IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CHERVON (HK) LIMITED,
`CHERVON NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO.
`LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 19-1293-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4(d) of the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery, Defendants
`
`One World Technologies, Inc. and Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. (“Defendants”) submit their
`
`initial invalidity contentions with respect to the asserted claims identified by Plaintiffs Chervon
`
`(HK) Ltd. and Chervon North America Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) in their February 21, 2020 Initial
`
`Infringement Contentions (“infringement contentions”) as to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,060,463 (“the
`
`’463 patent”); 9,596,806 (“the ’806 patent”); 9,826,686 (“the ’26686 patent”); 9,986,686 (“the
`
`’86686 patent”); 10,070,588 (“the ’588 patent”); 9,648,805 (“the ’805 patent”); 10,477,772 (“the
`
`’772 patent”); 10,485,176 (“the ’176 patent”); and 10,524,420 (“the ’420 patent”) (the “asserted
`
`patents”).1 With respect to the asserted claims and based on their investigation to date,
`
`Defendants: (1) identify each item of prior art that anticipates or renders obvious each asserted
`
`1 Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions assert ’463 patent, claims 1-3 and 12-13; ’806 patent,
`claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-13; ’26686 patent, claims 1-20; ’86686 patent, claims 1-20; ’588 patent,
`claims 1-12, 15-17, and 19-21; ’805 patent, claim 1; ’772 patent, claims 1-11 and 16-18; ’176
`patent, claims 1-16 and 19-30; and ’420 patent, claims 1-2 and 6-15 (the “asserted claims”)—a
`total of 129 asserted claims.
`
`1
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 1
`
`

`

`claim; (2) specify whether each item of identified prior art anticipates or renders obvious (either
`
`alone or in combination) each asserted claim; (3) submit charts identifying where in each item of
`
`prior art each limitation of each asserted claim is found; and (4) identify grounds of invalidity
`
`based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 for certain of the asserted claims.
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Defendants’ invalidity contentions are subject to amendment and/or revision in light of
`
`Defendants’ ongoing investigation and discovery into the prior art, the defenses asserted by
`
`Defendants, the Court’s claim construction rulings, and/or expert discovery. Discovery is not
`
`complete, and Defendants’ search for and analysis of prior art is ongoing. Defendants also
`
`reserve the right to amend these contentions if Plaintiffs amend their infringement contentions
`
`and/or produce any information they should have provided with their infringement contentions.
`
`Defendants also reserve the right to contest Plaintiffs’ understanding or interpretation of any
`
`claim limitations during the claim construction phase of this case, or thereafter.
`
`Defendants’ claim charts cite particular teachings, disclosures and figures of the prior art
`
`as applied the asserted claims. The cited portions are examples, and Defendants reserve the right
`
`to rely on uncited portions of the prior art, and on other publications, expert testimony, and other
`
`evidence as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions. Defendant’s cited prior art
`
`may disclose the limitations of the asserted claims explicitly or inherently, and may be cited to
`
`show the state of the art at the relevant time. Furthermore, for each claim limitation Defendants
`
`contend is indefinite, Defendants have used their best efforts to interpret the claims to chart a
`
`given prior reference against that indefinite claim limitation.
`
`Defendants reserve the right to contend that the asserted claims are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(f) if discovery demonstrates that the named inventors did not invent the subject
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`2
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 2
`
`

