`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`FOX Factory, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SRAM, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01876
`Patent No. 9,182,027
`______________________
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF RICHARD R. NEPTUNE, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 50
`
`FOX FACTORY EXHIBIT 1049
`FOX Factory v. SRAM
`IPR2016-01876
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Contents
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`REPLY OPINIONS ......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`There are many reasons to combine the teachings of Hattan and
`JP-Shimano, including further improving the chain retention
`(and thus reducing chain drop) of the Hattan chainring. ...................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`There are more than three causes of chain drop. ........................ 7
`
`Hattan does not completely prevent each potential cause
`of chain drop. .............................................................................. 8
`
`JP-Shimano is not limited to merely solving “chain line
`displacement” chain drop, and would help improve
`Hattan’s chain retention. ...........................................................12
`
`B.
`
`Combining Hattan and JP-Shimano would not render the
`Hattan chainring unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. ..................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The angle of the camming surface is not dependent on
`the axial thickness of the tooth..................................................17
`
`It would be well within the skill of a POSITA to maintain
`the same angle for the narrow and wide teeth camming
`surfaces. .....................................................................................19
`
`C. A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Hattan’s
`axial fill teachings with JP-Shimano’s N/W teeth profile to
`yield the claimed axial fill ratios. ........................................................20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A POSITA would use Hattan’s disclosed inner link axial
`fill ratios as a starting point when designing the outer link
`axial fill ratios in a narrow and wide teeth chainring. ..............20
`
`A POSITA would understand that Hattan’s tooth width
`contributes to the chain retention benefits of its chainring. ......22
`
`A POSITA would understand that, all else being equal,
`higher axial fill improves chain retention. ................................23
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`The “complex geometry” of the outer link space would
`not prevent a POSITA from combining the teachings of
`the references. ...........................................................................24
`
`D.
`
`JP-Shimano alone teaches outer link axial fill above 75%. ................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Each of the three JP-Shimano translations teaches outer
`link axial fill above 75%. ..........................................................27
`
`The figures of JP-Shimano teach outer link axial fill
`above 75%. ................................................................................30
`
`E.
`
`The X-Sync chainring includes various chain-retention features
`that are covered by different patents. ..................................................31
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................33
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`1.
`
`
`I, Richard R. Neptune, previously prepared a declaration dated
`
`September 23, 2016, in support of FOX’s petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,182,027 (“the ’027 patent”) in IPR2016-01876. Ex.1002. I also
`
`prepared a supplemental declaration for this proceeding dated May 1, 2017.
`
`Ex.1019. Moreover, I prepared declarations in other proceedings concerning the
`
`’027 patent, including IPR2017-00118 (Exs. 1023 and 1029) and IPR2017-00472
`
`(Exs. 1026 and 1031). I understand that on April 3, 2017, Inter Partes Review was
`
`instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. I am also aware that SRAM filed a
`
`Patent Owner Response on July 10, 2017, in which SRAM both introduced new
`
`arguments and alleged that certain portions of my prior declaration were not
`
`adequately explained or supported. I have been asked to consider SRAM’s patent
`
`owner response and the accompanying Second Declaration of Robert H. Sturges,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex.2074), and I provide this additional declaration in response.
`
`
`
` My qualifications in this area, as well as other areas, are established in 2.
`
`my previous declaration (Ex.1002) and in my curriculum vitae, which is attached
`
`as Appendix A to that declaration. 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 FOX or SRAM.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`I believe that I am qualified to comment on what a person of ordinary
`
`3.
`
`
`skill in the art as of December 6, 2011 (a “POSITA”) would understand regarding
`
`chainring technology because I exceed that level of skill, which is at least a
`
`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. For example, I have practical experience using custom designed and
`
`manufactured chainrings, including conducting a series of experiments using
`
`custom chainrings manufactured by Shimano in which we had to consider chain
`
`engagement and retention with the custom chainrings. In addition, I have many
`
`years of experience as an engineer and engineering professor, and I have a clear
`
`understanding of how the features described in the prior art references discussed in
`
`the petition, including Hattan and JP-Shimano, confer their respective chain
`
`retention benefits.
