Page 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________________
` BOYDSTUN EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING, LLC
` Petitioner
` v.
` COTTRELL, INC.
` Patent Owner
` ____________________________
` IPR2017-00962
` Patent No. 7,585,140
` ____________________________
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GEORGE A. CLARK
` Portland, Oregon
` Friday, November 10, 2017
`
`Reported by:
`MARLA SHARP, RPR, CCRR, CA CSR 11924, WA CSR 3408
`Job No: 133120
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` JONCUS LAW
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` P.O. Box 838
` Clackamas, OR 97015
` BY: STEPHEN JONCUS, ESQ.
`
` PERKINS COIE
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1201 Third Avenue
` Seattle, WA 98101
` BY: KYLE AMBORN, ESQ.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Lani Milton, Videographer
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` November 10, 2017
` 8:47 a.m.
`
` Videotaped deposition of
`GEORGE A. CLARK, held at the offices of
`K&L Gates, One Southwest Columbia
`Street, Suite 1900, Portland, Oregon,
`pursuant to agreement before
`Marla Sharp, a shorthand reporter in
`and for the state of Oregon.
`
`12345
`
`6
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 5
`
` I N D E X
`EXAMINATION PAGE
`GEORGE A. CLARK
` BY MR. AMBORN 6, 103
` BY MR. JONCUS 74
`
` PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 9-8-09 US Patent No. 7,585,140 B1 24
` (15 pages)
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of George Clark 74
` (17 pages)
`Exhibit 1003 1-19-06 US Patent Application 20
` Publication No. US 2006/0013667 A1
` (7 pages)
`Exhibit 1004 5-24-94 US Patent No. 5,314,275 20
` (15 pages)
`
`Exhibit 1005 11-30-04 US Patent No. 6,824,121 20
` B2 (8 pages)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` PORTLAND, OREGON
` FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2017
` 8:47 A.M.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
`record. The time is 8:47. Today's date is
`November 10th, 2017.
` This is a video-recorded deposition of
`George Clark in the matter of Boydstun Equipment
`Manufacturing LLC versus Cottrell Inc. in the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board. The case number is
`IPR2017-00962. The US Patent No. is 7,585,140.
` This deposition is being held at K&L Gates
`at One Southwest Columbia Street, Suite 1900, in
`Portland, Oregon.
` My name is Lani Milton. I am the legal
`video specialist with TSG Reporting. Our court
`reporter is Marla Sharp in association with
`TSG Reporting.
` Counsel, can you please introduce
`yourselves for the record?
` MR. AMBORN: I'm Kyle Amborn from Perkins
`Coie. I am counsel on behalf of the patent owner,
`Cottrell Inc.
` MR. JONCUS: Stephen Joncus, counsel for
`
`2 (Pages 2 to 5)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`678
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`Boydstun and representing the witness today.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And our witness can be
`sworn in.
` GEORGE A. CLARK,
` called as a witness, having been duly
` sworn by the certified shorthand
` reporter, was examined and testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q All right. Good morning, Mr. Clark. As I
`mentioned, I'm Kyle Amborn.
` And would you mind just stating your full
`name for the record, please?
` A Sure. George Clark.
` Q And do you ever use a middle initial?
` A A.
` Q A. Okay. And, Mr. Clark, how many times
`have you been deposed before?
` A This would be the first.
` Q All right. So, then, let me just go over a
`couple of ground rules here.
` First of all, I assume that you understand
`that you are under an obligation that you just took
`to tell the truth today in your testimony.
`
`Page 8
`
`can feel free to let me know.
` So, Mr. Clark, in your declaration I
`believe you said that you are being paid by
`Boydstun.
` Does that mean you were retained by them?
` A I'm being paid by the hour for this work.
` Q Okay. By the party Boydstun?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. And are you aware of the district
`court action between the two companies here,
`Boydstun and Cottrell?
` A You can familiarize me with it.
` Q Oh, I'm just curious to know if you're
`aware of it.
` A I'm aware of some of it, yes.
` Q Okay. And are you also working on that
`district court action?
` A I think the answer's no.
` Q Okay. And in your declaration I think you
`said that you were charging a rate of $185 an hour.
` A Correct.
