`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BOYDSTUN EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING, LLC,
`
`
`Boydstun,
`
`v.
`
`COTTRELL, INC.,
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00962
`
`Patent 7,585,140 B1
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KIRSTEN M. CARR
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Kirsten Carr, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Exhibit A to this report. I have
`
`summarized my educational and professional background below.
`
`2.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the
`
`University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1987 and my M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in 1990 and 1995, respectively.
`
`3.
`
`I worked as a mechanical engineer at Ford Motor Company for over 14
`
`years from 1992 to 2006. During my time at Ford I held a variety of engineering and
`
`managerial positions spanning many areas of automotive development, including
`
`manufacturing research, powertrain quality, occupant safety research, and advance
`
`safety sensors.
`
`4.
`
`I joined Packer Engineering in 2006 as an expert in mechanical and
`
`manufacturing engineering with expertise in forensic analysis of mechanical
`
`components, vehicular accidents, industrial equipment, vehicle safety restraint and
`
`seat systems, and electromechanical systems. I was responsible for managing and
`
`performing mechanical and manufacturing engineering investigations and analyses
`
`for legal, insurance, and industrial firms.
`
`5.
`
`I created Carr Analysis, LLC in 2011, where I am the President and
`
`Principal Consultant and continue my consulting work.
`
`6.
`
`I have been awarded ten automotive patents.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`7. My other achievements and qualifications, including publications,
`
`presentations, reports, and lectures, are listed on my curriculum vitae.
`
`8.
`
`I am a professional engineer registered in the State of Michigan.
`
`9.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following factors: my
`
`knowledge and experience gained from 30 years as a mechanical engineer, my
`
`experience working with other mechanical and automotive engineers, the materials
`
`cited in my declaration, U.S. Patent No. 7,585,140 B1 (“the ‘140 Patent”, Ex. 1001)
`
`and its accompanying prosecution history (Ex. 2004), U.S. Patent No. 2006/0013667
`
`A1 (“Ruan”, Ex. 1003), U.S. Patent No. 5,314,275 (“Cottrell ‘275”, Ex. 1004), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,824,121 B2 (“Boice”, Ex. 1005), and U.S. Patent No. 5,101,537
`
`(“Cummings,” Ex. 2005). I also understand that Patent Owner is filing a contingent
`
`motion to amend, and I have reviewed substitute claims 9-16, submitted as Appendix
`
`A to that filing.
`
`10.
`
`I also reviewed Boydstun’s IPR Petition (“Boydstun”), the declaration
`
`provided by Mr. Clark (“Declaration”), the transcript of Mr. Clark’s deposition
`
`(“Deposition”), and the Board’s Institution Decision.
`
`11. Although for the sake of brevity this Declaration refers to selected
`
`portions of the cited references, it should be understood that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would view the references cited herein in their entirety, and in combination
`
`with other references cited herein or cited within the references themselves. The
`
`2
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`references used in this Declaration, therefore, should be viewed as being
`
`incorporated in their entirety.
`
`12.
`
`I am not currently and have not at any time in the past been an employee
`
`of Cottrell, Inc. I have been engaged in the present matter to provide my independent
`
`analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review of the ‘140 Patent.
`
`I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter, and I will not
`
`receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this inter partes review of
`
`the ‘140 Patent.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the ’140 patent is to be read from the perspective of
`
`those working in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. I have been instructed
`
`for the purposes of this analysis to assume that the time of the invention for the ’140
`
`patent is March 27, 2008, the application filing date reported on the ’140 patent. I
`
`understand this is called the “Critical Date.”
`
`14.
`
`I am familiar with the content of the ‘140 Patent. Additionally, I have
`
`reviewed the other references cited above in this declaration. Counsel has informed
`
`me that I should consider these materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art related to the ‘140 Patent at the time of the invention.
`
`3
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I believe one of ordinary skill around the Critical Date would have had
`
`at least a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering or another comparable
`
`technical degree. Alternatively, this individual could have developed skill in
`
`mechanical devices through a number of years of experience working on the design
`
`and manufacturing of mechanical devices. Individuals with additional education or
`
`additional industrial experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that
`
`additional aspect compensates for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the
`
`requirements stated above. This opinion is based on my own personal experience,
`
`including my knowledge of students, colleagues, and related professionals in the art
`
`of the patent around the time of the Critical Date.