`
`II. REPLY OPINIONS
`A. There are many reasons to combine the teachings of Hattan and
`JP-Shimano, including further improving the chain retention (and
`thus reducing chain drop) of the Hattan chainring.
`In my earlier Declaration, I explained why a POSITA would be
`
`4.
`
`
`motivated to combine the offset teeth chainring of Hattan with the narrow and
`
`wide teeth profile of JP-Shimano, including to improve the chain retention of the
`
`Hattan device. Ex.1002 ¶¶106-110, 115-118, 120-122. Specifically, I noted that “it
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`is critical to the operation of a bicycle for the bicycle chain to remain engaged with
`
`the bicycle chainring” and that “[b]oth Hattan and JP-Shimano teach this
`
`motivation for their respective disclosed apparatuses: improving the engagement
`
`between a chain and chainring, and preventing the chain from detaching from the
`
`chainring.” Id. ¶106.
`
`5.
`
`
`In bicycle drivetrains with multiple front chainrings, the chainring
`
`must be designed with competing interests in mind: on one hand, the chain must
`
`be capable of easily disengaging with one chainring to shift to another (i.e., to
`
`allow the rider to shift gears), but on the other hand, it must minimize inadvertent
`
`disengagement of the bicycle chain. In solitary front chainring systems, such as the
`
`one described in Hattan, the chain does not shift between multiple front chainrings
`
`and thus is not required to readily disengage from the chainring to facilitate gear
`
`shifting. For that reason, a POSITA would recognize that in a single-chainring
`
`system additional chain retention measures could be taken to increase chain
`
`engagement and retention as compared to multiple chainring systems.
`
`6.
`
`
`Hattan and JP-Shimano achieve improved chain retention through
`
`two separate mechanisms. Hattan explains that the shape of the teeth on the
`
`chainring (referred to as a “sprocket wheel”) and the deflector structure act to keep
`
`the chain in proper engagement with the chainring, regardless of the angle at which
`
`the chain approaches the chainring from the rear cassette or gears. Ex.1004, 2:25-
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`35, 5:47-6:16. This chainring was intended to “prevent the chain from ever
`
`jumping off of the sprocket wheel” (Ex.1004, 1:64-67, 2:25-35) and to “assure
`
`proper interengagement of the chain with each of the teeth of the sprocket wheel”
`
`(id. at 5:69-6:2) by using camming surfaces on the chainring teeth and deflector to
`
`guide the chain. JP-Shimano on the other hand recognizes that a “large gap”
`
`between narrow chainring teeth and the wider outer link plates can cause the chain
`
`to drop in certain situations (such as if a chain line is displaced), and solves that
`
`problem by using alternating narrow and wide teeth to improve chain retention.
`
`Ex.1006 at 15-16, ll. 73-86, 122-130.
`
`7.
`
`
`A POSITA would understand that several different engineering
`
`designs may be capable of achieving the desired result. Indeed, in my experience,
`
`the best designs are often a combination of several independent design elements
`
`that come together to achieve the optimal system. With respect to the Hattan
`
`apparatus, a POSITA would have considered (and been motivated to apply)
`
`additional ways to even further improve the chain retention aspects of its design by
`
`altering the profile of its chainring teeth in accordance with the teachings of JP-
`
`Shimano. As I noted in my previous declarations, a POSITA would be motivated to
`
`improve chain engagement and retention to the maximum extent possible for a
`
`single front chainring. Ex.1002 ¶107; Ex.1019 ¶¶3-10. Of course, this would not
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`mean improving chain retention to such an extent that the chain and chainring
`
`would cease to function properly in a bicycle drivetrain.
`
`8.
