UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`GARDNER DENVER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2020-00333
`U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF BENTON BAUGH, Ph.D., P.E.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,428,949
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 1 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Summary of Opinions ................................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. Qualifications and Background .................................................................... 2
`IV. Understanding of Patent Law ....................................................................... 5
`V.
`Background of the Technology ..................................................................... 7
`A.
`The Use of Packing in Reciprocating Plunger Positive-
`Displacement Pumps ............................................................................. 7
`Fabric Reinforced Seals ...................................................................... 14
`B.
`VI. Overview of the ’949 Patent ........................................................................ 17
`A. Alleged Problem in the Art ................................................................. 17
`B. Alleged Invention of the ’949 Patent .................................................. 18
`C.
`Prosecution of the ’949 Patent ............................................................ 19
`D.
`The Challenged Claims ....................................................................... 20
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 23
`A. Hjelsand ............................................................................................... 23
`B. Kalsi ..................................................................................................... 25
`C. Kohl ..................................................................................................... 26
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art ............................................. 27
`IX. How the challenged claims are unpatentable ............................................ 27
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 are Anticipated Over Hjelsand ....... 27
`1.
`Hjelsand Discloses the Geometric Limitations of the
`Challenged Claims .................................................................... 27
`Hjelsand Discloses Fabric Reinforcement ................................ 35
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 2 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`3.
`
`Limitation-by-Limitation Analysis of the Challenged
`Claims in View of Hjelsand ...................................................... 37
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 are Obvious Over Hjelsand ............ 71
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 71
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 71
`3.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 73
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 74
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 74
`6.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 75
`7.
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................. 76
`8.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 77
`9.
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 78
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 13 are Obvious Over Hjelsand in
`Combination with Kalsi ...................................................................... 79
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 79
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 80
`3.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 82
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 83
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 84
`6.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 84
`7.
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................. 86
`8.
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 87
`9.
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 89
`
`
`
`ii
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 3 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1-16 are Obvious Over Hjelsand in
`Combination with Kohl ....................................................................... 89
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 89
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 91
`3.
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 93
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 94
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 95
`6.
`Independent Claim 6 ................................................................. 96
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 98
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 99
`9.
`Independent Claim 9 ...............................................................100
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ...............................................................103
`11. Dependent Claim 11 ...............................................................104
`12. Dependent Claim 12 ...............................................................105
`13. Dependent Claim 13 ...............................................................106
`14.
`Independent Claim 14 .............................................................106
`15. Dependent Claim 15 ...............................................................113
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ...............................................................113
`Lack of Secondary Considerations ....................................................114
`E.
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................117
`
`iii
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 4 of 121
`
`X.
`
`
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`I, Benton Baugh, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
`
`of the United States of America that the following is true and correct, and that all
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. I understand that
`
`willful false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. See 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Gardner Denver, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Gardner
`
`Denver”) in connection with Gardner Denver’s Petition for inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-16 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,428,949 titled
`
`“PACKING ASSEMBLY FOR A PUMP” (“the ’949 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions regarding whether the claims of
`
`the ’949 patent are unpatentable over the prior art. I understand that this declaration
`
`will be used in support of Gardner Denver’s Petition for IPR of the ’949 patent.
`
`3.
`
`IMS charges at my customary fee of $ 550 per hour for work associated
`
`with this matter. IMS is also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses. My compensation does not depend upon the outcome of this IPR.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`4.
`For the following reasons, I conclude that (1) claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 13
`
`are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,474,382 (“Hjelsand”); (2) claims 1-6, 9, 10, and
`
`13 are obvious by Hjelsand; (3) claims 1-6, 9, 10, and 13 are obvious by Hjelsand in
`
`1
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 5 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,738,358 (“Kalsi”); and (4) claims 1-16 are
`
`obvious by Hjelsand in combination with U.S. Patent No. 3,271,039 (“Kohl”) and
`
`Kalsi.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`5.
