UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COOPER CROUSE-HINDS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`CMP PRODUCTS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`Case No.: IPR2018-
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,027
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GLENN E. VALLEE, PH.D., P.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`A.  Qualifications ..................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered ................................ 7 
`C. 
`Legal Standards for Patentability ....................................................... 7 
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`TIMEFRAME ............................................................................................. 10 
`III.  THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD IN
`THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME .............................................................. 11 
`IV.  STATE OF THE ART FOR THE ‘027 PATENT ...................................... 12 
`A. 
`Two-Chamber Dispensers ................................................................ 12 
`B. 
`Flexible Barriers ............................................................................... 17 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘027 PATENT ....................................................... 19 
`VI.  CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 22 
`VII.  THE PRIOR ART ....................................................................................... 27 
`A. 
`Babiarz .............................................................................................. 27 
`B. 
`Everitt ............................................................................................... 27 
`C.  Dunn ................................................................................................. 28 
`D.  Widman ............................................................................................ 28 
`E. 
`3M ..................................................................................................... 30 
`VIII.  THE PRIOR ART IN RELATION TO CLAIMS OF THE ‘027 PATENT
` .................................................................................................................... 30 
`A. 
`Babiarz and Everitt compared to claims 1, 2, 4, and 10–13 of the
`‘027 patent ........................................................................................ 30 
`Babiarz, Everitt, and Dunn compared to claim 5 of the ‘027 patent 50 
`Babiarz, Everitt, and Widman compared to claims 14–19 of the ‘027
`patent ................................................................................................ 52 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`F. 
`
`3M and Widman compared to claims 1, 2, 4, 14, and 16–19 of the
`‘027 patent ........................................................................................ 81 
`3M, Widman, and Dunn compared to claim 5 of the ‘027 patent . 113 
`3M, Widman, and Everitt compared to claims 10–13 and 15 of the
`‘027 patent ...................................................................................... 114 
`IX.  CLAIM CHARTS ..................................................................................... 121 
`X. 
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................... 144 
`XI.  CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 144 
`
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D., P.E. declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Based on my background, being over the age of eighteen (18), and being of
`
`sound mind, I am competent to make this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LLC has retained me to provide my opinion on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,872,027 (“the ‘027 patent”) for a Declaration in support of a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ‘027 patent. The opinion set forth in this
`
`Declaration addresses the ‘027 patent, the person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`relevant time frame, interpretation of certain terms in the ‘027 patent, the state of the
`
`art of the ‘027 patent, the scope and content of the prior art compared to the claims of
`
`the ‘027 patent, and rationales for combining prior art elements.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘027 patent, which issued on
`
`October 28, 2014 and was corrected by a Certificate of Correction on April 14, 2015.
`
`I understand that the application for the ‘027 patent, U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/391,539 (“the ‘539 application,” Ex. 1002) was a national stage application of
`
`PCT/GB2010/050989, which was filed on June 14, 2010, and claims priority to
`
`European Patent Application No. 09168430.8 filed on August 21, 2009, European
`
`Patent Application No. 09168429.0 filed on August 21, 2009, Great Britain Patent
`
`Application 1004216.6 filed on March 15, 2010 and Great Britain Patent Application
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`1009450.6 filed on June 7, 2010. I have also reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`prosecution history of the ‘539 application and the references cited during
`
`prosecution.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US Patent No. 7,341,255 to Babiarz et al. (“Babiarz”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`US Patent No. 5,596,176 to Everitt (“Everitt”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`US Patent No. 3,773,706 to Dunn Jr. (“Dunn”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`US Patent No. 6,852,922 to Widman (“Widman”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`3M Electrical Markets Division. Product Catalogue. General Purpose
`
`Low & Medium Voltage. Resins. 1st edition March 2006 (“3M”) (Ex.