`
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would recognize that the distinct and
`
`independent mechanisms of Hattan and JP-Shimano could be combined in a single
`
`device without adversely impacting the mechanisms of action and performance of
`
`each design. In other words, a POSITA would not have anticipated a conflict in
`
`combining the teachings of Hattan and JP-Shimano, which involve distinct but
`
`compatible chainring design features. Hattan uses its disclosed chainring tooth
`
`shape and deflector to improve chain retention, while JP-Shimano uses narrow and
`
`wide teeth to achieve the same goal in a different way. These design features are
`
`independent and do not conflict with one another. In my opinion, there is no reason
`
`why a POSITA would expect that combining these two distinct and independent
`
`mechanisms would result in chain retention increasing to the point that the
`
`chainring would cease to function properly and be rendered nonfunctional.
`
`9.
`
`
`To further expand on this point, the Hattan deflector has camming
`
`surfaces designed to deflect the chain “inwardly” (i.e., toward the bicycle).
`
`Ex.1004 at 2:5-24, 3:6-9, 3:24-37, 4:3-31, Figures 1, 2, 4. The tooth width and
`
`shape is unrelated to the interaction between the deflector and the bicycle chain,
`
`and implementing the alternating narrow-wide teeth of JP-Shimano would have no
`
`impact on the function of the deflector. Similarly, the Hattan teeth have camming
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`surfaces 37 designed to deflect the bicycle chain “outwardly” (i.e., away from the
`
`bicycle). Id. at 1:10-17, 2:18-35, 3:59-4:2, Figure 4. Again, altering the width of
`
`the teeth would not necessarily impact or impair the functionality of the Hattan
`
`teeth, which is based on the shape of the tooth tip, not the width of the tooth base.
`
` The tooth shape and deflector of Hattan would similarly not impair
`10.
`
`the functionality or benefits conferred by the alternating narrow-wide teeth profile
`
`of JP-Shimano. As noted above, JP-Shimano recognized that a “large gap”
`
`between narrow chainring teeth and the outer link plates can lead to poor chain
`
`engagement and retention and cause the chain to drop, and solves that problem by
`
`increasing the width of the base of the teeth that fit within the outer link spaces.
`
`Figure 2 below depicts an example:
`
`A POSITA would understand that a variety of different tooth shapes could be used
`
`with the JP-Shimano narrow and wide teeth design without impairing the
`
`functionality and chain retention benefits of the chainring, including teeth with
`
`
`
`camming surfaces as described in Hattan.
`6
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`In summary, my conclusion that the combination of the teachings of
`
`11.
`
`
`Hattan and JP-Shimano would provide the chain engagement and retention
`
`benefits offered by both devices is based on my experience and understanding of
`
`the mechanisms underlying the systems described in those references. A POSITA
`
`would share this understanding and would not have reason to believe that the
`
`features disclosed in Hattan and JP-Shimano could not be combined.
`
`There are more than three causes of chain drop.
`
`1.
`In asserting that there would be no reason to combine the teachings of
`
`12.
`
`
`Hattan and JP-Shimano, Dr. Sturges states that there are three “major camps” of
`
`causes of chain drop: 1) chains dropped due to chain line displacement, 2) chains
`
`dropped due to chain tension variability, and 3) chains dropped due to a foreign
`
`object entering into the drive chain. Ex.2074 ¶39. I disagree that there are only
`
`three main causes of chain drop, as there are more that would be known to a
`
`POSITA, including a fourth “camp” of durability-related chain drop. This would
`
`include chain drop caused by chainring teeth that become worn, bent or broken
`
`over time or during strenuous use. I understand that Dr. Sturges has agreed with
`
`this as well. Ex.1043 at 7:25-8:3. Durability-related chain drop would also include
`
`the chain breaking.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`2. Hattan does not completely prevent each potential cause of
`chain drop.
`I understand that Dr. Sturges believes that “Hattan’s solution to chain
`
`13.
