UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. and
`Nuna International B.V.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Britax Child Safety, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW BOWMAN
`
`Page 1 of 112
`
`Nuna Exhibit 1003
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. and
`Nuna International B.V.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Britax Child Safety, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW BOWMAN
`
`Page 1 of 112
`
`Nuna Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`I, Andrew Bowman, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. (“Nuna
`
`BE”) and Nuna International B.V. (“Nuna BV”) to offer technical opinions relating
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074 (the ’074 patent), and prior art references relating to its
`
`subject matter.
`
`2.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have relied on
`
`my education and experience in industry, academia, and in consulting for industry.
`
`I also reviewed the ’074 patent, portions of its prosecution history, and any prior art
`
`or other documents cited in this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $275/hour for my work in this
`
`matter.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`My name is Andrew Bowman. I am employed at Veer Gear, LLC
`
`where I am the Chief Operations Officer and Chief Innovation Officer. I understand
`
`that my curriculum vitae is being filed as Exhibit 1004.
`
`5.
`
`I am a mechanical engineer by training. I received a Bachelor of Sci-
`
`ence degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in
`
`1994 and received a Masters of Science degree in Fire Protection Engineering from
`
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1996.
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`6.
`
`I have worked in the juvenile products field for more than 15 years and
`
`have been actively involved with the engineering, research, product design, devel-
`
`opment, and manufacturing of juvenile products, including child safety seats.
`
`7.
`
`From 2003 to 2014, I was employed by Graco Children’s Products
`
`(“Graco”) in various roles. I started in 2003 as a project manager where I led the
`
`R&D team in developing numerous child safety seats and home products. These
`
`products included first of their kind adjustable bases for infant carriers and forward-
`
`facing child safety seats.
`
`8.
`
`From 2004 to 2007, I became a global engineering manager at Graco
`
`for strollers and travel systems. In that role I led R&D and global product develop-
`
`ment teams for strollers and travel systems from product concept through mass pro-
`
`duction.
`
`9.
`
`From 2007 to 2009, I became the Director of R&D for strollers and car
`
`seats at Graco. In that role I led R&D and global product development teams for
`
`strollers and car seats from product concept through mass production.
`
`10. From 2009 to 2011, I became the Director of R&D and Business De-
`
`velopment at Graco as part of the Aprica Global Expansion. In that role I led the
`
`small business team integrating the acquisition of Aprica. Part of this role included
`
`evaluating the viability of existing car seat and stroller designs for launch into the
`
`EU and US markets. This included evaluating the product manufacturing, cost, and
`2
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 112
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`market assessment.
`
`11.
`
`From 2011 to 2012, I became a Director of R&D for emerging markets
`
`at Graco. In that role I served as the lead product strategist and new product devel-
`
`oper for emerging markets, including developing new car seat and stroller products.
`
`12.
`
`From 2012 to 2014, I became a Director of R&D for mobility and home
`
`products at Graco. In that role I was responsible for covered strollers and travel
`
`systems, including strollers and child safety seats. I was also responsible for home
`
`products, including playards, swings, and high chairs. I oversaw development from
`
`product concept to mass production.
`
`13.
`
`Since 2015, I have helped found Veer Gear, LLC where I serve as the
`
`Chief Operating Officer and Chief Innovation Officer. In these roles I have led the
`
`development and launch of a next generation cross-over stroller/wagon including a
`
`stroller that includes infant car seat adapters. I am also responsible for operations
`
`and supply chain.
`
`14. My extensive experience with juvenile products and, particularly, child
`
`car seats, is applicable to analyzing the ’074 patent.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that there are two ways that prior art references
`
`can render a patent claim unpatentable: anticipation and obviousness. Counsel has
`
`informed me that the petitioner has the burden in an IPR to show unpatentability by
`3
`
`Page 4 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`16.