`I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the State of Texas and
`
`have been since 1971. I have over 50 years of experience in oilfield machine design,
`
`manufacturing, management, and consulting at all levels from a junior draftsman to
`
`general management. As a draftsman at Camco, Inc. and Cameron Iron Works, I
`
`was involved in the design and detailing of downhole equipment, as well as the
`
`engineering and testing of land wellhead systems and mud ball valves. As Vice
`
`President of Engineering, R&D and QC at Vetco Valve Corporation I was
`
`responsible for all engineering, R&D and QC activities of the corporation, including
`
`the land wellhead product line and the subsea and land gate valves product line.
`
`6.
`
`I personally built Radoil, Inc. from a concept company to an ISO 9001
`
`manufacturer of critical offshore equipment with industry dominating patented
`
`products and negotiated the sale of the company to a private equity group. With
`
`Radoil, I accomplished projects including market research design, detailing,
`
`manufacturing and testing of oilfield service gas generation systems, gate valve
`
`systems up to 20,000 psi, mud saver valves, downhole drill motors, power slips and
`
`workover rotary tables, hydraulic swivels and pipeline connectors. I accomplished
`
`
`
`2
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 6 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`projects including market research design, and analysis of drilling shock subs,
`
`retrievable whipstock assemblies, misalignment make-up threads, land wellhead
`
`systems (standard and geothermal), templates and template leveling systems, and 18
`
`3/4” - 15,000 psi wellhead and casing hanger systems.
`
`7.
`
`A large part of my career over the past 60 years has been focused on
`
`various types of seal design. I have created hundreds of designs involving all types
`
`of seals, including fiber-reinforced seals mixed with resilient material. I have also
`
`been granted patents related to some of these designs. See, e.g., 3,572,627 (1971),
`
`3,768,774 (1973), 3,952,763 (1976), 4,201,238 (1980), 4,467,996 (1984), 4,492,359
`
`(1985), 4,597,448 (1986), 4,781,487 (1988), 4,863,314 (1989), 4,878,783 (1989),
`
`5,165,493 (1992), 6,679,472 (2004), 6,978,712 (2005).
`
`8.
`
`One example of a seal I designed is an annular blowout preventer seal
`
`that improved the pressure capacity of the units with a characteristic iris design. I
`
`designed that seal in 1971 and it still in use today almost 60 years later. A second
`
`example of one of my seal designs included reinforcement of resilient O-Rings in a
`
`subsea blowout preventer stack subject to high pressure. See U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,679,472. One of my goals was to prevent extrusion/nibbling with reinforcement.
`
`9.
`
`I have received numerous industry awards and am a member of the
`
`National Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors,
`
`a Fellow of the American Society of Engineers (ASME), and a Fellow of the Marine
`
`
`
`3
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 7 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`Technology Society (MTS). Other examples of awards I have received include the
`
`University of Houston Cullen College of Engineering 2018 Lifetime Achievement
`
`Award and the 2013 Geoca Mechanical Engineering Achievement Award. In total
`
`I have received 23 named awards from professional societies and colleges.
`
`10.
`
`I have written a number of technical papers related to the oil and gas
`
`field, including ones regarding including ones regarding seals including 1982 SPE
`
`11176 A New Generation 18 ¾ in – 15,000 psi Subsea Wellhead System, 1889 OTC
`
`6044 The Economic and Design Impact of Standardized ROV and Diver Interfaces
`
`on Subsea Completions, and 2011 OTC RIO 22407- Post-Macondo BOP Upgrades,
`
`2013 UI application of BOP Stack Multi-Function Interfaces on Subsea Completion
`
`Systems. I am a named inventor on at least 142 U.S. patents, many of which relate
`
`to the oil and gas field.
`
`11.
`
`I completed Army Machinist School in 1961. I hold a Bachelor Degree,
`
`Masters of Science Degree, and Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. I have also
`
`completed numerous continuing education courses through technical conferences
`
`over the course of 50 years. I am an adjunct professor of mechanical engineering at
`
`both the University of Houston Cullen College and Oklahoma Christian University.