`
`16. My findings, as explained below, are based on my education,
`
`experience, and background over the last 30 years as discussed above.
`
`The ‘140 Patent
`
`17. The ‘140 Patent teaches a ratcheting tie-down apparatus and system for
`
`automobile and cargo transport.
`
`18. The ‘140 Patent explains how conventional transport trailer tie-down
`
`systems were used to restrain a vehicle with “straps arranged around each wheel of
`
`the vehicle” and “placed in tension to prevent movement.” (‘140 Patent, Fig. 2, 1:16-
`
`21). According to the patent, each wheel location had a tie-down system integrated
`
`into the structure of the transport trailer. (Id, Fig. 2) Many types of locking
`
`4
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`mechanisms, “such as ratchet and clamping devices,” were used to “manually
`
`tighten” and “keep the straps from loosening due to forces acting upon the vehicle.”
`
`(Id, 1:24-30) A typical tie-down system at the time of this invention included a shaft,
`
`ratchet, and protrusion for operating the system, also known as a drive mechanism.
`
`(Id, Fig. 3, 1:36-47) The tie-down shaft extended across the width of the wheel cradle
`
`on the platform or across the entire platform, was supported by the platform frame
`
`on both ends, had one shaft end under the vehicle, and the other shaft end outside
`
`the platform frame. (Id, Figs. 2 and 3, 1:36-47). The ratchet included a ratchet gear
`
`casting and a pawl, with the gear affixed to the shaft end outside the platform frame
`
`and the pawl located on the outside of the platform frame. (Id, Fig. 3, 1:13-47) Each
`
`gear casting included “ramping surfaces” that “engage[d] with a pawl” to allow
`
`“rotation in one direction” and “stop[ped] rotation in the other direction.” (Id, 1:38-
`
`42) The drive mechanism was a protrusion with cross-holes perpendicular to the
`
`rotational axis of the ratchet gear. (Id, Fig. 3, 1:36-47) To operate these devices, “a
`
`tie down bar [was] inserted into” the “cross-holes and force [was] applied to the tie-
`
`down bar” to “create a torque about the shaft.” (Id, 1:48-50). “The torque [was]
`
`transmitted into tension in the chain or strap that [was] attached to the shaft.” (Id,
`
`1:50-51) Typically, the tie-down bar could be rotated about 60 degrees at a time. (Id,
`
`1:52-53) If this rotation was not sufficient, the tie down bar was pulled out of the
`
`current cross-hole, reinserted into the next convenient cross-hole, and rotated again.
`
`5
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id, 1:53-56) That process might need to be repeated many times to fully tighten the
`
`winch. (Id, 1:56-57)
`
`19. The ‘140 Patent discloses a “ratcheting tie-down apparatus and system
`
`for a vehicle or cargo transporter, which allows an operator to insert the tie-down
`
`bar once and tighten to the desired tension without continually reinserting the tie-
`
`down bar.” (Id, 2:52-56)
`
`20. The ‘140 Patent discloses a tie-down system with the unitary ratchet
`
`gear and drive mechanism replaced by a dual component configuration, known as a
`
`ratchet assembly. (Id, 1:67-2:11, 2:56-58) The ratchet assembly includes, among
`
`other things, a modified ratchet gear, a ratchet head as the drive mechanism, and a
`
`number of resilient bodies and drive bodies that control the interaction between the
`
`ratchet gear and ratchet head, as depicted in Figure 4, below. (Id, 2:56-3:23) The
`
`ratchet assembly does not include the tie-down shaft but, rather, is affixed to an end
`
`of the shaft. (Id, 5:32-34)
`
`6
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 from the ‘140 Patent
`
`
`
`21. The modified ratchet gear and the ratchet head are “affixed to one
`
`another via a retaining pin or other similar device, to restrict the relative movement
`
`of the ratchet gear and the ratchet head to rotational movement about the axis and
`
`with respect to one another.” (Id, 3:32-37)
`
`22. The ratchet gear is modified to include “a series of ramped pockets
`
`positioned along an inner face” at “a fixed radial distance away from the rotational
`
`axis.” (Id, 2:65-67, 3:14-15) These ramped pockets include “a ramp surface
`
`positioned between an upper-most portion of each ramped pocket, which is adjacent
`
`and co-planar with the inner face, and a lower-most portion positioned at a depth
`
`within the ratchet gear, thereby defining a wall within each of the ramped pocket.”
