`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MILLER INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case Unassigned
`Patent No. 8,112,914
`______________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF FRANK J. FRONCZAK, Dr. Eng., P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 113
`
`CATERPILLAR EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`Contents
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Education ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Professional Certification ...................................................................... 1
`
`Professional Experience ........................................................................ 2
`
`Professional Organizations and Societies ............................................. 2
`
`Honors and Awards ............................................................................... 3
`
`Patents.................................................................................................... 3
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 3
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 4
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........ 5
`
`VI. THE ’914 PATENT ......................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Patent ........................................................ 5
`
`B. Disclosure and Claims of the ’914 Patent ............................................. 6
`
`C. Meaning of Certain Claim Terms .......................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“independent” .............................................................................. 8
`
`“remotely movable” .................................................................. 12
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 14
`
`VIII. THE INVENTION OF THE ’914 PATENT CLAIMS IS OBVIOUS ......... 15
`
`
`
`To a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, Hill ’590 in view of
`Miller ’805, and further in view of Miller ’062 teach each and
`every element of claims 24-38 of the ’914 Patent .............................. 15
`
`1.
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 113
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 38
`
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 42
`
`Claim 27 .................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 28 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 29 .................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 30 .................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 31 .................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 32 .................................................................................... 53
`
`10. Claim 33 .................................................................................... 54
`
`11. Claim 34 .................................................................................... 55
`
`12. Claim 35 .................................................................................... 57
`
`13. Claim 36 .................................................................................... 59
`
`14. Claim 37 .................................................................................... 82
`
`15. Claim 38 .................................................................................... 84
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................110
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Frank J. Fronczak, have been retained by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`Garrett, & Dunner, LLP (“Finnegan”) on behalf of Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”)
`
`as an expert in the field of mechanical engineering, and in particular, design of
`
`mechanical tools and devices. My qualifications in this area, as well as other areas,
`
`are established by my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A. I am being
`
`compensated for my time in this matter. This compensation is not contingent upon
`
`my performance during this proceeding, the outcome of this proceeding, or any
`
`issues involved in or related to this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Education
`1.
`I obtained a Bachelor of Science in General Engineering in 1972 and a
`
`Master of Science in Theoretical & Applied Mechanics in 1974 from the
`
`University of Illinois (Urbana). I also obtained a Doctor of Engineering in
`
`Engineering Design from the University of Kansas in 1977. Beyond schooling, I
`
`have continued to educate myself through research and speaking engagements.
`
`B.
`2.
`
`Professional Certification
`
`I am a registered Professional Engineer in Wisconsin. My license
`
`number is 20680.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`3.
`
`Professional Experience
`
`I began my professional career serving in various engineering roles.
`
`After receiving my Master’s degree, I worked at NASA Langley Research Center
`
`in 1974, where I served for nearly four years as a Project Engineer while obtaining
`
`my Doctor of Engineering degree from the University of Kansas. After NASA, I
`
`worked for over five years as a Research General Engineer for the U.S.
`
`Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service.
`
`4.
`
`I then spent over thirty years teaching and conducting research at the
`
`University of Wisconsin before retiring in 2012. I started as a Lecturer and then
`
`became an Assistant Professor. I was granted tenure and promoted first to
`
`Associate Professor and then to Professor. I became an Emeritus Professor in the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department in 2013.
`
`5.
`
`I am also currently the Principal Mechanical Engineering Design
`
`Advisor for Marvel Medtech, LLC, and I have served in this position since 2013.
`
`D.
`6.
`
`Professional Organizations and Societies
`
`I am a Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). I am a
`
`former member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the
`
`American Society for Engineering Education. I also served as a member and Vice
`
`Chairman of the State of Wisconsin Professional Engineering Licensing Board, as
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`well as serving in various capacities on numerous other committees and
`
`organizations.
`
`E. Honors and Awards
`7.
`I received the Polygon Teaching Award at the University of
`
`Wisconsin three times and was twice the recipient of the Pi Tau Sigma
`
`Distinguished Teacher Award. I received a Certificate of Merit and the Superior
`
`Service Award from the USDA in 1981 and 1982, respectively. In 1985, I
`
`received the SAE Teetor Award, an honor for young educators who successfully
`
`prepare engineers for their future careers. Years later, in 1990, I received the SAE
`
`International Off-Highway & Powerplant Conference Paper Award. I was granted
`
`membership in the Wisconsin Teaching Academy in 2004, and in 2007, I received
`
`the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering Benjamin Smith
`
`Reynolds Award as the faculty member who contributed the most to the design
`
`education of engineering students. Most recently, I was elected as an SAE Fellow
`
`in 2010.