`
`I also understand that there is a set process as follows: a) the claims of
`
`a patent are properly construed, b) then, you must compare the claim language to the
`
`prior art on a limitation-by-limitation basis. If the prior art reference contains all the
`
`elements of the claim language (explicitly or inherently), arranged as in the claims,
`
`then that is considered anticipation.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that an invention is obvious when the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. For this reason, I have been asked to consider the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`18. Counsel has also instructed me that in an obviousness determination the
`
`factors to consider are: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`Secondary considerations include: a long-felt need; commercial success; unexpected
`
`results; praise of the invention; licensing; copying; failure of others; and skepticism
`
`by experts.
`
`19. Counsel has also instructed me that an obviousness inquiry may involve
`4
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assessing the motivation of a person of ordinary skill to combine references. The
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`prior art references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to
`
`combine, but other sources may also support a rationale for combining two or more
`
`prior art references.
`
`20.
`
`It is also my understanding through counsel that the combination of fa-
`
`miliar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no
`
`more than yield predictable results. It is further my understanding that a proper ob-
`
`viousness analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, not just the patentee.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that, in this proceeding, claim terms in the ’074
`
`patent must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent
`
`specification.
`
`22.
`
`I have been asked to assume that October 25, 2013, is the date of the
`
`invention, as that is the earliest date to which the ’074 patent claims priority. I have
`
`not conducted a separate analysis to determine whether the challenged claims are
`
`entitled to this priority date, as I understand that the prior art references discussed
`
`below qualify as prior art even if all claims are deemed to be entitled to the October
`
`25, 2013, priority date.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art and Materials Considered
`
`23. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) for the ’074 patent would
`5
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have had a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering or a related subject and
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`two or more years of experience working with child safety seats. Less work experi-
`
`ence may be compensated for by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s
`
`Degree, and vice versa.
`
`24.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have consid-
`
`ered, among other things, the following documents. I understand the documents
`
`have been given the following exhibit numbers in this proceeding:
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074 (“the ’074 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`Declaration of Andrew Bowman
`CV of Andrew Bowman
`U.S. Patent No. 7,901,003 (“Meeker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,510 (“Yamazaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,611,596 (“Barley”)
`Fang D. Tsai & Michael Perel, Drivers’ Mistakes When Installing
`Child Seats, NHTSA, (2009)
`Amended Complaint, Britax Child Safety, Inc. v. Nuna Interna-
`tional B.V. and Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc., No. 5-17-cv-02724-
`JFL (E.D. Pa. June 16, 2017)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0088057 (“the ’057 Publication”)
`Japanese Patent No. 05185869 (“Washimi”)
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Patent No. 05185869
`(“Washimi”) and Certificate of Translation
`NHTSA, Misuse of Child Restraints, DOT HS 809 671 (Jan. 2004)
`Ex. 1013
`Meriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (2008)
`Ex. 1014
`In forming my opinions, I have also relied on my education and experience.
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 7 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. The ’074 Patent and Claim Terms
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`A. The ’074 Patent
`25. The ’074 patent is directed to a child seat “including a tensioning mech-
`
`anism for applying tension to a seat belt.” ’074 patent, Abstract. The preamble of
`
`claim 1 specifies that the seat is a convertible child seat, meaning that it can be con-
`
`figured to be rear-facing or front-facing, and uses a single tensioning mechanism to
`
`tension the belt in both configurations. Claim 1 then describes a seat base with a
`
`seat portion, a backrest portion, and two lateral edges, as shown below in an exam-
`
`ple, annotated Figure 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’074 patent, Fig. 9 (annotated). The child seat is configured to receive a vehicle belt
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`in an untensioned state in both the rear-facing configuration and the front-facing
`
`configuration. Id.
`
`26. Next, claim 1 describes a tensioning mechanism with a proximal end
`
`pivotally connected to the backrest portion and forming a sitting surface in the distal
`
`end. Figure 12, reproduced below, provides an illustration of an example of the ten-
`
`sioning mechanism.
`
`
`
`
`
`’074 patent, Fig. 12 (annotated). The tensioning mechanism is configured to rotate
`8
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`so that it presses against the untensioned belt to create tension in the belt and secure
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`the child seat to the vehicle seat. ’074 patent, 15:47-66.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`27. Counsel has instructed me that a claim in an unexpired patent subject
`
`to inter partes review “shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
` “untensioned state” and “untensioned configuration”
`1.
