`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`HENDRICKSON USA L.L.C., GREAT DANE L.L.C.,
`and QUEST GLOBAL, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRANS TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 5, 2018
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL BABBITT, ESQUIRE
`Jenner & Block
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`VIVEK A. GANTI, ESQUIRE
`JOHN L. NORTH, ESQUIRE
`Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP
`3350 Riverwood Parkway
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30339
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`September 5, 2018, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BARRETT: Good afternoon, everyone. We have today
`our final oral argument in IPR2017-01510, Hendrickson USA, Great Dane,
`Quest Global versus Trans Technologies Company.
`I am Judge Barrett. With me at the bench is Judge Baer and
`appearing by video is Judge Stephens. I'd like to start with the parties'
`appearances. Who do we have from Petitioner?
`MR. BABBITT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is
`Michael Babbitt, lead counsel for Petitioner, and with me is Paul Ripp. And
`if may I introduce the other people we have with us. My partner, Tim
`Barron; in-house counsel for Great Dane, Jason Green; in-house counsel for
`Hendrickson, Dean Frankel; Mr. Lloyd Farr, co-counsel, and David
`Applegate, co-counsel.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Thank you.
`And for Patent Owner?
`MR. GANTI: Good afternoon, Your Honors. For Patent Owner,
`Vivek Ganti. With me is backup counsel, John North, and behind me
`Jennifer Calvert.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Thank you.
`So we set forth the procedure for today's hearing in a trial order.
`Just to remind everybody, for each case each party will have 60 minutes
`total time and for clarity of the transcript and particularly to assist Judge
`Stephens, when you refer to an exhibit, particularly demonstratives, please
`identify by slide or page number so that he can follow along and that will
`give us a cleaner transcript.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`Petitioner will go first. You may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent
`Owner, you will then have an opportunity to present your response and
`Petitioner at that point, you can use your rebuttal time if you've reserved
`any. I'll be watching the clock and give you warnings ahead of time.
`Any questions?
`(No response.)
`JUDGE BARRETT: Well, with that, Petitioner, you may begin.
`MR. BABBITT: Thank you, Your Honors. May it please the
`Court. Your Honors, there's no dispute at this point in the trial that the three
`base prior art references in Grounds 1 through 3 disclose all of the tire
`inflation system elements of the claims at issue except for one element. And
`we have multiple prior art teachings of that one missing element, the
`well-known conventional relief valve that releases pressure at a set value.
`So what I'd like to do today, Your Honors, is start with a brief
`overview of three legal rationales for combining these elements of the prior
`art and then I want to really dig into the supporting evidence with my slides
`looking at the '465 patent, the prior art and importantly the multiple
`admissions that we now have at this point in the trial from the Patent Owner
`about the state of the art in the record, and I'd like to reserve at least 15
`minutes for rebuttal time, please.
`The first legal rationale is that Patent Owner's claims are nothing
`more than a highly predictable combination of old tire inflation system
`elements, and I will show you that the record is full of evidence that the
`structure and the function of these elements was more than just known. It
`was well-known and it was commonplace and it's part of the common
`knowledge in the art, and that is a textbook case of obviousness under KSR.
`
`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
`26
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`As Your Honors well know, we have a combination of old elements
`performing the same functions in the very same way.
`Petitioners do not need anything more to show obviousness in this
`case besides this first rationale, but I'd like to show you that we have other
`compelling evidence in this case, considerably more evidence. For example,
`the second rationale that I'd like to work with you through today on is that
`there's express reason to combine the relief valve with the tire inflation
`system in the prior art, and that's evident in each of the secondary references
`in Grounds 1 through 3.
`And, in particular as one of those examples, I want to emphasize
`today the teachings of the Loewe prior art. That's in Ground 2. Loewe is a
`roadmap of the express reasons to combine that we have in this case. Loewe
`describes what it calls the "well-established reasons to use a relief valve to
`avoid overinflation such as for better tire wear."
`And let me talk about that for a minute. Because if you had better
`tire wear, then you have a safer ride because you're less likely to get
`blowouts. You have to replace your tires less often. You get better gas
`mileage. You save money. This was the common knowledge in the art, and
`I will show you the evidence and the admissions of that.
