`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BESTWAY (USA), INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTEX MARKETING LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALI M. SADEGH, PH.D.
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-01655
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0001
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 
`I. 
`II.  My Background and Qualifications ................................................................. 6 
`A.  Education and Licenses ................................................................................... 7 
`B.  Professional Experience .................................................................................. 7 
`C.  Professional Organizations and Honors .......................................................... 9 
`D.  Publications and Patents .................................................................................. 9 
`III.  Materials Reviewed ....................................................................................... 10 
`IV.  Legal Principles ............................................................................................. 12 
`V. 
`Challenged Claims of the 240 Patent ............................................................ 18 
`VI.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 21 
`VII.  The 240 Patent ............................................................................................... 21 
`A.  Overview ........................................................................................................ 21 
`B.  Exemplary Embodiments in the 240 Patent .................................................. 23 
`C.  The Prosecution History of the 240 Patent .................................................... 30 
`D.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 33 
`VIII.  Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 36 
`A.  Inflatable Structures ....................................................................................... 36 
`1. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,924,144 to Peterson ...................................... 36 
`2. 
`U.S. Patent No. 2,741,780 ......................................................... 37 
`3. 
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2003/0019024A1 ................................. 38 
`B.  Fiber Reinforced Materials ............................................................................ 39 
`1. 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,054,178 ......................................................... 39 
`2. 
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0252320 .............................. 41 
`3. 
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2006/0292945 ...................................... 42 
`4. 
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/040082A1 ........................... 43 
`5. 
`2006 Publication: Air-Inflated Fabric Structures .................... 44 
`6. 
`2011 Textbook: Composite Materials ....................................... 45 
`IX.  Analogous Art ................................................................................................ 45 
`
`2
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0002
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`X. 
`Claim 18 IS invalid as obvious over Peterson in view of Fireman; Claims
`18-22 are invalid as obvious over peterson, fireman, and kimbrig. ........................ 46 
`A.  Dependent claim 18 is invalid. ...................................................................... 47 
`1. 
`Claim 1: ..................................................................................... 47 
`Claim 1: “An inflatable product comprising: a first
`wall; a second wall;” ................................................................. 47 
`
`Claim 1: “an inflatable air chamber defined by the
`first wall and the second wall;” ................................................. 48 
`
`Claim 1: “a plurality of tensioning structures
`located in the air chamber and coupled to the first
`wall and the second wall” ......................................................... 49 
`
`Claim 1: “each tensioning structure including: at
`least one attachment sheet having an outer
`perimeter;” ................................................................................ 50 
`
`Claim 1: “a porous sheet coupled to the at least one
`attachment sheet, the porous sheet having an outer
`perimeter that substantially overlaps the outer
`perimeter of the at least one attachment sheet, the
`porous sheet including a plurality of enclosed
`pores located entirely within the outer perimeter of
`the at least one attachment sheet and a plurality of
`frame members that intersect to define the plurality
`of enclosed pores” ..................................................................... 51 
`
`Dependent claim 17: ................................................................. 56 
`Claim 17: “wherein the at least one attachment
`sheet is welded to the first wall along a first seam
`and welded to the second wall along a second
`seam and portions of the plurality of frame
`members extend diagonally relative to the first and
`second seams.” .......................................................................... 56 
`
`Dependent claim 18: ................................................................. 60 
`Claim 18: “wherein the first wall comprises an
`inner wall of the inflatable product and the second
`
`3
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0003
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`wall comprises an outer wall of the inflatable
`product, further comprising a top wall and a
`bottom wall cooperating with the inner and outer
`walls to define the inflatable air chamber, each
`tensioning structure and the top and bottom walls
`cooperate to define gaps therebetween.” .................................. 60 
`
`B.  Dependent claim 19 is invalid. ...................................................................... 66 
`Claim 19: “wherein each tensioning structure
`includes a plurality of notches cooperating with the
`top and bottom walls to define the gaps.” ................................. 66 
`
`C.  Dependent claim 20 is invalid. ...................................................................... 69 
`Claim 20: “wherein the plurality of tensioning
`structures include upper and lower edges having
`notch-defining portions defining the notches, and a
`plurality of the frame members extend from the
`first and second seams to the notch-defining
`portions of the upper and lower edges.” ................................... 69 
`
`D.  Dependent claim 21 is invalid. ...................................................................... 72 
`Claim 21: “wherein the upper edge includes
`upper-most portions positioned adjacent at least
`one of the notch-defining portions, the lower edge
`includes lower-most portions positioned adjacent
`at least one of the notch-defining portions, a
`plurality of the frame members terminate at the
`upper-most portions, and a plurality of the frame
`members terminate at the lower-most portions.” ...................... 73 
`
`E.  Dependent claim 22 is invalid. ...................................................................... 75 
`Claim 22: “wherein the porous sheet includes a
`plurality of open spaces that are partially
`surrounded by the frame members and positioned
`along the notches.” .................................................................... 75 
`
`F.  Dependent claim 30 is invalid. ...................................................................... 76 
`1. 