`28. Claim 1 requires “a belt of the vehicle seat in an untensioned state.”
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the configuration is “to secure the child seat to a vehicle
`
`seat in an untensioned configuration.” The ’074 patent specification describes in
`
`detail what it means for the belt to be in an “untensioned” configuration. ’074 patent,
`
`6:39-44; 12:57–64; 13:9–25; 15:4–47. Specifically, the ’074 patent specification
`
`states that “seat base 305 may be configured to receive a seat belt 317 in an unten-
`
`sioned state. Because embodiments of the child seat 300 have a tensioning mecha-
`
`nism 330, there is no need for the belt 317 to be tensioned directly by a user
`
`grasping the belt 317.” Id., 15:38-42 (emphasis added). “[T]he untensioned belt 25
`
`of the vehicle seat 28 has secured the child seat 10 in an untensioned configuration.”
`
`Id., 13:21-23. “For example, in some embodiments, slack may remain in the belt
`
`25 such that the child seat 10 is not fully secured to the vehicle seat 28.” Id., 13:23–
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 10 of 112
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`25 (emphasis added). The ’074 patent discloses “[t]he tensioning mechanism ena-
`
`bles a user to easily apply tension to (e.g., remove slack from) a latched seat belt
`
`during installation of the child seat to the vehicle seat. This causes the child seat to
`
`become more fully secured to the vehicle seat (e.g., the child seat enters a ten-
`
`sioned configuration).” Id., 6:39-44 (emphasis added). Therefore, as described by
`
`the ’074 patent, the “untensioned state” is one in which additional tension is neces-
`
`sary for the child seat 10 to be fully secured to the vehicle seat 28. Id. Similarly,
`
`the “untensioned configuration” is one in which additional tension must be added
`
`for the child seat 10 to be fully secured to the vehicle seat 28. Id.
`
`29.
`
`Therefore, in accordance with the ’074 patent specification, I believe
`
`that the term “an untensioned state” must be construed to mean “a not fully tensioned
`
`state.” Likewise, “an untensioned configuration” must be construed to mean “a not
`
`fully tensioned configuration.”
`
`“sitting surface”
`2.
`30. Claim 1 requires “tensioning mechanism having a proximal end pivot-
`
`ally attached to the backrest portion of the seat base and a distal end comprising a
`
`sitting surface for an occupant of the child seat” (emphasis added). The term “sit-
`
`ting” is a gerund of the verb “sit.” The plain and ordinary meaning of the word “sit,”
`
`is “to rest on the buttocks or haunches.” See Ex. 1014, Meriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`
`Dictionary, 11th Edition, 3 (2008). Accordingly, the term “sitting surface” should
`
`10
`
`Page 11 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be construed to mean “a surface upon which to rest on the buttocks or haunches.”
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`Furthermore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “sitting surface” should not
`
`be construed to include a surface upon which one’s back rests, i.e. a backrest.
`
`“tensioning mechanism”
`3.
`Independent claim 1 recites that “movement of the tensioning mecha-
`
`31.
`
`nism from the second position to the first position presses the belt against the first
`
`and second edges and deflects a portion of the belt between first and second edges
`
`to be closer to the seat or backrest portion” (emphasis added). Further, claim 1
`
`requires that “the seat base of the child seat is configured to receive the belt when
`
`the seat base is in both a rear-facing orientation and when the seat base is in a
`
`front-facing orientation” (emphasis added). In my opinion, considering both of
`
`these claim recitations together illustrates that claim 1 should be construed to require
`
`the “tensioning mechanism” to be configured to deflect both a portion of the belt
`
`closer to the seat portion, in the rear-facing orientation, and to deflect a portion of
`
`the belt closer to the backrest portion, in the front-facing orientation.
`
`32. Therefore, I believe that the “tensioning mechanism” in claim 1 should
`
`be construed to require belt deflection in both orientations, not just one of the rear-
`
`facing orientation or the front-facing orientation. Independent claims 1 and 16 pro-
`
`vide one or more similar recitations to claim 1 and should be similarly construed. I
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 12 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`considered this claim construction for Grounds 1 and 2. As an alternative, I consid-
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`ered a different claim construction for Ground 3, where independent claims 1 and
`
`16 require the “tensioning mechanism” to be configured to deflect a belt in only one
`
`orientation, either the rear-facing orientation or the front-facing orientation.