`
`12.
`
`I have testified before Congress as an expert regarding the
`
`Macondo/Deepwater Horizon blowout. At the Congressional hearing, I gave
`
`testimony on the state of drilling equipment at the time and whether it provided an
`
`
`
`4
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 8 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`adequate level of safety for deep water drilling. I have also been qualified as an
`
`expert witness in several cases regarding patents, trade secrets, product failures,
`
`safety, and personal injuries.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`13.
`I understand pre-AIA law applies to the ’949 patent.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’949 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the alleged priority date of the ’949
`
`patent.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim in IPR is construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that claim is invalid if it anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires every limitation of that claim be disclosed expressly
`
`in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior art reference as arranged in the
`
`claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be obvious from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made (“POSA”). I understand that a claim may be obvious in view
`
`
`
`5
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 9 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`of a single reference, or may be obvious from a combination of two or more prior
`
`art references.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged invention
`
`and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among other
`
`things, commercial success of the alleged, patented invention, skepticism of those
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected results
`
`of the alleged invention, any long-felt but unresolved need in the art that was
`
`satisfied by the alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`copying of the alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must
`
`be a nexus—a connection—between any secondary considerations and the alleged
`
`invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by
`
`others is a secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old limitations with no
`
`change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution of one
`
`limitation for another known in the field, and that combination yields predictable
`
`results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this combination, common
`
`sense should guide, and no rigid requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`
`
`6
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 10 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`motivation to combine is required. I understand that when a product is available,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or different one. If a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, using the technique is obvious. I understand a claim may be obvious if
`
`common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or add missing
`
`features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`20.
`The ’949 patent broadly relates to the design of header rings in packing
`
`assemblies for oil and gas pumps.1
`
`A.
`
`The Use of Packing
`Displacement Pumps
`21. Reciprocating plunger positive-displacement pumps are used in
`
`in Reciprocating Plunger Positive-
`
`hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to inject fluids at high pressure into underground
`
`rock formations associated with oil and gas wells.2 Reciprocating plunger positive-
`
`1 Ex.1001 (1:21-23).
`2 Ex.1008 (4, 23); Ex.1007 (1); Ex.1010 (1:14-24). All pages cited refer to the
`exhibit page number.
`
`
`
`7
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 11 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`displacement pumps have two components: a power end and a fluid end.3 The power
`
`end powers pumping components of the fluid end.4 The fluid end contains pumping
`
`components that contact the fluid including a plunger, housing with a fluid cavity,
`
`inlet check valve, and outlet check valve.5 To prevent fluid, that is often abrasive
`
`due large amounts of solid particles, from entering the power end and damaging the
`
`pump, seals known as packing are placed around the opening that houses the
`
`reciprocating plunger, as in the cross section shown below in Fig. 1:
`
`Fig. 1. Cross Section of Reciprocating Plunger Positive-Displacement Pump6
`
`4
`
`3 Ex.1008 (73).
`Id.
`Id.
`6 Ex.1008 (75) (annotated); Ex.1010 (1:19-29).
`
`5
`
`
`
`8
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 12 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`22.
`
`Packing has been a common component in many different types of
`
`pumps for decades, including pumps in the oil and gas industry.7 At the time of the
`
`’949 patent, it was well known that a typical packing configuration included at least
`
`a “header ring” and a “pressure ring.”8 An exemplary header ring (black) and
`
`pressure ring (gold) are shown below in Fig. 2:
`
`Fig. 2. Exemplary Header Ring (Black) and Pressure Ring (Gold)9
`
`As shown on the right in Fig. 2, these packing rings are stacked on top of one another
`
`
`
`
`
`in an assembled packing product.
`
`23. Header rings are placed closest to the fluid end; their purpose is to
`
`spread out the pressure ring and keep it in sealing contact with the walls.10 Header
`
`7 Ex.1009 (1); Ex.1010 (1:4-13); Ex.1020 (1:4-8); Ex.1005 (7:24-28); Ex.1016
`(2:10-12).