`Dependent claim 7: ................................................................... 76 
`
`4
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0004
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`2. 
`
`Claim 7: “wherein the product is a pool, the first
`wall is an internal wall of the pool, and the second
`wall is an external wall of the pool, the spa further
`comprising a bottom wall that cooperates with the
`internal wall to define a water cavity.” ..................................... 76 
`
`Dependent claim 30: ................................................................. 77 
`Claim 30: “wherein the bottom wall includes an
`annular perimeter rim attached to the internal wall
`of the pool, an upper layer attached to the annular
`perimeter rim, and a lower layer attached to the
`annular perimeter rim and the upper layer, a
`majority of the upper layer being spaced apart
`from the lower layer to define a space
`therebetween.” ........................................................................... 77 
`
`XI.  Compensation ................................................................................................ 80 
`XII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 80 
`
`
`5
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0005
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I, Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D., P.E., CMfgE, have been retained by
`
`McDermott, Will & Emery LLP on behalf of Bestway (USA) Inc. (“Bestway” or
`
`“Petitioner”) as an expert in the field of inflatable products.
`
`2.
`
`I understand Bestway is challenging claims 18-22 and 30 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,254,240 (“the 240 Patent”) in a petition
`
`for inter partes review. I previously provided a declaration regarding the 240
`
`Patent in PGR2017-00003.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide an opinion on the validity of the
`
`challenged claims over U.S. Patent No. 5,924,144 (“Peterson”), U.S. Patent Publ’n
`
`No. 2004/040082A1 (“Fireman”); U.S. Patent No. 2,742,780 (“Kimbrig”); and
`
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2003/0019024 (“Tompkins”). In my opinion, for the
`
`reasons in the following sections, Claims 18-19 are obvious over the combination
`
`of Peterson and Fireman; Claims 18-22 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Peterson, Fireman, and Kimbrig; and Claim 30 is obvious over the combination of
`
`Peterson, Fireman, and Tompkins.
`
`II. MY BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4. My qualifications are reflected in my curriculum vitae, which is
`
`attached to this declaration as Appendix A. The following is a brief summary.
`
`6
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0006
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`A. Education and Licenses
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from Sharif University of Technology in 1972. I received a Master of Science
`
`degree in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan State University in 1975. I
`
`received a Ph.D. degree in Mechanics from Michigan State University in 1978.
`
`6.
`
`After receiving my Ph.D., I completed my postdoctoral studies in
`
`Applied Mechanics at the University of Michigan in 1979.
`
`7.
`
`I have been a Licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.) in the State of
`
`Michigan since 1982 and the State of New York. Since 1988, I have been a
`
`Certified Manufacturing Engineer (CMfgE) in Design issued by the Society of
`
`Manufacturing Engineers.
`
`8.
`
`As a student of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, I studied—
`
`among many other things—fluid mechanics, heat transfer, thermodynamics, and
`
`material science, with specialized studies in strength of materials and composites.
`
`B.
`
`9.
`
`Professional Experience
`
`I am currently the Director of the Center for Advanced Engineering
`
`Design and Development and a tenured Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
`
`City College of the City University of New York (“CUNY”), where I teach both
`
`undergraduate and graduate courses including strength of material design,
`
`manufacturing and composite materials.
`
`7
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0007
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`10.
`
`In 1982, I began working at CUNY as Assistant Professor in the
`
`Department of Mechanical Engineering. I was granted tenure in 1987. I served as
`
`Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at CUNY from 1993 until
`
`1996. In 1999, I founded the Center for Advanced Engineering Design and
`
`Development at CUNY, and I continue to serve as Director of the Center.
`
`11.
`
`I have taught numerous university courses, including those set forth
`
`on Page 16 of Appendix A. These have included, for example, Manufacturing
`
`Processes and Materials, Composite Materials, Strength of Materials, Material Test
`
`Laboratory, and Theory of Elasticity. I also supervise the work of undergraduate,
`
`graduate, and post-doctoral students on projects, theses, and dissertations. This has
`
`included supervising more than 150 senior design projects by more than 900
`
`students. Additional information about this work appears on Pages 14-15 of
`
`Appendix A.