`
`VI. Petitioner’s Prior Art
`A. The Meeker Reference
`33. Like the ’074 patent, Meeker discloses a “car seat for transporting a
`
`child in an automobile” that is “convertible from a rear-facing infant carrier into a
`
`forward-facing toddler carrier.” Meeker, Abstract. The “convertible car seats are
`
`designed for use with growing children.” Id., 1:19-20. Seat shell assembly 12 in-
`
`cludes a seating surface 16, a back surface 18, and raised right and left sides, 20R
`
`and 20L, respectively. Id., 7:25-27.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 13 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`34.
`
`I believe that a major concern in the industry, which is expressed in
`
`Meeker, is securely attaching the child seat to the vehicle seat. See Meeker, 1:19-
`
`2:38, 5:6-9. That concern is addressed by auto belt clamps for the auto belt paths.
`
`Forward-facing belt path 184 passes through the seat back and includes auto belt
`
`clamp 186. Id., 10:9-13. The rear-facing belt path passes between rear facing belt
`
`clamps 162R and 162L. Id., 10:29-32. These clamps “prevent[] unwanted side to
`
`side motion of the child seat relative to the auto seat and belts.” Id., 5:6-9.
`
`35. The auto belt clamp 186 includes lock arm 144 pivoting at axis 152.
`
`Id., 10:13-15. In an open position, auto belt clamp 186 allows auto belt 156 to pass
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 14 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`between the seat and auto belt clamp 186. Id., 10:24-28. In the closed position, the
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`lock arm 144 can “close[] against auto belt 156.” Id., 10:15-19. The rear-facing belt
`
`clamps 162R and 162L operate similarly to the auto belt clamp 186 and include lock
`
`arms 166 pivoting at axis 168. Id., 10:30-35. In the open position, “lock arm 166 is
`
`open and away from clamp base 164.” Id., 10:37-38. To secure belt 178, rear facing
`
`belt clamp 162L closes “against clamp base 164 and auto belt 178.” Id., 10:37-46.
`
`The Yamazaki Reference
`B.
`36. Like the ’074 patent, Yamazaki discloses a “child car seat.” Yamazaki,
`
`Abstract. Yamazaki discloses a child seat “fastened to the passenger seat by a seat
`
`belt,” attempting to “provide a child car seat that is easy to set on a passenger seat
`
`of a vehicle and allows for a seat belt…to be simply and sufficiently tensioned.” Id.,
`
`1:6-9, 1:46-49.
`
`37. To secure seat belt 4, Yamazaki provides tightening mechanism 11 that
`
`presses seat belt 4 into recesses 10d and side plates 10c. Yamazaki, 3:19-47. Tight-
`
`ening mechanism 11 consists of lever 12 and shaft 13. Id., 3:18-47.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 15 of 112
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`Id., Fig. 1. Lever 12 rotates about shaft 13 to close into opening 14. Id., 3:18-47.
`
`As shown above, belt 4 fits into a groove of lever 12 in the open position. Id. This
`
`belt can be placed in the groove in an untensioned state, “the simultaneous perfor-
`
`mance of two actions.” Id., 4:62-66. This occurs because, when lever 12 closes, it
`
`presses belt 4 into opening 14, tightening belt 4 and creating tension. Id., 4:59-63.
`
`This process also causes belt 4 to press against recesses 10d “in inclined surfaces
`
`of the side plates 10c.” Id., 3:25-26. This allows the tensioning mechanism to cre-
`
`ate the tension securing the child seat to the vehicle seat rather than relying on the
`
`user to add enough tension and hold the tension while clamping the belt. Id., 4:59-
`
`5:2.