`
`1008);
`
`
`
`CHICO® SpeedSeal™ Compound Fast Acting Sealing Compound
`
`Sealing Fitting Modification Kit For Use with Crouse-Hinds EYS
`
`Sealing Fittings Installation & Maintenance Information, Revision 1,
`
`March 2003 (“SpeedSeal Manual”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`April 2003 Chico SpeedSeal Brochure (“SpeedSeal Brochure”)
`
`(Ex. 1010);
`
`2005 Material Safety Data Sheet for components of the Chico
`
`SpeedSeal Compound – Isocyanate (“2005 Isocyanate MSDS”)
`
`
`
`
`
`available at
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040619023729/http://www.crouse-
`
`hinds.com:80/CrouseHinds/resources/msds/Msds_isocyanate.cfm (last
`
`accessed April 2, 2018) (Ex. 1011);
`
`
`
`Crouse-Hinds, Technical Resources, Material Safety Data Sheets
`
`(“MSDS”) available at
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20050306191324/http://www.crouse-
`
`hinds.com:80/CrouseHinds/resources/msds.cfm (last accessed April 6,
`
`2018) (Ex. 1012).
`
`
`
`2005 Material Safety Data Sheet for components of the Chico
`
`SpeedSeal Compound – Polyol (“2005 Polyol MSDS”) available at
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040619023729/http://www.crouse-
`
`hinds.com:80/CrouseHinds/resources/msds/Msds_polyolfinal.cfm (last
`
`accessed April 2, 2018) (Ex. 1013);
`
`
`
`2002 Draft of the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard
`
`Number IEC 60070-1 from the Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality
`
`Organization (SASO) available at
`
`https://saso.gov.sa/ar/eservices/tbt/TBTNoteDoc/e323.pdf (“IEC 60070-
`
`1”) (Ex. 1014);
`
`
`
`Leslie Stoch, “Section 18 – Getting Familiar with Some New Terms,”
`
`IAEI NEWS, January 16, 2007. (“IAEI News”) available at
`- 3 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`(https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2007/01/16/section-18-getting-
`
`familiar-with-some-new-terms/) (Ex. 1015); and
`
` Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (2002) (Ex. 1016).
`
`5.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of August 21, 2009, the earliest
`
`filing date to which the ‘027 patent claims priority.
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions regarding the above-noted references that show the state of the art on or
`
`before August 21, 2009, and/or form the basis for the grounds of rejection set forth in
`
`the IPR Petition of the ‘027 patent.
`
`A. Qualifications
`
`7.
`
`I am employed by Western New England University as an Associate Professor
`
`of Mechanical Engineering. My background is in the areas of mechanical
`
`engineering, design, product development and quality assurance. I have a Ph.D. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Rhode Island. I also serve as a
`
`consultant in the areas of mechanical engineering design, numerical stress analysis
`
`and mechanical testing, as well as serving as a technical expert in product liability
`
`litigation. I am a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME
`
`member no. 1259837) and I am a licensed Professional Engineer (RI Lic. No. 6765).
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`As set forth in more detail in my curriculum vitae, I have substantial
`
`experience in the areas of mechanical engineering, product design and development,
`
`quality assurance and mechanical testing. Prior to joining Western New England
`
`University, I served as the Director of Engineering and Quality Assurance,
`
`Worldwide for the Remington Products Company, L.L.C., in Bridgeport, CT from
`
`1997 until 2002. Remington Products Company is a major manufacturer of personal
`
`care products, including electric shavers, beard trimmers and hair dryers. My
`
`responsibilities included directing the activities of Design and Product Engineering,
`
`Quality Assurance and Manufacturing departments in the U.S., U.K. and Asia. I was
`
`responsible for the design and development of international consumer products, and
`
`for focusing new product engineering toward continuously improving customer
`
`satisfaction through improved product design, performance and quality.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to my employment at Remington Products, I served as the Manager of
`
`the Engineering Laboratories at the Stanley Bostitch Company, now a division of
`
`Stanley/Black & Decker. Stanley Bostitch is a leading manufacturer of pneumatic
`
`nailers and staplers, and a variety of hand tools such as hammer tackers and staplers.
`
`I was employed by Stanley Bostitch from 1985 until 1997, serving first as a
`
`Technician, then Test Engineer, then Product Design/Development Engineer and was
`
`promoted to Manager of the Engineering Laboratories in 1995. My work as a
`
`Technician and then Test Engineer allowed me to acquire experience in conducting
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`and developing test methodologies for all products. My work as a Product
`
`Design/Development Engineer involved designing and developing products from
`
`conception through manufacture and quality control. As the Manager of the
`
`Engineering Laboratories, I managed the largest of the Engineering Laboratories in
`
`Stanley Works and supervised 18 employees. This position required that I
`
`coordinate testing and allocate resources to meet stringent scheduling requirements
`
`of the Product Development, Manufacturing and Marketing departments.