`
`12. From 1998 to 2013, I served as a Distinguished Faculty Fellow at
`
`Office of Naval Research-ASEE, in the Summer Faculty Research Program,
`
`performing research at Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), NAVY,
`
`Newport, Rhode Island. As a Faculty Fellow, I investigated the composite
`
`materials for a mast of submarine and micromechanics of fabric in inflated air
`
`beam structures, and mechanics of air/water pressurized tubes.
`
`8
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0008
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`C.
`
`13.
`
`Professional Organizations and Honors
`
`I am a member of at least eleven professional societies, as listed on
`
`Page 3 of Appendix A. For example, I am a Life Fellow of the American Society
`
`of Mechanical Engineers and of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and a
`
`member of the American Academy of Mechanics.
`
`14.
`
`I have received a number of academic and professional honors, as set
`
`forth on Page 2 of Appendix A.
`
`D.
`
`15.
`
`Publications and Patents
`
`I have authored or co-authored more than 181 publications, including
`
`journal papers, books, book chapters, or refereed engineering or technical
`
`publications, as set forth on Pages 16-31 of Appendix A. This has included being
`
`an author and editor of “Marks Mechanical Engineering Handbook,” and “Roark’s
`
`Formulas for Stress and Strain,” both books were published by McGraw-Hill. I
`
`have served as a peer reviewer for more than twenty scientific journals, as set forth
`
`on Page 7 of Appendix A.
`
`16.
`
`I have participated in more than 100 presentations at major
`
`engineering or technical conferences, including, for example, annual meetings of
`
`the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the International Mechanical
`
`Engineering Congress and Exposition, the U.S. National Congress of Theoretical
`
`and Applied Mechanics, and the Composite World Conference. Additional
`
`9
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0009
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`information about my involvement with professional conferences and seminars
`
`appears on Pages 7-9 and 36-47 of Appendix A.
`
`17.
`
`I am a named inventor on at least 17 issued U.S. patents and two
`
`pending patent applications, as is set forth on Pages 31-32 of Appendix A. My
`
`patents include, for example, U.S. Patent No. 8,087,371, “Deployable and
`
`Inflatable Fendering Apparatus and Method,” issued on January 3, 2012.
`
`18. As a result of my professional education and experience, I am
`
`qualified to render opinions in the areas of inflatable structures and manufacturing.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`19. The materials that I have reviewed and considered for this declaration
`
`include the 240 Patent, the patent applications referred to in the written description
`
`of the 240 Patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office file history for the 240
`
`Patent, the prior art referred to in the Office actions in that file, the filings in
`
`PGR2017-00003, and other prior art. Materials I have reviewed also include, but
`
`are not limited to, the following documents that I understand Petitioner has labeled
`
`with the following exhibit numbers in this case:
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,254,240 (the “240 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,924,144 (“Peterson”)
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2004/040082A1 (“Fireman”)
`
`10
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0010
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit
`1004
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 2,741,780 (“Kimbrig”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2003/0019024A1 (“Tompkins”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,735,000 (“Pfaeffle”)
`
`CN 2676755Y (“Wang 755”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,571,405 (“Intex 405”)
`
`Decision on Rehearing, Bestway (USA) Inc. v. Intex Marketing
`Ltd., PGR2017-00003, Paper No. 14 (USPTO June 20, 2017)
`
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. US 2013/0230671 A1 (“Lin 671”)
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response in PGR2017-0003, Paper No.
`7 (Feb. 16, 2017)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/444,474, which
`issued as the 240 Patent
`
`Translation of CN 202151339U, Submitted with the IDS of
`October 20, 2014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,054,178 (“Howells”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2006/0252320 (“Panse”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publ’n No. 2006/0292945 (“Kuhn”)
`
`P. V. Cavallaro et al., Air-Inflated Fabric Structures, Naval
`Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, Rhode Island
`(November 5, 2006) (“Sadegh 2006”)
`
`Chapter 20 from Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain, 8th
`Edition, McGraw Hill 2012 (“Roark’s Formulas”)
`
`11
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0011
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit
`1021
`
`Description
`Decision on Institution, Bestway (USA) Inc. v. Intex Marketing
`Ltd., PGR2017-00003, Paper No. 9 (USPTO May 17, 2017)
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`2014-12-05 Assignment from Inventors to Intex Industries Xiamen
`Co., LTD.
`
`2014-12-05 Assignment from Intex Industries Xiamen Co., LTD. to
`Intex Recreation Corp.
`
`2014-04-18 Assignment from Intex Recreation Corp. to Intex
`Marketing LTD.