`
`
`drop is complete” because the reference says that “a major object” of the apparatus
`
`is to prevent the chain from jumping off the chainring “under any operating
`
`conditions,” as well as that it will “compensate for any out of line condition” and
`
`“prevent the chain from ever jumping off the sprocket wheel.” Ex.2074 ¶46;
`
`Ex.1004 at 1:63-66, 2:26-35. As such, Dr. Sturges appears to argue that the Hattan
`
`apparatus completely solves any potential chain derailment caused by the three
`
`main causes of chain drop that he identifies (chain line displacement, tension, and
`
`obstruction). Ex.2074 ¶46. I respectfully disagree.
`
`
`
` As I explain above, there are more than just three causes of chain 14.
`
`drop, and a POSITA would readily understand that the statements in Hattan
`
`pointed to by Dr. Sturges are merely aspirational statements indicating that the
`
`disclosed apparatus is intended to prevent chain drop. They are not absolute
`
`statements that the Hattan apparatus would absolutely prevent chain drop under all
`
`conceivable circumstances, and in fact, a POSITA would recognize that the Hattan
`
`apparatus alone is not physically capable of mitigating every possible cause of
`
`chain drop. As a result, a POSITA would recognize that the Hattan apparatus could
`
`not prevent chain drop under all operating conditions.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
` A POSITA would understand that Hattan’s apparatus would not
`15.
`
`completely prevent any of the three “major camps” of chain drop identified by Dr.
`
`Sturges. Ex.2074 ¶39. For the first stated cause, chain line displacement, Dr.
`
`Sturges is correct that the Hattan chainring’s camming surfaces on the chainring
`
`teeth and deflector help to guide the chain when it approaches the front chainring
`
`at an angle from the rear cassette or gears. But a POSITA would readily understand
`
`that, past a certain critical angle, the camming surfaces of Hattan would not
`
`function to guide the chain onto the chainring. For example, a chain approaching
`
`the front chainring at a steep angle (such as over 30 degrees) could fail to engage
`
`the chainring because the teeth would not fit into the chain link spaces, regardless
`
`of the teeth camming surfaces and other features of the Hattan chainring. As a
`
`result, a POSITA would understand that Hattan cannot prevent chain drop due to
`
`chain line displacement under absolutely all operating conditions.
`
` The Hattan apparatus also cannot completely prevent chain drop
`16.
`
`caused by Dr. Sturges’s second stated cause of chain drop, chain tension variability
`
`(which would include loss of tension in the chain). For instance, there is nothing
`
`above the Hattan chain when it is mounted on the chainring (as shown in Figure 4
`
`below) to prevent the chain from simply lifting vertically off the chainring and then
`
`dropping to the left of the chainring, which could occur if the rear derailleur or a
`
`chain tensioner fails to maintain proper chain tension.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`An additional device above the chain would be necessary to prevent chain
`
`disengagement due to loss of tension, such as a device holding the chain on the
`
`chainring and preventing vertical movement of the chain.
`
`17.
`
`
`In any event, the Hattan chainring by itself would not prevent chain
`
`drop due to “chain tension variability” because the tension in the chain is primarily
`
`controlled and regulated by other drivetrain components, such as the rear derailleur
`
`or a chain tensioner. Dr. Sturges also admits that the “rear derailleur . . . maintains
`
`proper tension and chain length as different rear gears are used” and “chain tension
`
`depends directly on the positioning of the rear derailleur.” Ex.2074 ¶¶11, 12. I
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`agree. As a result, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Sturges that the Hattan
`
`chainring is capable of preventing chain drop due to loss of tension under
`
`absolutely all operating conditions.
`
` The Hattan apparatus also would not always prevent chain drop
`18.
`
`caused by Dr. Sturges’s third stated cause of chain drop, which is an obstruction.
`
`While Dr. Sturges notes that Hattan’s deflector would “prevent some entry of
`
`material into the chainring and chain system,” in order to completely resolve this
`
`cause of chain drop, Hattan’s chainring and deflector would need to prevent all
`
`debris from getting between the chain and chainring. Dr. Sturges admitted that they
`
`would not, and I agree. Ex.1043 at 10:14-20. Debris approaching the chainring
`
`from a direction other than the portion protected by the deflector, such as from the
`
`inboard side of the chainring, could still lead to obstruction-induced chain drop. I
`
`thus respectfully disagree with Dr. Sturges that the Hattan chainring prevents chain
`
`drop due to loss of obstruction under absolutely all operating conditions.