`8 Ex.1014 (1:20-23; 1:29-38; 2:49-3:22; Fig.1); Ex.1010 (4:9-14; Fig.3); Ex.1004
`(2:23-54; Fig.2); Ex.1021 (2:13-24; 3:8-14; Fig.1); Ex.1011 (2:42-49; Fig. 6).
`9 Ex.1026 (1-2).
`10 Ex.1014 (1:20-23; 1:29-38; 2:49-3:22; Fig. 1); Ex.1010 (4:9-14; 6:7-11; Fig. 3);
`Ex.1004 (2:23-54; Fig. 2); Ex.1021 (2:13-24; 3:8-14; Fig. 1); Ex.1011 (2:42-49;
`Fig. 6).
`
`
`
`9
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 13 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`rings having certain geometries may also act as the primary seal to prevent fluid
`
`from escaping the fluid end.11 The ‘949 patent claims a header ring having such a
`
`geometry, which the patent admits is prior art.12 This header ring geometry has been
`
`well-known in the art since the 1980s.13 Prior art and alleged embodiments of the
`
`’949 patent are shown below in Fig. 3:
`
`Hjelsand (1984) Fig. 2
`
`’949 Patent Fig. 1
`
`FIG.I
`{PRIOR ART}
`
`10 \
`
`22
`
`18
`
`20
`
`11 Ex.1010 (2:52-56; 2:64-3:2; Fig. 3); Ex.1004 (2:27-32; 3:41-44; Fig. 2).
`12 Ex.1001 (Fig. 1; Fig. 3; 1:65-2:14; 2:22-35).
`13 Ex.1010 (Figs. 2-3); Ex.1004 (Fig. 2); Ex.1022 (39:13-16; 76:10-13).
`
`
`
`10
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 14 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`’949 Patent Alleged
`Embodiment Fig. 5
`
`’949 Patent Alleged
`Embodiment Fig. 6
`
`’949 Patent Alleged
`Embodiment Fig. 7
`
`so
`
`52
`
`70
`
`72
`
`61
`
`71.
`
`76
`
`82A
`
`92
`
`Fig. 3. Prior Art and Alleged Embodiments of the ’949 Patent 14
`
`24.
`
`Packing is typically a disposable component which fails after a certain
`
`period of use and needs to be replaced.15 Nibbling, also known in the art as extrusion
`
`damage, is one type of damage that reduces the operational life of packing, and it
`
`14 Ex.1004 (Fig. 2); Ex.1001 (Figs. 1, 5-7).
`15 Ex.1010 (5:49-58).
`
`
`
`11
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 15 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`was a problem that was well-known at the time of the ‘949 patent.16 A header ring
`
`before and after nibbling is shown below in Fig. 4:
`
`FIG.1
`(PRIOR ART}
`
`Nibbled Out
`Portion
`
`FIG.2
`(PRIOR ART}
`
`12
`
`22
`
`10
`
`12
`
`22
`
`18
`
`20
`
`Fig. 4. Prior Art Header Ring Before and After Nibbling 17
`
`25. Nibbling occurs when part of the packing ring enters a space between
`
`adjacent structural limitations—such as a pressure ring and a plunger or a fluid end
`
`16 Ex.1001 (2:1-21); Ex.1014 (1:5-9; 1:14-19; 3:39-43; 3:53-56); Ex.1004 (1:39-
`44; 2:61-64); Ex.1010 (1:40-45; 2:3-6; 3:44-47); Ex.1005 (3:35-57; 3:63-4:2;
`4:23-30); Ex.1016 (1:17-22).
`17 Ex.1001 (Fig. 1; Fig. 2 (annotated)).