`
`10.
`
`I am an inventor on six patents, including those related to hand tools,
`
`pneumatic nailers, surgical devices and a water purification system. I have reviewed
`
`many patents as I worked with patent attorneys to file the patent applications, which
`
`issued as those six patents. I have given deposition testimony eight times, and I have
`
`testified in court four times; in these instances, I have provided testimony as a
`
`technical expert in product liability litigation. I have also given deposition testimony
`
`in a case involving a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of a patent related to
`
`Hole Saws, where again I served as a technical expert.
`
`11. Appendix A is a copy of my résumé, which further expands on my
`
`qualifications and expertise and includes articles I have published in the past ten
`
`years.
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`12. The opinion set forth in this Declaration is based on my entire background
`
`including my education and professional experience as well as my knowledge and
`
`research activities. In rendering this opinion, I reviewed the ‘027 patent, its file
`
`history, the prior art and other background documents. Appendix B provides a full
`
`list of the documents that I considered in making this opinion.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Patentability
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if each and
`
`every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the principles of inherency, if the
`
`prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes the claimed
`
`limitations, it anticipates. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if
`
`the claimed invention was known or used by others in the United States, or was
`
`patented or published anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have
`
`been informed that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention
`
`was patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale
`
`in this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`(critical date). And a claim is unpatentable, as I have been informed, under 35
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S.
`
`patent granted on an application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S.
`
`before the date of invention for such a claim.
`
`15.
`
`I also understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the differences between
`
`the patented subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I am informed that this standard is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a).
`
`16. When considering the issues of obviousness, I am to do the following: (i)
`
`determine the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) ascertain the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-obviousness. I
`
`appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed as part of the overall
`
`obviousness analysis (i.e., as opposed to analyzing the prior art, reaching a tentative
`
`conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia alter that conclusion).
`
`17. Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are patentable.
`
`Even if a claimed product or method is not explicitly described in its entirety in a
`
`single prior art reference, the patent claim will still be found unpatentable if the claim
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`patent application filing.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time that the patent application was filed from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, I have been informed of several
`
`principles regarding the combination of elements of the prior art:
`
`a.
`
`First, a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results.
`
`b.
`
`Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a
`
`“predictable variation” in a prior art device, and would see the benefit from
`
`doing so, such a variation would be obvious. In particular, when there is
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identifiable,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to
`
`pursue those options that fall within his or her technical grasp. If such a
`
`process leads to the claimed invention, then the latter is not patentable but
`
`more the result of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`19. The “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is a useful guide in establishing
`
`a rationale for combining elements of the prior art. This test poses the question as to
`
`whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to
`
`combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention. Though
`
`useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not be treated as a
`
`rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise teachings; it is permissible to
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`consider the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(who is considered to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not an “automaton”)
`
`would employ.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that other factors may be considered in establishing a rationale
`
`for combining elements of the prior art. These factors include: (1) whether the
`
`claimed invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements
`
`according to their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an
`
`obvious solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether it would have
`
`been obvious to try the combinations of elements, such as when there is a design
`
`need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions; and (4) whether the change resulted more from
`
`design incentives or other market forces. I further understand that for an invention to
`
`be rendered obvious, the prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE
`RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`21. To determine the relevant field, I reviewed the ‘027 patent and its file history.
`
`22. To determine the scope of the prior art, I understand the prior art must be
`
`earlier than the earliest priority date for the ‘027 patent. The ‘027 patent issued from
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/391,529, which was a national stage application of
`
`PCT/GB2010/050989, filed on June 14, 2010. The PCT claims priority to European
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Application No. 09168430.8 filed on August 21, 2009, European Patent
`
`Application No. 09168429.0 filed on August 21, 2009, Great Britain Patent
`
`Application 1004216.6 filed on March 15, 2010, and Great Britain Patent
`
`Application 1009450.6 filed on June 7, 2010.