`
`19.
`
`
`In addition, the Hattan apparatus could not completely prevent a
`
`fourth “camp” or cause of chain drop, which is durability-related chain drop. This
`
`would include chain drop caused by chainring teeth that become worn, bent or
`
`broken over time or during strenuous use. The chain breaking would be another
`
`cause of durability-related chain drop. As a result, contrary to Dr. Sturges’s
`
`interpretation of the references, a POSITA would recognize that the Hattan
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`apparatus by itself cannot completely solve chain drop, and a POSITA would thus
`
`be motivated to look to ways to further improve it.
`
`3.
`
`JP-Shimano is not limited to merely solving “chain line
`displacement” chain drop, and would help improve
`Hattan’s chain retention.
` While Dr. Sturges alleges that Hattan completely solves all three of
`20.
`
`his stated causes of chain drop, he further contends that JP-Shimano only prevents
`
`chain drop due to chain line displacement. Ex.2074 ¶45. I respectfully disagree.
`
` Dr. Sturges interprets the benefits of JP-Shimano too narrowly. To
`21.
`
`support his statement that JP-Shimano only prevents chain drop caused by chain
`
`line displacement, he relies upon statements in JP-Shimano such as that “the chain
`
`can drop if the chain line is displaced.” Id. (citing Ex.1006 at 15, ll. 73-75). But
`
`JP-Shimano also more broadly states that “the present device is configured to
`
`eliminate dropping of the chain from between the outer link plates.” JP-Shimano
`
`states this without specifying that the only such cause of chain drop is chain line
`
`displacement. Ex.1006 at 15, ll. 78-81. A POSITA would thus interpret JP-
`
`Shimano to say that its chainring design generally works to prevent chain drop, and
`
`that chain line displacement is merely one example of a cause of chain drop. A
`
`POSITA would combine Hattan and JP-Shimano for this reason as well.
`
`22.
`
`
`In any event, JP-Shimano expressly highlights a separate and
`
`independent benefit of its narrow and wide teeth chainring design that would aid in
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`chain retention for reasons unrelated to chain line displacement: improved teeth
`
`durability. Specifically, JP-Shimano discloses that its wider teeth “enhance
`
`durability” and that, “because the thickness of the teeth is increased, they have
`
`sufficient durability even if an excessive load operates on them.” Id. at 15, ll. 78-
`
`81; 16, ll. 127-129. A POSITA would understand that worn or broken teeth can
`
`lead to chain disengagement, and would recognize that improving the durability of
`
`the teeth by utilizing wider teeth would thus improve chain retention, particularly
`
`on a chainring used over time. In my opinion, this provides a strong independent
`
`basis for incorporating JP-Shimano’s narrow and wide teeth profile into the Hattan
`
`chainring that itself provides a compelling motivation to combine these features.
`
`B. Combining Hattan and JP-Shimano would not render the Hattan
`chainring unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
`I disagree with Dr. Sturges’s assertion that incorporating JP-
`
`23.
