`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`Filed: September 23, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`FOX Factory, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SRAM, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01876
`Patent No. 9,182,027
`______________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD R. NEPTUNE, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOX FACTORY EXHIBIT 1002
`
`PAGE 1 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Contents
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Education ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Professional Experience ........................................................................ 1
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6
`
`IV. THE ’027 PATENT ......................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Patent ........................................................ 6
`
`B. Disclosure and Claims of the ’027 Patent ............................................. 6
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........ 9
`
`VI. KEY OF NUMBERED CLAIM FEATURES ................................................ 9
`
`VII. MEANING OF CERTAIN CLAIM TERMS................................................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“tooth tip” ............................................................................................12
`
`“top land” ............................................................................................14
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .........................................................................17
`
`IX. EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIMS 7-12 AND 20-26 IS TAUGHT OR
`DISCLOSED BY THE FOLLOWING PRIOR ART: ..................................19
`
`A. Hattan in combination with Martin discloses or teaches every
`feature of claims 7-12 and 20-26. .......................................................19
`
`1.
`
`Hattan discloses a bicycle chainring with inboard-offset
`teeth. ..........................................................................................19
`
`2. Martin discloses a sprocket with alternating wide and
`narrow teeth. ..............................................................................23
`
`3.
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the
`Hattan inboard-offset teeth such that they alternate
`between narrow and wide teeth, as taught by Martin,
`
`
`
`i
`
`PAGE 2 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`thereby yielding the subject matter of claims 7-12 and
`20-26. ........................................................................................25
`
`4.
`
`SRAM’s District Court Arguments Against the
`Combination of Hattan and Martin Fail. ..................................57
`
`B. Hattan in combination with JP-Shimano discloses or teaches
`every feature of claims 7-12 and 20-26. ..............................................61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`JP-Shimano discloses a bicycle chainring with
`alternating wide and narrow teeth. ............................................61
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the
`Hattan inboard-offset teeth such that they alternate
`between narrow and wide teeth, as taught by JP-
`Shimano, thereby yielding the subject matter of claims 7-
`12 and 20-26. .............................................................................63
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s District Court Argument Against the
`Combination of Hattan and JP-Shimano Fails. ........................75
`
`C. Hattan in combination with Martin and Nagano discloses or
`teaches every feature of claims 7-12 and 20-26. .................................77
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Nagano discloses a chainring with a plurality of inboard-
`offset teeth. ................................................................................77
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA to replace the
`Hattan inboard-offset teeth with the Nagano inboard-
`offset teeth before further modifying them to alternate
`between narrow and wide teeth, as taught by Martin,
`thereby yielding the subject matter of claims 7-12 and
`20-26. ........................................................................................79
`
`X.
`
`EXHIBITS 1015 AND 1016 .........................................................................86
`
`XI. EXHIBIT 1017 ..............................................................................................87
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................88
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PAGE 3 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`1.
`
`I, Richard R. Neptune, have been retained by Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (“Finnegan”) on behalf of Fox Factory Inc.
`
`(“FOX” or “Petitioner”) as an expert in the field of mechanical engineering and
`
`bicycle design. 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, and 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. I have no financial interest in the Petitioner or Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Education
`I received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering in 1991, an M.S. in
`2.
`
`Mechanical Engineering in 1993, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1996,
`
`all from the University of California, Davis.
`
`Professional Experience
`
`B.
`3. My graduate work focused on the biomechanics of human pedaling,
`
`with an emphasis on the influence of pedaling rate and chainring shape on
`
`mechanical energy expenditure and internal work during cycling. My formal
`
`mechanical engineering coursework concentrated on the mechanical engineering
`
`design process and its applications to engineering systems, as well as applying
`1
`
`
`
`PAGE 4 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`fundamental principles of engineering mechanics to the design and selection of
`
`mechanical components. Upon finishing my Ph.D., I completed a 2-year post-
`
`doctoral fellowship at the University of Calgary, where I focused on computer
`
`modeling and simulating human movement and the influence of chainring shape on
`
`muscle neuromotor and biomechanical adaptations. I then accepted a position as a
`
`Biomedical Engineer at the Rehabilitation R & D Center at Palo Alto VA Medical
`
`Center, where we developed computer models of pedaling to understand
`
`fundamental principles of pedaling biomechanics. An essential element of this
`
`modeling work was a detailed model of bicycle drivetrain system dynamics, which
`
`included detailed models of inertial and frictional components, allowing us to
`
`accurately emulate bicycle-rider dynamics. I subsequently accepted a faculty
`
`position at the University of Texas at Austin as an Assistant Professor in 2001, was
`
`promoted to Associate Professor in 2005, and was promoted to Full Professor in
`
`2011.