`
`15
`
`Page 16 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`38. Further, providing a single structure that users can easily grasp furthers
`
`the goal of Yamazaki’s tightening mechanism 11 to eliminate “the simultaneous per-
`
`formance of two actions.” Yamazaki, 4:62-66. Reducing the steps a user must per-
`
`form allows Yamazaki to increase the ease of use of the child seat, thereby reducing
`
`the potential for errors when securing the child seat to the vehicle. See id. Lever 12
`
`also creates a surface protruding into the sitting area of the seat. See id., Fig. 1.
`
`When lever 12 is open and protruding into the sitting area, the child cannot sit in the
`
`seat. See id., Fig. 1. This serves as a failsafe mechanism to prevent users from
`
`misusing the seat by ensuring that the user properly secures the child seat to the
`
`vehicle seat. See id.
`
`C. The Barley Reference
`39. Like the ’074 patent, Barley discloses a “child safety seat” with a strap
`
`path that “secures the seat body to a vehicle seat.” Barley, Abstract. To do this, a
`
`“strap deflecting lever is movable between a first position clear of said strap path
`
`and a second position in which the strap is deflected and thus tightened.” Id., Ab-
`
`stract.
`
`40. Barley has several embodiments, which all have flanges extending up
`
`the backrest portion 16 and pivoting into the seat to deflect the belt. One embodi-
`
`ment, shown in Figures 13-17, uses “a pair of flaps 354 and 356.” Barley, 5:37-47.
`
`The flaps rotate to a closed position where each flap “extends across its respective
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 17 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opening 352 so as to deflect the lap strap 348 and shoulder strap 350 of the adult seat
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`belt rearwardly from their direct path between the openings 352.” Id., 5:37-47. Thus,
`
`as shown in Figure 13 below, Barley discloses a tensioning mechanism that displaces
`
`two belt paths, lap strap 348 and shoulder strap 350.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 13 (annotated).
`
`D. The Washimi Reference
`41. Like the ’074 patent, Washimi discloses a “child seat.” Washimi, Ab-
`
`stract. Washimi discloses a child seat “to be installed to a vehicle seat by a simple
`
`operation…[to] prevent[] webbing from becoming loose as a result of reclining ac-
`
`tion.” Washimi, ¶[0008].
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 18 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`42. To secure webbing 60, Washimi uses rectangular lid 70 as a “cover
`
`member [] disposed on the straddle part 56.” Id., ¶[0024]. Rectangular lid connects
`
`to straddle part 56 with shaft 72 so that it rotates between open and closed positions.
`
`Id., ¶[0024]. “[A] pair of engagement protrusions 78 are formed on the bottom sur-
`
`face of the lid 70 . . . and are positioned so as to face the webbing 60 over the straddle
`
`part 56.” Id., ¶[0025].
`
`
`
`Washimi, Fig. 1 (annotated). Straddle part 56 that faces lid 70 includes engagement
`
`recesses 92. Id., ¶[0026]-[0027]. When lid 70 is open, “webbing 60 is positioned
`
`over the straddle part 56,” to where webbing 60 can be placed between lid 70 and
`18
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`straddle part 56. Id., ¶[0023], [0027], [0033]. Then, “when the lid 70 is closed and
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`the locking members 86 are at the first position,” webbing 60 is pressed and deflected
`
`between engagement protrusions 78 and engagement recesses 92 to deflect the belt
`
`and “the lap webbing 66 is retained in a tensed state.” Id., ¶[0027], [0034].
`
`43. Lid 70 also operates to create a failsafe mechanism so that “whether or
`
`not the webbing is locked can be confirmed without fail.” Id., ¶[0042]. Lid 70
`
`accomplishes this goal by protruding into the seating area when it is in the open
`
`position. Id., ¶[0042].
`
`VII. Opinions
`A. Ground 1: Meeker in View of Yamazaki and Barley Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-17
`It is my opinion that Meeker in view of Yamazaki and Barley renders
`
`44.
`
`obvious claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-17 because they collectively teach every feature
`
`in the challenged claims and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine them.
`
`1.
`
`Rationale to Combine Meeker, Yamazaki, and Barley
`and Reasonable Expectation of Success
`It is my opinion that those wishing to design a convertible car seat
`
`45.