`
`
`Shimano’s narrow and wide teeth profile into Hattan would render the Hattan
`
`apparatus unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Ex.2074 ¶53. As I explained in
`
`my previous declarations, the Hattan apparatus could readily accommodate narrow
`
`and wide teeth without major modifications, as the design provides sufficient
`
`distance between the chainring and the deflector to allow both the inner links and
`
`outer links of the bicycle chain to fit. Ex.1002 ¶108; Ex.1019 ¶¶11-17. These
`
`dimensions are described in detail: “Plates 44 are received within the peripheral
`
`groove 100 formed between the teeth 25 and the peripheral portion of the deflector
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`element 22, as seen clearly in FIG. 4.” Ex.1004 at 4:40-42. Figures 4 and 4a show
`
`this design:
`
`
`
`As I explained in my earlier declarations, the Hattan apparatus is structured such
`
`that a tooth with a wider base could be designed to fit into the outer link spaces
`
`without otherwise needing to change the camming surfaces on the teeth or the
`
`deflector. Ex.1002 ¶108; Ex.1019 ¶¶18-23; IPR2017-00118, Ex.1029, ¶23. As
`
`shown in the figures, there is enough space between the chainring teeth and the
`
`chain to allow for some of Hattan’s teeth to be widened with JP-Shimano’s tooth
`
`profile without impacting the remaining tooth structure, including the camming
`
`surfaces. For example, one way the Hattan chainring’s teeth could be modified is
`
`shown in the annotated figures below (with an excerpt of Figure 4 on the left and
`
`an excerpt of Figure 4a on the right), where the red lines show the width of the
`
`outer chain link spaces, the blue lines show the width of the Hattan teeth, and the
`
`orange area is an approximate area where the Hattan teeth could be widened
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`without changing the slope of the camming surface or substantially impairing the
`
`function of the apparatus:
`
`Below is a second example of how the Hattan chainring could be modified by
`
`increasing the width of the tooth without changing the angle of the camming
`
`surface of the tooth.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`The changes to the geometry of the teeth in the above examples would not
`
`substantially impair the performance of the Hattan device and would not require
`
`any other changes or modifications, including changes to the deflector. These
`
`examples are by no means the only ways the Hattan device could be modified to
`
`incorporate the narrow and wide teeth profiles of JP-Shimano while still rendering
`
`the Hattan device functional for its intended purpose.
`
`24.
`
`
`JP-Shimano depicts the wider teeth as being wider at the base than at
`
`the top, and as having a cross-shaped cross section. Figure 2 of JP-Shimano
`
`provides an example:
`
`
`
`The same tooth design, with the cross-shaped cross section, could easily be
`
`incorporated into the Hattan chainring while also maintaining the camming
`
`surfaces on the teeth, and it would have been well within the skill of a POSITA to
`
`do so. A POSITA would have been motivated to make these modifications in view
`
`of the benefits taught by each reference, including JP-Shimano’s chain retention
`
`benefits from its narrow and wide teeth profile.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
` Based on my experience as an engineer familiar with bicycle 25.
`
`chainring design, including experience using custom designed and manufactured
`
`chainrings for specific experiments, shaping the teeth so that they incorporate the
`
`JP-Shimano design and still fit within the bicycle chain would have merely
`
`required the use of well-known, standard machining techniques, and would have
`
`yielded the predictable result of a chainring with the wide/narrow, offset tooth
`
`characteristics. A POSITA would have shared this understanding.
`
`1.
`
`The angle of the camming surface is not dependent on the
`axial thickness of the tooth.
` Dr. Sturges asserts that the camming surface angle of Hattan’s teeth
`26.
`
`“is dependent on the axial thickness of each tooth.” Ex.2074 ¶56. For support, Dr.
`
`Sturges provides the following figure in which he appears to simply stretch an
`
`image of a Hattan tooth to support his position that increasing the width of the
`
`teeth would necessarily change the angle of the camming surface of the teeth.
`
`Ex.2074 ¶58.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`27.
`
`
`I respectfully disagree. While this is one method in which Hattan’s
`
`teeth could be widened, a POSITA would also recognize that the width of the tooth
`
`could be increased in variety of ways without changing the camming angle of the
`
`tooth, such as in the examples that I presented above (reproduced again below).
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`
`
`
`It would thus be a simple design choice to widen the teeth without changing the
`
`angle of the camming surface in order to obtain the chain retention benefits
`
`provided by Hattan’s offset teeth with camming surfaces and JP-Shimano’s
`
`narrow and wide teeth profiles, and doing so would be well within the knowledge
`
`and skill of a POSITA.
`
`2.
`
`It would be well within the skill of a POSITA to maintain
`the same angle for the narrow and wide teeth camming
`surfaces.