`
`(Id, 3:1-6)
`
`7
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Similar to a typical drive mechanism, the ratchet head includes cross-
`
`holes for inserting a tie-down bar. (Id, 2:57-58, 3:10-12) The opposite side of the
`
`ratchet head from the cross-holes has “a series of depressions positioned along an
`
`inner face” that are a fixed radial distance away from the rotational axis. (Id, 2:57-
`
`58, 3:10-12) Inside each depression is a resilient body and a drive body. (3:15-20)
`
`When the ratchet gear and ratchet head are coupled together and assembled, the drive
`
`bodies are configured to be also positioned in the ramped pockets, creating a
`
`mechanical contact between an inner face of the ratchet gear and the inner face of
`
`the ratchet head. (Id, 2:1-3, 3:24-28)
`
`24. The ‘140 Patent describes the operation of the ratcheting tie-down
`
`apparatus and system. When a tie-down bar is used to rotate the ratchet head in one
`
`direction, the drive bodies will ride along the ramped pockets to the upper most
`
`portions and onto the inner face between ramped pockets before entering the next
`
`ramped pocket and potentially riding through several ramped pockets. (Id, 4:16-29)
`
`Rotation of the ratchet head in this direction results in it rotating independently with
`
`respect to the ratchet gear and shaft. (Id, 3:45-47) When a tie-down bar turns the
`
`ratchet head in the other direction, the drive bodies are fully inserted into the lower
`
`most portions of the ramped pockets and push against the ramp walls, resulting in
`
`no relative motion between the ratchet head and ratchet gear. (Id, 3:65-4:7) Rotation
`
`8
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ratchet head in this direction results in it rotating as a single unit with the
`
`ratchet gear and the shaft to provide tightening of a chain and/or strap. (Id, 3:42-45)
`
`Obviousness Analysis
`
`25.
`
`I understand that Boydstun has the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence in this proceeding.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent may not be obtained if the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I also understand that a claimed invention is not obvious just
`
`because each of its elements was independently known in the prior art. Instead, it is
`
`my understanding that there must be an explicit analysis showing that a skilled
`
`person in the art of the patent would have had a reason to combine the known
`
`elements in the manner covered by the claims at the time of the invention.
`
`27. My understanding is that obviousness is not proven by mere conclusory
`
`statements or conclusory expert testimony. Instead, I understand there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to satisfy the legal standard for
`
`proving obviousness. I also understand that obviousness cannot be based on
`
`hindsight, such as the teachings of the challenged patent.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that Boydstun has argued that claims 1-8 of the ‘140 patent
`
`are unpatentable on the ground that they are obvious based on either Ruan in
`
`9
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`combination with Cottrell ‘275, or Boice in combination with Ruan. I have reviewed
`
`and analyzed the claims and specification of the ‘140 Patent, as well as its
`
`prosecution history, the Petition, the documents cited in the Petition, the Board’s
`
`Institution Decision, Mr. Clark’s Declaration, and Mr. Clark’s Deposition
`
`Transcript. After reviewing and analyzing these materials, it is my opinion that
`
`claims 1-8 of the ‘140 Patent were not rendered obvious by the asserted art, and that
`
`Boydstun’s arguments for unpatentability are flawed.
`
`Summary of Problems with Boydstun’s and Mr. Clark’s Positions
`Regarding the Combination of Ruan and Cottrell ‘275
`
`29. Boydstun’s and Clark’s assertion that Cottrell ‘275’s placement of both
`
`the ratchet (Boydstun’s “primary ratchet”) and drive mechanism (Boydstun’s
`
`“secondary ratchet”) on the same end of the shaft (spool) would have motivated a
`
`skilled person to combine it with Ruan is incorrect. Boydstun and Clark fail to
`
`consider the underlying motivations for tie-down systems to have different
`
`configurations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Ruan
`
`tie-down system was designed for a different application—truck beds or general
`
`cargo restraint—than the Cottrell ‘275 system, which was designed for car haulers.
