Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: April 2, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LORNIC DESIGN, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUMBOLDT B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`____________
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 3, 2020
`__________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, JAMES A. WORTH, and RYAN H. FLAX,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 46
`Entered: April 2, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LORNIC DESIGN, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUMBOLDT B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`____________
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 3, 2020
`__________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, JAMES A. WORTH, and RYAN H. FLAX,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOVAN N. JOVANOVIC, ESQ.
`VLADAN M. VASILJEVIC, ESQ.
`The Watson IP Group, PLC
`3133 Highland Drive
`Suite 200
`Hudsonville, Michigan 49426
`616-797-1000
`jjovanovic@watson-ip.com
`vvasiljevic@watson-ip.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHAD E. NYDEGGER, ESQ.
`Workman Nydegger
`60 East South Temple
`Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`801-533-9800
`cnydegger@wnlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-titled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, March 3,
`
`2020, commencing at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`(10:01 a.m.)
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Good morning. Please be seated. This is the oral
`hearing for IPR2019-00346, Petitioner, Lornic Design challenges Claim 1
`through 5 and 7 through 22 of U.S. Patent Number 9,433,225, owned by
`Humboldt.
`Starting with the Petitioner's counsel, followed by Patent Owner's
`counsel, please state your names for the record.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Jovan Jovanovic appearing for Petitioner along
`with Mr. Vladan Vasiljevic.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Jovanovic.
`MR. NYDEGGER: Chad Nydegger for Workman Nydegger
`appearing on behalf of the Patent Owner, Humboldt.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Nydegger. Each party has one hour
`of total time to present its arguments and each party may reserve time for
`rebuttal.
`In our hearing order we directed the parties to contact us ten days prior
`to this hearing if there were any concerns about disclosing confidential
`information. And since we received no contact, we'll assume that the parties
`will not be discussing any confidential information.
`If that is an issue, I would like the parties to confer with each other
`and propose some dates for a telephone conference if any confidential
`information needs to be disclosed and email that to trials@uspto.gov.
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`Two last reminders, please refer to your demonstratives by slide
`numbers so that the transcript will be clear. And please do not interrupt to
`make an objection.
`With all that said, Mr. Jovanovic, you may start when you are ready.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Good morning.
`JUDGE JUNG: How much time would you like to reserve for
`rebuttal?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: I'd like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal. Can
`you guys hear me well enough, and the court reporter as well?
`JUDGE JUNG: Perfect.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: May it please the Board, Jovan Jovanovic again
`appearing for Petitioner, Lornic Design. I'd like to talk about four different
`areas today. The invention, the secondary references being analogous art, the
`combination teaching all of the elements claimed, and that there are no
`secondary considerations.
`I'd like to focus on what the invention was. The invention is
`essentially a replacement of a slide onto a rod with a snap on, onto a rod. And
`you can see here the patent representative Claim 1. There are six independent
`claims.
`We're focusing on Claim 1 because all the claims involve the brush
`element. All the claims involve the area of interest, 1.6. And then most all
`the claims involve 1.8.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`So, detachment brush elements for animal carcass processing have
`been known in the art since the 70’s. And that's the Debaere reference which
`shows elongated brush elements that are coupled to a rotatable body that
`rotates in a machine.
`And you can see the ’225 Patent on the one side and the same structure
`on the other side in Figure 2 of Debaere. Moving to the elements themselves,
`the brush elements, you can see there's a cylindrical component that interfaces
`with the rod and then a plurality of whips that extend from it. As the whips
`rotate they contact the carcass typically removing the hair that has been singed
`or burned previously in a previous step.
`Referring now to Slide 8 we can see the only difference between the
`two, if you look at Debaere on the one side and the ’225 Patent on the other
`side, there's a profiled side of the whip, there's a coupling to a rod member.
`The ’225 Patent shows a snap on coupling. Debaere shows a slide on
`coupling.
`JUDGE WORTH: So, just a question. How does Debaere stay on?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So, what happens with Debaere is the rods
`themselves are detachable at either end and have been for many years. And
`so, when the machine is maintained those are slid off, the rods are detached
`and slid off.