` Dr. Sturges states that “a POSITA would not widen any of Hattan’s
`28.
`
`teeth because doing so would create varied angles for Hattan’s camming surfaces,”
`
`which he says would cause the chain to oscillate as it feeds onto the teeth. Ex.2074
`
`¶58. I disagree that a POSITA would not widen Hattan’s teeth for this reason,
`
`because as I explained above, it would be well within the skill of a POSITA to
`
`simply maintain the same slope on both the narrow and wide teeth. Choosing
`19
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`whether to have similar or differently sloped camming surfaces on adjacent narrow
`
`and wide teeth would be a simple design choice between two alternatives for a
`
`POSITA, and a POSITA would thus at least have found it obvious to match the
`
`slope of the camming surfaces between adjacent narrow and wide teeth.
`
`C. A POSITA would have found it obvious to combine Hattan’s axial
`fill teachings with JP-Shimano’s N/W teeth profile to yield the
`claimed axial fill ratios.
`A POSITA would use Hattan’s disclosed inner link axial fill
`1.
`ratios as a starting point when designing the outer link axial
`fill ratios in a narrow and wide teeth chainring.
`
`29.
`
`
`In my experience, engineers setting out to design a new apparatus
`
`often start with a design that is known to work, and then modify that design as
`
`needed to improve its performance. Not “reinventing the wheel” (i.e. not wasting a
`
`great deal of time or effort recreating something that already exists) is a
`
`fundamental practice in engineering. Accordingly, as I explained in my earlier
`
`supplemental declaration, in designing a chainring that incorporates the narrow and
`
`wide teeth profile of JP-Shimano into the Hattan chainring, a POSITA would have
`
`started with the axial fill ratios taught by Hattan as a baseline when designing the
`
`axial fill of the widened teeth. Ex.1019 ¶¶28-31.
`
` This is particularly true here, since Hattan expressly states that its
`30.
`
`disclosed tooth ratios (and accompanying axial fill ratios) are “desirable” and
`
`“preferred” for its device. As I noted in my earlier declaration, Hattan teaches that,
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`for “a standard 3/32 of an inch chain” (3/32 equaling 0.09375), which corresponds
`
`to the spacing between the inner links of the chain, it is “preferred” that the axial
`
`thickness of the sprocket teeth “be between about 0.070 inch and 0.090 inch,
`
`desirably about 0.080 inch.” Ex.1004 at 7:52-66; Ex.1002 ¶115. The ratio of the
`
`widest “preferred” tooth width, 0.090 inches, to the width of the inner link space,
`
`0.09375 inches, corresponds to 96 percent of the axial distance defined by the inner
`
`link spaces. Ex.1002 ¶115. Even the “desirable” tooth width of 0.08 inches for the
`
`inner link space corresponds to an axial fill above 85 percent (dividing 0.08 by
`
`0.09375). Id. In my opinion, absent a reason not to (of which I am unaware and
`
`which SRAM has not articulated), a POSITA would use these “preferred” and
`
`“desirable” axial fill ratios that Hattan teaches for the inner link spaces when
`
`designing the widened teeth such that the teeth achieve a similar axial fill ratio in
`
`the outer link spaces.
`
`31.
`
`
`I note that Dr. Sturges states that “[t]he shape of the camming surface
`
`of the teeth, and thus, the shape of the teeth, in Hattan are essential to the proper
`
`operation of Hattan to retain the chain.” Ex.2074 ¶54. I agree that the camming
`
`surfaces of Hattan’s chainring contribute to its ability to retain a chain, and in my
`
`opinion, this would provide an additional reason for a POSITA to use the inner link
`
`axial fill proportions (from Hattan’s narrow teeth) when selecting an outer link
`
`axial fill for the widened teeth when incorporating JP-Shimano’s narrow and wide
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 50
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027
`
`Reply Declaration of Richard R. Neptune
`teeth profile. A POSITA would recognize that Hattan’s particular tooth dimensions
`
`were selected so that the tooth camming surface would contact the chain and guide
`
`it as it engages the c