`
`F.
`8.
`
`Patents
`
`I am an inventor on six utility patents for my work, all of which relate
`
`to mechanical devices.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`9.
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed and relied upon the materials
`
`cited in this report, the materials cited in Caterpillar’s petition, as well as those
`3
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`listed in the attached Appendix C. My opinions are also formed in view of the
`
`publications listed on my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A, and the
`
`patents listed in my curriculum vitae are attached as Appendix B. In addition to
`
`these materials, I may consider additional documents and information in forming
`
`any supplemental opinions. To the extent I am provided additional documents or
`
`information, including any expert declarations in this proceeding, I may offer
`
`further opinions.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`10. U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914 (“the ’914 patent,” Ex. 1001), the patent at
`
`issue in this proceeding, relates generally to the field of couplers, and in particular,
`
`to a quick coupler for attaching an accessory to an arm on an excavator. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:27-30.) Excavators typically include a digging tool (such as a bucket
`
`or shovel) or other accessory at the end of an excavator arm, which is often
`
`hydraulically-powered to manipulate and orientate the accessory. In some
`
`excavators, accessories are attached directly to the excavator arm via pins. Quick
`
`couplers were designed to avoid having to manually couple or decouple
`
`accessories directly to an excavator arm.
`
`11.
`
`Installed at the end of an excavator arm, couplers allow for a
`
`relatively quicker change of accessories on the excavator. Couplers typically have
`
`a pair of jaws for engaging respective pins on an accessory. By manipulating the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`excavator arm (and consequently the coupler) an operator can position a respective
`
`pin of an accessory into a respective jaw. While couplers can make attaching and
`
`detaching accessories relatively more convenient and efficient, their use has some
`
`risks. For example, when accessories are improperly engaged or hydraulics fail,
`
`accessories can partially detach and swing free from the coupler or fall from the
`
`excavator arm. This can lead to damage to a work site and can be dangerous for
`
`bystanders and other personnel. Safety has long been a focus for mechanical
`
`equipment and especially heavy-duty equipment operation. The safety drawbacks
`
`in some couplers led to the use of safety mechanisms to keep accessories attached
`
`to the couplers.
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12.
`It is my opinion that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) at
`
`the time of the of the ’914 patent in February 2009 would have at least a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering, or equivalent, and two to three
`
`years of experience designing mechanical devices comparable in complexity to the
`
`couplers disclosed in the ’914 patent. This level of skill is approximate and more
`
`industry experience could account for less formal education and vice versa.
`
`VI. THE ’914 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Patent
`13.
` The ’914 patent was filed on February 2, 2010 and does not claim
`
`priority to any earlier U.S. applications. Thus, I understand its effective U.S. filing
`5
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`date to be February 2, 2010. I have been advised and further understand that
`
`references published before February 2, 2009 are prior art to the ’914 patent under
`
`at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). I have been advised and further understand
`
`that the ’914 patent claims priority to two foreign applications—GB 0901729.4
`
`and GB 0903842.3, filed on Feb. 3, 2009 and Mar. 5, 2009, respectively—but I
`
`have neither reviewed nor otherwise considered these foreign applications. I have
`
`been advised that I need not form an opinion as to the disclosure in these foreign
`
`applications because they do not affect the effective U.S. filing date of the ’914
`
`patent applicable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Disclosure and Claims of the ’914 Patent
`14. The ’914 patent discloses a device for attaching an accessory to an
`
`excavator arm. (Ex. 1001, 1:27-28.) More particularly, the ’914 patent discloses a
`
`coupler having a top half attached to an excavator arm and having a bottom half
`
`attached to an accessory. (Id. at 1:29-33.) The bottom half of the coupler has two
`
`jaws for attaching the coupler to the attachment pins of the accessory. (Id.) The
`
`’914 patent also discloses two pivotal latches for selectively securing the pins
`
`within the jaws. (Id. at 1:31-33, 2:55-58.) One of the latches is powered for
`
`movement between latching and non-latching positions and is associated with a
`
`blocking mechanism that is movable between blocking and non-blocking positions.