`
`
`
`12
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 16 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`and a plunger—and is pinched off.18 An example of the extrusion process is shown
`
`below in Fig. 5:
`
`UNCOMPRESSED STATE
`
`STARTING COMPRESSION
`
`MOSTLY COMPRESSED
`
`FULLY COMPRESSED
`BEFORE OPERATIONS
`
`EXTRUDING INTO GAP TO CAUSE
`FIG. 2 NIBBLING, PINCHING,
`OR FRffilNG
`
`PRESSURE
`
`EXTRUSION GAP
`
`Fig. 5. Extrusion Process of a Header Ring 19
`
`18 Ex.1014 (1:5-9; 1:14-19; 3:39-43; 3:53-56); Ex.1004 (1:39-44; 2:61-64; 4:12-
`16); Ex.1010 (1:40-45; 2:3-6; 3:44-47; 4:24-34); Ex.1005 (; 3:41-57; 3:63-66);
`Ex.1016 (1:9-10; 1:17-22).
`19 See also Ex.1010 (1:40-45; 2:6-9; 4:24-34); Ex.1014 (3:39-43); Ex.1016 (1:9-
`10; 1:17-22); Ex.1004 (3:12-16).
`
`
`
`13
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 17 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`Fabric Reinforced Seals
`B.
`26. At the time of the ‘949 patent and before, it was well known that fabric
`
`reinforced elastomeric material could be used to construct packing rings, pressure
`
`and header rings, that were sturdier, stronger, and more durable.20 The benefits of
`
`fabric-reinforced material, including that it resisted extrusion under high pressure,
`
`high temperature, or other severe environments and therefore lasted longer than non-
`
`fabric reinforced material.21 Examples of fabric reinforced packing rings are
`
`therefore widespread in the prior art. For example, pressure rings made of fabric
`
`reinforced elastomeric material were disclosed in the art as early as the 1920s.22 By
`
`the 1950s, the art recognized fabric reinforced elastomeric material for packing rings
`
`as conventional.23 By the 1970s, fabric reinforced elastomeric material was
`
`conventionally used to combat problems with high pressure, wear from operation,
`
`and extrusion.24 The well-known nature of fabric reinforcement in packing materials
`
`20 Ex.1022 (17:3-7; 41:25-42:3; 43:19-24); Ex.1012 (1:11-17); Ex.1013 (1:22-27).
`21 Ex.1022 (43:19-24; 123:11-124:5; 139:5-11; 146:11-15; 146:22-147:3);
`Ex.1016 (2:20-39; 2:56-63; 3:5-26; 3:74-4:2; Fig. 4); Ex.1020 (1:25-29; 1:46-
`49; 2:18-22; 3:32-43; 6:12-16; Fig. 1); Ex.1005 (6:22-30); Ex.1013 (1:22-27).
`22 Ex.1012 (1:11-17; 1:84-98; Fig.2); Ex.1013 (1:22-44; 1:57-60; 1:112-2:4);
`Ex.1022 (123:11-124:5).
`23 Ex.1015 (3:25-30).
`24 Ex.1020 (2:18-22; 3:32-43; 6:12-16; Fig.1); Ex.1022 (146:11-15; 146:22-
`147:3).
`
`
`
`14
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 18 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`at the time ofthe alleged °949 invention has been confirmed by namedinventor Bob
`
`Ash.*°
`
`27.
`
`The °949 patent itself admits that prior art header rings “can be
`
`constructed of a homogeneous elastomeric material or an elastomeric material
`
`containing layers of cloth or other reinforcing type materials.””° For example, in
`
`describing admitted prior art Figures 3 and 4, the 949 patent explainsthat “[s]ection
`
`36 of body portion 32 comprises a fabric or fiber reinforced material while portion
`
`34 is formed of a homogenouselastomeric material construction.””” Admitted Prior
`
`Art Fig. 3 is shown belowin Fig. 6:
`
`
`
`104
`
`\
`
`Homogeneous
`Elastomeric
`Material
`
`34
`
`32
`
`
`
`FIG. 3
`(PRIOR ART)
`
`
`£6
`
`43
`
`Fabric or Fiber-Reinforced Material
`
`25 Ex.1022 (17:3-7; 41:25-42:3; 43:19-24).
`
`26 Ex.1001 (1:57-62).