`What happened much later is welded rods came into being. And at
`that point you couldn't slide on and off things.
`JUDGE WORTH: Are there bolts?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`MR. JOVANOVIC: There are bolts at the end. So, if I go back to --
`if we look on Slide 7 there's a bolt just north of 43 here or there's a bolt down
`here. In this instance, there's a bolt down on the bottom to remove and the
`bolt can be slid off or separated.
`JUDGE WORTH: So, it's not really a slide on bolt?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Well so, this cylinder is slid on and freely rotates
`relative to the rod. They're all just slid sequentially down the rod. But they're
`sliding. They can slide back and forth and they can rotate.
`They don't rotate with the rod. The rod is fixed at both ends to the
`frame. So, they're rotating, no different than the snap on. They are just slid
`into position.
`JUDGE WORTH: There's a bolt at the end.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Bolt at the end of the rod, not at the end of the
`brush element. So, it's a different -- if I can go back. So, in the patent here
`the brushes are clipped onto each one, sequentially clipped onto the rod.
`In Debaere the rod is disconnected at this end and they're all
`sequentially slid down. So it's the rod that's attached to the frame. The
`individual brush elements can freely -- they're just a sliding coupling.
`They can slide up and down the rod. They can rotate relative to the
`rod no different than what's in the ’225 Patent. Does that make sense?
`JUDGE WORTH: Where is the bolts on one of the diagrams?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So, what would hold the rod of Debaere in place,
`and it varies by manufacturer, is it's something at the very bottom or
`something at the very top.
`So in this one at the bottom, that's what holds the rod into position.
`And the rod is held into position relative to this rotatable component.
`And so the brush elements themselves function the same way. That's
`why you can use, whether you have welded rods or whether you have
`removable rods you could use the snap on because they function the same
`way. Does that make sense?
`JUDGE WORTH: I mean, you can proceed.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Okay. And so, if we look here everything in the
`green area is presented in Debaere. And what's not presented in Debaere is
`the white area, all of which references the narrowed entrance channel, the snap
`on feature.
`The prosecution of the patent went through seven rejections, eight
`amendments, three RCEs and what finally achieved allowance was the white
`area in Slide 9, I'm sorry, in Slide 10, the white area that was added by
`examiner's amendment when essentially the claims were rewritten by
`examiner amendment. It was the white area that was added. And what we
`contest is that, had the examiner had the references, the type of snap on
`connection that is talked about in that white area is a commonly known snap
`on configuration that has been around for many years.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`Let's focus now onto the secondary references. The secondary
`references are analogous art.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Jovanovic, before you move on.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: I'd like to ask a question about the claim construction.
`In our Decision to Institute, we did not explicitly adopt all the interpretations
`proposed by Patent Owner in related litigation.
`Do you agree that for the Final Written Decision we don't have to
`expressly adopt all constructions for the related litigation to decide the parties’
`dispute?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Do I -- can you repeat that? I'm sorry.
`JUDGE JUNG: Do you agree that we do not have to adopt all the
`Patent Owner's proposed interpretations for related litigation?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: No, certainly don't. It's persuasive and we have
`proceeded under that for purposes of moving forward with the IPR. But it's
`certainly not required.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: And those were all, as we noted in our papers
`those were all the Patent Owner's definitions. None of those were definitions
`of the Petitioner.
`Moving to analogous art, there are two separate tests. There's the same
`field of endeavor and there's a test of reasonably pertinent to the particular
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`problem with which the inventor is involved. What we'd like to focus on is
`the second of those two.
`JUDGE JUNG: Sorry. Mr. Jovanovic, before we move on, do you
`agree that the Petitioner did not provide a reply to Patent Owner's argument
`in response that the secondary references, meaning Breitschmid and Plamper
`and Machacek, are not in the same field of endeavor?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So, I don't believe we've waived that argument.
`But what we would like to do is focus on the second argument because we
`feel that is much more clear cut. There is, certainly with Plamper, there is less
`in the same field of endeavor.
