IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`One World Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Techtronic Industries Power Equipment,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHERVON (HK) LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00885
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805
`Issue Date: May 16, 2017
`Title: Locking Device, Telescopic Rod and
`Mower Comprising the Locking Device
`
`DECLARATION OF E. SMITH REED
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`II.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 5
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 9
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED FOR THIS DECLARATION ......................15
`V.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .........................................................................15
`VI.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’805 PATENT ...........................................................16
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................16
`B.
`Telescopic Rod ....................................................................................19
`C.
`Operation Lever ...................................................................................20
`D.
`Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent ...............................................22
`E.
`The Critical Date of the Challenged Claims .......................................23
`F.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................24
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ................25
`A.
`“repulsion generating member” (Claim 1) ..........................................25
`VIII. Background Technology Known By Persons Of Ordinary Skill In The Art 27
`A.
`Electric Mowers Already Had Telescopic Handles ............................27
`B.
`By 2012, ANSI Standards and Federal Regulations Required Safety
`Mechanisms To Keep Users at a Safe Distance From a Lawn Mower’s
`Motor ...................................................................................................31
`IX. GROUND 1: CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER LANGDON (U.S. 5,209,051) IN VIEW OF WU (U.S. 7,179,200)
`AND SCHANTZ (U.S. 3,029,887). ..............................................................32
`GROUND 2: CLAIM 1 IS OBVIOUS UNDER AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103
`OVER LANGDON (U.S. 5,209,051) IN VIEW OF IDOTA (JP 2003 130
`017). ...............................................................................................................56
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................70
`
`X.
`
`1
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`2
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`EXHIBITS
`
`TTI1001: U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805 (“the ’805 patent”)
`
`TTI1002: Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent
`
`TTI1003: Declaration of E. Smith Reed
`
`TTI1004 – TTI1006: Reserved.
`
`TTI1007: GB 2,386,813 (“Reichart”).
`
`TTI1008: 16 CFR Part 1205 – Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn
`Mowers (January 1, 2012).
`
`TTI1009 – TTI1011: Reserved.
`
`TTI1012: U.S. Patent No. 5,209,051 (“Langdon”).
`
`TTI1013 – TTI1019: Reserved.
`
`TTI1020: CN 202 109 551 U certified English translation.
`
`TTI1021 – TTI1029: Reserved.
`
`TTI1030: ANSI/OPEI B71.1-2012 revised/issued April 23, 2012 (“ANSI B71.1”)
`
`TTI1031: JP 2003 130 017A original Japanese language.
`
`TTI1032: JP 2003 130 017A certified English translation (“Idota”).
`
`TTI1033: EP 08 223 346 A1 (“Pronzati”).
`
`TTI1034: U.S. Patent No. 3,029,887 (“Schantz”).
`
`TTI1035: U.S. Patent No. 7,179,200 (“Wu”).
`
`3
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`I, E. Smith Reed, P.E., hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`My name is Edward Smith Reed. I am a Machine and Product Design
`
`Engineer Consultant at E. Smith Reed, P.E., PLLC of Fairlee, Vermont, a
`
`successor company of Reed Engineering Consultants, Inc. of Hanover, New
`
`Hampshire.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of One World
`
`Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Techtronic Industries Power Equipment for the above-
`
`captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claim 1 (“the Challenged
`
`Claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,805 (“the ’805 patent”). I am being compensated
`
`for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate of $320 per
`
`hour. My compensation is in no way dependent on the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration, I provide my opinions based on the skill person’s
`
`understanding of features described in this patent. In forming the opinions
`
`expressed in this declaration, I relied upon my education and experience in the
`
`relevant field of the art, and have considered the viewpoint of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of 2012. My opinions directed to the invalidity
`
`of the Challenged Claims are based, at least in part, on the publications identified
`
`4
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`in the Petition and discussed further below, which I have been instructed by
`
`Petitioner’s counsel constitute prior art.
`
`II.