`
`(Id. at 5:43-47.) The ’914 patent discloses that movement of the blocking
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`mechanism may occur under the influence of gravity. (Id. at 2:13-20.) The other
`
`latch is also movable between latching and non-latching positions, and operates
`
`independently of the blocking mechanism. (Id. at 5:47-50.) Through movement of
`
`the latches, the accessory can be selectively secured and released from the coupler.
`
`(See id. at 1:29-33.) The ’914 patent discloses that coupling and decoupling can be
`
`controlled remotely by an operator in the cab of the excavator. (See id. at 1:40-44,
`
`13:41-47.)
`
`15. The specification of the ’914 patent acknowledges that previously
`
`known couplers allow the full securement and release of an accessory to and from
`
`the coupler by an operator within the cab of an excavator. (See id. at 1:40-44.)
`
`The ’914 patent also acknowledges that regardless of the type of coupler, it is
`
`possible for an operator to use a coupler incorrectly. (Id. at 1:45.)
`
`Notwithstanding the fact that automatic couplers were already known, the
`
`inventors of the ’914 patent contend that at the time of the ’914 patent, there was
`
`still a need to develop a coupler that reduced or eliminated the opportunities for
`
`operator-error. (Id. at 1:46-54.) The claims of the ’914 patent are directed to a
`
`coupler (and related methods) for attaching to an end of an excavator arm and to an
`
`accessory, where the coupler includes a pair of jaws, a first and second latching
`
`mechanism, and a blocking mechanism. (See, e.g., id. at Claim 24.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Meaning of Certain Claim Terms
`16. There are several terms or phrases in the ’914 patent claims that
`
`require clarification. I have been informed that in this proceeding, before the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. That is, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as a POSA would understand them in view of the
`
`patent’s specification.
`
`17.
`
`I also understand that the construction of claim terms applied during
`
`this proceeding may differ from the construction used in a district court. I have
`
`followed these claim construction principles in my analysis. In addition, I have
`
`considered and agree with the Caterpillar’s proposed claim constructions set forth
`
`in its petition as part of my analysis in this Declaration. I reserve my right to
`
`amend or alter my analysis and opinions in view of the Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`claim constructions, if any.
`
`“independent”
`
`1.
` The ’914 patent recites this term in all but one of the independent
`
`18.
`
`claims. (See, e.g., 2:10-11, Claim 24.) Despite its repeated use in the claims, the
`
`term is used in only two different phrases throughout the ’914 patent. (See, e.g., id.
`
`at 2:10-11(“a blocking mechanism that is independent of the first latching
`
`mechanism”) and 5:47-48 (“the other latch being independent of the blocking
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`mechanism”).) (Emphasis added.) These recitations mirror the claim language.
`
`(See, e.g., 2:10-11, Claim 24.)
`
`19. Both of these phrases use the term to describe a relationship between
`
`the blocking mechanism and the first latching mechanism. The specification
`
`describes the operation of the blocking mechanism and the first latching
`
`mechanism in detail and it also describes the operation of these elements with
`
`respect to the second latching mechanism. While the specification in the ’914
`
`patent does not offer explicit guidance, it is my opinion that a POSA would
`
`understand that the ’914 patent describes a non-functional relationship between the
`
`blocking mechanism and the first latching mechanism in the specification. That is,
`
`movement of the first latching mechanism would not necessarily cause movement
`
`of the blocking mechanism, and vice versa. Said another way, movement of the
`
`blocking mechanism does not depend on movement of the first latching
`
`mechanism, and vice versa.
`
`20. For example, when describing the blocking mechanism, the ’914
`
`patent explains that the blocking mechanism takes the form of a blocking bar 78,
`
`which is movable from a blocking position to a non-blocking position under the
`
`force of gravity. (Id. at 11:65 - 12:10.) The ’914 patent thus uses the term
`
`“blocking” to describe the blocking mechanism’s function with respect to the
`
`second latching mechanism. (Id.) The second latching mechanism has a
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`bifurcated hook, for example pivoting hook 54 shown in FIG. 2, and the ’914
`
`patent explains that the blocking bar 78 is in a “non-blocking” position when its
`
`free end is not resisting movement against one side of the hook 54, as shown in
`
`FIG. 4. (Id. at 12:1-4, 12:20-24, Figs. 2-4.) On the other hand, the ’914 patent
`
`describes the “blocking” position as when the blocking bar 78 is dropped behind
`
`the hook 54 to resist rearward movement of the hook 54, as shown in FIG. 2. (Id.