`

`matter claimed in the asserted patents. Defendants also reserve the right to challenge the asserted
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 on any grounds, including indefiniteness, lack of written
`
`description, lack of enablement, or failure to disclose the best mode.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4(d) of the Delaware Electronic Discovery Default Standard,
`
`Defendants identify below each item of prior art that they contend anticipate and/or render
`
`obvious each asserted claim. For each United States or foreign patent reference listed, the
`
`identification of the reference includes corresponding patents and applications filed in other
`
`countries pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty. For prior art systems, the identification of
`
`the system includes the physical system and all related documentation describing that system.
`
`Additionally, for each Asserted Patent, the prior art and foreign priority references cited in the
`
`prosecution histories of the Asserted Patent, its continuations, its ancestors, and any foreign
`
`counterparts are expressly incorporated by reference herein.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art for the ’463 Patent.
`
`Prior Art References for the ’463 Patent
`Akiba - US Patent No. 4,899,446
`ANSI B71.1-2012
`DE 3 827 926
`Funabashi - JP 2013 165676
`Guoxiong - CN 201 146 132 Y
`Hesson - US Patent No. 6,006,434
`Hurst - US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/096135
`JP-H 0584102U
`Keesee - US Patent No. 3,702,016
`Legendre - FR 2,780,375
`Letzel - US Patent No. 4,659,884
`Lindermeir - EP 2 425 700
`Matsunaga - US Patent No. 8,098,036
`Reichart - GB 2,386,813
`
`3
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Prior Art References for the ’463 Patent
`Scott - US Patent No. 3,230,695
`CN’551 - CN 202 019 551 U
`Tseng - US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/293655
`Wick - US Patent No. 4,573,307
`
`Prior Art Products or Systems for the ’463 Patent
`Sun Joe SB600E electric trimmer
`Homelite UT41110 electric trimmer
`Greenworks 21212 electric string trimmer
`Earthwise CST00012 electric string trimmer
`Greenworks 21052 electric string trimmer
`Ryobi RY14110 electric lawn mower
`Ryobi RY40100 electric lawn mower
`Neuton CE6 electric lawn mower
`Cub Cadet CC 500 BAT electric lawn mower
`Black and Decker CM2040 electric lawn mower
`Toro e-Cycler 20360 electric lawn mower
`Recharge Ultralite PMLI-14 electric lawn mower
`Worx WG789 electric lawn mower
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art for the ’806 Patent Family (the ’806, ’26686, ’86686, ’588, ’772, and
`’176 Patents).
`
`Prior Art References for the ’806 Patent Family
`Abe - US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/317948
`Adolfsson - WO 2012/115543
`Akiba - US Patent No. 4,899,446
`ANSI B71.1-2012
`Braun - US Patent No. 5,020,308
`CN’186 - CN 102 845 186 A
`CN’363 - CN 202 873 363 U
`Frey - US Patent No. 1,899,564
`Fujioka - US Patent No. 4,882,897
`Fuku - JP 2009 034000
`Fuku II - JP 2011 072211
`Fuku III - JP 2013 153753
`Guoxiong - CN 201 146 132 Y
`
`4
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Prior Art References for the ’806 Patent Family
`Hayashi - JP 2013 063052
`Hayashi II - JP 2013 066401A
`Hilchey - US Patent No. 4,476,643
`Huang - CN 2009 53749Y
`Jonischus - US Patent No. 5,558,210
`Joseph - US Patent No. 6,698,173
`Kalleicher - EP 0 047 416
`Kitamura - JP-H 05284834
`Kober - EP 1 543 711
`Langdon - US Patent No. 5,209,051
`Li - CN 202 455 826 U
`Matsunaga - US Patent No. 8,098,036
`Meldahl - US Patent No. 3,253,391
`Milcoy - US Patent No. 3,823,291
`Nakano - WO 2013/122,266
`Nofel - US Patent No. 4,161,639
`Nottingham - US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/075732
`Oka - JP-H 0530835
`Outils Moteurs - FR 2,768,300
`Owens - US Patent No. 4,221,108
`Park - US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/302895
`Reichart - GB 2,386,813
`Reichart II - DE 102004020985A1
`Roelle - US Patent No. 4,753,062
`Schantz - US Patent No. 3,209,887
`Smith - US Patent No. 2,702,448
`Takeda - EP 2 622 953
`CN’817 - CN 102 523 817 A
`
`Prior Art Products or Systems for the ’806 Patent Family
`Sun Joe SB600E electric trimmer
`Homelite UT41110 electric trimmer
`Greenworks 21212 electric string trimmer
`Earthwise CST00012 electric string trimmer
`Greenworks 21052 electric string trimmer
`Ryobi RY14110 electric lawn mower
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`5
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Prior Art Products or Systems for the ’806 Patent Family
`Ryobi RY40100 electric lawn mower
`Neuton CE6 electric lawn mower
