UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LEVITATION ARTS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FLYTE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE PGR ________
`
`Patent No. D799,100
`
`DECLARATION OF GERAINT KRUMPE
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. D799,100
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`I.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................ 5
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`LIST OF MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................. 5
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ........................................................................................ 7
`
`V. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Standards for Evaluating a Priority Claim ....................................................................... 9
`
`Standards for Obviousness ............................................................................................. 11
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘100 PATENT ............................................................................... 13
`
`VII. OVERALL VISUAL APPEARANCE .............................................................................. 17
`
`VIII.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................................ 18
`
`IX.
`
`THE DESIGN OF THE ‘100 PATENT IS NOT DEPICTED IN THE 2015 MODEL .... 18
`
`X. THE OVERALL VISUAL IMPRESSION OF THE EVENT PAGE AND THE
`
`LIEBERMAN BULB.................................................................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`Event Page Qualifies as a Primary Reference ................................................................ 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Levitation .................................................................................................................... 26
`
`“Light” Bulb ............................................................................................................... 26
`
`The Base ..................................................................................................................... 27
`
`The Socket .................................................................................................................. 29
`
`The Bulb ..................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Internal Structure of the Bulb ..................................................................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`The Lieberman Bulb Qualifies as a Primary Reference ................................................. 37
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Levitation .................................................................................................................... 38
`
`The “Light” Bulb ........................................................................................................ 40
`
`The Base ..................................................................................................................... 41
`
`The Socket .................................................................................................................. 43
`
`The Bulb ..................................................................................................................... 44
`
`The Internal Structure of the Bulb .............................................................................. 46
`
`XI.
`
`INVALIDITY GROUND #1 – THE CLAIM IS OBVIOUS BASED ON THE EVENT
`
`PAGE …………………………………………………………………………………………….50
`
`XII.
`
`INVALIDITY GROUND #2 – THE CLAIM IS OBVIOUS BASED ON THE EVENT
`
`PAGE AS MODIFIED BY EDISON ........................................................................................... 50
`
`XIII.
`
`INVALIDITY GROUNDS #3 AND #4 – THE CLAIM IS OBVIOUS BASED ON
`
`THE EVENT PAGE AS MODIFIED BY EDISON AND EITHER FRANK OR CAO ............. 55
`
`XIV.
`
`INVALIDITY GROUND #5 – THE CLAIM IS OBVIOUS BASED ON THE
`
`LIEBERMAN BULB AS MODIFIED BY COOPER 602, CAO, AND CHAO-CHIN .............. 57
`
`XV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`I, Geraint Krumpe, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Levitation Arts, Inc. (“Petitioner” or
`
`“Levitation Arts”) as an independent expert in this proceeding before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), which I understand involves U.S.
`
`Patent No. D799,100 (“the ‘100 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my rate of $100 per hour for the time I
`
`spend on this declaration and $100 per hour for the time I spend testifying
`
`regarding this declaration. No part of my compensation is dependent on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I have considered the ‘100 Patent, its prosecution history, and the
`
`documents cited in this declaration, and I have also applied my own knowledge
`
`and experience from more than 15 years in the relevant art, as set forth more fully
`
`below.
`
`4.
`
`I reserve the right to modify or supplement my opinion, as well as the
`
`bases for my opinion, based on the nature and content of the documentation, data,
`
`proof, and other evidence or testimony that Flyte LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Flyte”)
`
`may present or based on any additional discovery or other information provided to
`
`me or found by me in this matter.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`In this section I have summarized my education, career history, and
`
`other relevant information. My curriculum vitae, which includes my qualifications,
`
`is attached as Appendix A.
`
`6.
`
`I am a product designer and a multi-disciplinary creative professional.
`
`I received a Master’s Degree in Product Design and Development from
`
`Northwestern University, and I have over fifteen (15) years of experience in the
`
`field of product design, including designing lighting structures and housewares.
`
`7.
`
`I am a named inventor on more than one hundred and forty (140)
`
`issued U.S. patents, including more than 130 issued U.S. design patents. My issued
`
`U.S. design patents include U.S. Patent Nos. D558,383 titled “Pivot light,”
`
`D558,384 titled “Pendant light,” D558,385 titled “Pendant light,” D558,386 titled
`
`“Dome light,” D558,911 titled “Single light,” and D575,437 titled “Double hall
`
`light.”
`
`III. LIST OF MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`8. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the following materials:
`
`a) Exhibit 1001 - U.S. Design Patent No. D799,100 (“the ‘100 Patent”);
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`b) Exhibit 1002 – Application for Registered Community Design No.