`
`at 12:5-10, Fig. 2.)
`
`21. As to the first latching mechanism, the ’914 patent explains that it
`
`works in a similar manner to the blocking mechanism; that is, it moves under the
`
`force of gravity. (See id.) Its movement may also correspond with the position of
`
`the second latching mechanism. (See id.) The ’914 patent explains that the first
`
`latching mechanism has an arm 40 with a free end 42. (Id. at 10:52-55.) Because
`
`the first latching mechanism and blocking mechanism are mounted to the coupler
`
`on opposite sides, the side of the hook 54 of the second latching mechanism that
`
`does not engage the blocking bar 78 may engage the free end 42 of the first
`
`latching mechanism. (Id. at 12:15-27, Fig. 3.) As shown in FIG. 3, the hook 54
`
`may contact the free end 42 of the first latching mechanism to hold the free end 42
`
`in a “lifted” position. (Id. at Figs. 3, 5.) Based on the above disclosure of the ’914
`
`patent, a POSA would also recognize that a functional relationship exists between
`
`the first latching mechanism and the second latching mechanism.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`22. While the ’914 patent explains that the blocking and first latching
`
`mechanisms operate roughly in unison and may both be held in “lifted” positions
`
`by respective parts of the hook 54 (see id. at 12:47-57, Figs. 3, 4), the ’914 patent
`
`does not describe the movement of the first latching mechanism being linked to
`
`movement of the blocking bar. In other words, although the ’914 patent envisions
`
`that both elements may move simultaneously, the respective movement of one
`
`element does not cause or affect movement of the other. The ’914 patent does not
`
`describe any other functional relationship between the blocking mechanism and the
`
`first latching mechanism.
`
`23. The ’914 patent describes, in an alternative embodiment shown in
`
`FIGS. 14-16, a blocking bar and first latching mechanism being made from one
`
`member. (Id. at 15:23-25, 15:40-42, Figs. 14-16.) In this embodiment, unlike that
`
`of FIGS. 1-13, only one element moves under the force of gravity. (See id.)
`
`Although the ’914 patent does not explain which embodiment incorporates the
`
`“independent” feature, it is my opinion that a POSA would recognize that the
`
`blocking bar and first latching mechanism are not independent in the embodiment
`
`of FIGS. 14-16. Indeed, the latching mechanism in that embodiment “doubles as a
`
`blocking bar.” (Id. at 15:40-42.)
`
`24. Accordingly, in the absence of explicit guidance in the ’914 patent, a
`
`POSA would recognize that the phrases in the claims using the term “independent”
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`include at least a non-functional relationship between the two elements (i.e.,
`
`movement of the first latching mechanism does not cause movement of the
`
`blocking mechanism, and vice versa).
`
`“remotely movable”1
`
`2.
` The ’914 patent recites this term in the claims to describe the
`
`25.
`
`blocking mechanism and the first latching mechanism (i.e., the non-powered
`
`latch). (See, e.g., id. at claim 24 (“a blocking mechanism that is remotely movable
`
`between a blocking position and non blocking position” and “the other latch . . .
`
`also remotely moveable between a latching position and a non-latching position.”)
`
`(Emphasis added.) The ’914 patent does not provide an explicit definition of
`
`remotely movable, but it does provide guidance as to how this term is used in the
`
`claims. It is my opinion that a POSA would understand this term would include at
`
`least a blocking mechanism and a latching mechanism that are capable of being
`
`moved by an operator in a cab of an excavator manipulating the orientation of the
`
`coupler. That is, the blocking mechanism and the latching mechanism are
`
`remotely moveable because they can be moved indirectly by moving other
`
`elements, e.g., the coupler.
`
`
`1 The claims of the ’914 patent also uses the term “remotely moveable.” I
`
`understand these two terms to be interchangeable despite the difference in spelling.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`26. This is consistent with the specification of the ’914 patent that
`
`explains that attaching accessories to excavator arms previously required one or
`
`more manual steps to be carried out at the coupler in order to complete or
`
`commence the attachment or removal of an accessory. (Id. at 1:35-38.) To
`
`overcome this problem, couplers were designed that allowed them to be secured to
`
`accessories for an excavator by an operator from within the cab of the excavator
`
`via controls in the cab. (Id. at 1:40-44.) In other words, the operator can control
`
`the coupler and its associated components while situated away from the coupler.
