UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________
`
`SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`__________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review
`Case No. Unassigned
`__________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD HOOPER, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`Sensata Ex. 1004 Page 0001
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Table of Contents
`I. Overview ......................................................................................................... 4
`II. Background and Qualifications ........................................................................ 7
`III.
`Legal Standards and Background ................................................................ 14
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 14
`B.
`Claim Construction .................................................................................. 15
`C.
`Validity .................................................................................................... 15
`IV.
`State of the Art Prior to September 30, 2003 ............................................. 18
`V.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ................................................................................. 25
`VI. Overview of the ‘828 Patent ....................................................................... 27
`VII. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 29
`A.
`“Communicate With”, “In Electric Communication With”, “In Electronic
`Communication With”, “Microprocessor” ........................................................ 29
`B.
`“Interconnect Device”: “a device that accepts a serial communication
`stream to connect two other devices.” ............................................................. 33
`VIII.
`References Supporting Rejection of the ‘828 Patent Claims .................... 40
`A.
`European Patent Application Pub. No. 0501906A1 by Hardi International
`A/S (Hardi) ........................................................................................................ 40
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,550,562 to Brandt (“Brandt”) ....................................... 43
`C.
`United States Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0097223 A1
`(“Rosenberg”) ................................................................................................... 48
`D.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,042,314 to Rytter et al. (“Rytter”) ................................ 52
`IX.
`Analysis of Claims & Reasons to Combine References ................................ 54
`A.
`Ground 1: Obviousness Over Hardi in View of Brandt ............................. 54
`B.
`Ground 2: Obviousness Over Hardi in View of Brandt in Further View of
`Rytter ................................................................................................................ 62
`C.
`Ground 3: Obviousness Over Brandt in View of Rosenberg ..................... 68
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0002
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ground 4: Obviousness Over Brandt in View of Rosenberg in Further View
`D.
`of Rytter ............................................................................................................ 77
`X. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………...83
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0003
`
`

`

`I, Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E. hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen and otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration. I have been retained as an expert in this matter by Petitioner,
`
`Sensata Technologies, Inc. in the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”). I
`
`have no financial interest in or affiliation with the Petitioner or the Patent
`
`Owner, which I understand to be Danfoss Power Solutions Inc. My
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of or my testimony in this IPR
`
`or any litigation proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this petition for IPR (“Petition”) is for the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“the Board”) to review U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828 to Schottler et
`
`al. (“the ‘828 Patent”) for “Joystick Device,” Ex. 1001, which states it issued on
`
`November 25, 2008 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/847,981, filed May
`
`18, 2004. I understand the ‘981 Application claims priority based on U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/507,320 (“the Provisional”), filed
`
`September 30, 2003, Exhibit 1003. I am advised that for the purposes of my
`
`analysis, I should assume the time of the claimed invention to be no earlier
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0004
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`than September 30, 2003, and I use that date as the date at which the state of
`
`the relevant art and the person of ordinary skill in that art to be assessed.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ‘828 Patent and its
`
`prosecution history (Ex. 1002), including the Provisional, and have considered
`
`a broad spectrum of prior art including each of the documents cited in this
`
`Declaration. Following is a list of the documents presented for the Board’s
`
`review, which I have drafted, reviewed or provided from my own files:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828 (“the ‘828 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828 (“FH”)
`
`Ex. 1003 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/507,320 (“the
`Provisional”)
`
`Ex. 1004 Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ex. 1005 Curriculum vitae of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ex. 1006 European Patent Application Pub. No. 0501906A1 (“Hardi”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,550,562 (“Brandt”)
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0097223 A1 (“Rosenberg”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,042,314 (“Rytter”)
`
`4.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied on my experience, education and
`
`knowledge in the relevant art, namely, the design of manually-operated
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0005
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`devices (such as joysticks) for remote control of machinery (paras. 31-42
`
`below), including documentary and other information on which I rely in the
`
`ordinary course of my work.
`
`5.
