into the desired position, and the auxiliary reflective element
`
`will automatically be adjusted in tandem, simultaneously and similarly as the plano
`
`reflective element (see Ex. 1001, 5:65-6:8), to have the auxiliary reflective
`
`element correctly view towards the blind spot. Furthermore, a POSA would
`
`understand that separately setting both the plano reflective element and the
`
`auxiliary reflective element in the proper position would be difficult and time
`
`consuming for many drivers. Therefore, a POSA would understand that adjusting
`
`the plano reflective element and the auxiliary reflective element in tandem
`
`(through the electrically-operable actuator attached to the single backing plate)
`
`saves time, is more efficient, mitigates the potential for user error, and therefore
`
`increases overall safety. See Ex. 1001, 13:2-12 (“The tandem mounting of a plano
`
`element of unit magnification and a separate auxiliary element onto a common,
`
`single backing plate element, and the mounting of this backing plate element onto
`
`an actuator of an exterior sideview mirror assembly so that a driver can
`
`simultaneously and similarly move the auxiliary element and the plano element so
`
`
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`as to position their respective rearward fields of view, and to achieve this within
`
`the relatively restricted space available in a standard automobile-sized exterior
`
`sideview mirror assembly is an important element of this present invention.”).
`
`C. Henion ‘013 Discloses A Trailer Towing Mirror
`
`42. Larger vehicles such as pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles are
`
`often equipped with a towing hitch that can be used to tow a trailer, camper, boat,
`
`mobile home, horse carrier, or a similar object. The presence of the trailer presents
`
`additional difficulties for the driver, and specialized mirrors, commonly called
`
`trailer towing mirrors, are used to address the particular challenge of towing a
`
`trailer.
`
`43.
`
` Many towed objects block the view of the towing vehicle’s inside
`
`rearview mirror. A driver towing such a trailer needs to rely solely on the side
`
`view mirrors when attempting to see if there are any obstacles behind the vehicle.
`
`The side view mirrors therefore need to provide a view around the trailer and need
`
`to have a clear view along the side of the trailer.
`
`44. Having a clear view along the side of the trailer is particularly
`
`important when parking or backing up. The driver must rely on the side view
`
`mirrors to clearly see the sides of the trailer to avoid hitting objects (such as an
`
`adjacent parked car, the side of a loading dock, or the sides of a garage stall) when
`
`backing into a parking space.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`45. A trailer towing mirror that features a spotting mirror may be
`
`designed to give the spotting mirror a field of view that extends further skyward
`
`and further downward towards the road surface, so that the driver can see the top
`
`and bottom of the side of the trailer. The spotting mirror may be designed to
`
`provide a view of the side of the trailer so that the driver can position the field of
`
`view of the main plano mirror element further outward away from the side of the
`
`vehicle without losing sight of the side of the vehicle.
`
`46. Because they are designed for larger vehicles such as trucks and
`
`SUVs, trailer towing mirrors are typically larger than a mirror on a smaller car.
`
`Cars typically have smaller mirrors than trucks and SUVs for styling reasons,
`
`because a smaller mirror is more aesthetically pleasing on a smaller vehicle than a
`
`large mirror. A smaller mirror also has aerodynamic benefits because its smaller
`
`front surface area creates less drag. This improves a vehicle’s fuel efficiency.
`
`47. A POSA would have understood that the primary reference SMR
`
`asserts for ground 2, WO 2001/44013 (“Henion ‘013”) discloses a trailer towing
`
`mirror for at least two reasons. First, the inboard location of the spotter mirror is
`
`ideally suited for viewing along the side of the vehicle and along the side of the
`
`trailer being towed, not viewing into a blind spot. The ‘882 patent specification
`
`discusses this as a benefit of a spotting mirror that is positioned at the inboard edge
`
`of a mirror assembly. See Ex. 1001, 12:53-59 (inboard spotter configuration
`
`
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner Magna - Ex. 2001, p. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00533
`
`“allows the driver [to] view the side of the vehicle (something many drivers desire
`
`in order to have a frame of reference for their rearward field of view) while
`
`facilitating having a wide field of view for the plano portion”). An inboard lower
`
`spotter that views along the side of the vehicle will allow the driver to look to the
`
`location where he or she would expect to see along the side of the vehicle, the side
`
`of the mirror closest to the e
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