`4.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I have a Bachelors of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`(BSME) from the University of Arkansas (1968). I am a Licensed Registered
`
`Professional Engineer, licensed in the United States in the states of Vermont, New
`
`Hampshire and Minnesota. I have over 25 years of industry-related engineering
`
`experience, including experience designing products, including outdoor power turf
`
`maintenance products (power lawn mowers and turf care equipment), and
`
`experience as a manufacturing and industrial engineer. My experience includes the
`
`design and redesign of walk-behind and riding lawnmowers, as detailed below.
`
`My Professional Engineering licenses (my P.E. licenses) are specifically in the
`
`three fields of Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering and Industrial
`
`Engineering. I am the owner of E. Smith Reed, P.E., PLLC, a company engaged in
`
`engineering consulting based in Fairlee, Vermont.
`
`5.
`
`In earning my BS degree in Mechanical Engineering, included in the
`
`courses I completed were such subjects as Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Calculus,
`
`and Differential Equations, and upper-level courses that included Metallurgy,
`
`5
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`Manufacturing Processes, Casting and Welding, Fluid Mechanics,
`
`Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Aerodynamics, Electrical Engineering Circuits,
`
`Aircraft Engines, Probability & Statistics, Dynamics of Machinery, and Machine
`
`Design. In addition, I am a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,
`
`certified through the National Academy of Forensic Engineers in accordance with
`
`the requirements and guidelines set forth by and accredited by the Council of
`
`Engineering and Scientific Specialty Board (CESB). I am a named inventor on
`
`four U.S. Patents, two of which are directly related to and used in the lawn and
`
`garden industry.1 A complete Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`6.
`
`I am a member of or a long-term past member of several engineering
`
`societies, societies devoted to the promotion of the art and science of engineering
`
`in their particular field. Among the societies I have been or am a member of are
`
`the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Society of Automotive
`
`Engineers, the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, the
`
`Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the American Society for Quality. These
`
`societies develop, collect, publish and distribute engineering information related to
`
`their fields of interest. As a member of these particular societies, on a regular
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 3,939,917, and 4,191,007.
`
`6
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`basis, I have been provided with and I have taken advantage of the availability of
`
`technical papers, standards, engineering practices and data related to the fields of,
`
`among others, mechanical engineering, outdoor powered equipment, lawn and
`
`garden equipment, construction-related machinery and farm and agricultural
`
`machinery.
`
`7.
`
`From 1970 to 1979, I held the positions of Design Engineer, Senior
`
`Design Engineer and Chief Product Engineer for The Toro Company in
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota. Toro did and does today design, manufacture and sell
`
`lawn and garden products, including consumer mowers, products in direct
`
`competition with lawn and garden products sold by One World Technologies, Inc.,
`
`and products sold by Chervon (HK) Limited. During the course of my work at The
`
`Toro Company, I was responsible for among other things, the engineering design
`
`of industrial riding mowers, walk-behind mowers, pull-behind mowers, tractors,
`
`utility vehicles and trailer type turf maintenance machines, and was involved in
`
`design reviews of other engineers’ designs, including consumer lawn mowers (both
`
`walk-behind and riding mowers), garden tillers and snow throwers. In my
`
`positions at Toro, I was in part responsible for keeping up to date on the
`
`development and technology of products and machines that were or could be
`
`viewed as being relevant to turf maintenance and outdoor power equipment
`
`7
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`products, including reviewing industry literature, attending trade shows, visiting
`
`competitive equipment dealers, meeting with customers and reading relevant
`
`patents, to name a few such activities.
`
`8.
`
`In the 1975-1976 time frame, I designed and released for production a
`
`riding lawnmower that contained an electrical safety interlock circuit system with
`
`switches that detected when the mower operator was in a position safe for him to
`
`operate the mower, and when various mower operational controls were in safe
`
`positions for various mower operating situations, situations that would prevent the
`
`engine from starting unless the drive wheels and/or cutting blades were disengaged
`
`(in neutral), and would prevent the drive wheels and cutting blades from engaging
`
`(running) unless the operator was in the intended location on the seat behind the
`
`steering wheel. This was the industry's first successful such design.2 In addition,
`
`on occasion, I investigated mower-related accidents and helped determine
`
`contributions, if any, the mowers’ design to these accidents. When I could, I used
`
`this experience to develop design improvements to reduce the likelihood of such
`
`incidents in the future. Further, I initiated product manual changes and designed
`
`2 See Exhibit C, document “Lawnmower Electrical Interlock Circuit” (April 4,
`1976).