` Q That's correct? Okay.
` And is that your normal consulting rate?
` A Yes.
` Q And do you charge a special rate for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
`
` A Correct.
` Q And for -- this process is kind of like a
`conversation, but it's a little mechanical since
`we've got a video that's here and a court reporter
`who's transcribing everything.
` So if you give me time to finish my
`questions and I'll try to do the same for you with
`your answers so that we're not speaking at the same
`time, that will ensure that the record we create
`today will be accurate and understandable.
` You're not under the influence of anything
`today that would prevent you from testifying
`completely or accurately, are you?
` A No, I'm not.
` Q Okay. And if at any point you feel the
`need to take a break, feel free to just let me know.
` A Okay.
` Q I'll try to ensure that we take a break
`every hour or so. But --
` A Great.
` Q -- we can take one earlier or whenever you
`need.
` A Thank you.
` Q I think that does it for background ground
`rules. If at some point you have a question, you
`
`Page 9
`
`testimony like today?
` A No, we'll -- I do not.
` Q Okay.
` A That may change after today.
` Q All right. I'll try to help ensure this is
`as painless as possible.
` Mr. Clark, do you recall when you were
`retained for this case?
` A The beginning of last year. Might have
`been February. Or, sorry, 2017, so same year.
` Q Okay. So February of this year, 2017?
` A Correct.
` Q Mr. Clark, what did you do, just generally
`speaking, to prepare for your -- to offer the
`declaration that you have in this case?
` A I read over the patents that are involved
`in this case.
` Q Mm-hmm. Did you do anything else?
` A No. Primarily, that's it.
` Q So when you say "the patents involved in
`this case," I assume you mean the '140 patent?
` A Correct.
` Q And then the three patents, the -- not
`patents but the prior art references --
` A That's correct.
`
`3 (Pages 6 to 9)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 10
` Q -- Boice, Cottrell '275, and Ruan?
` A Right.
` Q Did you review anything else?
` A There's another patent, and the inventor's
`name was Boice.
` Q Yes. Boice.
` A Right. That's also in there.
` Q Did you review the file history of the '140
`patent?
` A Yes, I looked it over.
` Q And in this case there are excerpts of that
`file history that are exhibits.
` Did you review the full file history or
`just the parts that are being used as exhibits?
` A Just the parts that are being used as
`exhibits.
` Q Mr. Clark, did you review the parties'
`actual products, by any chance?
` A Yes. Not in -- physically, but, you know,
`online.
` Q Online. Okay. So did you look at the
`website, then?
` A Yes.
` Q Have you reviewed any materials other than
`what's available on their websites?
`
`Page 12
`involved in preparing the actual petition for the
`IPR?
` A Yes.
` Q As opposed to your declaration?
` A Oh, no. I'm sorry.
` Q Okay.
` A No. I only prepared my declaration.
` Q I got you. All right.
` So, Mr. Clark, I'd like to ask you just a
`little bit about your background now and your
`qualifications.
` A Okay.
` Q What's your current occupation?
` A I'm an engineering consultant.
` Q Okay. And what type of engineering do you
`consult on?
` A Mechanical.
` Q Any other types of engineering?
` A Nope, just mechanical.
` Q And what is your -- what's your educational
`background? What degrees do you hold?
` A I have a bachelor's and a master's degree
`in mechanical engineering. A bachelor's from
`University of Missouri at Rolla and a master's from
`Purdue.
`
`Page 11
` A No. I did see the Boydstun invention in
`front of me, the pieces in front of me.
` Q So the Boydstun Rapid Ratchet?
` A Correct.
` Q Where did you review that?
` A In Boydstun's office.
` Q And, Mr. Clark, just generally speaking,
`about how much time did you spend on this case so
`far, to your recollection?
` A Oh, I think about 50 hours or so.
` Q Okay. And that includes your time
`preparing for this deposition?
` A Correct.
` Q Do you recall roughly how much of that time
`was spent preparing your declaration?
` A I would say a third of that, roughly.
` Q And what would the other two-thirds have
`been spent on?
` A Well, I guess you could say it's all the
`same. Reviewing the patents, getting ready to, you
`know -- some of it is writing the IPR; some of it is
`reviewing the patents in preparation for it. So...