`Just think about changing the tires on your own car. We've all
`done it and we know that it's a pain. And it's even more of a pain for the
`kinds of big tractor-trailers that we have at issue in this case with the tire
`inflation systems. So if there's any way to make tire changes less frequent,
`of course, there's reason to do that. That's one thing that was motivating
`those of skill in this art before Patent Owner's invention.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`They knew that overinflation could lead to increased tire wear, so
`there's reason to address that known problem and, more importantly, those
`of skill would have known that the addition of the conventional relief valve
`to the standard tire inflation system would have done exactly that and
`addressed that known problem.
`And the third rationale I have and something that I think is a bit
`unique about the evidence here, something that's not at all required to show
`obviousness is that we have several Patent Owner admissions in the record
`that one of skill could have directly physically combined these elements that
`I'm talking about in the same way as claimed to perform the same claim
`function. The evidence from both sides’ experts shows that one of skill
`wouldn't need much more than a hand wrench to take out a valve of the
`standard tire inflation system and replace it with a conventional relief valve
`and it would function as claimed.
`So with these three separate rationales for obviousness, there's a
`clear prima facie case of obviousness.
`JUDGE BARRETT: Can you elaborate on that last one just a little
`bit more before you go on? I understood you to say it was recognized to
`be one could easily make the modification. So my question is, in my mind is
`why would one do that. Is there a why in your rationale?
`MR. BABBITT: Absolutely, Your Honor. And that goes to the
`three rationales that I'm talking through here with you today. The first
`rationale is this highly predictable combination of elements. Under KSR I
`don't think we need anything more, except to show that those were
`well-known elements and there's known expected results. Patent Owner is
`not arguing unexpected results, for example, in this case.
`
`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
`26
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`But maybe to answer your question more directly, that second
`rationale that I talked about, better tire wear, when we look at that
`background of the Loewe prior art, that explains exactly why one of skill
`would have replaced a valve such as in the Bland service valve example with
`a valve such as the conventional release valve to have better tire wear and
`better safety, better gas mileage, just saving money, but that's the reason or
`one of the reasons at least.
`So with those three separate rationales we have, as I said, we have
`a strong prima facie case of obviousness and any one of those rationales is
`sufficient to show obviousness, but I think together those three rationales
`that I've explained are powerful evidence of obviousness and invalidity.
`And so for that reason I imagine that Patent Owner today is going to focus a
`lot on secondary considerations with you and I'll address those arguments
`with you today.
`But the bottom line with secondary considerations is that no
`amount of secondary considerations, and especially not the commercial
`success of a competitor's product that does not even embody the invention,
`which is what Patent Owner is relying on here, can overcome this strong
`prima facie obviousness case here. This case is about the '465 patent, it's
`about the prior art and it's about that irrefutable evidence that we have of
`what the state of the art is with respect to the '465 patent.
`So with that, I'd like to dig into the evidence starting first with
`slide 2 of my demonstratives, which reflects Figure 3 of the '465 patent.
`And I'd just like to briefly for some background walk through a couple of the
`key elements of the '465 patent that I indicate on my slide here.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`The inflation process of the '465 patent is, of course, starting with
`the source of air. Here, it is in the bottom right-hand side of the slide, air
`tank 12. And that air is distributed through the rest of the system through
`line 18. Then air is delivered to the rotary air chamber 28, which I have
`indicated in a slide here with the arrow and also indicated in green. The '465
`patent describes that that rotary air chamber is a structure that attaches to the
`hubcap 24 of each wheel and it rotates with the wheel.
`And, Your Honors, I have here with me today a physical copy of
`the embodiment of the '465 patent, the T-RAC, from Patent Owner. I
`conferred with Patent Owner and they have no objection to me showing this
`today. And for some context, what I want to show you is how this structure
`here of the T-RAC reflects what we see in Figure 3 of the '465 patent.
`Again, we have the rotary air chamber which is this metal structure on top of
`a hubcap and attached to the hubcap and spinning with the wheels.