`
`I have also considered the viewpoint of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`(“POSA”) of designing manually-operated devices for remote control of
`
`machinery (paras. 43-51 below) before the priority date of September 30,
`
`2003.
`
`6. Broadly, this Declaration presents my opinion that all of the claims of the ‘828
`
`Patent are invalid over the prior art. More particularly, this Declaration
`
`presents my opinion that the claims of the ‘828 Patent are invalid at least
`
`because they are obvious over Hardi in view of Brandt (Ground 1) and, if the
`
`term, “interconnect device,” is construed to require disengageability, Hardi in
`
`view of Brandt and in further view of Rytter (Ground 2). In addition, it is my
`
`opinion that the claims of the ‘828 Patent are invalid at least because they are
`
`obvious over Brandt in view of Rosenberg (Ground 3) and, if the term,
`
`“interconnect device,” is construed to require disengageability, Brandt in view
`
`of Rosenberg and in further view of Rytter (Ground 4).
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0006
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`‘828 Patent Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Obviousness Hardi in view of Brandt
`
`Obviousness Hardi in view of Brandt in
`further view of Rytter
`
`Obviousness Brandt in view of Rosenberg
`
`Obviousness Brandt in view of Rosenberg in
`further view of Rytter
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`II.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`7.
`
`I am an expert in the field of computer-controlled machines, including the
`
`design of manually-operated devices for remote control of machinery. My
`
`curriculum vitae, submitted as Ex. 1005, sets forth my professional engineering
`
`experience and publications on the subject. Additionally, I have been retained
`
`in more than 35 matters regarding computer controlled machines as an expert
`
`witness.
`
`8.
`
`I summarize below my relevant qualifications, including my educational
`
`background, career history, and other relevant qualifications.
`
`9. My education includes a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Rice University in 1985, a Master of Science Degree in Biomedical
`
`Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1990, and a PhD in
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0007
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Robotics and Automation from the University of Texas at Austin in 1994. While
`
`at the University of Texas, I also taught graduate and undergraduate courses in
`
`robotics and automation, instrumentation and controls, and technical writing.
`
`10.The design principles I review in this declaration, including the review of the
`
`state of the art around 2003 (paras. 31-42 below) were based on lessons
`
`learned in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when I was a graduate student with
`
`an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and several years’
`
`experience with joystick-controlled machinery.
`
`11.After my graduate training, I was the Chief Scientist of the Robotics Research
`
`center at the University of Texas, from 1994 to 1997. In that role, I led teams
`
`of engineers designing and deploying numerous joystick-controlled machines,
`
`including: robotic systems for NASA to service the International Space Station,
`
`robotic systems for the Department of Energy to decommission aging nuclear
`
`facilities, and remotely operated construction equipment.
`
`12.My work for the Department of Energy was focused primarily on the
`
`development of remote-controlled robotic arms to decommission and
`
`dismantle aging nuclear facilities. The systems typically employed a person
`
`manipulating two joysticks (also called master controllers) at an operator
`
`console to control the movement of robotic arms located in a radioactive
`8
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0008
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`environment some distance away. The following Fig. 1 depicts the scheme
`
`utilized:
`
`Fig. 1: Remote control of robotic manipulators used for
`decommissioning and dismantlement of nuclear facilities in the 1980’s.
`
`13.One of the joystick designs we developed for the decommissioning and
`
`dismantlement work in the 1980’s used three pivot joints to provide the
`
`relative motion between the grip and the base of the joystick. The design of
`
`the joystick located a microprocessor at each of the three pivot joints. (H. L.
`
`Martin, P. E. Satterlee, S. D. Zimmerman, “Control Distribution for Electrically
`
`Modular Manipulator Systems,” Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0009
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Third Topical Meeting on Robotics and Remote Systems, Charleston, South
`
`Carolina, March 13-19, 1989.)
`
`14.As shown in Fig. 2 below, the components at each joint included a “Controller
`
`Motherboard,” a twisted pair of wires for “Serial Communications (750
`
`KBaud),” and connectors to electrically connect one joint with another. The
`
`controller motherboard was based on a single chip microcontroller (Intel
`
`80c196).