` Q Okay. When you say "writing the IPR," did
`you -- without getting into any conversations about
`strategy or anything along those lines, were you
`
`Page 13
` Q Okay. And roughly when did you obtain
`those degrees?
` A 1979 and 1980, respectively.
` Q And have you held any positions, as a
`professional engineer or otherwise, in an
`engineering capacity for companies?
` A Yes.
` Q What are the companies that you've worked
`for in the past?
` A General Motors, the proving grounds in Ann
`Arbor, Michigan. International Harvester outside of
`Chicago.
` THE COURT REPORTER: What was the last one?
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. International
`Harvester.
` It's funny, these businesses are out of
`business now. That would have been during the early
`'80s.
` RCA Astro, also out of business, where we
`built satellites -- weather and communication
`satellites. Two or three different consulting
`firms. And now working for myself.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay. And now that you're working for
`yourself, do you have a company --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4 (Pages 10 to 13)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 14
`
` A Yes.
` Q -- that you run?
` What is that company?
` A It's called the Mercury Group LLC.
` Q Okay. And is the Mercury Group just you?
` A That's right.
` Q You mentioned that you worked at the
`General Motors proving grounds?
` A Mm-hmm.
` Q What did you do there?
` A My focus was on acoustics at the time,
`which -- so it's trying to measure and mitigate the
`sound that gets transmitted into the car's interior.
` Q Okay. Was that a position -- I mean, was
`General Motors your employer?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. So, now, Mr. Clark, I'd just like to
`ask you some questions, just generally speaking,
`about the nature of your analysis, how you went
`about forming the opinions that you did.
` A Okay.
` Q So you mentioned that you reviewed the '140
`patent and the prior art references at issue here.
` A Correct.
` Q How -- again, just generally speaking, what
`
`Page 16
`
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay. And when you say "what one of skill
`in the art would have thought" --
` A Mm-hmm.
` Q -- again, what is -- from your perspective,
`how do you figure out what one of skill of art would
`have thought --
` A Okay.
` MR. JONCUS: Objection.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q -- in that analysis?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That would be someone
`typically with a bachelor's degree, perhaps a couple
`of years' experience but not much, or the
`equivalent, and made up by years of experience in
`dealing with these sorts of devices -- designing,
`developing these sorts of devices.
` I would look at it from their point of
`view.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q And in this case, how did you go about
`figuring out what such a person's point of view
`would have been?
` A I had a number of those kind of people
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15
`is your standard for whether something is obvious --
`whether a claimed patent like the '140 is obvious --
` A Okay.
` Q -- in light of prior art?
` A Okay. In --
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Go ahead.
` A I would review it, review the prior art,
`think back in time to what it was at the time -- now
`these things haven't changed much over this time so,
`you know -- but where the state of the art was for
`the development for these types of products at that
`time.
` Q Mm-hmm.
` A And then see if they kind of pass, at first
`blush, a test of obviousness.
` Q And when you say "a test of obviousness,"
`what do you mean by that?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That they are obvious to one
`who's skilled in the art; that is to say that anyone
`who typically would be skilled in the art at the
`time would look at these features and say that,
`"Well, of course, you'd do that."
`
`Page 17
`working for me in the past, so I kind of looked at
`it from their point of view.
` Q Okay. And when you say "those kind of
`people," who do you mean?
` A Those people who are skilled in the art.
`These are people with, let's say, a bachelor's
`degree in mechanical engineering and one or two
`years of experience.
` Q Okay. And did you -- you said that you've
`had some of these people work for you in the past?
` A Yes.
` Q Did any of those people work on ratchets?
` A One, yes.
` Q And what kind of ratchet was that?
` A That was a ratchet in a -- it was a medical
`instrument, and it was a grabber -- endoscopic
`grabber used to, you know, grab whatever the doc is
`working on. And the ratchet was meant to hold the
`compression on a member so that he could take his
`hands off, much in the same way that the strap is
`held in tension on the car transport carriers.
` Q Did you work on that --
` A Yes.
` Q -- ratchet as well?
` A Mm-hmm.
`
`5 (Pages 14 to 17)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` Q You said it was a grabber?
` A Yes.