`With respect to the other two references, they are skin contacting
`references. But because that leads to much more debate and discussion we
`want to focus on the second test. We feel that either test needs to be met and
`the second one is very clear cut.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. So, your position is it's not conceded that
`they're in different fields of endeavor. But you did not provide a reply on it?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Correct. We focused on the second one. And in
`the interest of space and the interest of how many words we have it's always
`cutting words not adding words as you can imagine.
`So we focused on this one because we feel that is our strongest
`argument.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay, thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`MR. JOVANOVIC: And what we see the problems which the
`inventor is involved is replacement of brush elements attached to rotatable
`body. If you look at the background of the invention it talks about how
`brushes wear through and they must be replaced.
`And the disadvantage of brush elements known in the prior art, as
`Debaere is the prior art, it's arranging and removing the known brush elements
`being laborious. So essentially it is replacement of brush elements attached
`to a rotatable body.
`And here Machacek is analogous, sorry. Machacek, one of the objects
`of the Machacek invention, is to easily attach a rotatable pinwheel onto a
`body. It uses the rod and the female receiving space. This was cited by
`the examiner and the examiner likewise concluded that this is analogous art.
`Similarly, our own expert explained how the problem to be solved is to create
`an easy installation, easy removal of the brush.
`There is a rod. There's a female accepting member. In Machacek they
`see a rod and a female accepting member and they would use that to apply to
`Debaere.
`JUDGE WORTH: I'm sorry. Is the examiner's view binding on us?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: The examiner's view, we are offering it for the
`purpose of what he said. For the truth of the matter asserted we feel that it is
`very persuasive. I don't know that it's binding. But it is certainly persuasive.
`We also do feel that argument was not made during the prosecution.
`There's only one sentence of it in the interview summary. But that argument
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`was never made in any response to any office action. Instead what was done
`is it was amendment after amendment after amendment. And this was part of
`two separate sets of rejections.
`JUDGE JUNG: So, Mr. Jovanovic, what do you make of the fact that
`the allowed claims amended, had an amendment that included limitation that
`didn't seem to appear in the applied references? So, the applicant doesn't have
`to argue analogous art to do they?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: I'm sorry?
`JUDGE JUNG: Well, in prosecution history -- well, it appears that
`the applicant amended the claim to get over the prior art, the asserted prior art,
`which at the time was Debaere and Machacek. So does the applicant have to
`address analogous art in that situation?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So, because they used it, they should have
`addressed anything in the prosecution history. They clearly didn't. They
`clearly ignored and instead amended. And they amended in direct response
`to the rejections made based on Machacek.
`The examiner thought it was analogous art. The Patent Owner did not
`make an argument to the contrary. So we feel that they agreed that was
`analogous art. We are showing that it is analogous art and we're going to show
`it with Breitschmid and with Plamper.
`JUDGE JUNG: Could the prosecution history be read so that even if
`Machacek was deemed analogous art but not admitted to be analogous art, my
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`amendments get over this combination because of whatever the language was
`at the time? Is that a reasonable reading of the prosecuted history?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: That an amendment was made -- instead of
`arguing that it was analogous art, an amendment was made essentially
`confirming that it's analogous art, confirming that it was the same problem to
`be solved.
`Yes, I would agree with that statement. I also have the testimony of
`our experts that support the fact that is analogous art. We do feel that in many
`instances through the multiple office actions every time they gave ground and
`made an amendment, and at some point had the examiner had the art showing
`those particular connections, he would have never allowed the patent. One of
`the issues is that Machacek reference while it is a great description, the image
`is not very good of Element Number 8, the bulge.
`And clearly it has a bulge. Every snap-fit has to get narrow before it
`gets wider, otherwise it's not going to stay on. Right? That's the whole point
`of a snap-fit.
`It talks all about that. The drawing has not been reflective. And that
`may have been part of the issue when the final amendments came in.
`Then Mr. Medsker indicated this is a very simple problem to solve.
`And those of skill in the art, back to Slide 15, would zero in on an interface
`such as Machacek.
`Mr. Bonenberger also indicated that the construction of Machacek is
`the countertype of movable attachment in free motion. And that's in Slide 16.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`JUDGE FLAX: Counsel --
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Yes.
`JUDGE FLAX: I would like you to walk me through the hypothetical
`thought process of the skilled artisan in this case starting with any of the
`references that you cited to make that combination.