`Cub Cadet CC 500 BAT electric lawn mower
`Black and Decker CM2040 electric lawn mower
`Toro e-Cycler 20360 electric lawn mower
`Recharge Ultralite PMLI-14 electric lawn mower
`Worx WG789 electric lawn mower
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art for the ’805 Patent.
`
`Prior Art References for the ’805 Patent
`Hayakawa - US Patent No. 4,932,622
`Hu – CN 200 993 141Y
`Idota - JP 2003 130017A
`Langdon - US Patent No. 5,209,051
`Outils Moteurs - FR 2,768,300
`Ozawa - JP 2013 247888A
`Pronzati - EP 0 822 346
`Reichart - GB 2,386,813
`Schantz - US Patent No. 3,209,887
`Stelma - US Patent No. 4,181,333
`Wu - US Patent No. 7,179,200
`
`Prior Art Products or Systems for the ’805 Patent
`Sun Joe SB600E electric trimmer
`Homelite UT41110 electric trimmer
`Greenworks 21212 electric string trimmer
`Earthwise CST00012 electric string trimmer
`Greenworks 21052 electric string trimmer
`Ryobi RY14110 electric lawn mower
`Ryobi RY40100 electric lawn mower
`Neuton CE6 electric lawn mower
`Cub Cadet CC 500 BAT electric lawn mower
`Black and Decker CM2040 electric lawn mower
`Toro e-Cycler 20360 electric lawn mower
`Recharge Ultralite PMLI-14 electric lawn mower
`Worx WG789 electric lawn mower
`
`6
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 6
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Prior Art for the ’420 Patent.
`
`The prior art identified for the ’463 patent and the ’805 patent family above (Sections
`
`III.A and III.B) also anticipates and/or renders obvious the asserted claims of the ’420 patent,
`
`and is incorporated by reference here.
`
`IV.
`
`PRIOR-ART BASED INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to Paragraph 4(d), Defendants identify whether each item of prior art anticipates
`
`and/or renders obvious, either alone or in combination with other references or information, each
`
`asserted claim of the asserted patents.
`
`A.
`
`Anticipation
`
`The asserted claims are anticipated at least by the prior art charted in the claim chart
`
`exhibits listed below. The prior art identified in these exhibits is illustrative and not exhaustive.
`
`The claim charts provide illustrative citations to where each claim limitation may be found in the
`
`prior art, but the charted prior art may contain other disclosures of each claim limitation as well,
`
`and Defendants reserve the right to identify non-cited portions of the prior art at a later time if
`
`necessary. To the extent Plaintiffs contend that any charted prior art reference fails to disclose
`
`one or more claim limitations of the asserted claims, Defendants reserve the right to contend that
`
`such reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`In addition to the charted arguments listed below, because the foreign priority claims for
`
`each of the ’588, ’772, ’176, and ’420 patents are ineffective under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) and (c),
`
`and because the inventions claimed in these patents are fully disclosed in CN’186 and CN’363,
`
`the references CN’186 and CN’363 anticipate claims 1-20 of the ’588 patent, claims 1-18 of the
`
`’772 patent, claims 1-12, 25-30 of the ’176 patent, and claims 1-15 of the ’420 patent.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Primary Prior Art Reference
`
`7
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`A-1
`B-1
`E-4
`
`Primary Prior Art Reference
`Akiba
`Outils
`CN’363
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`The asserted claims are rendered obvious at least by the prior art charted in the claim
`
`chart exhibits listed below. The obviousness combinations identified below reflect Defendants’
`
`present understanding of the scope of the asserted claims that Plaintiffs appear to be advocating,
`
`and should not be construed as an acquiescence to Plaintiffs’ interpretation of any asserted claim.
`
`1.
`
`’463 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Akiba
`Reichart, Akiba
`
`2.
`
`’806 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Outils
`Nakagawa
`Outils in view of Langdon and Nakano
`Outils in view of Meldahl
`Outils in view of Milcoy and Hilchey
`Roelle in view of CN’186, Jonischus, and/or Adolfsson
`
`3.
`
`’26686 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Roelle in view of CN’817, Akiba, and/or Jonischus
`Outils in view of Roelle, Matsunaga, Langdon and/or Nakano
`
`Exhibit
`A-1
`A-2
`
`Exhibit
`B-1
`B-2
`B-3
`B-4
`B-5
`B-6
`
`Exhibit
`C-1
`C-2
`
`4.
`
`’86686 Patent
`
`Exhibit
`D-1
`
`Prior Art References
`Reichart in view of Nakano and Outils
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`8
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 8
`
`