`
`8
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`and composed on-product warning labels to encourage safe operation and
`
`maintenance practices.
`
`9.
`
`I have previously offered testimony as an expert witness. A list of my
`
`prior engagements in which I testified as an expert at trial or by deposition is
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`10. Based on my background and experience, as set forth more fully in
`
`my CV, I am familiar with the state of the art in the field of lawn and garden
`
`equipment, in particular, safety devices for lawn mowers, at least in the mid 2000’s
`
`to mid 2010’s. I am a technical expert in the fields relating to the asserted patents
`
`and other related fields, and I remain active in consulting in these fields.
`
`11. Based on my professional experience, I believe I am qualified to
`
`testify as an expert on matters related to the patent that is the subject of this
`
`Petition.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`12.
`I am not a legal expert and therefore I offer no opinions on the law.
`
`However, I have been informed and am aware of legal standards that are relevant
`
`to my analysis, as summarized below.
`
`9
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`I have been informed and understand that an issued patent claim is
`
`13.
`
`presumed valid and establishing a patent claim to be unpatentable in an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) or post-grant review (“PGR”) proceeding requires proof by
`
`“preponderance of the evidence,” which I understand means proof that it is more
`
`likely than not that the claim is unpatentable.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the first step in an
`
`unpatentability analysis involves construing claims, as necessary, to determine
`
`their scope. Second, the construed claim language is then compared to the
`
`disclosures of the prior art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are generally given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the patent
`
`specification and prosecution history. I have been informed that claim
`
`construction is a matter of law and that the final claim constructions for this
`
`proceeding will be determined by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim may be
`
`declared unpatentable if it is anticipated by, or rendered obvious in view of, prior
`
`art.
`
`10
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is to be understood
`
`17.
`
`from the perspective of a POSITA. Such an individual is considered to possess
`
`normal skills and knowledge in a particular technical field (as opposed to being a
`
`genius). I have been informed and understand that in considering what the claims
`
`of a patent require, what was known prior to that patent, what a prior art reference
`
`discloses, and whether an invention is obvious or not, one must use the perspective
`
`of such a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and therefore unpatentable, if the claimed subject matter, as
`
`a whole, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`priority date of the patent based on one or more prior art references and/or the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an obviousness analysis
`
`must consider (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between
`
`the claims and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and
`
`(4) secondary considerations, if any, of non-obviousness (such as unexpected
`
`results, commercial success, long felt but unmet need, failure of others, copying by
`
`others, and skepticism of experts).
`
`11
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`I have been informed and understand that a single prior art reference
`
`20.
`
`can render a patent claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if any differences
`
`between that reference and the claims would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, I have been informed and understand that a
`
`prior art reference may be combined with other references to disclose each element
`
`of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus the teachings of two or more
`
`references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if such a
`
`combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`have been informed and understand that a reference may also be combined with the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that this knowledge may be
`
`used to combine multiple references. I have further been informed and understand
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know the relevant prior art.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis may take into
`
`account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would employ.