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0010
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Fig. 2: Internal electronics from a joystick developed in the mid-1980’s.
`(emphasis added)
`
`15.The microcontrollers at each joint aggregated signals from sensors, effected
`
`local control, communicated with the other microcontrollers in the joystick via
`
`a serial link, and communicated to the main controller in the operator console
`
`via a serial link. This architecture dramatically reduced the number of wires
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0011
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`running through the structure of the device and notably across the moving
`
`joints of the joystick. As will be detailed below, reducing the number of wires
`
`routed across moving joints provides substantial benefits in terms of safety
`
`and reliability.
`
`16.Our work at the University of Texas also included the design and development
`
`of a novel, fault-tolerant joystick and its associated control system. (Fig. 3
`
`below) This joystick from the mid-1990’s used redundant sensing and
`
`computing elements to provide fault-tolerance. If a sensing or computing
`
`element failed, the system detected it and automatically switched to a
`
`mirrored, corresponding element.
`
`Fig. 3: Fault-tolerant joystick with multiple microcontrollers in the base
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0012
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`17.Microcontrollers in the base of the joystick aggregated data and
`
`communicated via a serial data link with a microprocessor-based controller in
`
`the operator’s console. As I wrote in a paper published about the system in
`
`1996, “Distributed control can significantly reduce the amount of wires
`
`running through a structure since the DISCs digitally multiplex the signals
`
`locally.” “DISC” is an acronym for Digital Integrated Servo Controller. (R.
`
`Hooper, D. Tesar, D. Sreevijayan, J. Geisinger, C. Kapoor. “A Four-Level
`
`Mechanical Architecture for Fault-Tolerant Robots.” Journal of Reliability
`
`Engineering and System Safety, Volume 53, Number 3, 1996, Pages: 237-246.)
`
`18.Although I have become an expert in the field of computer-controlled
`
`machines, including the design of manually-operated devices for remote
`
`control of machinery, my work with and supervision of team members in the
`
`1990’s provide me with personal experience as to the POSA at the time
`
`(including myself), so that I am qualified to provide an opinion as to what a
`
`POSA would have understood, known and would try, with ordinary creativity,
`
`to meet design objectives in the period prior to September 30, 2003.
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0013
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`III.
`
`Legal Standards and Background
`
`19.I am a technical expert and do not offer legal opinions; however, counsel has
`
`informed me of the legal standards that govern my analysis for the Board’s
`
`consideration. I understand that a proper patent validity analysis includes
`
`resolving the level of ordinary skill of a POSA in the relevant art, determining
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, ascertaining the differences between
`
`the claimed invention and the prior art, and identifying reasons why a POSA
`
`would bridge such differences with the ordinary creativity of the POSA. I
`
`address these tasks below.
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`20.I am advised and understand that the claims of a patent are reviewed from the
`
`point of view of a hypothetical Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) at
`
`the time of the filing of the patent. The “art” is the field of technology to
`
`which the reviewed patent is related.
`
`21.I understand that the POSA is presumed to have known the relevant art at the
`
`time of the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) the type of problems encountered in
`
`the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with which
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0014
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`22.I am advised and understand that claim terms should be given their “Broadest
`
`Reasonable Interpretation” (“BRI”) in an IPR. Under this standard, the terms
`
`should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a POSA, unless the
`
`patent specification teaches a different meaning. I understand that the Board
`
`will be looking at the reviewed claims anew (from the original examination),
`
`based on the language of those claims and, if necessary, with the context of
`
`the specification as filed.
`
`C. Validity
`
`23.I am advised and understand that the Petitioner in this proceeding before the
`
`Board bears the burden of proving invalidity by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, which means “more likely than not.”
`
`24.I am advised and understand that a reference may qualify as “prior art” to the
`
`patent at issue if the reference was known or used by others in this country, or
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country,
`
`before the invention by the patent holder. I am also advised and understand
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0015
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`that a reference may qualify as prior art to the patent at issue if the invention
`
`was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`
`or in public use or on sale in this country, more than a year before the
`
`effective filing date, which I am advised in this case is, at earliest, September
`
`30, 2003.