` Q I'd like to ask you about a -- just a kind
`of a generic hypothetical to understand a little bit
`what you mean by "obvious."
` A Okay.
` Q So let's say that you have a patent for an
`electric automobile engine and the prior art is a
`patent reference that describes a conventional
`gasoline-powered engine.
` A Mm-hmm.
` Q Is the electric gas engine obvious in light
`of the -- sorry.
` Is the electric engine obvious in light of
`the gas-powered engine because they have the same
`functionality?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Not in my opinion.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay.
` A Based on just what you've said.
` Q Yes. And why is that?
` A Because of the means at which they provide
`the function.
` Q Okay. So obviousness is not just a
`
`Page 20
` Q That is. That's Exhibit 1005 in this IPR
`proceeding.
` A That we'll call Boice.
` Q Okay. And Ruan is a reference to the
`Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0013667. I
`assume you don't have that memorized either. But
`that's the one you referred to in your
`declaration --
` A Right.
` Q -- as Exhibit 1003.
` A We'll call that Ruan.
` THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please.
`"That's the one you referred to in your declaration
`as" --
` MR. AMBORN: As Exhibit 1003.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q And, finally, the Cottrell '275 patent. We
`have two Cottrell patents here.
` "Cottrell '275" is the terminology I will
`try to use to refer to the prior art Patent
`5,314,275, which is Exhibit 1004 referenced in your
`declaration.
` A Correct.
` Q So, Mr. Clark, what is a ratchet?
` A A ratchet is a device that's used to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
`question of providing the same function; it's also
`the means by which they provide the function?
` A Correct.
` Q Okay. So now, Mr. Clark, I'd like to just
`talk a little bit about the terminology of the
`patent and the terminology that you used in your
`declaration. This is probably a good time to make
`sure that we're using the same terminology today.
` A Okay.
` Q If I refer to the "'140 patent" or the
`"patent at issue," I mean US Patent 7,585,140.
` Does that --
` A That's fine.
` Q -- work for you?
` Okay. And if I refer to the "Boice patent"
`or to "Boice," I mean United States Patent 5,314 --
`sorry. That's the wrong patent. It would help if I
`give you the right patent number.
` If I refer to the "Boice patent" or to
`"Boice" -- if I refer to the "Boice patent" or to
`"Boice," I mean US Patent 6,824,121.
` Does that work for you?
` A I don't have the number memorized. Is that
`the Boice patent that I referred to in my
`declaration?
`
`Page 21
`maintain tension on -- in this case a strap.
` Q Okay. And how does a ratchet maintain
`tension?
` A The user supplies the locomotive force to
`apply the tension. The ratchet, generally speaking,
`has, like, a starred-shape outer periphery similar
`to what a gear would look like, the cogs of a gear.
` Typically, a pawl will engage those teeth.
`And as the user applies the tension and it rotates
`the shaft, which applies the tension, the pawl
`engages subsequent teeth and prevents it from
`turning backwards and releasing the tension until
`he's ready.
` Q So is it fair to say, then, that a ratchet
`prevents something from turning in one direction
`while permitting it to turn in the other?
` A That would be fair.
` Q Okay. And is a device a ratchet if it
`doesn't actually prevent the shaft, we'll say, from
`turning backwards but simply impedes backwards
`rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Ask it again, please.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Is -- does a ratchet have to completely
`
`6 (Pages 18 to 21)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 22
`prevent something from turning backwards?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: That's the typical use.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay. What is an automobile hauler?
` A Over-the-road transporter of automobiles.
` Q Have you done any work with automobile
`haulers?
` A No, I have not.
` Q What is -- you used the term "cargo
`transport vehicle" in your declaration.
` Do you recall that?
` A Yes.
` Q What do you consider to be a cargo
`transport vehicle?
` A I would say that that's a more general or
`generic use. It could mean the cargo could be --
`something to haul cargo. It could be your pickup
`truck. It could be a car hauler.
` Q Okay. And is any vehicle that can haul
`cargo in some capacity a cargo transport vehicle, in
`your view?
` A I would say so.
` Q So a personal automobile, you can throw
`your work bag in the backseat, that's a cargo
`
`Page 24
`
` A Yes.