`And as another example on which I've also conferred with Patent
`Owner about, this is actually the tire inflation system that I'm holding now in
`my right hand, which would then attach to the hubcap in this fashion here,
`and I can refer back to that and Patent Owner may also as well, of course.
`Back to the '465 patent, we have inside the rotary air chamber
`check valve 41 which, again, I've indicated with arrows on the slide and is
`colored yellow on the slide. The simple idea of the check valve is that when
`system pressure drops too far below the value set by the regulator, the valves
`open up to allow air to flow in the tires and the valves are otherwise closed.
`And the last element I have highlighted here is the relief valve.
`That's relief valve 30 shown as the hexagonal nut there in Figure 3 which
`you can actually see when I hold up the T-RAC embodiment of the '465
`
`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
`26
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`patent invention corresponds to the hexagonal nut on the T-RAC here. This
`is the relief valve. Again, simple idea, the valve opens up when pressure is
`too high and is otherwise closed.
`A brief note on claim construction before I move on from this
`background. I want to be clear that there are no claim construction issues
`that go to the prima facie obviousness case. Patent Owner is not making any
`claim construction arguments to distinguish the prior art or rebut prima facie
`obviousness. There are a handful of potential claim construction issues that
`may relate to Patent Owner's arguments on secondary considerations and
`particularly commercial success, but those constructions do not affect this
`prima facie obviousness case that I want to focus on here today.
`Now, I'd like to show you a few slides with respect to the main
`pieces of prior art that we have. Starting on slide number 3, I show the
`Bland standard tire inflation system. And I'll go through this rather quickly,
`but what we have is Figure 6 from Bland and you can see we have the rotary
`air chamber, which is indicated in green and labeled 14 on slide number 3.
`That's in connection with the adapter 14.
`We have the check valve. Here, the outlet of the check valve is
`indicated with 89 and 91, and the component that's actually operating inside
`that adapter 14 are ball bearings that are in Figure 7. It's 104 and 106.
`And with respect to this Figure 6, you can see, again, a side view
`of the tire inflation system and you can see how that resembles Figure 3 of
`the '465 patent, in fact, the T-RAC that I held up earlier, and that's true with
`respect to the other pieces of prior art as well.
`Slide number 4 shows the Stech tire inflation system, same
`elements I can walk through. We have the rotary air chamber indicated in
`
`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
`26
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`green at Tee 54. We have the check valve is indicated inside 56/56a. And
`the same point, you see the side view with this system rotating and spinning
`with the wheel and attached to the hubcap, just like we have with the other
`prior art in the '465 patent.
`Last, Ground 3 is the White system, again, with the rotary air
`chamber indicated as assembly 36 and the check valve is at 38 there in
`White.
`
`Now, I'm going to go through these first few slides rather quickly
`because there really are no disputes related to what the primary pieces of
`prior art are disclosing with respect to Ground 3, and that became very
`evident at the expert depositions we have in this case.
`Here on slide number 6, we see the admission from Patent Owner's
`expert, Mr. McCann, during his deposition to confirm that Bland discloses
`all of the elements except for the relief valve. Similarly on slide number --
`and, excuse me, for the record I'll just state that admission is from Exhibit
`1096, page 118, lines 1 through 14, which is also on this slide.
`Slide number 7, same kind of admission for Ground 2. We see
`Patent Owner admitting that Stech discloses all of the elements except for
`the relief valve. And, in fact, here we see them go further to say that Loewe
`includes that one missing element, the relief valve. This is from the Parnell
`deposition, Exhibit 1099 at 302.
`And we have the same thing for Ground 3, admission that White
`discloses all of the elements of the '465 patent except for the relief valve and
`Schultz discloses that one missing element. That's from Exhibit 1099 at
`page 350.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`Slide number 9. We also have a bit of a summation here of the
`secondary prior art references that each of the secondary prior art references,
`Parker, Loewe and Schultz, each teach the relief valve. That's from Exhibit
`1097, the McCann deposition at page 78.