`
`25.I am advised and understand that a patent claim may be found unpatentable
`
`as obvious only if the Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that, as of the priority date (September 30, 2003), the subject matter
`
`of the claim, considered as a whole, would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`26.I am advised and understand that the analysis of whether a claim is obvious
`
`depends on a number of required factual inquiries including (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4)
`
`objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`27.I am also advised and understand that the claimed invention must be
`
`considered as a whole in determining obviousness or nonobviousness. In
`
`determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, I understand
`
`that the question is not whether the differences themselves would have been
`16
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0016
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`
`obvious.
`
`28.I am further advised and understand that it may be appropriate to consider
`
`whether there is evidence of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art, the nature of the problem or the
`
`knowledge of the POSA. I am advised and understand that the prior art and
`
`teachings may be drawn from neighboring or similar fields of technology and
`
`applied with the ordinary creativity of a POSA.
`
`29.I also am advised and understand that nonobviousness may be indicated if the
`
`prior art “teaches away” from combining certain known elements. I am
`
`advised and understand that examples of “teaching away” from a particular
`
`combination include prior art that leads in a different direction, discourages
`
`the combination, recommends steps not likely to lead to the patent’s results
`
`or suggests that the combination would be inoperative.
`
`30.I am further advised and understand that certain objective indications may be
`
`important evidence of the nonobviousness of a patent, such as the existence
`
`of a long-felt but unsolved need, unexpected results, commercial success,
`
`copying, and industry acceptance or praise. I am advised and understand that
`
`such objective indications, called “secondary considerations or factors,” must
`17
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0017
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`be considered when present, and generally considered before reaching a
`
`conclusion based only on the “primary considerations.” I am advised and
`
`understand that evidence of secondary factors are not required to find
`
`nonobviousness and their absence is a neutral in the determination of
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`IV.
`
`State of the Art Prior to September 30, 2003
`
`31.The pertinent or relevant art is that which the ‘828 Patent (Ex. 1001) identifies
`
`as “control devices and, more specifically, joystick devices for controlling heavy
`
`machinery” (1:12-14). My work in this field of technology began in the 1980’s
`
`and continues to this day. I believe that a POSA (as determined in paras. 43-51
`
`below) in this field in the digital era would also look to the neighboring field of
`
`digital control devices such as joysticks for location, viewpoint and object
`
`manipulation in the virtual worlds of computer games and simulations.
`
`32.Joystick devices for machinery control by nature “disconnect” the operator
`
`from the machinery they are operating. In other words, they remove the
`
`mechanical connection between the operator and the machinery being
`
`operated. This in turn eliminates much of the sensory feedback available to an
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0018
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`operator while operating machinery. When an operator is remotely located
`
`from the machinery, this “disconnection” is exacerbated.
`
`33.To ameliorate this disconnect, designers of joystick-controlled machinery add
`
`sensors to measure conditions at the machine and present this information
`
`back to the operator via indicator lights, dials, displays and the like.
`
`34.Once joystick control has been added to a system, there is a natural tendency
`
`for the design engineer to move more and more functionality to the joystick.
`
`This is because the operator is already using the joystick, so it is more
`
`convenient for them to have the functionality at the joystick, rather than
`
`reaching somewhere else for the control.
`
`35.A sensor or operator control typically requires 2 to 10 wires to electrically
`
`connect it to the system. The proliferation of sensors and operator controls
`
`leads to an unsustainable growth in the number of wires running through the
`
`system. Wires, especially lots of wires, are undesirable in these systems for
`
`many reasons:
`
`a. Safety and reliability - The entire length of the wire represents a
`
`failure point where the conductor could break and cause an open
`
`circuit, or the insulation could break and cause a short circuit. In
`
`outdoor vehicle or equipment applications, wires and their
`19
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0019
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`connections are exposed to temperature variations, vibration,
`
`particulate erosion or chemical corrosion.