`
`4.
`
`I primarily teach courses in the Biomechanical Engineering and
`
`Dynamic Systems & Control areas. Most relevant to FOX’s Petition are the
`
`courses I teach at the graduate and undergraduate level in the dynamics of
`
`mechanical systems (ME 324 – Dynamics, ME 383Q – Dynamics of Mechanical
`
`Systems). These courses emphasize the application of Newton-Euler, Lagrange,
`
`and Hamilton's principles for deriving the governing equations of motion, and for
`
`
`
`2
`
`PAGE 5 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`analyzing the dynamics of mechanical systems. My research utilizes these
`
`principles using computer modeling, simulations, and experimental analyses of
`
`human movement. Some of my recent cycling-related work resulted in identifying
`
`the optimal chainring shape to maximize crank power during steady-state pedaling.
`
`This research modeled the bicycle-rider system using a detailed musculoskeletal
`
`model and design optimization to determine if cycling performance (i.e., maximal
`
`power output) could be improved by optimizing the chainring shape during
`
`isokinetic pedaling conditions. The musculoskeletal model included a detailed
`
`representation of the bicycle drivetrain system dynamics. The results showed that
`
`the chainring shape that maximized average crank power provided enough
`
`eccentricity to increase the external work generated by muscles during the power
`
`phase while minimizing negative work during the subsequent recovery phase.
`
`5.
`
`Overall, my research has resulted in over 125 peer reviewed journal
`
`publications and over 185 scientific conference proceedings. I am on the editorial
`
`board for the Journal of Applied Biomechanics, and served as an Associate Editor
`
`for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Biomechanical
`
`Engineering from 2007-2013. I am a Fellow of the American Society of
`
`Biomechanics, and frequently serve on federal scientific review panels including
`
`for the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DoD) and the
`
`National Institutes of Health (NIH).
`
`
`
`3
`
`PAGE 6 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`For my research, I have received the American Society of
`
`6.
`
`Biomechanics Young Scientist Award and the CAREER award from the National
`
`Science Foundation. The ASB Young Scientist Award is a prestigious award
`
`recognizing early achievements by promising young scientists, which is given to
`
`one recipient annually at the society’s annual meeting. The NSF CAREER award
`
`is the NSF’s most prestigious award in support of young faculty who exemplify the
`
`role of teacher-scholars through research, education, and the integration of
`
`education and research. The award comes with a federal grant for research and
`
`education activities for five consecutive years. NSF grants these awards once a
`
`year, and the selection process is one of the most competitive within the NSF. I
`
`have also received the Da Vinci Award from the Engineering Society of Detroit
`
`and National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Outstanding Young Scientist
`
`Award from the Houston Society for Engineering in Medicine and Biology. In
`
`2013, I received the Joe and Bettie Branson Ward Endowed Excellence Award
`
`from The University of Texas at Austin for my teaching and research that has
`
`contributed to positive changes in society. In 2015, I received the Lockheed Martin
`
`Aeronautics Company Award for Excellence in Engineering Teaching. I am
`
`currently a Provost Teaching Fellow, hold the John T. MacGuire Professorship in
`
`Mechanical Engineering, and serve as the Chair of the Department of Mechanical
`
`Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, which is the 9th ranked
`
`
`
`4
`
`PAGE 7 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`undergraduate mechanical engineering program in the U.S. according to U.S.
`
`News & World Report’s 2016 Rankings.
`
`7.
`
`Also relevant to this case is my experience as a competitive cyclist. I
`
`have been a competitive cyclist for approximately 25 years, have raced bicycles in
`
`road, mountain bike, and track events, and I previously won the Masters California
`
`State Track Championship in match sprints. I also participated in the team Race
`
`Across America (RAAM) in 2007. RAAM is one of the longest and most difficult
`
`annual endurance races in the world, with the transcontinental race course covering
`
`over 3,000 miles and climbing over 150,000 ft. in elevation. Of the 39 teams, my
`
`team finished fourth. I have experimented with and tested bicycle components
`
`during my many years as a cyclist, including chainring designs, in an effort to
`
`optimize cycling performance. Thus, I am very familiar with bicycle components
`
`and the dynamics of the bicycle drivetrain system.