`
`Ruan and Cottrell ‘275 place the ratchet and drive mechanism on the shaft according
`
`to the conventional configuration for their respective applications: a truck bed tie-
`
`down system has the ratchet and drive mechanism on opposite ends of the shaft; a
`
`car hauler tie-down system has the ratchet and drive mechanism on the same end of
`10
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`the shaft. Cottrell ‘275 does not suggest a new configuration for the ratchet and drive
`
`mechanism on the shaft. As I will explain below, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be motivated to maintain the applications’ conventional configurations and
`
`would not be motivated to modify Ruan to move the ratchet and drive mechanism to
`
`the same end of the shaft.
`
`30. More specifically, Boydstun’s and Clark’s assertions that (1) the only
`
`difference between Ruan and claim 1 of the ‘140 Patent is the location of the ratchet
`
`and the drive mechanism on the shaft and (2) that moving these two mechanisms to
`
`the same end of the shaft is the only change necessary to modify Ruan to create the
`
`device encompassed by claim 1 of the ‘140 Patent are incorrect. Even assuming that
`
`there was a motivation to combine Ruan and Cottrell ‘275, a skilled person would
`
`not have done so in the manner proposed by Boydstun and Clark. Rather, a skilled
`
`person would have simply placed the drive mechanism in Ruan on an extension of
`
`the shaft outward from the ratchet such that it would be adjacent to, but separate
`
`from, the ratchet, which would not create the ratchet assembly in claim 1 of the ‘140
`
`Patent. Additionally, Boydstun’s and Clark’s assertion that “one would just have to
`
`put teeth on the fixed base and add a pawl” contradicts their assertion that the only
`
`change necessary is relocating mechanisms on the shaft, nor is this assertion
`
`supported by the evidence. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art were
`
`motivated to place the ratchet and drive mechanism in Ruan on the same end of the
`
`11
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`shaft, they would not also create a new hybrid mechanism that merged Ruan’s
`
`ratchet gear and fixed base without further motivation (an I see no evidence that a
`
`skilled person would have had such a motivation). Boydstun and Clark fail to
`
`provide a motivation for needing a single mechanism to deliver these functionalities
`
`or for otherwise combining Ruan’s ratchet gear and fixed base as proposed. To the
`
`contrary, a person of ordinary skill at the time would have recognized that the art
`
`taught away from such a combination. As I will explain below, the resulting single
`
`mechanism would have moving parts, more complexity, additional potential failures
`
`modes, potentially complicated maintenance and repair issues, and require the
`
`development of a unique specialized ratchet gear (fixed base with teeth added) as
`
`compared to the far more straightforward option of just placing the ratchet and drive
`
`mechanism in Ruan (which Boydstun analogizes to the ratchet head in the ‘140
`
`patent) on the same end of the shaft but leaving them separated.
`
`31. Moreover, Boydstun’s and Clark’s assertion that Cottrell ‘275 taught
`
`that a drive mechanism with repeating lever action was useful, and that such a
`
`teaching provided a motivation to combine Cottrell ‘275 with Ruan is not correct.
`
`Cottrell ‘275 already disclosed a drive mechanism with repeating lever action, as
`
`Clark acknowledges. Boydstun and Clark fail to provide a motivation for needing to
`
`replace Cottrell ‘275’s system with Ruan’s built-in system. To the contrary as I will
`
`explain below, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`12
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`retain Cottrell ‘275’s drive mechanism since it provided the operator with choices
`
`of external tools (cross wrench, torque wrench, etc.) that provided different
`
`operational advantages absent some express reason to replace it with Ruan’s built-
`
`in system. Furthermore, a skilled person would recognize that Ruan’s built-in system
`
`would not eliminate the need for an external tool (it still required a tie-down bar).