`
`b. Safety and reliability - Wires add electrical “noise” to signals by
`
`picking up electro-magnetic energy. Longer wires pick up more noise.
`
`This noise is especially troublesome with analog signals.
`
`c. Expense - The copper in wires is a relatively high-cost material. The
`
`longer the wire is, the more money it costs.
`
`d. Expense - Installing wiring into a machine is typically done by hand.
`
`It is difficult to automate.
`
`e. Expense - Routing wiring bundles, especially wiring bundles with a
`
`lot of wires, is often a very difficult design challenge.
`
`36.Wires that must route past moving joints, such as the pivot joints between the
`
`base and the handle of a joystick, require even more design attention. This is
`
`because these wires flex when the handle of the joystick moves relative to the
`
`base. A POSA before 2003 understood that when the conductors in wires flex,
`
`they also work-harden. As they work-harden, they become brittle and
`
`susceptible to failure by breaking and pulling apart. The bigger the diameter of
`
`the cable bundle, the greater the issue with work-hardening and breaking.
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0020
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`37.The 1980’s saw the release of the first Macintosh and IBM PC personal
`
`computers. Microprocessors were the core computing elements of these
`
`devices. As personal computers grew more widespread, the price of
`
`microprocessors as compared to their performance dropped dramatically. (E.
`
`R. Berndt, E. R. Dulberger, N. J. Rappaport, “Price and Quality of Desktop and
`
`Mobile Personal Computers: A Quarter Century of History,” PC2000, 17 July
`
`2000.) This led to more and more consumer products with microprocessors
`
`inside of them, which in turn, led to the price of microprocessors dropping
`
`even more.
`
`38.The advent of inexpensive microprocessors, presented an opportunity for
`
`engineers designing joystick controlled machinery to reduce the amount of
`
`wire in these systems. This is because microprocessors allow the signals from
`
`many input devices and sensors to be carried on one wire in a serial data
`
`stream. The data for more than 100 sensors and input devices can literally be
`
`carried on one wire via serial data communication.
`
`39.The ‘828 Patent calls out the RS232 and CAN serial data communications
`
`standards. (1:25.) The RS232 standard found widespread application in early
`
`personal computers for peripheral devices such as keyboards and modems.
`
`RS232 was first defined in 1962. (E.g., "Fundamentals of RS-232 Serial
`21
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0021
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Communications," Maxim Application Note 83 (March 29, 2001),
`
`http://application-notes.digchip.com/003/3-5557.pdf.)
`
`40."CAN is an International Standardization Organization (ISO) defined serial
`
`communications bus originally developed for the automotive industry to
`
`replace the complex wiring harness with a two-wire bus." (Texas Instruments,
`
`"Introduction to the Controller Area Network (CAN)," Application Report
`
`SLOA101B–August 2002–Revised May 2016.)
`
`41.Robert Bosch GmbH introduced the Controller Area Network (CAN) serial bus
`
`system at the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) congress in 1986. The
`
`Bosch CAN specification (version 2.0) was submitted for international
`
`standardization in the early 1990s and the ISO 11898 standard was published
`
`in November 1993. (CAN user’s group, https://www.can-cia.org/can-
`
`knowledge/can/can-history/.) As shown, the typical bus accepts bi-directional
`
`communications, that is, each node or device may transmit to or receive
`
`signals from the bus.
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0022
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Fig. 4: Details of standard CAN bus
`
`42.As discussed, replacing bundles of point-to-point wires with a serial data bus
`
`such as RS232 or CAN provides multiple performance benefits with regards to
`
`safety, reliability, packaging and cost. Regardless of how many wires there are,
`
`each wire requires a termination on each end. The terminations fall into two
`
`broad categories: permanent (such as soldering) and disengageable (such as
`
`matable “plug” or pin connectors). Which termination method to use is a
`
`design choice for the engineer designing the system. At first glance, it might
`
`seem the least expensive and most reliable termination method would be
`
`soldering since it eliminates a component (the connector). There are, however,
`
`several considerations that favor using a connector.