`
`8.
`
`I have been asked by Finnegan and FOX to review and provide
`
`opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 (“the ’027 patent”), which I
`
`understand is owned by SRAM, LLC. With my experience in mechanical
`
`engineering and my personal knowledge of materials and processes associated with
`
`bicycles, bicycle components, and bicycle mechanics, I am highly familiar with
`
`and fully understand the apparatuses and mechanisms described in the ’027 patent,
`
`
`
`5
`
`PAGE 8 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`including how they function, design considerations, and how they have previously
`
`been used in bicycle technology.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed and relied upon the materials
`9.
`
`cited in this declaration, the materials cited in FOX’s petition, as well as those
`
`listed in the attached 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. THE ’027 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the Patent
` I understand that the ’027 patent was filed on December 6, 2011.
`10.
`
`Ex.1001, Cover Page. I have been advised to use the December 6, 2011, date as the
`
`“effective” filing date for the purposes of my analysis of the ’027 patent and
`
`assume that the timeframe for the alleged invention of the ’027 patent is on or
`
`around December 6, 2011. However, I have not analyzed whether the claims of the
`
`’027 patent are supported by the application filed on December 6, 2011, or whether
`
`any claim of the ’027 patent is entitled to that priority date.
`
`B. Disclosure and Claims of the ’027 Patent
`11. The ’027 patent discloses and claims a chainring of a front crankset of
`
`a bicycle drivetrain. Ex.1001, Abstract, 1:33-2:13. Using a plurality of teeth
`6
`
`
`
`PAGE 9 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`located about its periphery, the chainring engages a roller drive chain that connects
`
`the chainring to one or more rear hub mounted sprockets to propel the bicycle. Id.,
`
`1:5-29. While the ’027 patent uses the term “chainring” for the front gear and
`
`“sprocket” for the rear gear, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would
`
`recognize that the front gear, in addition to being called a chainring, is sometimes
`
`also called a “sprocket wheel” or “chain gear.” See Ex.1015 at 2 (defining
`
`chainring as “[a] front sprocket”); Ex.1016 at 7 (“The front sprockets are also
`
`commonly called chainwheels or chainrings”); Ex.1017 at 3 (“The chainrings . . .
`
`also called chainwheels and front sprockets . . . are the toothed wheels turned by
`
`the pedals”). Independent claims 7 and 20 recite, among other features, a chainring
`
`having narrow and wide teeth, with at least some of the narrow teeth “arranged
`
`alternatingly and adjacently” between wide teeth. The ’027 patent describes the
`
`narrow and wide teeth as being designed to engage inner and outer link spaces of
`
`the bicycle drive chain, respectively. Id., 3:60-4:3, 7:32-8:14, 9:8-10:33.
`
`12. Claim 7 also recites that the majority of a tooth tip of at least one of
`
`each of the narrow and wide teeth is offset from a plane that bisects the chainring
`
`in a direction toward the inboard side of the chainring, i.e., toward the body of the
`
`bicycle. Id., 3:49-54; 7:32-46. Claim 20 recites that the majority of a tooth tip of at
`
`least one of each of the narrow and wide teeth is disposed closer to a plane formed
`
`by a portion of the inboard side surface than to a plane formed by a portion of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`PAGE 10 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`outboard side surface. Id. at 9:8-29. Figures 101 and 11 show the chainring without
`
`and with a chain, respectively.
`
`13. Bicycles were invented hundreds of years ago, and relevant chainring
`
`prior art was filed in the U.S. Patent Office before 1900. See, e.g., Ex.1009.
`
`Chainrings with alternating narrow and wide teeth have been known since at least
`
`
`
`
`1 I have been instructed to use the originally-filed version of Figure 10 in my
`
`analysis.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PAGE 11 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`the 1980s (see Ex.1006), and teeth offset toward the inboard side of the chainring
`
`have been known even longer (see Ex.1004). As explained in detail below, the
`
`’027 patent claims combinations of well-known elements of bicycle technology in
`
`a manner that would have been obvious to a POSITA long before 2011, when the
`
`’027 patent was filed.
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would have a skill level of at least a
`14.