`And before I move on to the obviousness rationales, I'd like to
`address one additional argument that Patent Owner has made at times to
`distinguish the prior art, and that is regarding the claimed two preset values
`arguments. You saw that argument in Patent Owner's Preliminary Response
`and you addressed that in the Institution Decision.
`The argument is essentially that the prior art combinations will not
`have both a check valve and a relief valve with two preset values. And I'll
`say Patent Owner can speak for themselves, but they don't seem to be
`making at least not that same argument right now. Their revised response
`makes a conclusory statement in a couple sentences that this element may
`not be met for Grounds 1 and 3. They don't make that statement with
`respect to Ground 2, but there's really no factual support for that assertion
`and it's, in fact, contradicted by the admissions of the experts that I just
`discussed.
`But more fundamentally this argument misunderstands the
`obviousness combination that we're trying to make. What we're arguing is
`that each of the primary references has this tire inflation system with a check
`valve. The check valve has an adjustable pressure setting and that's
`essentially the minimal pressure value for the system.
`And then what we're doing is we're adding the missing element,
`the relief valve, which is the second element. That's the relief valve and the
`relief valve has its own second preset value. So when you put those two
`
`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
`26
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`things together, you basically have one plus one equals two. You
`necessarily have the two values and the range of values that is contemplated
`by the '465 patent.
`And you can see this illustrated, I think very clearly when I asked
`Mr. McCann at his deposition, when you talk about this modified system,
`Bland is the example we have here. If you took the conventional relief valve
`and added that to the system, would you have two preset pressure values,
`and the witness made it very clear, yes. He says, "It would then have two
`preset pressure values." This is on slide 10 citing Exhibit 1096, the McCann
`deposition at page 127.
`So there's no dispute that all of the elements are in the prior art
`combinations. So what we're left with that's in this trial is really a dispute
`about whether it would have been obvious to combine these elements. And
`the starting point for this analysis, as Your Honors well know, is of course
`the KSR case and I put the key quote from KSR, again, which I know you're
`very familiar with, is "When a system simply arranges old elements with
`each performing the same function it had known to perform and yields no
`more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
`obvious."
`That's exactly what we have here. The Patent Owner arranged the
`old standard tire inflation system with the old conventional relief valve to
`perform the same tire inflation and deflation functions that they would have
`been known to perform resulting in exactly what one of skill would have
`expected from that combination. As I mentioned, Patent Owner is not even
`arguing unexpected results here.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`I've thrown around the word conventional a little bit, but that word
`is important here because it is the basis of this obviousness rationale
`stemming right from the KSR case, and we can see that on the next slide,
`slide number 12. What I mean when I'm talking about conventional relief
`valves, I asked Patent Owner's expert, would you say that relief valves for
`releasing air at preset value were well-known before the '465 patent? And
`he conceded, "relief valves for releasing air at a certain pressure were
`well-known in a broad context of pneumatic systems in general." That's
`from the McCann deposition, Exhibit 1096, at transcript page 90.
`So not only is Patent Owner conceding that relief valves were
`known, they're conceding relief valves were well-known. This is a direct
`quote, and there's multiple admissions like this in the record.
`JUDGE BAER: Does it matter, counsel, how well-known they are
`or just that they are known? I mean, does that affect our analysis at all?
`Isn't it a binary switch that's either known or not?
`MR. BABBITT: I think in this case that with the extensive
`evidence we have of the extent of the knowledge of relief valves, I think it
`does matter. I think that goes to the reason to combine and the strong
`evidence of obviousness that we have here.
`JUDGE BAER: Doesn't that actually -- given how well-known
`you assert they are and given how old these references are, so what's the
`oldest pressure relief valve reference you have, is it Parker?
`MR. BABBITT: I believe so, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BAER: And it's the '40s, right? You've got all these
`pieces known since the '40s, based on what you're saying well-known since
`the 40s, so it sort of begs the question, well, in the past 75 years how come
`
`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
`26
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`nobody has put it together yet? Is that time, that well-known piece, if you
`will, and that the extent of the knowledge and the extent of the time between
`now and then, is that a problem for you?