`
`21.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference would have been
`
`combined with other prior art or other information known to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, I have been informed and understand that the following principles
`
`may be considered:
`
`12
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
` whether the references to be combined involve non-analogous art;
`
` whether the references to be combined are in different fields of
`
`endeavor than the alleged invention in the Patent;
`
` whether the references to be combined are reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problems to which the inventions of the Patent are directed;
`
` whether the combination is of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods that yields predictable results;
`
` whether a combination involves the substitution of one known
`
`element for another that yields predictable results;
`
` whether the combination involves the use of a known technique to
`
`improve similar items or methods in the same way that yields
`
`predictable results;
`
` whether the combination involves the application of a known
`
`technique to a prior art reference that is ready for improvement, to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
` whether the combination is “obvious to try”;
`
`13
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
` whether the combination involves the known work in one field of
`
`endeavor prompting variations of it for use in either the same field or
`
`a different one based on design incentives or other market forces,
`
`where the variations are predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art;
`
` whether there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention;
`
` whether the combination requires modifications that render the prior
`
`art unsatisfactory for its intended use;
`
` whether the combination requires modifications that change the
`
`principle of operation of the reference;
`
` whether the combination is reasonably expected to be a success; and
`
` whether the combination possesses the requisite degree of
`
`predictability at the time the invention was made.
`
`14
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`I have been informed and understand that in determining whether a
`
`22.
`
`combination of prior art references renders a claim obvious, it is helpful to
`
`consider whether there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the
`
`references and a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand,
`
`however, that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is not required.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED FOR THIS DECLARATION
`23.
`In addition to my general knowledge, education, and experience, I
`
`considered the ’805 patent, its file history, the references cited by the ’805 patent,
`
`and the materials discussed in this declaration and the materials listed as exhibits in
`
`this IPR, in forming my opinions.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`V.
`24. Based on my review of the ’805 patent and its prosecution history, the
`
`other materials I have considered, and my knowledge and experience, my opinions
`
`are as follows:
`
`25. Claim 1 of the ’805 patent is invalid for the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claim
`1
`
`References
`Basis
`§103 Langdon in view of Wu or Pronzati
`
`15
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 17
`
`

`

`Ground
`2
`
`Claim
`1
`
`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`References
`Basis
`§103 Langdon in view of Idota in further
`view of Wu
`
`VI.
`A.
`26.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’805 PATENT
`Brief Description
`The ’805 patent claims priority to a foreign filing date later than May
`
`16, 2013, and is therefore subject to the first-to-invent (AIA) provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102-103. It claims priority to Chinese patent application CN2013-
`
`10502603 filed October 23, 2013.
`
`27.
`
`The ’805 patent describes a locking device for use for instance in
`
`locking telescoping handles on a walk-behind lawn mower. The device includes a
`
`clamp to apply pressure upon the inner and outer tubes of the telescoping handle, a
`
`frictional section on the clamp to hold the clamp in place when closed, and a
`
`locking reinforcement member (such as an elongated post for insertion into aligned
`
`through-holes) to hold the inner and outer tubes of the telescoping handle at a
`
`designated position in relationship to each other when the clamp is closed.
`
`28.
`
`Figures 1 and 3 illustrate the disclosed locking device including a base
`
`10, a pivoting shaft 11 (visible in Fig. 3), and an operating lever 12. The base 10
`
`16
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`can be composed of two parts, as shown in the exploded view in Figure 3. One
`
`end of the operating lever 12 is hinged to the base 10 via pivoting shaft 11. A
`
`repulsion generating member 13 is arranged between the base 10 and the operating
`
`lever 12.
`
`29.
`
`The hinge created by pivoting shaft 11 allows the device to have a
`
`locking position, whereby the operating lever 12 is brought flush to base 10 (see
`
`Figure 4), and a releasing position whereby the operating lever is rotated away
`
`from base 10 (see Figure 5).
`
`30.
`
`17
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`31.
`
`32. When the operating lever 12 is in a releasing position, the repulsion
`
`generating member is in either a natural condition or may have a relatively small
`
`pretension force applied. TTI1001, 3:5-13. When the operating lever 12 is in a
`
`locking position, the repulsion generating member is in a compressed condition.
`
`Id. The repulsion generating member serves the purpose of giving an indication to
`
`the user that the operating level has not reached the locking position due to
`
`abnormal operation, the repulsion generating member forcing the operating lever to
`
`return to the releasing position. Id. at 2:23-28.
`
`18
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`B.
`33.