`
`bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and/or at least three to five years’
`
`experience in the development and design of chain drive systems and components
`
`thereof. Based on my experience, I met this level of skill when I earned my
`
`bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering in 1991, and I now exceed it. I have
`
`applied this level of ordinary skill as it would have existed at the time of the
`
`effective filing date of the ’027 patent in my analysis. I understand that a POSITA
`
`is a hypothetical individual having the qualities described above, and that a
`
`POSITA is deemed to have complete knowledge of the prior art.
`
`VI. KEY OF NUMBERED CLAIM FEATURES
`15. The following key lists each feature of claims 7-12 and 20-26.
`
`[7.0] A bicycle chainring for engagement with a drive chain, comprising:
`[7.1] a plurality of teeth formed about a periphery of the chainring,
`[7.1.1] the plurality of teeth including a first group of teeth and a second group of
`teeth,
`[7.1.2] each of the first group of teeth wider than each of the second group of
`teeth and
`
`
`
`9
`
`PAGE 12 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`[7.1.3] at least some of the second group of teeth arranged alternatingly and
`adjacently between the first group of teeth,
`[7.1.4] wherein each of the plurality of teeth includes a tooth tip;
`[7.2] wherein a plane bisects the chainring into an outboard side and an inboard
`side opposite the outboard side; and
`[7.3] wherein at least the majority of the tooth tip of at least one of each of the
`first and second groups of teeth is offset from the plane in a direction toward the
`inboard side of the chainring.
`[8.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 7, wherein the center of a top land of at least
`one of each of the first and second groups of teeth is offset from the plane in a
`direction toward the inboard side of the chainring.
`[9.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 7, for engagement with a roller drive chain
`having alternating outer and inner chain links defining outer and inner link
`spaces, respectively,
`[9.1] wherein each of the first group of teeth is sized and shaped to fit within one
`of the outer link spaces and each of the second group of teeth is sized and shaped
`to fit within one of the inner link spaces;
`[9.2] and wherein each of the first group of teeth fills at least 75 percent of an
`axial distance defined by the outer link spaces.
`[10.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 7, for engagement with a roller drive chain
`having alternating outer and inner chain links defining outer and inner link
`spaces, respectively,
`[10.1] wherein each of the first group of teeth is sized and shaped to fit within
`one of the outer link spaces and each of the second group of teeth is sized and
`shaped to fit within one of the inner link spaces; and
`[10.2] wherein each of the second group of teeth fills at least 75 percent of an
`axial distance defined by the inner link spaces.
`[11.0] A bicycle crankset including the bicycle chainring of claim 7, the bicycle
`crankset further comprising: a crank arm including a solitary bicycle chainring
`attached to the crank arm.
`[12.0] A bicycle drivetrain including the bicycle chainring of claim 7, the bicycle
`drivetrain further comprising:
`[12.1] a plurality of rear hub mounted sprockets; and
`[12.2] a roller drive chain connecting one of the plurality of sprockets to the
`chainring, the drive chain including alternating outer and inner chain links
`defining outer and inner link spaces, respectively.
`[20.0] A bicycle chainring for engagement with a drive chain, comprising:
`[20.1] a plurality of teeth formed about a periphery of the chainring,
`[20.1.1] the plurality of teeth including a first group of teeth and a second group
`
`
`
`10
`
`PAGE 13 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of teeth,
`[20.1.2] each of the first group of teeth wider than each of the second group of
`teeth and
`[20.1.3] at least some of the second group of teeth arranged alternatingly and
`adjacently between the first group of teeth,
`[20.1.4] wherein each of the plurality of teeth includes a tooth tip;
`[20.2] an outboard side of the chainring and an inboard side of the chainring
`opposite the outboard side;
`[20.3] the outboard side of the chainring including an outboard side surface,
`wherein a portion of the outboard side surface forms a plane;
`[20.4] the inboard side of the chainring including an inboard side surface,
`wherein a portion of the inboard side surface forms a plane; and
`[20.5] wherein at least the majority of the tooth tip of at least one of each of the
`first and second groups of teeth is disposed closer to the plane formed by the
`inboard side surface than to the plane formed by the outboard side surface.
`[21.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 20, wherein the center of a top land of at
`least one of each of the first and second groups of teeth is disposed closer to the
`plane formed by the inboard side surface than to the plane formed by the
`outboard side surface.