` Q In that section you said that:
` "A person of ordinary skill in the
` art would recognize that the mechanical
` contact limitation of claim 1 must be
` the drive bodies that press against the
` ratchet gear and cause a lock-up
` condition when the ratchet head is
` rotated in one direction."
` A Correct.
` Q Does that mean that the mechanical contact
`in claim 1 is only achieved in one direction of
`rotation, in your view?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Would you mind reading
`claim 1?
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q I can -- actually, I will provide you with
`a copy of the patent.
` A Thank you.
` Q This is Exhibit 1001.
` Go ahead and take a moment to look at
`claim 1 if you'd like.
` A Okay. Would you ask your question again,
`please?
`
`Page 23
`
`hauler?
` A I would say.
` Q Okay.
` A Yes.
` Q Mr. Clark, the '140 patent uses the term
`"assembly" in the claims.
` What is an assembly?
` A A grouping of components.
` Q Is there any restriction on that grouping?
` A In its most general sense, no.
` Q Is there a more specific sense of the word?
` A Well, yes, but it has to do with whatever
`the specific purpose of the assembly would be.
` Q Okay. So when the '140 patent refers to a
`"ratchet assembly," what's your understanding of
`that term?
` A That it would be made up of the components
`that comprise the ratchet.
` Q Do those components need to be connected to
`one another?
` A Not necessarily.
` Q So, Mr. Clark, in your declaration, you
`discussed the construction of a couple of claims in
`the '140 patent.
` Do you recall that?
`
`Page 25
`
` Q Yes. No problem.
` So, again, in your declaration, you said
`that:
` "A person of ordinary skill in the
` art would recognize that the mechanical
` contact limitation of claim 1 must be
` the drive bodies that press against the
` ratchet gear and cause a lock-up
` condition when the ratchet head is
` rotated in one direction."
` And my question is this: Does that mean,
`in your view, that the ratchet head and gear are
`only in mechanical contact in one direction of
`rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: No, because you haven't
`defined what "mechanical contact" is. And,
`therefore, to answer yes or no is too specific at
`this point until you've defined what that term
`means.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Using your definition of "mechanical
`contact."
` A Yes.
` Q So in your view of the term "mechanical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7 (Pages 22 to 25)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 26
`contact," that only occurs in one direction of
`rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: No. I'm sorry. No. There
`is mechanical contact regardless of the direction
`that it's turned.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay. So, then, my question is this: Why
`do you believe that a person of ordinary skill would
`recognize that a condition that occurs in only one
`direction of rotation is the claimed mechanical
`contact?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Ask that question again.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Yes. In your declaration, you said that:
` "A person of ordinary skill would
` recognize that the mechanical contact
` limitation of claim 1 must be the drive
` bodies that press against the ratchet
` gear and cause a lock-up condition when
` the ratchet head is rotated in one
` direction."
` A Correct.
` Q So why would a person of ordinary skill
`
`Page 28
`
` inner face of the ratchet gear is
` positioned in opposition to and in
` mechanical contact with an inner face of
` the ratchet head, and wherein the
` ratchet gear and ratchet head and the
` shaft are configured to rotate as a
` single integral unit when rotated in the
` forward direction" --
` THE COURT REPORTER: "Single" --
` THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
` "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, and
` wherein the ratchet gear and the ratchet
` head and the shaft are configured to
` rotate as a single integral unit when
` rotated in a forward direction about the
` longitudinal axis, and the ratchet head
` is configured to rotate with respect to
` the ratchet gear and the shaft when the
` ratchet head is rotated in a reverse
` direction about the longitudinal axis."
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q So, Mr. Clark, where does that say that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 27
`look to something that occurs in one direction of
`rotation as the definition of "mechanical contact"?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: The one direction does not
`tie into the definition of "mechanical contact."
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay.
` A It was used specifically in the verbiage of
`claim 1. So in the context of reviewing claim 1 and
`its obviousness, the "one direction" term comes up
`because it's used in this claim.
` Q So, Mr. Clark, where does claim 1 say the
`mechanical contact occurs in one direction?
` A (Reading to self.)
` I guess it doesn't. Sorry. I'm referring
`to the pri- -- to the art in the patent.