`
`002847236-0001, filed in the Office of Harmonization in the
`
`International Market on November 4, 2015 (“the 2015 Model”);
`
`c) Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent No. D814,667 (“the ‘667 Patent”);
`
`d) Exhibit 1005 – Facebook Event Page (the “Event Page”);
`
`e) Exhibit 1009 -- Content retrieved from the Internet Archive in association
`
`with the URL http://bea.st:80/sight/lightbulb (“Lieberman”);
`
`f) Exhibit 1014 – Documentation Regarding Cooper 602 Socket (“Cooper
`
`602”);
`
`g) Exhibit 1015 – Content retrieved from the Internet Archive in association
`
`with the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode
`
`(“Frank”);
`
`h) Exhibit 1016 – U.S. Patent No. 223,898 (“Edison”);
`
`i) Exhibit 1017 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0207502
`
`(“Cao”);
`
`j) Exhibit 1018 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0070643
`
`(“Chao-Chin”);
`
`k) Exhibit 1019 – Image Analysis Declaration of Brian P. Lynch (“Image
`
`Analysis Declaration”); and
`
`l) Prosecution History of Patent Application, No. 29/561,743.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`9.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by the patent owner. Further, I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions, including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`10. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing,
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`11.
`
`It is my opinion that the design claimed in the ‘100 Patent was not
`
`disclosed in the 2015 Model.
`
`12.
`
`It is my opinion that the single claim of the ‘100 Patent challenged by
`
`Petitioner is invalid. The invalidity of this claim is shown by at least the following
`
`grounds:
`
`a) the ‘100 Patent’s claim is invalid because it is obvious based on the
`
`Event Page in view of Edison;
`
`b) the ‘100 Patent’s claim is invalid because it is obvious based on the
`
`Event Page in view of Edison and Frank;
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`c) the ‘100 Patent’s claim is invalid because it is obvious based on the
`
`Event Page in view of Edison and Cao;
`
`d) the ‘100 Patent’s claim is invalid because it is obvious based on
`
`Lieberman in view of Cooper 602, Chao-Chin, and Cao.
`
`V. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a claim subject to post-grant
`
`review receives the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.
`
`14.
`
`I understand and have been informed that in a post-grant review
`
`(“PGR”) proceeding, a patent claim receives the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears to a designer of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I understand that the scope of a design patent is defined by
`
`the solid lines depicted in the figures of the patent in conjunction with the
`
`descriptions of those figures. I understand that a design patent’s claim is best
`
`understood by way of the figures. However, I have also been informed and
`
`understand that a verbal description of the claim may be helpful to describe the
`
`functional characteristics of particular features of the claimed design or how those
`
`features relate to prior art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a disclosure (public use,
`
`sale, or otherwise available to the public) is prior art to a design patent if the
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`disclosure occurred before the effective filing date of the design patent except if
`
`the disclosure was made by the inventor.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a disclosure (public use,
`
`sale, or otherwise available to the public) made by the inventor is prior art to a
`
`design patent if the disclosure occurred more than one year before the effective
`
`filing date of the design patent.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a design patent is invalid if the differences
`
`between the claimed design and the prior art are such that the claimed design as a
`
`whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`design to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a design patent is obvious where
`
`the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who
`
`designs articles of the type involved.
`
`A. Standards for Evaluating a Priority Claim
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a design patent may be
`
`entitled to an effective filing date that is earlier than the filing date listed on the
`
`face of the design patent. I have been informed and understand that a design patent
`
`is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date only if the disclosure of the earlier
`
`application provides support for the claim of the design patent. I have been
`
`informed and understand that one must look to the drawings of the earlier
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`application for disclosure of the subject matter, i.e. the figures, of the later design
`
`application to determine whether the later design application is entitled to an
`
`earlier filing date.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the test for the sufficiency
`
`of the priority document has been expressed as “whether the disclosure of the
`
`application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
`
`21.
`
`I have informed and understand that a court found that the patent
`
`below was supported by the priority documents.
`
`Priority Document
`
`Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I have informed and understand that a court found that the patent
`
`below was not supported by the priority document.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Priority Document
`
`Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Standards for Obviousness
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a person shall not be entitled to a patent “if the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`the claimed invention pertains.”
`
`24.
`
`It is my further understanding that “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art” is not the standard to be used for design patent obviousness analysis. It is my
`
`understanding that an obviousness analysis of a design patent is to be conducted
`
`from the point of view of an ordinary designer; that is, of one skilled in the art, or a
`
`designer of ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a design patent is
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`obvious when the patented design is substantially the same, or has the same overall
`
`visual appearance, as a hypothetical prior art reference.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a two-step process is used to determine whether a
`
`designer of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of multiple prior art
`
`references to create the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design. I
`
`understand that, in the first step, one must identify a single reference, something in
`
`existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed
`
`design. I further understand that this “basically the same” test considers the visual
`
`impression created by the patented design as a whole. I understand that, in the
`
`second step, other secondary references may be used to modify the primary
`
`reference to create a hypothetical design that has the same overall visual
`
`appearance as the claimed design. I further understand, however, that secondary
`
`references may only be used to modify the primary reference if they are “so
`
`related” to the primary reference that the appearance of certain ornamental features
`
`in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand that small differences in design between the
`
`hypothetical reference and the claimed design are inconsequential.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that once a hypothetical prior art reference has been
`
`created, the next step is to analyze the hypothetical reference and the claimed
`
`design through the eye of a designer of ordinary skill to determine if a design
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`patent is invalid for obviousness. If the two designs overall are substantially
`
`similar, then the patent is invalid.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘100 PATENT
`
`28. The ‘100 Patent, entitled “Levitating bulb and base,” issued on
`
`October 3, 2017, and arises from Patent Application No. 29/561,743, which was
`
`filed on April 19, 2016. I understand that the ‘100 Patent claims priority to a
`
`Registered European Community Design No. 002847236-0001, which was filed on
`
`November 4, 2015 (the “2015 Model”).