`

`5.
`
`’588 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Reichart in view of Nakano
`Outils in view of Matsunaga, Langdon, Nakano, Milcoy, and/or Hilchey
`Kober in view of Nakano
`CN’363
`
`6.
`
`’805 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Langdon in view of Idota
`Langdon in view of Wu
`
`7.
`
`’772 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Reichart in view of Akiba and/or Matsunaga
`Reichart in view of Nakano
`Reichart in view of Nakano and/or Matsunaga
`
`8.
`
`’176 Patent
`
`Prior Art References
`Reichart in view of Akiba
`Reichart in view of Nakano, Milcoy, Outils, Roelle, and/or Matsunaga
`
`Exhibit
`E-1
`E-2
`E-3
`E-4
`
`Exhibit
`F-1
`F-2
`
`Exhibit
`G-1
`G-2
`G-3
`
`Exhibit
`H-1
`H-2
`
`9.
`
`’420 Patent
`
`Exhibit
`I-1
`
`Prior Art References
`Reichart in view of Akiba and/or Matsunaga
`
`Defendants contend that no showing of a specific motivation to combine prior art is
`
`necessary to combine any of the prior art references identified above, because each combination
`
`of prior art would have had no unexpected results, and at most would simply represent a known
`
`alternative to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
`
`1739-40, 1742 (2007) (“in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`9
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 9
`
`

`

`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”). Nevertheless, Defendants
`
`identify additional motivations and reasons to combine these prior art references.
`
`One or more combinations of the prior art references identified above would have been
`
`obvious because these prior art references would have been combined using: (a) known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; (b) known techniques in the same way; (c) a simple substitution of
`
`one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results; and/or (d) a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art generally. In addition, it would have been obvious to
`
`try combining the prior art references identified above because there were only a finite number
`
`of predictable solutions and/or because known work in one field of endeavor prompted variations
`
`based on predictable design incentives and/or market forces either in the same field or a different
`
`one. In addition, the combination of prior art references identified above would have been
`
`obvious because the combination represents the known potential options with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success. Additional evidence that there would have been a motivation to combine
`
`the prior art references identified above includes the interrelated teachings of multiple items of
`
`prior art; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace;
`
`the existence of a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
`
`asserted claims; the existence of a known need or problem in the field of the endeavor at the time
`
`of the invention(s); and the background knowledge that would have been possessed by a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art
`
`references identified above is found in the prior art references themselves and in: (a) the nature
`
`of the problem being solved; (b) the express, implied and inherent teachings of the prior art; (c)
`
`the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art; (d) the fact that the prior art is generally
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`10
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 10
`
`