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Meeker, Yamazaki, and Bar-
`
`ley. Meeker teaches all of the elements of independent claims 1, 11, and 16, except
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 20 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that Meeker does not expressly disclose a tensioning mechanism configured to de-
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`flect both a belt in the forward-facing orientation and the rear-facing orientation.
`
`46.
`
`I believe that a POSA would have been motivated to combine Meeker
`
`and Yamazaki because both references teach systems securing child seats to vehicle
`
`seats using securing mechanisms. Meeker uses a clamping mechanism, belt clamp
`
`186, to “prevent[] unwanted side to side motion of the car seat relative to the auto
`
`seat and belts.” Meeker, 5:6-9. The installation of Meeker’s child seat requires a
`
`user to simultaneously maintain tension while securing the belt, a process which is
`
`a common source of error for users. Loose installation errors are common, as iden-
`
`tified in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) report in
`
`2009 titled Drivers’ Mistakes When Installing Car Seats. Ex. 1008, Yi-Fang D.
`
`Tsai & Michael Perel, Drivers’ Mistakes When Installing Child Seats, NHTSA, Doc.
`
`No. DOT HS 811 234, 14 (2009) (“NHTSA Report Doc. No. DOT HS 811 234”).1
`
`
`1 The NHTSA Report Doc. No. DOT HS 811 234 is cited in Ex. 1010, US Patent
`
`Pub. No. 2013/0088057 (“the ’057 Publication”), filed December 9, 2011, and it
`
`states that “[a] 2009 NHTSA study entitled Drivers' Mistakes When Installing Child
`
`Seats (DOT HS 811 234) mentioned that approximately 73% of child restraints were
`
`installed incorrectly.” This reference to the NHTSA Report Doc. No. DOT HS 811
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 21 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, a POSA would have looked to improve Meeker’s clamping mechanism,
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`and Yamazaki discloses a tensioning mechanism as a replacement—so “the seat belt
`
`can be easily put on the child car seat and the seat belt used for fastening the child
`
`car seat to the passenger seat of the vehicle [to] be sufficiently tightened.” Yamazaki,
`
`4:66-5:2.
`
`47.
`
`I believe a POSA would have understood a belt was fully tensioned
`
`when the child seat was secured to where the child seat “should not move less than
`
`an inch in both the front-to-back and side-to-side directions when measured at the
`
`belt path.” See Ex. 1008.2 The industry standard for securing a child seat to a vehicle
`
`seat was and is that movement of a child restraint system of “more than 1 inch when
`
`checked at the belt path” was and is critical misuse. Ex. 1013, Lawrence E. Decina
`
`& Kathy H. Lococo, Misuse of Child Restraints, NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 809
`
`
`234 in the ’057 Publication confirms that this document was publicly available at
`
`least as of the filing date of the ’057 Publication on December 9, 2011.
`
`2 Examples of CRS Manual directions in 2009 stated the 1-inch rule. Ex. 1008; 36,
`
`58-60.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 22 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`671, 49 (Jan. 2004).3 In my opinion, a POSA would have understood that the belt is
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`fully tensioned when the belt’s tension holds the child seat in place according to this
`
`standard.
`
`48.
`
`I believe a POSA would have understood that the tensioning mecha-
`
`nism disclosed in Yamazaki provides a mechanical advantage to more securely and
`
`reliably connect the child seat by adding tension to the tension created by the vehic-
`
`ular retraction device and by the user manually pulling on the belt, while the clamps
`
`disclosed in Meeker seek merely to maintain that tension. Additionally, Yamazaki’s
`
`tightening mechanism 11 creates a failsafe configuration by providing a large lever
`
`12 protruding into the seat area, which ensures that tightening mechanism 11 must
`
`be in the closed position whenever a child is in the seat, thereby increasing safety.
`
`
`3 The NHTSA Report Doc. No. DOT HS 809 671 is cited in the ’057 Publication
`
`and it states that “pertinent information regarding standards and guidance can be
`
`found in three National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports,
`
`entitled...‘Misuse of Child Restraints.’” This reference to the NHTSA Report Doc.
`
`No. DOT HS 809 671 in the ’057 Publication confirms that this document was pub-
`
`licly available at least as of the filing date of the ’057 Publication on December 9,
`
`2011.