`
`23. Based on this history, the ‘027 patent has at least a claim to the August 21,
`
`2009 filing date of the European Patent Applications as its earliest priority date.
`
`Without confirming or acknowledging that the ‘027 patent is entitled to this priority
`
`date, the following opinion relies on prior art that is prior art to the August 21, 2009
`
`priority date.
`
`24. Based on my review of this material, I believe that the relevant field for the
`
`purposes of the ‘027 patent is, in general, mechanical engineering, design, and
`
`manufacture.
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” is a
`
`hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine
`
`task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I
`
`have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by prior art
`
`references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field, at the time the application for the ‘027 patent was effectively filed,
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`would have either (1) an undergraduate degree in physics, engineering, or a related
`
`field, or (2) have had at least three to five years of experience in the design or
`
`manufacture of electrical fittings, electrical connectors, or sealants for electrical
`
`fitting and connectors.
`
`26. My background education and professional experience provide me with a
`
`strong understanding of the abilities and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art for the relevant field of the ‘027 patent. Not only do I have such abilities and
`
`knowledge, but I have also taught, worked with, and overseen the work of others
`
`with such abilities and knowledge in my capacities as a professor, a consultant, and a
`
`professional engineer.
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART FOR THE ‘027 PATENT
`A. Two-Chamber Dispensers
`27. The use of two-chamber dispenser apparatuses for mixing and dispensing
`
`curable liquids to electrical fittings was well known more than one year before the
`
`‘027 patent’s earliest priority date. For example, SpeedSeal Manual and SpeedSeal
`
`Brochure both show that the Crouse-Hinds “CHICO® SpeedSeal™ Compound”
`
`(“SpeedSeal”) was available commercially in a two-chamber dispenser as early as
`
`March 2003. Ex. 1009 at 1; Ex. 1010 at 2. SpeedSeal is “a 2-part rigid polyurethane
`
`foam,” resulting from a mixture of “Diphenylmethane diisocyanate or Methylene
`
`bisphenyl Isocyanate (MDI)” and “polyol.” Ex. 1011 at 1; Ex. 1012 at 1. MDI is a
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`“[d]ark brown liquid.”, while polyol is a “[g]rey colored liquid.” Ex. 1011 at 3; Ex.
`
`1013 at 3.
`
`28. The 2005 Isocyanate MSDS shows that “MDI” and “polyol are supplied in
`
`separate plastic compartments in a closed plastic container.” Ex. 1011 at 1. The
`
`barrier between the two substances is broken before dispersion.” Id. The plastic
`
`container or “cartridge” is shown in the annotated figure below. Ex. 1010 at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`29. The SpeedSeal Manual instructs users to “[r]emove the tape band from the
`
`cartridge” and “[p]ull the mixing rod up to the top of the cartridge” as illustrated in
`
`Figure 4 below (reproduced with annotations1). Ex. 1009 at 2.
`
`
`30. SpeedSeal Manual further instructs users to “[s]queeze the cartridge in the area
`
`of the removed tape band to deform the foil barrier between the two materials,” and
`
`“[m]ix rapidly for 40 to 50 strokes” as shown in Figure 5 below (reproduced with
`
`annotations). Id.
`
`
`1 Annotations in black are in original. Annotations in red have been added.
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`31. The SpeedSeal Manual then instructs users to remove the “mixing rod” by
`
`“grasp[ing] the cartridge firmly at the bottom … and immediately unscrew[ing] the
`
`mixing rod and remov[ing it] carefully,” as illustrated in Figure 6 below (reproduced
`
`with annotations). Id.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`32. The user is then instructed to “[s]crew nozzle onto cartridge where mixing rod
`
`was removed,” as illustrated in Figure 7 below (reproduced with annotations). Id.
`
`
`33. Finally, the user is instructed to “use the mixing rod to push the plunger [to]
`
`[i]nject the proper amount of sealing compound material into the fitting through the
`
`EYS threaded opening,” as illustrated in Figure 8 below (reproduced with
`
`annotations). Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`Flexible Barriers
`34. Elastomeric barriers stretched around cable cores in a cable gland were also
`
`well known before the filing date of the ‘027 patent. U.S. Patent No. 5,596,176 to
`
`Everitt, filed in November 1994 (Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,822 to
`
`Widman, filed in July 2001 (Ex. 1007) are two such examples.