`

`directed toward similar technology; and/or (5) the predictable results obtained in combining the
`
`different elements of the prior art.
`
`Furthermore, Defendants’ inclusion of exemplary combinations, in view of the factors
`
`and motivations identified in the preceding paragraphs, does not preclude Defendants from
`
`identifying other invalidating combinations as appropriate. A person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have found all of the art cited herein to be in the same field of endeavor – lawn and
`
`garden tools having a motorized cutting implement, and the mechanical pieces incorporated to
`
`make them safer. In particular, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with
`
`lawnmowers would also be familiar with power heads, string trimmers, and other rotary
`
`trimmers. Indeed, a lawn mower is little more than a rotary trimmer placed on wheels to support
`
`a larger, metal cutting implement. In the examples of the ’463, ’806, ’26686, ’86686, ’772, ’176,
`
`and ’420 patents, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`the teachings found in various lawn mowers, powerheads, and string trimmers (Roelle, Langdon,
`
`Frey, Outils, Reichart, Ryobi RY14100, Homelite UT41110, etc.) with the teachings of
`
`electrically switched safety devices incorporated into such garden tools (Akiba, Nakagawa,
`
`Nakano, Matsunaga, etc.) because each comes from the same technological area and would have
`
`been motivated by the mandate to increase user safety. Additionally, with the same motivation, a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have found that the teachings found in any of the
`
`gardening tool art involving telescoping handles (Langdon, Reichart, Akiba, Nakano, Sun Joe
`
`SB600E, Greenworks 21212, etc.) could have been combined with teachings involving clamps to
`
`hold telescoping handles in place under a load (Idota, Pronzati, Ozawa, Wu, etc.). Telescoping
`
`rods were not new technologies at the time to which these patents claim priority, and solutions
`
`for locking telescoping rods were abundant in all the arts implementing telescoping rods. As
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`11
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 11
`
`

`

`such, a person of ordinary skill in the art having chosen to employ telescoping rods in her design
`
`would have been motivated to look beyond lawn and garden equipment to the larger universe of
`
`securing telescoping rods for use in lawn and garden equipment. Furthermore, the Federal
`
`regulations and ANSI standards mandating a heightened security standard for manufacturers of
`
`garden tools would have propelled persons of ordinary skill to seek out additional references to
`
`meet the safety requirements of the tools that are the subject of the asserted patents. A person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art designing a lawnmower would have been very familiar with the
`
`government mandated safety standards found in 16 C.F.R. § 1205 and ANSI B71.1-12, among
`
`others. Those standards would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to seek
`
`other example art to improve the safety of her designs. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine any of the references identified above. All of these
`
`technologies were well known at the time and could easily become substitute for one another.
`
`V.
`
`SECTION 112-BASED INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Defendants identify the grounds of indefiniteness based on 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and lack
`
`of enablement and/or written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of the asserted claims. Based
`
`on Defendants’ present understanding of the asserted claims and Plaintiffs’ apparent
`
`interpretation of the claims as evidenced by its infringement contentions, Defendants contend
`
`that certain asserted claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`A.
`
`Written Description Contentions Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
`
`AIA Section 112 requires that a specification “contain a written description of the
`
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and
`
`exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which is most
`
`nearly connected, to make and use the same.” To meet this requirement, the patent specification
`
`must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a person of skill in the art can
`12
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 12
`
`

`

`reasonably conclude that the named inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Ariad
`
`Pharma, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). A claim is
`
`invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 if the specification fails to “teach those
`
`skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue
`
`experimentation.” Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). “Enabling the full scope of each claim is part of the quid pro quo of the patent
`
`bargain.” Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Nat’l Recovery
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc., 166 F.3d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As set forth
`
`below, a number of asserted claims are invalid because they do not meet at least the written
`
`description and enablement requirements.
`
`1.
`
`The ’463 Patent
`
`Term
`“a hollow level-1 handle”
`
`Claim(s)
`12
`
`Claim 12 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) because the term “a hollow level-1
`
`handle” is unclear and has no enabling written description in patent specification. The dependent
`
`claims fail to cure these deficiencies and are invalid for the same reason.
`
`2.
`
`The ’806 Patent
`
`Term
`“switch” or “signal source”
`“telescopic tubes”
`“locks” “unlocks”
`“designated position”
`
`Claim(s)
`All claims
`3, 4, 8, 9, 13
`1, 6
`3, 8
`
`All claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C §112(a) because there is no enabling written
`
`description that permits a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
`
`invention. Claims 1-13 recite the term “switch” or “signal source” or “sending a control signal”
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`13
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 13
`
`