`
`Petition, Bestway (USA) Inc. v. Intex Marketing Ltd., PGR2017-
`00003, Paper No. 1 (USPTO Nov. 8, 2016)
`
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`20.
`I am not an attorney. I offer no opinions on the law. But counsel has
`
`informed me of the legal standards that apply to the issue of patent validity. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, the petitioner
`
`has the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand this standard is different from the standard that applies in a district
`
`court, where I understand a challenger bears the burden of proving invalidity by
`
`clear and convincing evidence.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid based on anticipation if a
`
`single prior art reference discloses all of the features of that claim, and does so in a
`
`way that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`12
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0012
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`Each of the claim features may be expressly or inherently present in the prior art
`
`reference. I understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance
`
`with, or includes a claim’s feature, then that prior art inherently discloses that
`
`feature. I have relied on this understanding in expressing the opinions set forth
`
`below.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference describes the claimed invention
`
`if it either expressly or inherently describes each and every feature set forth in the
`
`claim; i.e., in determining whether a single item of prior art anticipates a patent
`
`claim, one should take into consideration not only what is expressly disclosed in
`
`that item, but also what is inherently present as a natural result of the practice of
`
`the system or method disclosed in that item.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that to establish inherency, the evidence must make clear
`
`that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the item of prior art and
`
`that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I also
`
`understand that prior art use of the claimed patented invention that was accidental,
`
`unrecognized, or unappreciated at the time of filing can still be an invalidating
`
`anticipation.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent may not be valid even though the invention
`
`is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`13
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0013
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was made.
`
`26. To determine if a claim is obvious, the following factors should be
`
`considered: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations, including
`
`evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, unsuccessful
`
`attempts by others, copying of the claimed invention, unexpected and superior
`
`results, acceptance and praise by others, independent invention by others, and the
`
`like.
`
`27. For example, I understand that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand that an obviousness analysis need not
`
`seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim because a court can take account of the inferences and/or creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the obviousness determination of an invention turns
`
`on whether a hypothetical person with ordinary skill and full knowledge of all the
`
`pertinent prior art, when faced with the problem to which the claimed invention is
`
`14
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0014
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`addressed, would be led naturally to the solution adopted in the claimed invention
`
`or would naturally view that solution as an available alternative.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the following rationales may be used to determine
`
`whether a piece of prior art can be combined with other prior art or with other
`
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art:
`
` Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
` Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
` Use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
` Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
` “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
` Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`15
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0015
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
` Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and/or other market forces, for example, can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or a different one. Moreover, if a person of ordinary skill
`
`can implement a predictable variation, I understand that that likely bars its
`
`patentability.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be tested as of the time the
`
`invention was made. I understand that the test for obviousness is what the
`
`combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested, disclosed, or
`
`taught to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, it is my understanding that a
`
`patent claim is invalid based upon obviousness if it does nothing more than
`
`combine familiar elements from one or more prior art references or products
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. For example, I
`
`understand that where a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, using that technique is obvious. I understand that
`
`obviousness can be proved by showing that a combination of elements was
`
`16
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0016
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`obvious to try, i.e.: that it does no more than yield predictable results; implements a
`
`predictable variation; is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions; or when there is design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions. I have been further informed that when a patent claim simply arranges
`
`old elements with each element performing the same function it had been known to
`
`perform and yields results no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that another factor to be considered is common sense.
`
`For example, I understand that common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and, in many cases, a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court articulated additional guidance
`
`for obviousness in its KSR decision. My understanding is that the Supreme Court
`
`said that technical people of ordinary skill look for guidance in other solutions to
`
`problems of a similar nature, and that the obviousness inquiry must track reality,
`
`and not legal fictions. I have relied on these understandings in expressing the
`
`opinions set forth below.
`
`17
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0017
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a new use of an old product or material cannot be
`
`claimed as a new product; the apparatus or system itself is old and cannot be
`
`patented. I further understand that, in general, merely discovering and claiming a
`
`new benefit to an old process cannot render the process newly patentable.
`
`V. CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE 240 PATENT
`35.