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Okay. And this I would do in reference to both
`Mr. Medsker and Mr. Bonenberger. And Mr. Bonenberger was deposed. Mr.
`Bonenberger is arguably the nation's foremost expert on snap-fit connections.
`And their testimony is as follows. Essentially, you have the issue of
`Debaere. And it's somewhat -- the facts are somewhat interesting in the sense
`that we've got at the same time contemporaneous demand for welded rods
`where we can no longer slide components.
`So we're faced with the issue of a Debaere brush to be attached to a
`rod. And there are only a couple of ways to achieve that. To slide it on or to
`somehow attach it a different way.
`And there's one of the testimonies of Mr. Bonenberger, said that one
`of the natural things his entry level engineers would look to is to put a slit in
`the cylinder and try to couple it that way, that there's nothing magic about that.
`So they would take a slit, cut it, snap it on. It's a very common type
`of coupling that is shown in various prior art. It goes back to the 40s, 50s,
`60s. His first book on snap-fits came out in 2000 after he had been teaching
`for 20 some odd years.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`And he indicates that these are basic considerations in snap-fit design.
`So, you would look to other areas of a snap-fit to determine snap-fit
`configurations. And there are plenty to choose from. One is Machacek. One
`is Plamper. One is Breitschmid.
`They are snap-fit couplings that are designed to work in environments
`to remain connected and to connect a rotatable member to a female receiving
`space. And that is something that one of skill in the art would gravitate to
`when coupling a rod and a cylinder.
`JUDGE FLAX: So my question regarding these references is that I
`don't see that any of the three references that would be combined with Debaere
`would experience any force on that connection, of any consequence. Rolling
`this medical torture-looking-device over someone's skin, you know, that
`seems like a delicate procedure.
`The Breitschmid tooth cleaning device, there's only so much force you
`could exert on your teeth. And the Plamper lawn mower shield is something
`that anyone that has a yard knows just drags behind the lawn mower in a
`somewhat gentle fashion.
`So how do you take the step from beginning with this carcass cleaning
`device that is essentially like a pig carwash, I imagine it's going at a pretty
`good pace and it's fairly violent against the carcass, to using a connection that
`is a -- for a gentle tool that you would run across somebody's skin to see if
`they experience any pain? You're going to have to talk me through that line.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Okay. So, and Mr. Medsker and Mr.
`Bonenberger both testified as to these points. And what is important here is,
`and the case law recognizes that you're not going to take and cut something
`from one and paste it on another.
`If I can't take, for example, the hinge of my glasses, I wouldn't take
`this and cut it and try to weld it onto the door or onto a bank vault. But I can
`realize the concepts would work in those cases understanding that I'm talking
`about not the overall forces, not the overall size, but the relative forces and
`the relative size.
`They testified again, Mr. Bonenberger, one of the nation's leading
`experts, if not the leading expert on snap-fit, says there is nothing about the
`forces of ’225 which would lead me to believe it wouldn't work. Now, I can't
`take and cut Machacek and apply it.
`But the concept of Machacek, I can, because Mr. Medsker testifies
`that if you look at relative forces, the relative forces imparted onto the rod and
`components of Machacek can be relatively high for that plastic part and that
`small coupling.
`And it's not to say that you're going to cut that and attach it to a pig
`whip. But you can certainly take the concept of that.
`As to Plamper, Mr. Medsker talks about how the forces can be exerted
`very high in impulsive loads onto that shield. That shield is not only there to
`drag on the ground, but is there to drag on the ground -- if you've ever gotten
`hit by a rock flying out of the back, which I used to mow lawns as a kid all
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`over, you get hit in the back with it -- my parents wouldn't spring for the trail
`shield. So you look at that and those rocks come flying out. That is a very
`high impulse load.
`What's interesting when you go to Plamper is that Plamper
`dimensionally is almost -- it falls under the dependent claims of the ’225
`Patent. And there's expert testimony that says that there's nothing about these
`forces that is a big deal when it comes to scaling things or looking at other
`references.
`One of the keys to that is the forces and the position of those forces in
`the orientation. The forces are not in the direction of disconnecting.