`
`35. Everitt is directed to a cable gland that is closed by a cable sealing member
`
`that is “a synthetic rubber membrane, e.g., a silicone rubber membrane.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`col. 1, l. 64 to col. 2, l. 14. Everitt addresses the problem of leaking seals and
`
`instances where “not all the gaps in the seal are reliably filled by the sealing
`
`compound.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 42–47. Everitt provides a membrane that engages
`
`cables in the cable gland to form a “pressure seal … to contain a silicone rubber
`
`sealing compound or the like.” Id at col. 4, ll. 1–16; see also Figures 3A, 5B,
`
`reproduced with annotations below. Everitt notes that “[t]he resilience of the
`
`silicone rubber membrane … forms a tight mechanical seal.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 50–53.
`
`The membrane may be pierced by the cable to form apertures, or the membrane
`
`“could be pre-pierced at the locations thereof.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 13–23. In the process
`
`of forming a pressure seal with the rubber membrane and the sealing compound,
`
`“cable bundle interstices are well filled [so] that any air pockets which may have
`
`been formed during the potting procedure are forced out.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 56–65.
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`36. Widman is directed to an apparatus and method for sealing a conduit with a
`
`pair of neoprene membranes. Ex. 1007 at Abstract. Widman provides a way to
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`“prevent[] the passage of vapor, gases, or flames via the conduit from section to
`
`section” by hermetically sealing the conduit. Id. at col. 1, l. 6 to col. 2, l. 36.
`
`Widman discloses an “apparatus 10 [that] couples opposing ends of a conduit 12 to
`
`each other by hermetically sealing the inside of the conduit and its contents, namely
`
`wires and/or cables 14, from the outside.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 56–59; see also Fig. 1
`
`(reproduced below, with annotations). Widman includes flexible membranes 36 and
`
`38 that “have openings, in the form of slits, through which the wires/cables 14 can be
`
`accommodated. The openings in the membranes 36 and 38 are smaller than the outer
`
`diameter of the wires/cables 14 so that the membranes form an interference fit
`
`around the outer diameter of the wires/cables.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 20–27. The sealed
`
`chamber is filled with an “epoxy sealant compound … releasing any air, other gases,
`
`or moisture which may be trapped.” Id. at col. 2. ll. 26–36.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘027 PATENT
`37. The ‘027 patent, entitled “Filler Assembly for Cable Gland” is generally
`
`directed to a “filler assembly for cable glands and relates particularly, but not
`
`exclusively to such a filler assembly for filling cable glands for use in hazardous
`
`areas.” Ex. 1001 at col. 1, ll. 14–17.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`In one embodiment of the invention, shown in Figures 1 and 2 (reproduced
`
`38.
`
`above with annotations), “a dispenser apparatus 2 … [is] use[d] in filling a cable
`
`gland 4… with curable liquid material 6.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 26–28. The dispenser
`
`apparatus includes “a body of suitable transparent flexible plastics material defining
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`a flexible bag 8 having a first compartment 10 for accommodating a first component
`
`of a liquid curable material 6, and a second compartment 12 for accommodating a
`
`second component of the material 6.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–36.
`
`39. The dispenser apparatus further includes a barrier that “temporarily separates
`
`the first compartment 10 and second compartment 12 to thereby prevent mixing of
`
`the first and second components of the material 6.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 33–36. The
`
`dispenser apparatus also includes a second barrier that “temporarily prevents material
`
`flowing from the second compartment 12 into the nozzle 16, so that dispensing of the
`
`material 6 can be prevented until thorough mixing together of the first and second
`
`components has occurred.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 52–56.
`
`40.
`
`In one embodiment, the “first and second components are coloured differently
`
`(for example blue and yellow) so that thorough mixing of the first and second
`
`components produces a green liquid, thereby providing a visual indication when
`
`thorough mixing of the first and second components has occurred.” Id. at col. 3, 36–
`
`40. The dispenser apparatus includes an “elongate hollow nozzle 16 extending from
`
`the second compartment 12 such that dispensing of the mixed curable liquid material
`
`can be carefully controlled.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 43–53.