`
`a. Less expensive – Even though there is an additional component (the
`
`connector), connectors can often be installed in boards and on cables
`
`23
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0023
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`automatically by machines. The labor savings often more than offset
`
`the cost of the additional component.
`
`b. Less expensive – Connectors support the use of standard cables
`
`rather than custom wiring. This reduces costs.
`
`c.
`
`Improves reliability – Replacing manual soldering with automated
`
`soldering and other automated wire termination methods improves
`
`reliability.
`
`d. Modularity – A connector facilitates manufacturing systems in
`
`modules separated by the connector. Testing, debugging, qualifying
`
`and the like can be performed at the connector. Modularity also
`
`facilitates reuse. For example, the same model joystick can be used
`
`to control different systems by sharing a common connector design.
`
`Or, an upgraded joystick can be plugged into an existing system to
`
`add functionality without rewiring.
`
`These solutions were part of the relevant art known to a POSA long
`
`before 2003, and by 2003 included flexible circuit leads that could fit
`
`into and be clamped in zero-insertion force connectors.
`
`24
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0024
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`43.As discussed, I have been intimately involved with the design and
`
`development of many joystick-controlled machinery systems. This involvement
`
`included hiring and directing teams of engineers that detailed the design of
`
`these systems.
`
`44.Based on my experience with joystick-controlled machines and the people that
`
`design them, I conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an
`
`undergraduate degree in engineering and at least three years of professional
`
`experience with joystick-controlled machinery.
`
`45.This POSA comports with the factors I was asked to consider (paras. 20-21
`
`above).
`
`46.First, the types of problems presented in the art included the design of
`
`machine-control devices that would be safe and appropriate to the duty cycle
`
`and the specific topology of the machine controlled, including pre-existing
`
`control systems. For an ordinary worker participating in this design, the
`
`worker had to be knowledgeable about the pre-existing control systems at a
`
`technical level requiring the engineering training and knowledge of the
`
`25
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0025
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`practicalities, availability and cost of components and manufacturability
`
`gained through some years of experience in selecting such components.
`
`47.Second, prior art solutions to the problems of designing control devices may
`
`be seen in the commercial or competitor availability of devices and
`
`components that may be presented in trade and technical journals and
`
`advertisements in those publications. Again, the POSA I describe in para. 44
`
`above would be exposed to these publications.
`
`48.Third, advances in the field of control equipment for machinery appear to me
`
`to be situational rather than revolutionary: once microprocessors and serial
`
`communications were available at costs commensurate with prices for
`
`machinery control devices, they were applied to particular design
`
`requirements with particular trade-offs in cost. Again, the POSA I describe
`
`would understand the design requirements and select appropriate
`
`components appropriate to the situation, which might be considered an
`
`“advance” if the situation were unique.
`
`49.Fourth, the technology in the field is of moderate sophistication, requiring of
`
`the ordinary designer an undergraduate knowledge of electronic control
`
`systems and the working experience knowledge of the practicalities of
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1004 Page 0026
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,828
`Declaration of Richard Hooper, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`interfacing with machinery, and the safety, durability and cost of the designed
`
`product.
`
`50.Fifth, as to the level of education, my co-workers in the field generally have
`
`the electrical engineering undergraduate degrees and, as myself, gained
`
`practical knowledge over a few years on the job.
`
`51.The POSA in 2003 would have had knowledge of the common design
`
`constraints in control devices for operation of machinery (paras. 32-36 above –
`
`safety, reliability, etc.) and of tools such as microprocessors, serial
`
`communications and connectors (paras. 37-42 above).
`
`VI. Overview of the ‘828 Patent
`
`52.The ‘828 Patent (Ex. 1001) is directed towards control devices and, more
`
`specifically, joystick devices for controlling heavy machinery. (1:12-14.)
`
`53.The ‘828 Patent generally divides the joystick into two assemblies: the grip
`
`assembly 12 and the base