`MR. BABBITT: No, Your Honor, I don't think so, because what
`we're seeing here is we're not seeing the situation where all of these elements
`were necessarily sitting in the art with the same exact function and the same
`exact ways going back to 1940 with Parker. What we're seeing, we have
`some of these elements, some of these mechanical elements do go back to
`the 1940s with the Parker example.
`We have the Webster art in the '50s, but more importantly when
`you start to get to our primary prior art references, you're starting to see the
`tire inflation systems that are really the heart of our combination in the '80s
`and the '90s with Bland and Stech. Bland I think is the mid-'80s and Stech I
`think is mid-90s. And then what we see in this art is you have Loewe
`around, kind of in the mid-'90s where that is really showing, you know, the
`prime example in the background of how well-known this would be known,
`this would be coming.
`So I'm not saying that going back to 1940 that all the elements of a
`standard tire inflation system and all the elements of the same exact kind of
`relief valve were well-known and conventional and necessarily all are going
`back to the '40s. What we see in this art is what we had expected to see in
`many arts is that you see this kind of steady march of invention and patents
`and experimentation.
`You know, starting into the '40s but going into the '80s and the
`'90s, you then see in some of the documents we cited these systems started
`to get commercialized actually, not really until the late '90s. So then what
`
`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
`26
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`we're talking about -- and I can give you a cite to that. That's Exhibit 1092
`actually, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration report, I think has
`an interesting background of the prior art there on page 92 where it starts
`talking about the Meritor and the Dana commercial systems in the '90s into
`the 2000s.
`So really what we have, then, is this art developing over time and
`into the late '90s and into the 2000s leading up to the invention. That's when
`you start seeing these pieces of art to be commercialized. And you don't see
`Patent Owner here arguing long-felt need or anything like that here in this
`case either, so I think, you know, the relative age of these references is not
`something that goes to lack of reason to combine or nonobviousness in this
`case.
`
`What we do see about the evidence of obviousness we have,
`though, right from Patent Owner is a number of other concessions here that
`we collected in our Reply Brief at page 46, pages 3 through 4. The Patent
`Owner is conceding that those of skill were knowledgeable about relief
`valves before the time of invention and, again, that's really the time that
`we're concerned about here is before the invention. We're not talking about
`decades earlier. We're talking about before the time of invention, and those
`are the concessions that we have from Patent Owner that those of skill were
`"knowledgeable about relief valves before the time of invention" or they
`were known before the time of invention that relief valves could address the
`problem of tire overinflation or that tire inflation was "certainly a
`well-known problem." And so, again, this shows the extent of the
`knowledge about relief valves in the art.
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`And Parker is an example of this that is the basis of Ground 1 in
`our Petition, which I have shown here on slide number 13. We see that
`Parker says relief valves "relieve the tires of air in the case of overinflation,"
`just like in the '465 patent claims.
`And the one counterargument that Patent Owner is making with
`respect to Parker and some of the other secondary references is that this
`relief valve is used for a different type of system than the '465 patent, central
`tire inflation system. For Parker it's the wheel-end system that uses the
`motion of the wheel to power the air source rather than the air tank, like the
`'465 patent or Bland.
`But this difference doesn't impact obviousness because Petitioners
`are not trying to combine Parker's whole wheel-line system with a standard
`tire inflation system. We're just taking -- in fact, just unscrewing that relief
`valve that's indicated on slide 13 with outlets 48 and 49 and we're adding
`that into Bland. So the fact that the Parker system has other functions or
`features is irrelevant. What matters to us is the conventional function of the
`relief valve.
`Another thing that's noteworthy is that Patent Owner is not arguing
`that Parker is non-analogous art. Patent Owner does not dispute that Bland
`and Parker and really each of the six pieces of prior art that are in our
`grounds of invalidity are in the same field of invention of the '465 patent.
`So when you put this all together with respect to this first rationale
`of obviousness, there's really no credible argument that Patent Owner did
`anything more than simply arrange old tire inflation system elements in a
`predictable way, which clearly falls within the definition of obviousness
`from KSR.