`
`27. This is also consistent with the portion of the ’914 patent that
`
`describes the blocking mechanism and first latching mechanism as being under the
`
`same gravitational influence when moving into their open or unblocking positions
`
`when inverting the coupler (shown for example in FIGS. 8-9). (Id. at 12:47-51,
`
`Figs. 8-9.) A POSA would understand that for gravity to move these elements
`
`from their respective positions in FIGS. 1-2 to those in FIGS. 8-9, the coupler is
`
`moved and the coupler’s movement is controlled by the operator in the cab. Thus,
`
`by moving the coupler from the cab, the operator can indirectly move the blocking
`
`mechanism and first latching mechanism.
`
`28. Accordingly, in the absence of explicit guidance in the ’914 patent, a
`
`POSA would recognize that the phrases in the claims using the term “remotely
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`movable” include at least a blocking mechanism and a latching mechanism capable
`
`of being moved by an operator in a cab of an excavator.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`29.
`I have been asked by Finnegan on behalf of Caterpillar to consider the
`
`’914 patent and prior art related to it, and to offer my opinions on the effect of that
`
`art on the claims of the ’914 patent. In preparing this declaration, I have been
`
`educated generally on relevant patent law issues, including the standards for
`
`anticipation and obviousness. Specifically, I understand that for a patent claim to
`
`be anticipated (that is, to not be novel) a single prior art document must disclose,
`
`either expressly or inherently, each and every claim limitation. I further
`
`understand that to be inherently anticipated, a single prior art document must
`
`necessarily and inevitably disclose the claim limitation at issue. I also understand
`
`that, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device (in its normal and usual
`
`operation) would necessarily perform a claimed method, then the method claimed
`
`will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. Likewise, I understand
`
`that when a prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification
`
`for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently
`
`perform the claimed process.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that a claim is not patentable if, as a whole, it would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA when considering the prior art as a whole at the time
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of invention. I understand that a POSA is not a specific real individual, but rather
`
`is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors I describe
`
`above in paragraph ¶ 12.
`
`31. With this understanding and as clearly evidenced by the prior art
`
`discussed in this declaration, the ’914 patent merely claims an apparatus (and
`
`methods of using that apparatus) that was already known in the art before the ’914
`
`patent application was filed. In particular, WO Publication 2008/031590 to Hill
`
`(“Hill ’590”) (Ex. 1003), expressly discloses and teaches almost each and every
`
`element of claims 24-38 of the ’914 patent. The missing elements are found in
`
`other art—namely, U.S. Patent 6,422,805 to Miller (“Miller ’805”) (Ex. 1004) and
`
`U.S. Design Patent D565,062 to Miller et al. (“Miller ’062”) (Ex. 1005)—or are
`
`within the general knowledge of a POSA. Accordingly, as discussed in more detail
`
`below, it is my opinion that claims 24-38 of the ’914 patent are obvious
`
`combinations of elements disclosed and taught in Hill ’590, Miller ’805, and Miller
`
`’062.
`
`VIII. THE INVENTION OF THE ’914 PATENT CLAIMS IS OBVIOUS
`To a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art, Hill ’590 in view of Miller ’805,
`and further in view of Miller ’062 teach each and every element of
`claims 24-38 of the ’914 Patent
`1.
`Claim 24
`32. Hill ’590 published on March 20, 2008, and I understand Hill ’590 is
`
`prior art to the ’914 patent at least because Hill ’590 was published more than one
`15
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`year before the ’914 patent’s earliest effective U.S. filing date of February 2, 2010.
`
`Miller ’805 issued on July 23, 2002, and I understand Miller ’805 is prior art to the
`
`’914 patent at least because Miller ’805 was published more than one year before
`
`the ’914 patent’s earliest effective U.S. filing date. In addition, Miller ’062 issued
`
`on March 25, 2008, and I understand that Miller ’062 is prior art to the ’914 patent
`
`at least because Miller ’062 was published more than one year before the ’914
`
`patent’s earliest effective filing date.
`
`33. Throughout my declaration, I have interpreted the claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation from the viewpoint of a POSA, and I have also
`
`bolded the corresponding claim language. It is my opinion that Hill ’590 expressly
`
`discloses all but one of the elements of claim 24 of the ’914 patent. Miller ’805
`
`expressly teaches the other element.
`
`34.