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 23 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Yamazaki’s tight-
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`
`
`
`ening mechanism 11 into Meeker’s child seat for its mechanical advantage and fail-
`
`safe mechanism to improve the safety, security, and reliability of the child seat.
`
`49. Lever 12 in Yamazaki covers the single belt path disclosed, while
`
`Meeker has two belt paths to secure. I believe a POSA designing a convertible child
`
`seat would have considered securing both belt paths equally important. Therefore,
`
`a POSA incorporating Yamazaki’s tightening mechanism 11 into Meeker’s child seat
`
`would have been motivated to modify lever 12 to cover both Meeker’s forward-fac-
`
`ing belt path and rear-facing belt path.
`
`50.
`
`I believe that a POSA would have been motivated to combine Meeker,
`
`Yamazaki, and Barley because all three references teach systems securing child seats
`
`to vehicle seats using securing mechanisms. Barley discloses a tensioning mecha-
`
`nism capable of covering more than one belt path by disclosing flaps 354 and 356
`
`that deflect both lap strap 348 and shoulder strap 350. Barley, 5:37-46. In view of
`
`Barley, a POSA would have considered extending Yamazaki’s lever 12 to cover both
`
`belt paths, requiring the lever to follow the contour of the seat to reach the additional
`
`rear-facing belt path. In my opinion, a POSA would be more motivated to use an
`
`elongated lever because the elongated lever would increase the mechanical ad-
`
`vantage, thereby amplifying the force exerted on the belt with the tensioning mech-
`
`anism even more than the original Yamazaki lever.
`23
`
`
`
`Page 24 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`51. Furthermore, like Yamazaki, Barley teaches flaps protruding into the
`
`seating area to “prevent[] occupation of the seat shell 10 by a child” unless the mech-
`
`anism is closed. Barley, 4:4-7. The mechanism therefore operates as a failsafe
`
`mechanism to ensure the child seat is secured to the vehicle seat before allowing a
`
`child to sit. In view of this disclosure in Barley, I believe a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to modify Yamazaki’s lever 12 to cover both Meeker’s forward-facing belt
`
`path and rear-facing belt path. Furthermore, a POSA would have understood that to
`
`cover Meeker’s rear-facing belt path, an elongated lever 12 would be required to
`
`follow the contour of the seat and form an “L” shape.
`
`52.
`
`I believe a POSA would have been motivated to make this modification
`
`to Meeker’s child seat to more securely fasten the child seat to the vehicle seat. Ac-
`
`cordingly, having a tensioning mechanism with an elongated “L” shaped lever pro-
`
`vides an improved way to secure the child seat to the vehicle seat. In view of Yama-
`
`zaki’s teachings for tightening mechanism 11 creating a way to “simply and suffi-
`
`ciently” secure the child seat to the vehicle seat, a POSA would have had a reason-
`
`able expectation of success in modifying Meeker’s child seat to include a tensioning
`
`mechanism without “the simultaneous performance of two actions for keeping the
`
`length of the seat belt fixed and tightening the seat belt.” Yamazaki, 1:46-49, 4:62-
`
`66.
`
`
`
`24
`
`Page 25 of 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00066
`U.S. Patent No. 9,499,074
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would have been aware of the design need and
`
`market pressure to solve a problem associated with Meeker’s belt clamps. A POSA
`
`would have had good reason to pursue the known options, and those options would
`
`have been within a POSA’s technical grasp. In view of the interrelated teachings of
`
`Meeker, Yamazaki, and Barley, the effects of the demands known to a POSA, and
`
`the background knowledge of a POSA, I believe it would have been obvious to mod-
`
`ify Meeker’s system to include Yamazaki’s tightening mechanism in view of Barley.
`
`54. Accordingly, I believe a POSA would have been motivated to modify
`
`Meeker’s system to include Yamazaki’s tightening mechanism, in view of Barley,
`
`and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing this mod-
`
`ification to Meeker’s system.
`
`2.
`a.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`[1p] “A child seat configured to be secured to a vehi-
`cle seat in both a r
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