`
`41. As shown in Fig. 3 (reproduced below with annotations), the cable gland 4
`
`includes “a flexible seal 32.” Id. at col. 4, l. 9. The “flexible seal 32 comprises a
`
`generally frusto-conical body of elastomeric material having an aperture (not shown)
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`therethrough for engaging the core conductors 20 of the cable 22.” Id. at col. 4, ll.
`
`13–16. The “aperture in the seal 32 is sized such that it stretches to pass around the
`
`core conductors 20 to tightly engage the core conductors 20 to form a reasonably
`
`effective barrier to passage of the material 6 along the space defined between the
`
`core conductors 20 and the compound tube 26.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 17–21.
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`42.
`
`In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, I understand that
`
`the claims of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) in view of the specification from the perspective of one skilled
`
`in the art. I have been informed that the ‘027 patent has not expired. In comparing
`
`the claims of the ‘027 patent to the known prior art, I have carefully considered the
`
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`‘027 patent and the ‘027 patent file history based upon my experience and
`
`knowledge in the relevant field. In my opinion, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim terms of the ‘027 patent is generally consistent with each
`
`of the term’s ordinary and customary meaning, as one skilled in the relevant field
`
`would understand them, subject to the terms identified below.
`
`43. Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 of the ‘027 patent each recite a “cable gland.” The
`
`specification of the ‘027 patent does not expressly define this term, but uses the term
`
`“cable gland” consistently with how that term was used in the art at the time of
`
`filing. For example, IEC 60070-1 (Ex. 1014) defines a “cable gland” as “a device
`
`designed to permit the entry of a cable, flexible cable or insulated conducto[r]
`
`enclosure, and which provides sealing and retention.” IAEI News (Ex. 1015) defines
`
`a “cable gland” as “a familiar term from the 2002 CE Code. A cable gland is a
`
`device used for the entry of cables or cords to provide strain relief at the points where
`
`they enter electrical equipment. It may also provide sealing to contain explosive
`
`gases, using an approved sealing compound within the cable gland.”
`
`44. From my experience in mechanical engineering, these definitions are
`
`consistent with how the term “cable gland” is used. From my experience, the terms,
`
`“cable glands” and “cable connectors, joints, or fittings” are used interchangeably to
`
`refer to the devices defined above.
`
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`45. Based on the definitions above, the disclosure of the ‘027 patent, and my
`
`experience, it is my opinion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “cable
`
`gland” is a “fitting, joint, or connector for protecting and connecting a cable.”
`
`46. Claims 16 and 17 of the ‘027 patent each recite a “resin well.” The
`
`specification of the ‘027 patent does not expressly define this term. Instead, the
`
`specification of the ‘027 patent discloses that “[i]n order to fill the core of the cable
`
`gland 4 with curable material, the flexible seal 32 initially placed over the core
`
`conductors 20 of the cable 22 so that the seal 32 tightly grips the core conductors
`
`20…. As a result, the flexible seal 32 acts as a barrier to penetration of the curable
`
`liquid material 6 into the interior of the cable gland 4.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 37–45. The
`
`specification of the ‘027 patent also discloses that “[t]he liquid material 6 is then
`
`dispensed through the nozzle 16 into the space between the core conductors 20 of the
`
`cable 22 and into the space around the core conductors 20 inside the compound tube
`
`26 of the cable gland 4, where its movement along the axis of the cable gland 4 is
`
`restricted by the flexible seal 32.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 54–59.
`
`47. Based on my reading of the ‘027 patent, I understand that the claimed “resin
`
`well” corresponds to the space around the core conductors inside the compound tube
`
`of the cable gland identified in the specification of the ‘027 patent where the liquid
`
`material is dispensed. Based on my experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention would understand the term “resin well” to mean “the
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`Cooper Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`space at the core of the gland defined by the flexible barrier member, where the
`
`curable material is retained.” This is consistent with the specification of the ‘027
`
`patent.
`
`48. Based on the specification of the ‘027 patent and my experience, it is my
`
`opinion that the broadest reasonable interpre