`
`32. Finally, even if Ruan and Cottrell ‘275 were combined, the individual
`
`references and the resulting combination would each fail to disclose several key
`
`limitations of the challenged claims, including, in part, the claimed “ratchet
`
`assembly” (claim 1), “wherein an inner face of the ratchet gear is positioned in
`
`opposition to and in mechanical contact with an inner face of the ratchet head”
`
`(claim 1), “ramped pockets disposed on the inner face of the ratchet gear” (claim 3),
`
`and the limitations that built upon those ramped pockets (claims 5-7).
`
`Summary of Problems with Boydstun’s and Mr. Clark’s Positions
`Regarding the Combination of Boice and Ruan
`
`33. Boydstun’s and Clark’s assertion that Boice taught that a drive
`
`mechanism with repeating lever action was useful would have motivated a skilled
`
`person to replace Boice’s drive mechanism with Ruan’s repeating lever action drive
`
`mechanism Ruan’s is not correct. Boydstun and Clark fail to explain why a skilled
`
`person would have been motivated to make such a change. To the contrary and as I
`
`will explain below, a person of ordinary skill would have had no reason to make
`
`such a change based on the teachings of the art at issue. Ruan’s built-in system would
`13
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`not eliminate the need for an external tool (it needed a tie-down bar), would not
`
`provide the operator the variety of operational choices that Boice did (in terms of
`
`tools to operate the device), and would be contrary to Boice’s stated goals of
`
`durability and minimizing cost.
`
`34. Moreover, Boydstun’s and Clark’s assertions that (1) the only
`
`difference between Boice and claim 1 of the ‘140 Patent is that claim 1 has a drive
`
`mechanism with built-in repeating lever action, and (2) that combining Boice with
`
`Ruan would create a device within the scope of claim 1 of the ‘140 Patent are not
`
`supported. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art were motivated to combine
`
`Boice and Ruan, they would not arrive at the challenged claims. If a skilled person
`
`had been motivated to combine the references to provide a built-in repeating lever
`
`action drive mechanism, they would have simply replaced the drive mechanism in
`
`Boice with the drive mechanism in Ruan, which would result in the drive mechanism
`
`and ratchet gear still being two separate mechanisms. Boydstun and Clark fail to
`
`provide a motivation for combining the two mechanisms into a single mechanism to
`
`mirror the challenged claims. To the contrary, a person of ordinary skill at the time
`
`would have recognized that the art taught away from such a combination. As I will
`
`explain below, the resulting single mechanism would have moving parts, more
`
`complexity, more potential failures modes, potentially complicated maintenance and
`
`repair issues, and be more expensive, thus deterring a skilled person from adopting
`
`14
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`such a solution. Furthermore, a skilled person would recognize that Boice teaches a
`
`specific placement of the ratchet and drive mechanism on the shaft that results in an
`
`open space between the two mechanisms, making it not possible for the mechanisms
`
`to be coupled, and would not have been motivated to deviate from that teaching.
`
`35. Finally, even if Boice and Ruan were combined, the individual
`
`references and the resulting combination would each fail to disclose several key
`
`limitations of the challenged claims, including, in part, the claimed “ratchet
`
`assembly” (claim 1), “wherein an inner face of the ratchet gear is positioned in
`
`opposition to and in mechanical contact with an inner face of the ratchet head”
`
`(claim 1), “ramped pockets disposed on the inner face of the ratchet gear” (claim 3),
`
`and the limitations that built upon those ramped pockets (claims 5-7).
`
`Overview of the Asserted Art
`
`36.
`
`I closely reviewed the art asserted by Boydstun. Here is a summary of
`
`how I believe a person of ordinary skill at the time of the ‘140 Patent’s filing would
`
`have viewed and understood the art.
`
`Ruan
`
`37. Ruan teaches a “rapid rotating device for ratchet belt shaft” for a cargo
`
`tie-down for truck beds that is “adapted to receive a bidirectional torque” at the drive
`
`mechanism and provides “a unidirectional torque to a belt shaft.” (Ruan, Title,
`
`Abstract, ¶0003) An exemplary use of a system like the one described in Ruan is
`
`15
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`depicted below. Note that the devices below appear to differ from Ruan, but the
`
`application of them is illustrative of how the Ruan device would be used:
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated in these pictures, the operator can easily access both ends of the device
`
`at the same time.