`
`Telescopic Rod
`The disclosed locking device 100 forms a portion of a disclosed
`
`telescopic rod 20, the telescopic rod also including an inner tube 21 and an outer
`
`tube 22. The inner tube 21 and outer tube 22 are slidably arranged such that the
`
`inner tube 21 can be slid into outer tube 22 to collapse the telescopic rod, or be
`
`drawn from the outer tube 22 to extend it. TTI1001, 2:3-7. The outer tube 22 is
`
`provided with a through hole 22a (Fig. 5) that allows a locking member 12a (Fig.
`
`3) on the operating lever 12 to pass through in order to compress the inner tube 21
`
`when rotated into a locking position. Id., 3:22-26; Figs. 3, 5. The outer tube 22 is
`
`further provided with a compression member 22b residing in through hole 22a,
`
`which is used to fix the inner tube 21 more firmly. Id., 3:28-30; Figs. 4, 5. Both
`
`the outer tube 22 and inner tube 21 are provided with hole 22c and 21a,
`
`respectively, through which a locking reinforcement member 12b residing on the
`
`operating lever 12 may pass simultaneously when the two holes 22c and 21a are in
`
`alignment. Id., 3:31-35. The locking device 100 thus locks the relative position
`
`between the inner tube 21 and outer tube 22 by compressing inner tube 21 with
`
`operating lever 12 when holes 22c and 21a are in alignment. TTI1001, 3:22-35.
`
`19
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 21
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`
`C.
`34.
`
`Operation Lever
`The disclosed locking device exhibits an operation lever 12 hingedly
`
`attached to a base 10 by pivoting shaft 11 whereby the locking device is in a
`
`locking position when the operation lever 12 is rotated flush with the base 10
`
`(Figure 4), and a releasing position when the operation lever is rotated away from
`
`the base 10 (Figure 5.)
`
`35.
`
`The operation lever 12 includes the locking member 12a disposed at
`
`the end proximal to the pivoting shaft 11. Id., 2:67-3:4. The locking member 12a
`
`is a cam configured to press through the through hole 22a on outer tube 22 to
`
`20
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 22
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`compress the inner tube 21 via compression member 22b as the operation lever 12
`
`is rotated to the locking position. (See Figs. 4, 5.) At the opposite end, the
`
`operation lever 12 includes a friction portion 12c. Id., 3:37-41. When the
`
`operation lever 12 is moved to the locking position, the friction portion 12c is
`
`tightly engaged with the outer wall 10a of the base 10, holding it in locking
`
`position. Id. Between the locking member 12a and the friction portion 12c, the
`
`operation lever 12 includes a locking reinforcement member 12b, shown as a post
`
`in Figure 4. Id., 3:33-35. When moving operation lever 12 into the locking
`
`position, locking reinforcement member 12b can be engaged with hole 22c in the
`
`outer tube 22 and hole 21a in the inner tube 21 simultaneously if such holes are
`
`aligned. Id., 3:60-4:2. Now in the locking position, the friction portion 12c is
`
`engaged with outer wall 10a of the base 10 such that the friction force overcomes
`
`the force of the repulsion generating member acting to return the operation lever 12
`
`to the releasing position. Id., 3:52-59.
`
`36. However, if holes 21a and 22c are not in alignment when the user
`
`attempts to rotate the operation lever 12 to the locking position, a so-called
`
`“abnormal operation of the user,” the locking reinforcement member cannot
`
`engage the holes, and operation lever 12 will not be permitted into the locking
`
`position. Id. In such condition, the repulsion generating member 13 disposed
`
`21
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 23
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`between operation lever 12 and base 10 applies a force returning operation lever 12
`
`to the releasing position. Id., 4:2-13.
`
`D.
`37.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent
`The application for the ’805 patent was filed October 17, 2014, as an
`
`original U.S. application serial no. 14/517,233, claiming priority to Chinese
`
`application 2013-10502603, itself filed October 23, 2013. It was filed with claims
`
`1-20 that included six claims drawn to the locking device alone, 8 claims drawn to
`
`a telescopic rod comprising an inner tube, an outer tube, and the locking device,
`
`and 6 claims drawn to a mower having a pushing handle comprising the telescopic
`
`rod.