`

`and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b). The specification tries to distinguish them
`
`(e.g., the “first control device may comprise a first switch or a first signal source device, or a
`
`combination thereof” (’806, 5:63-64)), and assigns the function of sending a control signal to
`
`only a signal source device (e.g., the “first signal source device may be a photoelectric switch
`
`which participates in control by sending a control signal to the switch in the power supply
`
`circuit” (’806, 6:17-17), but Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions make the illogical suggestion
`
`that a switch which is incapable of sending a control signal can nevertheless send a control
`
`signal. Accordingly, the scope of all claims reciting a “switch,” a “signal source,” or “send(ing)
`
`a signal” are invalid because the scope of those terms is not adequately set forth in the patents’
`
`written description, and the scope of the claims reciting those terms cannot be properly
`
`determined.
`
`Claim 17 of the ’588 patent; claims 2, 4 and 9 of the ’806 patent; and claim 7 of the ’176
`
`patent illustrate the point (and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (b) and (d)) because, by
`
`requiring the “switch” and the “signal source” to each be “one of a contact switch, a proximity
`
`switch, a Hall switch, and a photoelectric switch,” they render meaningless the specification’s
`
`distinction between a “switch” and a “signal source” and renders such claims unclear; the
`
`identified claims also fails to further limit the subject matter of its parent claims (112(d)). For
`
`similar reasons, all claims reciting a “power supply circuit”(e.g., claims 1-13) are invalid under §
`
`112(b), because the written description fails to inform persons of ordinary skill in the art how to
`
`distinguish whether a circuit element (such as, but not limited to a switch or signal source) is to
`
`be considered connected “in” the power supply circuit or connected “to” the power supply
`
`circuit.
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`14
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 14
`
`

`

`Claims 1 and 6 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because there is no enabling written
`
`description for a control device that “locks” and/or “unlocks” any other component including but
`
`not limited to another control device that starts the motor. The dependent claims fail to cure
`
`these deficiencies and are invalid for the same reason.
`
`Claims 3 and 8 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) because “the designated
`
`position” of claims 1 and 6 is associated with a rotating position (“the handle rotates to the
`
`designated position”) but claims 3 and 8 recite it as a telescoping position (“when the telescopic
`
`tube extends to the designated position”). The patent specification provides no enabling written
`
`description of a telescopic tube rotating relative to another telescopic tube or tubes.
`
`All claims that recite telescoping or sliding components (e.g., claims 3-4, 8-9) are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification fails to provide an enabling written
`
`description of how those components stay assembled. The disclosure suggests that the
`
`telescoping components have nothing to prevent them from being separated, so a self-driven
`
`mower would pull away from a user and disassemble the handle. The disclosure also suggests
`
`that the telescoping components would collapse into one another due to gravity or any pushing
`
`force from the user. A person of ordinary skill would have found such details critical to
`
`understanding how to make and use the invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ’26686 Patent
`
`Term
`“switch” or “signal source”
`“telescopic members”
`“locks” / “unlocks”
`“the designated position”
`
`Claim(s)
`All claims
`8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20
`1, 11
`8, 18
`
`All claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C §112(a) because there is no enabling written
`
`description that permits a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed
`15
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 15
`
`

`

`invention. All claims recite the term “switch” or “signal source” or “sending a control signal”
`
`and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b). The specification tries to distinguish them
`
`(e.g., the “first control device may comprise a first switch or a first signal source device, or a
`
`combination thereof” (’26686, 5:66-67)), and assigns the function of sending a control signal to
`
`only a signal source device (e.g., the “first signal source device may be a photoelectric switch
`
`which participates in control by sending a control signal to the switch in the power supply
`
`circuit” (’26686, 6:19-21)), but Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions make the illogical suggestion
`
`that a switch which is incapable of sending a control signal can nevertheless send a control
`
`signal. Accordingly, the scope of all claims reciting a “switch,” a “signal source,” or “send(ing)
`
`a signal” are invalid because the scope of those terms is not adequately set forth in the patents’
`
`written description, and the scope of the claims reciting those terms cannot be properly
`
`determined.
`
`Claim 17 of the ’588 patent; claims 2, 4 and 9 of the ’806 patent; and claim 7 of the ’176
`
`patent illustrate the point (and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (b) and (d)) because, by
`
`requiring the “switch” and the “signal source” to each be “one of a contact switch, a proximity
`
`switch, a Hall switch, and a photoelectric switch,” they render meaningless the specification’s
`
`distinction between a “switch” and a “signal source” and renders such claims unclear; the
`
`identified claims also fails to further limit the subject matter of its parent claims (112(d)). For
`
`similar reasons, all claims reciting a “power supply circuit”(e.g., claims 1-20) are invalid under §
`
`112(b) because the written description fails to inform persons of ordinary skill in the art how to
`
`distinguish whether a circuit element (such as, but not limited to a switch or signal source) is to
`
`be considered connected “in” the power supply circuit or connected “to” the power supply
`
`circuit.
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`16
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 16
`
`