`
`27 Ex.1001 (2:22-30).
`
`15
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 19 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`Fig. 6: Admitted Prior Art Fig. 328
`
`28.
`
`Fabric reinforced elastomeric material encapsulating an inner core of
`
`material, including elastomeric material, was also well-known. For example, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 2,212,291 (“Heinze”) from the 1940s discloses a header ring including a
`
`central core 94 composed of synthetic rubber and an outer covering 96 impregnated
`
`with the synthetic rubber.29 The header ring is shown in the cross-section below in
`
`Fig. 7:
`
`Fig. 7: Elastomer Encapsulated by Fabric Reinforced Elastomeric Material
`Header Ring30
`
`The prior art contains other packing rings with this construction.31
`
`28 Ex.1001 (Fig. 3 (annotated)).
`29 Ex.1017 (4:19-32); Ex.1022 (127:5-20).
`30 Ex.1017 (Fig. 9).
`31 See, e.g., Ex.1018 (2:17-24; 4:51-59; Fig. 3); Ex.1019 (3:64-74; 4:41-47; 4:54-
`57; 7:65-71; Fig. 4); Ex.1006 (1:8-11; 2:12-17; 2:51-64; Fig. 2); Ex.1022
`(144:13-24).
`
`
`
`16
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 20 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’949 PATENT
`29.
`The ’949 patent was filed on December 6, 2016 as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 15/370,625.32 The ’949 patent claims priority through a series of
`
`applications to a provisional application filed on January 2, 2008.33
`
`A.
`30.
`
`Alleged Problem in the Art
`The background of the ’949 patent describes an alleged problem in the
`
`prior art concerning failure of packing assemblies due to “nibbling” of header rings
`
`for pumps.34 According to the ’949 patent, “nibbling” “gouge[s] out” a portion of
`
`the header ring during use.35 The location of the “nibbling” identified as the problem
`
`is the juncture between an annularly extending radially inwardly facing cylindrical
`
`surface 24 and a radially inwardly facing convex sealing surface 26, which both face
`
`the plunger.36 The “nibbling” is shown below in Fig. 8 by Admitted Prior Art Figure
`
`32 Ex.1001 (cover).
`33 Ex.1001 (1:6-16).
`34 Ex.1001 (1:21-23; 1:63-65; 2:39-42; 2:54-58).
`35 Ex.1001 (2:15-21); see also Ex.1022 (99:3-5) (nibbling is “removal of
`material”).
`36 Ex.1001 (2:8-14; 2:17-21).
`
`
`
`17
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 21 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`2, which purports to show what the header ring depicted in Admitted Prior Art Figure
`
`1 looks like after nibbling:
`
`10
`
`12
`
`22
`
`FIG.1
`(PRIOR ART/
`
`Nibbled Out
`Portion
`
`FIG.2
`f PRIOR ART}
`
`12
`
`22
`
`20
`21.
`18
`18
`20
`Fig. 8. Unnibbled and Nibbled Prior Art Header Ring According to the ’691
`Patent37
`
`B.
`31.
`
`Alleged Invention of the ’949 Patent
`The ’949 patent describes a header ring with the well-known geometry
`
`described above wherein the region experiencing nibbling is reinforced with fabric,
`
`i.e., using a fabric reinforced elastomer in that region.
`
`32.
`
`The ’949 patent discloses the material used to construct the header
`
`ring.38 An inner core may be made from natural or synthetic rubber.39 The fabric
`
`reinforced elastomeric material may be made of fabric reinforced natural or synthetic
`
`rubber.40 The term fabric in the ’949 patent with respect to the anti-nibbling wear
`
`37 Ex.1001 (Fig. 1; Fig. 2 (annotated)).
`38 Ex.1001 (4:58-63; 5:1-11).
`39 Ex.1001 (4:58-63; 5:1-11).
`40 Ex.1001 (4:58-63; 5:1-11).