`
`38.
`
`In its first Office Action, the USPTO declared each of the claims
`
`subject to a restriction/election requirement, along the locking device, telescopic
`
`rod, mower trichotomy. TTI1002, 93. The Applicant selected the mower claims,
`
`id. at 97, which the Examiner subsequently rejected over the lawnmower disclosed
`
`in Barlow in view analogous art outside of lawn and garden equipment: Melic (a
`
`lock for a safety fence support post), Solomon (a lock for a vertically adjustable
`
`table), and Sicz (an adjustable bicycle seat post assembly). Id., 115-18.
`
`22
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 24
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`The Applicant responded by amending the lone remaining
`
`39.
`
`independent claim adding limitations describing the inner and outer tubes,
`
`clarifying that the locking reinforcement member extends through the holes in both
`
`the inner and outer tubes when the operating lever is in the locking position. Id.,
`
`142-43, 147. The Examiner again rejected the claims as obvious over Barlow in
`
`combination with Melic, Sicz, and Solomon, and in further combination of
`
`Webber, a seat adjustment apparatus for an exercise machine. Id., 157-61.
`
`40.
`
`The Applicant requested continued examination, and amended the
`
`lone remaining independent claim to its final state, describing the friction portion
`
`of the operating lever, and further clarifying that “the frictional portion of the
`
`operating lever engages the outside surface of the base to provide a fictional [sic]
`
`retention force to counteract the force of the repulsion generating member on the
`
`operating lever.” Id. 189-90, 193.
`
`41. After subsequent exchanges with the USPTO that are immaterial to
`
`the Petition, the ’805 patent was granted on May 16, 2017.
`
`E.
`42.
`
`The Critical Date of the Challenged Claims
`The ’805 patent claims priority to a Chinese patent application filed
`
`October 23, 2013. TTI1001, 1. Petitioner’s counsel informs me they do not
`
`23
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 25
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`believe it is important to this Declaration to determine the actual priority date to
`
`which each Challenged Claim is entitled because the prior art relied upon herein
`
`was published prior to the oldest priority date or otherwise qualifies as prior art.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`F.
`43. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of October 23,
`
`2013, which is the earliest alleged priority date of the Challenged Patent, would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, or similar technical field, with at least three years of relevant product
`
`design experience. An increase in experience could compensate for less education.
`
`44. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know and understand terms
`
`commonly used in the lawn and garden and outdoor power equipment industry,
`
`would know and understand materials commonly used in turf maintenance
`
`products, would know and understand engineering mechanical drawings,
`
`engineering specifications and engineering document control, would have an
`
`understanding of turf maintenance issues and practices, would have an
`
`understanding of customers' needs and expectations, and would have a basic
`
`understanding of how to read and understand technology concepts presented in
`
`relevant patents and patent publications.
`
`24
`
`PETITIONER – Exhibit 1003
`
`TTI
`Exhibit 1003 - Page 26
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00885
`Declaration of E. Smith Reed – ’805 Patent
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`A.
`“repulsion generating member” (Claim 1)
`45.
`The Challenged Patent’s specification describes several forces
`
`generated within the locking device. When describing the operation of the
`
`operation lever, the Challenged Patent’s specification states that “[t]he beneficial
`
`effect of the described devices lies in that owing to the repulsion generating
`
`member being arranged between the base and the operating lever, the repulsion
`
`force is applied to the operating lever during the movement from the releasing
`
`position to the locking position, therefore when the operating lever does not
`
`completely reach the locking position due to abnormal operation, the operating
`
`lever will return to the releasing position because of the repulsion fore, and thereby
`
`provide an indication to the user.” TTI1001, 2:19-28; see also id., 3:5-13; 4:14-
`
`55;5:13-23. This is in contrast to the force of the friction portion that must
`
`overcome it for the operation lever to maintain in the locking position. See id.,
`
`3:52-59.
`
`46.
`
`The repulsion of the operation lever, biasing it towards the releasing
`
`position is further