`[22.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 20, wherein the outboard side is the
`outermost side of the chainring and the inboard side is the innermost side of the
`chainring.
`[23.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 20, for engagement with a roller drive
`chain having alternating outer and inner chain links defining outer and inner link
`spaces, respectively,
`[23.1] wherein each of the first group of teeth is sized and shaped to fit within
`one of the outer link spaces and each of the second group of teeth is sized and
`shaped to fit within one of the inner link spaces; and
`[23.2] wherein each of the first group of teeth fills at least 75 percent of an axial
`distance defined by the outer link spaces.
`[24.0] The bicycle chainring of claim 20, for engagement with a roller drive
`chain having alternating outer and inner chain links defining outer and inner link
`spaces, respectively,
`[24.1] wherein each of the first group of teeth is sized and shaped to fit within
`one of the outer link spaces and each of the second group of teeth is sized and
`shaped to fit within one of the inner link spaces; and
`[24.2] wherein each of the second group of teeth fills at least 75 percent of an
`axial distance defined by the inner link spaces.
`[25.0] A bicycle crankset including the bicycle chainring of claim 20, the bicycle
`
`
`
`11
`
`PAGE 14 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`crankset further comprising: a crank arm including a solitary bicycle chainring
`attached to the crank arm.
`[26.0] A bicycle drivetrain including the bicycle chainring of claim 20, the
`bicycle drivetrain further comprising:
`[26.1] a plurality of rear hub mounted sprockets; and
`[26.2] a roller drive chain connecting one of the plurality of sprockets to the
`chainring, the drive chain including alternating outer and inner chain links
`defining outer and inner link spaces, respectively.
`
`
`VII. MEANING OF CERTAIN CLAIM TERMS
`16. There are several terms or phrases in the ’027 patent claims that I
`
`believe require some clarification. I have been informed that in this proceeding,
`
`before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification. I have also been advised that,
`
`at the same time, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by a POSITA. I 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. I
`
`reserve my right to amend or alter my analysis and opinions in view of SRAM’s
`
`proposed claim constructions, if any.
`
`A.
`17.
`
`“tooth tip”
`
`Independent claims 7 and 20 each recite a “tooth tip.” The term is not
`
`expressly defined in the ʼ027 patent, but the specification explains that “tip portion
`
`76” is an upper portion of the tooth above “contact zone 74, where a roller 24
`
`
`
`12
`
`PAGE 15 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`(FIG. 1) contacts the tooth,” and “roller 24 does not contact the tip portion 76
`
`under normal driving conditions,” as illustrated in Figures 5 and 16, below.
`
`Ex.1001, 5:42-47 (discussing Figure 5).
`
`
`
`18. Based on the specification’s discussion of tooth “tip portion 76,” it is
`
`
`
`my opinion that the broadest reasonable construction of “tooth tip” is “the upper
`
`portion of the tooth above the point of contact between the tooth and a seated chain
`
`roller adjacent to the tooth.” I apply this construction in the analysis that follows,
`
`
`
`13
`
`PAGE 16 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`but my conclusions would not change under any reasonable construction of “tooth
`
`tip.”
`
`“top land”
`
`B.
`19. The ’027 patent does not expressly define the “top land,” which
`
`differs from the tooth tip as a result of its separate recitation, but the patents’
`
`figures (see, e.g., Figures 5, 9, and 10) consistently identify the flat region at the
`
`top of the tooth as the top land (80), i.e., the radially outermost surface of the tooth.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`PAGE 17 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`20. Moreover, in discussing the cross-sectional shape of the chainring
`
`tooth in Figure 12, the patent explains that the cross-section of the tooth “is taken
`
`through a plane parallel to the top land 80 of the tooth.” Ex.1001, 4:12-18. A
`
`POSITA would thus understand that the top land must be a generally flat surface
`
`and that the tooth cross-section of Figure 12 is parallel to that surface.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`PAGE 18 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`21. The ’027 patent further explains that the top land is the radially
`
`outermost surface of the tooth, explaining that “[t]he base surface 72a may extend
`
`to the top land 80 of each of the teeth 58.” Id. at 5:40-42. The base surface 72a is
`
`shown, for example, in Figure 7, and the top land 80 is shown, for example, in
`
`Figure 10.
`
`22.