`
`
`
`18
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 22 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`section “is used in the broadest sense and includes any cloth or cloth-like structure
`
`made by any technique such as knitting, weaving or felting of fibers of natural or
`
`synthetic materials as well as mixed fibers and includes, without limitation, fibers of
`
`cotton, nylon, polyester, polyester blends, aramid fibers, fiberglass fibers or any
`
`combination thereof.”41
`
`C.
`33.
`
`Prosecution of the ’949 Patent
`The Examiner initially rejected pending claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,440,404 (“Roach”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 3,419,280 (“Wheeler”).42 In response, the Applicant argued that Roach in
`
`combination with Wheeler did not disclose certain limitations in the rejected claims,
`
`specifically fabric reinforced elastomeric material covering certain portions of the
`
`header rings.43 Subsequently, the Examiner rejected pending claims 6 and 11-13
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Roach and pending claims 1 and 2 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Roach in view of Wheeler.44 The examiner
`
`indicated certain pending claims were allowable or would be allowable if they
`
`41 Ex.1001 (5:3-11).
`42 Ex.1002 (68-74).
`43 Ex.1002 (93-95).
`44 Ex.1002 (98-104).
`
`
`
`19
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 23 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`overcame Section 112 issues.45 The Applicant amended the pending claims.46 The
`
`Examiner allowed the pending claims and did not identify any reasons for
`
`allowance.47
`
`D.
`34.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`The Challenged Claims contain 5 independent claims (claims 1, 3, 6, 9,
`
`and 14) and 11 dependent claims (claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, and 16).48 The
`
`limitations of each claim can be divided into two types: geometric limitations
`
`(meaning limitations which describe the shape of the claimed header ring) and
`
`material limitations (meaning limitations which describe the material out of which
`
`45 Ex.1002 (98-104).
`46 Ex.1002 (116-118).
`47 Ex.1002 (125-132).
`48 Ex.1001 (claims 1-16).
`
`
`
`20
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 24 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`the claimed header ring is constructed).49 The geometric and material limitations of
`
`the Challenged Claims are shown below in Fig. 9:
`
`Challenged Claim
`
`Type
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Independent
`
`Dependent
`
`Independent
`
`Dependent
`
`Dependent
`
`Independent
`
`6[a]-[h]
`
`Dependent
`
`Dependent
`
`Independent
`
`9[a]-[g]
`
`Dependent
`
`Dependent
`
`Dependent
`
`Dependent
`
`13[a]
`
`Independent
`
`14[a]-[e]
`
`Dependent
`
`Dependent
`
`Geometric
`
`Limitations
`
`l [a]-[g]
`
`3[a]-[fJ
`
`Material
`
`Limitations
`
`1 [h]
`
`2[a]
`
`3[g]
`
`4[a]
`
`5[a]
`
`6[i]
`
`7[a]
`
`8[a]
`
`9[h]
`
`l 0[a]
`
`ll [a]
`
`12[a]
`
`14[fJ
`
`15[a]
`
`16[a]
`
`Fig. 9. Table of Limitations in the Challenged Claims50
`
`49 See Ex. I 025.
`
`50 See Ex. I 025.
`
`21
`
`GDI Ex. 1003
`Page 25 of 121
`
`

`

`Ex. 1003 - Declaration of Benton Baugh
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’949 patent, reproduced below, includes seven
`
`geometric limitations (labeled as [a]-[g]) and one material limitation (labeled as [h]).
`
`A header ring comprising:
`
`[a] an opening;
`
`[b] a radially inwardly facing annularly extending sealing lip adjacent
`the opening;
`
`[c] a radially inwardly facing cylindrical surface adjacent the opening;
`
`[d] an annular radially outwardly facing cylindrical surface opposite the
`opening;
`
`[e] a first annular radially extending surface extending between the
`radially inwardly facing cylindrical surface and the annular radially
`outwardly facing cylindrical surface;
`
`[f] a second annular axially extending surface extending between the
`annular radially outwardly facing cylindrical surface and the radially
`inwardly facing annularly extending sealing lip;
`
`[g