`
`In regard to claim 24, Hill ’590 discloses a coupler 10 comprising
`
`two jaws (i.e., pin-receiving recesses 20, 22) and a latch (i.e., bar 40 and latching
`
`hook 30) for each jaw. (Ex. 1003 at 4:27-29, 5:11-20, 6:16-20, Fig. 1.) As shown
`
`in annotated FIG. 1 below, Hill ’590 discloses that the coupler 10 has a body 14
`
`shaped to define pin-receiving apertures 16, 18 that are connected to the end of an
`
`arm 12 of an excavator (not shown). (Id. at 4:29-32, Fig. 1.) The coupler 10 is
`
`able to pivot with respect to the arm 12, by a hydraulic actuating mechanism, to
`
`maneuver the coupler 10 and the accessory. (Id. at 5:5-9, Fig. 1.) The body 14
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`also includes first and second pin-receiving recesses 20, 22 shaped and
`
`dimensioned to receive a respective pin 24, 26 of the accessory (e.g., a bucket) or
`
`other attachment. (Id. at 5:11-13, Fig. 1.) A POSA would recognize that each
`
`recess 20, 22 is a jaw; thus, the coupler 10 has first and second jaws 20, 22.
`
`35. Hill ’590 explains that the bar 40 has one end pivotably mounted on
`
`the coupler 10 between a non-blocking state and a blocking state (see annotated
`
`FIGS. 1 and 2 below). (Id. at 6:16-20.) Hill ’590 explains that, in the non-
`
`blocking state, the bar 40 is clear of the recess 20 and does not prevent the pin 24
`
`of the bucket or attachment from being removed. (Id. at 6:20-22.) And in the
`
`blocking state, Hill ’590 explains, the bar 40 prevents the pin 24 from being
`
`removed from the recess 20. (Id. at 6:22-23.) The bar 40 has a jaw 44 that
`
`substantially closes the open mouth of the recess 20 in the blocking state, and a
`
`recess 46 that accommodates and embraces pin 22 and recess 20. (Id. at 6:23-27.)
`
`A POSA would thus recognize that the bar 40 (i.e., first latching mechanism) is for
`
`the first jaw 20.
`
`36. Hill ’590 also discloses a second latch, i.e. latching hook 30, which is
`
`associated with the second jaw 22, as shown in annotated FIG. 1 below. (Id. at
`
`5:26-31, Fig. 1.) According to Hill ’590, the latching hook 302 is pivotably
`
`2 Hill ’590 explains that the latching hook 30 may be comprised of one or more
`
`aligned hook elements. (Ex. 1003 at 5:23-24.) Hill ’590 also contemplates, when
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 113
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`mounted on the body 14 of the coupler 10 between an open state (see FIGS. 1 and
`
`3) and at least one latching state (see FIGS. 2 and 4). (Id. at 5:23-28, Figs. 1-4.) A
`
`POSA would thus recognize that the latching hook 30 (i.e., second latch) is for the
`
`second jaw 22.
`
`
`
`
`describing a separate embodiment, that the latching hook may comprise two
`
`spaced-apart hooks that form a single latching hook and move as a respective unit.
`
`(Id. at 13:12-20.) I would describe latching hook 54 in the ’914 patent, which has
`
`a bifurcated rear surface 58, as a latching hook with two spaced-apart hooks that
`
`form a single latching hook and move as a respective unit. (See Ex. 1001 at 12:1-
`
`4, 12:20-24, Figs. 2-4.) Thus, while not explicitly depicted in the Figures, Hill
`
`’590 discloses a latching hook that can comprise two spaced-apart hooks that move
`
`together at least to the same extent as latching hook 54 in the ’914 patent.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 113
`
`

`

`Pin-receiving
`aperture
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,112,914
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Body of coupler
`
`Pin-receiving
`aperture
`
`Bucket pin 26
`
`Bar 40 (first latch)
`
`Bucket pin 24
`
`Pin-receiving Recess
`22 (second jaw)
`
`
`Latching hook 30
`(second latch)
`
`Pin-receiving
`recess 20 (first jaw)
`
`
`
`37. Hill ’590 also discloses one of the latches (i.e., the second latch—
`
`latching hook 30) being powered (i.e., by actuator 32) for movement between a
`
`latching position (i.e., the latching state) and a non-latching position (i.e., the
`
`open state). (Id. at 6:4-14.) Hill ’590 explains that latching hook 30 is power-
`
`o