`
`38. Ruan explains that goods needed to be secured when transported to
`
`prevent them from falling or colliding with one another and inducing damage. (Id,
`
`¶0003) The common practice was to “tie goods down to the bed of a truck.” (Id,
`
`¶0003) The tie-down method at the time of the Ruan patent was a system consisting
`
`of a belt, frame, shaft, ratchet, and drive mechanism. (Id, Figure 5, ¶0004, ¶0005) A
`
`tie-down belt was tightened when a crowbar, a type of tie-down bar, was inserted in
`
`a crowbar hole, known as cross-holes, and used to turn the shaft. (Id, ¶0005) Since
`
`the tie-down system was attached to the truck bed, it was necessary to remove the
`
`tie-down bar from the cross-hole after the belt shaft had been turned through a certain
`
`angle, and re-insert the tie-down bar into a different cross-hole at a different angle.
`
`(Id, ¶0005) Ruan said “This [was] a slow process, and [took] a lot of effort.” (Id,
`
`¶0006)
`
`39. Ruan disclosed a “rapid rotating device” that could be used as the drive
`
`mechanism for a tie-down system such that “it [would] not be necessary to remove
`
`and insert the crowbar during operation.” (Id, ¶0007) This rapid rotating drive
`
`mechanism was “arranged on a side of the belt shaft that [was] next to the ratchet
`
`frame.” (Id, ¶0008)
`
`17
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`40. Ruan disclosed a drive mechanism that included, among other things, a
`
`fixed base, a rotating body, a unidirectional link-drive mechanism, and at least one
`
`cross-hole. (Id, ¶0008) The fixed base was attached to the shaft. (Id, ¶0008, ¶0020)
`
`The rotating body fit circumferentially around the fixed base such that it was “well
`
`attached to the fixed base, and [could] be rotated against fixed base.” (Id, ¶008,
`
`¶0021) The unidirectional link-drive mechanism was located at the contacting
`
`surface between the fixed base and the rotating body. (Id, ¶0009) The unidirectional
`
`link-drive mechanism included equally-spaced spring holes located at the contacting
`
`surface on the rotating body side, corresponding equally-spaced slide groves located
`
`on the contacting surface on the fixed base side, and one spring and a pushing-pin in
`
`each spring hole. (Id, ¶0009, ¶0023) The slide grooves had one side that was
`
`“inclined toward the direction of rotation of the rotating device, and extended to a
`
`side surface of the fixed base, while the other side of each groove [was] disposed
`
`perpendicular to the side surface of the fixed base.” (Id, ¶0009)
`
`41. Ruan taught that the pushing-pins would be pushed into the slide
`
`grooves by the acting force of the springs. (Id, ¶0023) When the rotating body was
`
`turned toward the inclined surfaces, the pushing-pins would slide up the inclined
`
`faces of the slide grooves, press against the side face of the fixed base, and then fall
`
`into the next slide grooves, resulting in the fixed base and the attached shaft not
`
`being driven or turned. (Id, ¶0010 and ¶0024) When the rotating body was turned in
`
`18
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`the opposite direction, the pushing-pins would slide into the slide grooves and be
`
`blocked by the straight faces of the slide grooves, resulting in a “link-drive
`
`relationship between the fixed base and rotating body” that turns the fixed base and
`
`shaft. (Id, Paragraph 0011) Hence, while turning the rotating body back and forth
`
`with a tie-down bar, known as a repeating lever action, the fixed base would turn in
`
`one direction which would then turn the belt shaft and tighten the belt. (Id, ¶0025)
`
`Ruan is Missing Elements Claimed in the ‘140 Patent
`
`42. Boydstun says that Ruan is very similar to the ‘140 Patent, but in my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that it is missing several key
`
`limitations, including at least the following limitations.