`For example, it would be much different if Machacek, you roll it and
`the slot is facing up. At that point it has a much easier tendency to pop out.
`But if the forces are the opposite way, until you break the handle it's
`not separating. And again, those are relative forces. And that is a very
`straightforward understanding.
`A kid grabs a jungle gym like this with their palms down, not with
`their palms up, because the forces are very different. It's the direction of the
`forces that is what's interesting, and it is the relative strength of the forces
`which is what's interesting. Both Mr. Medsker and Mr. Bonenberger indicated
`that.
`
`JUDGE FLAX: And was your argument basically that these
`additional references, Machacek, Breitschmid, Plamper are there to illustrate
`that such connections exist in the world and someone who is skilled brings
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`with them knowledge and common sense enough to make it strong enough to
`work in a carcass cleaning mechanism?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So, they are absolutely scaled with the carcass
`cleaning.
` Both Mr. Bonenberger and Mr. Medsker indicated how
`straightforward this application is.
`Mr. Bonenberger ended up leading GM's entire fastener division. And
`he says look, I know entry level engineers. It's in our slides. Entry level, he
`knows what entry level engineers know, what they apply, what they think.
`And he said that this was a very, very straightforward application.
`And the examiner said look, Machacek fits. Machacek shows the same
`structure. It shows an elongated member.
`And again, it is the forces of the relative position. There is nothing
`novel about -- and the examiner rejected many times on the snap-fit
`arrangement. There's nothing novel about using a snap-fit to couple that rod.
`So it's a very straightforward application of an entry level engineer.
`And after that, what the examiner didn't know is that particular, those
`particular narrow features of the snap-fit are known throughout the art as well,
`the fact that it narrows and then expands. And there's nothing about the forces.
`And in fact, Mr. Medsker testifies that the impact forces might be
`greater. He testifies that as to the violence of this -- he was directly asked
`about violence. And he said, I don't know about violence because I've got
`rubber things, they are rubber brushes that are hitting.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`And as those brushes hit they give because they rotate. So you have
`an impact, but that impact may not be very hard at all, whereas if I have rock
`that hits this trail shield that can be a very strong impact.
`Now, it's for
`a short duration. But as those brushes move out of the way, that initial impact
`may not be very high. There's testimony to that effect, and there is testimony
`that it is a very straightforward application of the concept of coupling those
`two types of devices.
`The examiner saw the same thing and the applicant chose to make an
`amendment and not to argue that there's a point, that point. And it makes
`perfect sense because our two experts have said the same thing.
`JUDGE FLAX: And is your argument that the Machacek neurological
`device has a snap-fit?
` MR. JOVANOVIC: It absolutely does have a snap -- it absolutely
`does. There's a Bulge 8. And you have to pass the bulge. And it specifically
`talks about that in the Specification.
`You've got to pass the bulge. The drawing is, you know, for all -- the
`drawing is terrible. But the description that describes it sets forth you have a
`bulge and it snaps into position and it's maintained within that position.
`It's maintained in the position because the bulge is narrower. It's a
`very common snap-fit connection. And that was, you know, ten years before,
`very straightforward.
`Mr. Bonenberger goes back to the early 70s and says those snap-fits
`were common then. You used them all over in the automotive industry. They
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`used them all over everywhere else. He's taught classes on the use of snap-
`fits.
`
`It's a very entry level engineer thing to do, to couple those type of
`connections, very straightforward. And he says one of skill in the art would
`certainly have looked to other places where you coupled a rod that is rotatable
`relative to the brush.
`And the other argument raised is well, the relative forces are one.
`Then you also have to look at what is rotating. That's the other argument that
`has been advanced by the Patent Owner.
`And you have to look at what's relatively moving. Well that's clearly
`explained by both experts. They say look, you look inside the connection and
`its relative movement. That's what's important.
`Again, if I take and I hold a nut and a bolt in my hand and I tighten
`the bolt while holding the nut or I tighten the nut while holding the bolt or I
`turn them both at the same time, it does not require different construction
`because if you look inside the nut and you're standing in the nut the two are
`moving relative to each other.