` Q So where are you referring to in the
`patent?
` A The description of the design.
` Q Can you point me to that, please?
` A Sure. In the -- well, hold on. In the
`abstract there's a line that reads -- I'll go back.
` "Wherein the ratchet assembly
` includes a ratchet gear, a ratchet head
` coupled to the ratchet gear, wherein an
`
`Page 29
`mechanical contact occurs in one direction?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I suppose it does not there.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q And, again, going back to claim 1, is the
`mechanical contact in claim 1 limited to one
`direction of rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Ask that question one more
`time.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q No problem. In claim 1 is the mechanical
`contact limited to one direction of rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I would have to say no.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q So, Mr. Clark, is it still your view that a
`person of ordinary skill, trying to understand the
`meaning of mechanical contact in claim 1, would look
`to something that occurs in only one direction of
`rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: It could, yes, but the
`verbiage in claim 1 doesn't -- it doesn't specify
`that.
`
`8 (Pages 26 to 29)
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Cottrell, Ex. 2003
`Boydstun v. Cottrell, IPR2017-00962
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 30
`
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay. So is claim 1 broader, then?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Is claim 1 broader than something that
`provides mechanical contact in only one direction of
`rotation?
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q So we've been going for about 45 minutes.
` Before I head to a -- kind of another line
`of questions, would you like to take a quick break
`or keep going?
` A Keep going.
` Q Okay. Great.
` So, Mr. Clark, you earlier mentioned three
`pieces of what you called prior art that you
`reviewed for this case, Boice, Ruan, and the
`Cottrell '275 patent.
` A Yes.
` Q So I'd like to talk to you a little bit
`about those now.
` So first let's discuss the Boice patent.
`And, again, this is Exhibit 1005.
`
`Page 32
` A As I remember, it was a two -- the type
`that carried two wheels.
` Q Okay. Did Boice teach a ratchet head
`coupled to a ratchet gear as those --
` MR. JONCUS: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q -- as those terms are used in the '140
`patent?
` THE WITNESS: I don't think it used the
`same terminology for the same components.
`BY MR. AMBORN:
` Q Okay.
` A In other words, these patents have
`different terms for the same components.
` Q Yes. Setting aside terminology
`differences, in your view, does Boice teach a
`ratchet head coupled to a ratchet gear?
` A It offers the -- yes. It offers the
`potential for that.
` Q Please explain what you mean by "the
`potential for that."
` A In the Boice patent, there's a standard
`ratchet, much as we described for maintaining the
`tension in a hold-down strap. They also provided an
`interface that allowed for the connection of a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 31
` In your declaration, you mentioned that
`Boice describes a car dolly. Do you recall that?
` A Yes.
` Q What is the car dolly in Boice?
` A In this particular case, I believe Boice
`was describing a device to help haul a car, perhaps
`behind a -- you know, a small trailer behind a tow
`vehicle.
` Q Okay. So what type of vehicle would that
`be that would tow the dolly?
` A Anything with a trailer hitch.
` Q Okay. So a personal automobile, for
`instance?
` A For instance, or a truck.
` Q And how is that dolly generally configured?
` A As far as how it ties down the vehicle or
`how it's --
` Q Yeah, if you -- would you mind just
`describing that dolly generally?
` A A dolly can be a device that you would
`drive two of the four wheels of a vehicle onto and
`then drag the back wheels on the pavement. A dolly
`could also be something that carries the entire
`vehicle.
` Q What was the dolly in Boice?
`
`Page 33
`standard ratchet wrench, which would be, in this
`case, the ratchet head.
` Q Okay. Mr. Clark, I'm going to hand you a
`copy of Exhibit 1005, the Boice patent.
` A Okay.
` Q Is that familiar to you?
` A Yes, sir.
` Q So looking there at the figure on the front
`page of Exhibit 1005, what is the ratchet head?
` A The ratchet head would connect to the
`socket on -- which is item No. 47.
` Q So is the -- are you saying the ratchet
`head is not depicted?
` A Again, it's terminology.
` Q Okay. Go ahead.
` A No, go ahead.
` Q Let's use the terminology "ratchet head" as
`it's used in the '140 patent.
` A Okay. How would you describe that?
` Q That's a question f