`
`43. A ratcheting tie down system for a vehicle transporter having one or
`
`more vehicle platforms (claim 1). A tie-down system for a vehicle transporter and a
`
`tie-down system for securing cargo to a truck bed have different characteristics and
`
`applications and are different categories of tie-down systems. The vehicle
`
`transporter tie-down system is characterized by being integrated into the platform
`
`frame at each vehicle wheel location, having a shaft that extends across the width of
`
`the wheel ramp to accommodate the variability in where the strap or chain will attach
`
`to it, the shaft supported by the platform frame, and the ratchet and drive mechanism
`
`on the end of the shaft that is outside the platform frame for accessibility, as
`
`exemplified below:
`
`19
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`
`
`|IIIIIIIIllIlHIlllIIIIIIII_...IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|EM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`20
`
`Boydstun V. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`The truck bed tie-down system is characterized by being a compact self-contained
`
`system with its own support frame, having flexibility in installation locations and
`
`methods (bolt or weld) onto a truck bed, having short shafts that accommodate a
`
`single strap, and having the ratchet and drive mechanisms on opposite ends of the
`
`shaft since both ends are easily accessible, as depicted in paragraph 37. These two
`
`tie-down system categories have different functional needs and constraints that result
`
`in different system designs and configurations. The tie-down system disclosed by
`
`Ruan is a truck bed tie-down system and does not meet the characteristics of a tie-
`
`down system for a vehicle transporter having one or more vehicle platforms, hence
`
`Ruan does not disclose this limitation.
`
`44. A ratchet assembly affixed to an end of a tie down shaft (claim 1). The
`
`ratchet assembly is supposed to include, among other things, “a ratchet gear having
`
`engagement teeth coupled to the pawl mechanism” and “a ratchet head coupled to
`
`the ratchet gear,” and they are supposed to be coupled together and “affixed to an
`
`end of a tie down shaft.” The tie-down shaft is separately claimed and not part of the
`
`“ratchet assembly.” Ruan discloses a tie-down system with a ratchet gear attached
`
`by itself to one end of a shaft. Since no other components are attached to this end of
`
`the shaft, Ruan does not disclose any other components that could be assembled with
`
`it to create a ratchet assembly. Ruan also discloses a drive mechanism attached by
`
`itself to the opposite end of the shaft from the ratchet gear. Since the drive
`
`21
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`mechanism’s end of the shaft does not have a ratchet gear, the drive mechanism is
`
`not part of the claimed ratchet assembly either. Since the tie-down system in Ruan
`
`does not have a ratchet assembly on either end of the tie-down shaft, Ruan does not
`
`disclose this limitation. For the same reasons, Ruan does not disclose “a ratchet
`
`head coupled to the ratchet gear” as part of the claimed “ratchet assembly.”
`
`45. The tie down shaft being affixed to one of the one or more vehicle
`
`platforms (claim 1). As discussed above, the tie-down system on a vehicle
`
`transporter places the shaft across the width of the wheel ramp and it is supported by
`
`the vehicle platform frame. (‘140 Patent, Figures 2 and 3) The tie-down system in
`
`Ruan is a self-contained system with its own frame to support the shaft. (Ruan,
`
`Figure 1, Paragraph 20) This frame could be affixed where needed, including to a
`
`vehicle platform, but the shaft itself would always be affixed to the frame and could
`
`not be affixed to a vehicle platform. Hence, Ruan does not disclose this limitation.
`
`46. Wherein an inner face of the ratchet gear is positioned . . . in
`
`mechanical contact with an inner face of the ratchet head (claim 1). In Ruan, the
`
`ratchet gear is on the opposite end of the shaft and other side of the frame from where
`
`the drive mechanism is attached. Boydstun and Clark say that “mechanical contact”
`
`means “pressing against.” In Ruan, the inner faces of the ratchet gear and rotating
`
`body (which Boydstun calls the ratchet head in the ‘140 patent) are not “pressing
`
`against” one another, nor would the combination of Ruan with Cottrell ‘275 have
`
`22
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2002
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`
`
`
`
`resulted in such a condition. Rather, the rotating body (the alleged ratchet head)
`
`presses against and interacts with the fixed base.
`
`47. Ramped pockets disposed on the inner face of the ratchet gear (claim
`
`3). Ruan does not disclose any features on the inner face of the ratchet gear, hence
`
`Ru
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