`So, when I take and I roll the device of Machacek, am I keeping the
`handle fixed when I go around the needle? No, the handle rotated but so did
`the pinwheel. But it doesn't matter. It's a relative rotation between the two.
`That's what's significant. And both experts have opined on that issue
`that if you stand -- and matter of fact Mr. Bonenberger says if you stand within
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`the interaction and you're standing inside that coupling, it doesn't matter to
`you if you're moving in an arc, if you're moving in a circle, whatever.
`You have relative movement between those two components. And it's
`a relative movement where you can surmise the forces. And so, to both of
`those issues, they are very straightforward concepts of a snap-fit, which both
`experts say are very applicable to attaching an item to a rod.
`There's nothing with respect to the size of the force that would make
`them think that it would not work or an entry, a PHOSITA would think it
`would not work. And there's nothing with respect to the direction of the force
`or to which one is moving that would render a PHOSITA not to look there.
`As a matter of fact, when presented with that argument Mr. Medsker
`said, I can't even explain it that way. That's not how somebody would look at
`it.
`
`What they would do is they would recognize a rod and a female
`coupling member and proceed from there.
`JUDGE WORTH: So you're conceding that Machacek moved in a
`different way than the subject patent?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: No, I'm not conceding that at all. I'm not
`conceding that at all. What I'm saying is it's not relevant because what Patent
`Owner has tried to say is, well, that one you're imparting movement from this
`versus that.
`But again, it's the relative movement. When I roll Machacek down
`the skin then I make a bend to go around the knee, I rotated elements relative
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`to each other that rotated slightly different relative to each other than if I just
`rolled it on a flat thigh that's just standing there.
`So I'm not conceding that at all. What I'm saying is that the relative
`movement is what is important, not which one of them is imparting the
`movement.
`As a matter of fact, Mr. Bonenberger says that's not relevant. What we
`need to look at is the relative movement between the parts. What happens if
`you're standing inside the joint? That's what's important.
`JUDGE WORTH: Can you walk us through what's the movement of
`the subject patent because the -- what's moving in the subject patent?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So in the subject patent, in the brush element, the
`brush element is rotating about the rod. And if I go back to -- let me go to an
`earlier slide where we can see it. Referring, for example, to slide -- let's look
`at Slide 6. The brush elements shown in 45 or in 11 rotate around that Element
`12.
`
`JUDGE WORTH: Is there any translational movement?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So the entire -- there's no translational movement
`of that brush relative to the rod. That's rotation. The rod will translate. The
`rod spins in a circle no different than the rod over here did for 35 years.
`The rod will spin around. And because of that the brushes will go
`outward and then they'll hit a carcass.
`JUDGE WORTH: Is the carcass moving?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So the carcasses can stand still or they can move.
`They move and you can see it here. Some of them are vertical, some are
`horizontal.
`Most are vertical today. The carcass is going in and out of plane of
`the screen, okay.
`JUDGE WORTH: Okay. Which is different than Machacek where
`the patient would be still?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: Well, I'm not sure if the patient would be still.
`That's not necessarily true or false. And again, all of that's a red herring
`because it doesn't -- it's the relative movement inside of the joint. That's where
`you're determining what the forces are.
`So, when I look here I can clearly determine that the force is going to
`be on the side that's impacting the carcass and I know that the force is outward
`because it's spinning centrifugal.
`JUDGE WORTH: I guess the relevant question for our purpose seems
`to be whether a person of ordinary skill would think to use -- think of a
`reference or think to use that reference. Do you agree with that?
`MR. JOVANOVIC: So it's whether or not it was the same problem to
`be solved. And Mr. Medsker said that the way a PHOSITA would look at it,
`and he's trained a number of engineers, the way he said -- and Mr.
`Bonenberger who said, look, I understand, I've trained these people. I know
`exactly what mid-level guy looks at. What you're looking at is you're looking
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00346
`Patent 9,433,225 B2
`
`
`at the connections between a round component and a female coupling. That's
`what you're looking at.
`You're not as concerned about which one is moving where? Which
`one is moving how? You have rotation there. And through that rotation you
`can determine the forces that are acting upon it.
`A
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