`
`In view of this disclosure, in my opinion, the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “top land” is “the radially outermost surface of a chainring tooth.” I
`
`apply this construction in the analysis that follows, but my conclusions would not
`
`change under any reasonable construction of “top land.”
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`PAGE 19 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`I have been asked to consider the ’027 patent and what I have been
`23.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`
`advised is prior art to the ’027 patent, and to offer my opinions on the effect of that
`
`art on the claims of the ’027 patent. In particular, I have been asked to consider
`
`whether claims 7-12 and 20-26 would have been obvious to a POSITA as of the
`
`effective filing date of the ’027 patent (December 6, 2011). In my opinion, these
`
`claims would have been obvious as of that date. In particular, the claims would
`
`have been obvious based on the combinations of Hattan, Martin, JP-Shimano, and
`
`Nagano set forth below, which I have been advised constitute prior art as of
`
`December 6, 2011.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`(i.e., to not be novel), a single prior art document must disclose, either expressly or
`
`inherently, each and every claim limitation. I also understand that a claim is not
`
`patentable if, as a whole, it would have been obvious to a POSITA when
`
`considering the teachings of the prior art as a whole at the time of the purported
`
`invention.
`
`25.
`
`I have also been advised that several factual inquiries underlie a
`
`determination of obviousness. These inquiries include the scope and content of the
`
`
`
`17
`
`PAGE 20 OF 140
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art, and any objective evidence of
`
`non-obviousness. I have been advised that objective evidence of non-obviousness
`
`directly attributable to the claimed invention, known as “secondary considerations
`
`of nonobviousness,” may include commercial success, satisfaction of a long-felt
`
`but unsolved need, failure of others, copying, skepticism or disbelief before the
`
`invention, and unexpected results. As the prosecution Examiner recognized, the
`
`secondary considerations evidence SRAM presented during prosecution is
`
`insufficient to render the claims of the ’027 patent nonobvious, and I am not aware
`
`of any other such evidence that would be sufficient to render the claims of the ’027
`
`patent nonobvious, including the similar evidence that SRAM recently submitted
`
`in a concurrent ex parte reexamination. Ex.1003 at 929-930; Ex. 1007 at 39-58.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, I have been advised that the law requires a “common
`
`sense” approach of examining whether the claimed invention is obvious to a
`
`POSITA. For example, I have been advised that combining familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I have further been advised that this is especially true in
`
`instances where there are a limited numbers of possible solutions to technical
`
`problems or challenges.
`
`
`
`18
`
`PAGE 21 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`27. With this understanding, and as clearly evidenced by the prior art
`
`discussed in this declaration, the ’027 patent merely claims a bicycle chainring
`
`with elements that were already known before the ’027 patent application was filed
`
`in 2011. Combining these elements would have been a routine and predictable
`
`matter well within the level of skill of a POSITA. Accordingly, as discussed in
`
`more detail below, it is my opinion that each and every feature of claims 7-12 and
`
`20-26 of the ’027 patent is either fully disclosed or would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA based on the teachings of the prior art discussed below.
`
`IX. EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIMS 7-12 AND 20-26 IS TAUGHT OR
`DISCLOSED BY THE FOLLOWING PRIOR ART:
`A. Hattan in combination with Martin discloses or teaches every
`feature of claims 7-12 and 20-26.
`
`1. Hattan discloses a bicycle chainring with inboard-offset
`teeth.
`
`28. U.S. Patent No. 3,375,022 to Mark Hattan (“Hattan”), entitled
`
`“Drives for Bicycles,” discloses a chainring (referred to as a “sprocket wheel”) for
`
`engagement with a bicycle drive chain as shown generally in Figure 1 below.
`
`Ex.1004, 1:10-17, 3:1-9, 3:15-23, 7:67-8:17.
`
`
`
`19
`
`PAGE 22 OF 140
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`29. The Hattan chainring includes a plurality of teeth (labeled as 25 in
`
`Figure 2 below) formed about the periphery of the chainring structure (labeled as
`
`21 in Figure 2). Ex.1004, 1:10-17, 2:18-24, 3:15-23, 7:67-8:17. Hattan explains
`
`that the shape of the teeth on the sprocket wheel and the deflector structure act to
`
`keep the chain in proper engagement with the sprocket wheel, regardless of the
`
`angle at which the chain approaches the sprocket wheel. Ex.1004, 2:25-35, 5:47-
`
`6:16.
`
`
`
`20
`
`PAGE