`
`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
`26
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Counsel, on Parker for just a second there,
`you talk about using just the relief valve and not needing the wheel-end
`system, but the purpose of the relief valve in Parker is related to the
`wheel-end system, right, because it's constantly generating the air pressure
`that's going to fill the tire. That's why they needed the relief valve in Parker
`in order to prevent overinflating because it's constantly inflating. Is that
`accurate?
`MR. BABBITT: Well, you can see on slide 13, Your Honor, that
`Parker says that the purpose of the relief valve -- I have this highlighted -- is
`the relief valves are adapted to relieve the tires of air in the case of
`overinflation. That's the purpose of the relief valve in Parker and that's the
`same purpose of the relief valve in the claimed invention and the same
`purpose of the relief valve in the claimed combinations that we have in
`Grounds 1 through 3.
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Right, but the overinflation referred to is
`because Parker is constantly generating air pressure; is that right?
`MR. BABBITT: That's one of the -- yes. That's one of the reasons
`for the relief valve in Parker.
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Now, what -- other than let's say Parker's
`reference to overinflation, what is Petitioners' primary evidence of sort of the
`known, you know, detriments of overinflation, why you want to avoid it?
`MR. BABBITT: Well, that's a perfect segue to my next slide with
`Loewe, which I think as I mentioned in the background of the invention, it
`really is the express roadmap of the reason to combine, and I think the way
`that Loewe describes this in the evidence that we have in this case shows
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`that this goes beyond just something that is stated by Loewe, but this is
`actually reflective of the common knowledge in the art that we have.
`And I'll walk you through what Loewe says in the background
`here. The short answer to your question, Your Honor, though, is Loewe
`reflects that it was common knowledge that you wanted to prevent
`overinflation in order to get better tire wear, because that would lead to all of
`the advantages that I mentioned earlier, such as avoiding blowouts, saving
`money on gas, having to replace your tires less often, and this is what Loewe
`explains there in the background.
`The first bullet I have on slide 14 states the desirability of
`maintaining correct inflation pressure in automobile tires and the like is
`well-established. And Loewe goes on to explain specifically with respect to
`improper tire inflation, it says, it has been determined to decrease fuel
`economy, increase tire wear and decrease safety.
`With respect specifically to overinflation, we see the next
`statement that states overinflation causes excessive wear at the edges of a
`tire's tread as the tire bulges outward. That there is an express statement in
`Loewe and reflective of the common knowledge in the art of what the reason
`to combine a relief valve with the standard tire inflation is. It's to prevent
`excessive wear caused by overinflation and the problems that you could
`have in a tire's tread is the tire bulges outward.
`And Loewe ties that specifically to the relief valve as well in this
`fourth bullet I have here. It states, "an automatic pressure deflation or relief
`valve 82 may be utilized to release air from the tire 11 to the atmosphere and
`thereby prevent overinflation." Again, an express statement of the reason 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
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01510
`Patent 7,669,465 B2
`
`use a relief valve and that is to prevent overinflation, for example, to
`conserve tire tread.
`JUDGE STEPHENS: And maybe just, if you could, distill for us
`how it is that one of ordinary skill in the art used both Loewe and Parker,
`which are wheel-end systems where the overinflation is potentially a bigger
`problem because it's constantly inflating the tire. How does one of ordinary
`skill in the art view these teachings and understand, you know, what is the
`reason for using those teachings in a system that doesn't have those same
`types of concerns from the constant generation of pressure?
`MR. BABBITT: Well, the statements, for example, that we have
`in Loewe are certainly not limited to wheel-end systems. When you read
`through that background that we have in Loewe, explaining the well-known
`and well-established advantages of using relief valves to prevent
`overinflation, they would apply universally to all tire inflation systems.
`As I said, Patent Owner is not arguing here that we have an
`analogous art situation or that these pieces of art are not in the same field, so
`it would certainly be obvious to one of skill to interpret these statements and
`apply these statements in the context of a broad variety of pneumatic
`systems in the sense that that is what Mr. McCann said, the admission that I
`walked you through earlier, is that relief valves were well-known in a broad
`context in pneumatic systems.
`So those advantages apply across the