`

`Claims 1 and 11 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because there is no enabling written
`
`description for a control device that “locks” and/or “unlocks” any other component including but
`
`not limited to another control device that starts the motor. The dependent claims fail to cure
`
`these deficiencies and are invalid for the same reason.
`
`Claims 8 and 18 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) because “the designated
`
`position” of claims 1 and 11 is associated with a rotating position (“the handle rotates to a
`
`designated position”) but claims 8 and 18 recite it as a telescoping position (“…extends to the
`
`designated position”). The patent specification provides no enabling written description of a
`
`telescopic tube rotating relative to another telescopic tube or tubes.
`
`The ’26686 patent specification does not enable the telescopic tubes because it fails to
`
`explain how tubes 20a, 20b stay in place. Nothing is disclosed to prevent tube 20a from being
`
`completely withdrawn from tube 20b; a self-driven mower would pull away from a user and
`
`disassemble the handle. Similarly, gravity or any forward or inwardly directed force (like the
`
`user pushing the mower) would cause tube 20a to fall or collapse into tube 20b. The disclosure
`
`of the telescoping handle embodiments therefore fails under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
`
`4.
`
`The ‘86686 Patent
`
`Term
`“telescopic members”
`“switch” “signal source” or “send(ing) a
`signal”
`plural signal sources to enable or disable motor
`operation
`
`Claim(s)
`8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20
`
`2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-20
`
`10, 20
`
`All claims that recite telescoping or sliding components (e.g., 1-7 (sliding), 8-10 (sliding
`
`and telescopic), 11-17 (sliding), 18-20 (sliding and telescopic)) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112(a) because the specification fails to provide an enabling written description of how those
`
`WEST\289607842.3
`
`17
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2003 - Page 17
`
`

`

`components stay assembled. The disclosure suggests that the telescoping components have
`
`nothing to prevent them from being separated, so a self-driven mower would pull away from a
`
`user and disassemble the handle. The disclosure also suggests that the telescoping components
`
`would collapse into one another due to gravity or any pushing force from the user. A person of
`
`ordinary skill would have found such details critical to understanding how to make and use the
`
`invention.
`
`All claims that recite the term “switch” or “signal source” or “send(ing) a signal” are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) because the specification tries to distinguish them (e.g.,
`
`the “first control device may comprise a first switch or a first signal source device, or a
`
`combination thereof” (’86686, 6:1-2)), and assigns the function of sending a control signal to
`
`only a signal source device (e.g., the “first signal source device may be a photoelectric switch
`
`which participates in control by sending a control signal to the switch in the power supply
`
`circuit” (’86686, 6:20-22)), but Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions make the illogical suggestion
`
`that a switch which is incapable of sending a control signal can nevertheless send a control
`
`signal. Accordingly, the scope of all claims reciting a “switch,” a “signal source,” or “send(ing)
`
`a signal” are invalid because the scope of those terms is not adequately set forth in the patents’
`
`written description, and the scope of the claims reciting those terms cannot be properly
`
`determined.
`
`Claim 17 of the ’588 patent; claims 2, 4 and 9 of the ’806 patent; and claim 7 of the ’176
`
`patent illustrate the point (and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (b) and (d)) because, by
`
`requiring the “switch” and the “signal source” to each be “one of a contact switch, a proximity
`
`switch, a Hall switch, and a photoelectric switch,” they render meaningless the specification’s
`
`distinction between a “switch” and a “signal source” and renders such claims unclear; the
`
`WEST\2