`I understand that Petitioner is challenging the validity of claims 18-22
`
`and 30 of the 240 Patent in this proceeding. All of the challenged claims depend
`
`directly or indirectly from claim 1. In the table below, I have reproduced claim 1,
`
`the challenged claims, and any intervening claims from which the challenged
`
`claims depend:
`
`18
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0018
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`1. An inflatable product comprising:
`a first wall;
`a second wall;
`an inflatable air chamber defined by the first wall and the second
`wall; and
`a plurality of tensioning structures located in the air chamber and
`coupled to the first wall and the second wall, each tensioning structure
`including:
`at least one attachment sheet having an outer perimeter; and
`a porous sheet coupled to the at least one attachment sheet, the
`porous sheet having an outer perimeter that substantially overlaps the
`outer perimeter of the at least one attachment sheet, the porous sheet
`including a plurality of enclosed pores located entirely within the
`outer perimeter of the at least one attachment sheet and a plurality of
`frame members that intersect to define the plurality of enclosed
`pores.
`7. The inflatable product of claim 1, wherein the product is a pool, the first
`wall is an internal wall of the pool, and the second wall is an external
`wall of the pool, the spa further comprising a bottom wall that cooperates
`with the internal wall to define a water cavity.
`17. The inflatable product of claim 1, wherein the at least one attachment
`sheet is welded to the first wall along a first seam and welded to the
`second wall along a second seam and portions of the plurality of frame
`members extend diagonally relative to the first and second seams.
`
`19
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0019
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`18. The inflatable product of claim 17, wherein the first wall comprises an
`inner wall of the inflatable product and the second wall comprises an
`outer wall of the inflatable product, further comprising a top wall and a
`bottom wall cooperating with the inner and outer walls to define the
`inflatable air chamber, each tensioning structure and the top and bottom
`walls cooperate to define gaps therebetween.
`19. The inflatable product of claim 18, wherein each tensioning structure
`includes a plurality of notches cooperating with the top and bottom walls
`to define the gaps.
`20. The inflatable product of claim 19, wherein the plurality of tensioning
`structures include upper and lower edges having notch-defining portions
`defining the notches, and a plurality of the frame members extend from
`the first and second seams to the notch-defining portions of the upper and
`lower edges.
`21. The inflatable product of claim 20, wherein the upper edge includes
`upper-most portions positioned adjacent at least one of the notch-defining
`portions, the lower edge includes lower-most portions positioned
`adjacent at least one of the notch-defining portions, a plurality of the
`frame members terminate at the upper-most portions, and a plurality of
`the frame members terminate at the lower-most portions.
`22. The inflatable product of claim 21, wherein the porous sheet includes a
`plurality of open spaces that are partially surrounded by the frame
`members and positioned along the notches.
`
`20
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0020
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`30. The inflatable product of claim 7, wherein the bottom wall includes an
`annular perimeter rim attached to the internal wall of the pool, an upper
`layer attached to the annular perimeter rim, and a lower layer attached to
`the annular perimeter rim and the upper layer, a majority of the upper
`layer being spaced apart from the lower layer to define a space
`therebetween.
`
`
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`36.
` In my opinion, based on my study of the 240 Patent, the relevant
`
`technical field is inflatable products. However, my opinions expressed in this
`
`declaration do not depend on any precise definition of the field of the invention.
`
`37. A person of ordinary skill in the art of inflatable products would have
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and
`
`two to four years of practical experience in product design, manufacturing, and
`
`related materials.
`
`VII. THE 240 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
`38. The 240 Patent is entitled “Inflatable Spa.” The written description
`
`and drawings of the patent describe both the structure of an inflatable spa and a
`
`system for controlling the bubble and heating effects of the spa. However, the
`
`issued claims of the 240 Patent, and the subset challenged in this proceeding, are
`
`21
`
`BESTWAY EXHIBIT 1011-0021
`IPR2017-01655
`
`

`

`Declaration of Ali M. Sadegh, Ph.D.
`
`directed to an apparatus having the claimed spa structure rather than the control of
`
`bubble and heating effects.
`
`39. The 240 Patent emphasizes improving the strength of inflatable spas.
`
`The one short sentence of the Abstract indicates as much: “An inflatable spa
`
`having improved strength includes a water cavity that receives massaging air
`
`bubbles and/or jetted water.” (Ex. 1001, 240 Patent, at Abstract (emphasis
`
`added)). The patent’s Background and Summary section begins by noting that
`
`“[i]nflatable spas are generally constructed of material having high flexibility and
`
`low rigidity.” (Ex. 1001, 240 Patent, at 1:39-40). The patent states, “[t]he present
`
`disclosure relates to an inflatable spa having improved strength.” (Id. at 1:45-46;
`
`see also id. at 1:33-35 (“The present disclosure relates to an inflatable spa. More
`
`particularly, the present disclosure relates to an inflatable spa having improved
`
`strength, and to a method for using the same.”)).
`
`40. The 240 Patent discloses strengthening an inflatable spa by including
`
`what the patent refers to as a “tensioning structures” inside the