`
`29. The single claim of the ‘100 Patent recites, “[t]he ornamental design
`
`for a levitating light bulb and base, as shown and described.” I interpret this claim
`
`as “the ornamental design for a levitating light bulb and base, as shown and
`
`described in figures 1-7.”
`
`30. The drawings of the ‘100 Patent are black and white line drawings
`
`that include contour lines. For example, the ‘100 Patent figure 1 purports to depict
`
`“a front right perspective view of a levitating light bulb and base.”
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`31. The ‘100 Patent figure 2 purports to depict “a right view of the
`
`levitating light bulb and base,” and figure 3 purports to depict “a left view of the
`
`levitating light bulb and base.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32. The ‘100 Patent figure 4 purports to depict “a back view of the
`
`levitating light bulb and base,” and figure 5 purports to depict “a front view of the
`
`levitating light bulb and base.”
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. The ‘100 Patent figure 6 purports to depict “a top view of the
`
`levitating light bulb and base,” and figure 7 purports to depict “a bottom view of
`
`the levitating light bulb and base.”
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`34. As seen in the figures, the claimed design of the ‘100 Patent includes
`
`a floating lightbulb near a square base. The lightbulb appears to be secured in a
`
`standard socket that is also floating above the base such that no threading is visible
`
`on the bulb.
`
`35. The floating lightbulb has a clear A19 shaped bulb1 that contains
`
`horizontally aligned light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) located at approximately the
`
`widest portion of the bulb along a vertical center-line of the bulb. The design
`
`claimed in the ‘100 Patent includes six LEDs arranged in a hexagonal horizontal
`
`
`1 A19 bulbs have a maximum diameter of 19/8ths of an inch and have a classic pear shape. See
`https://www.grainger.com/tps/lighting_lamp_size_and_feature_comparison.pdf.
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`pattern with a horizontally oriented LED located at each point of the hexagon and a
`
`seventh LED vertically oriented at the center of the hexagon. The vertical
`
`alignment of the seven LEDs gives the design claimed in the ‘100 Patent the
`
`appearance of a single horizontal lightbulb filament from an elevational view.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the ‘100 Patent has a single claim purportedly
`
`directed to an “ornamental design for a levitating light bulb and base, as shown and
`
`described” in the ‘100 Patent’s line drawings. The ‘100 Patent also states that
`
`“[s]hading is provided to show contour and not surface ornamentation. The broken
`
`lines are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design.”
`
`VII. OVERALL VISUAL APPEARANCE
`
`37. The ‘100 Patent discloses the design for a levitating light bulb near a
`
`rectangular base. The light bulb appears to be secured into a standard electrical
`
`socket such that no screw threading is visible on the bulb. The light bulb includes a
`
`clear bulb of a standard A19 incandescent shape.
`
`38. Extending up from the base are vertically oriented wires that extend to
`
`a set of LEDs that are generally positioned at the center of the clear bulb at an
`
`elevation approximately where the bulb has maximum width. The seven LEDs are
`
`vertically aligned and arranged having six LEDs horizontally oriented in a
`
`hexagonal arrangement with the seventh LED vertically oriented and located at the
`
`center of the hexagonal arrangement.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`39. A designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
`
`date of the ‘100 Patent would, at a minimum, have had at least a bachelor’s degree
`
`in product design, or comparable education, and at least one year of relevant
`
`experience in design and manufacture of artistic items.
`
`40. While the effective filing date of the ‘100 Patent is April 19, 2016, my
`
`opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the obvious
`
`modifications to a designer of ordinary skill in the art, are unchanged if the
`
`effective filing date of the ‘100 Patent is determined to be November 4, 2015.
`
`IX. THE DESIGN OF THE ‘100 PATENT IS NOT DEPICTED IN THE
`2015 MODEL
`
`
`
`41.
`
`I have been asked to evaluate whether the design claimed in the ‘100
`
`Patent is disclosed in the 2015 Model.
`
`42. The ‘100 Patent claims priority to the 2015 Model. Images from the
`
`2015 Model and the ‘100 Patent are shown below.
`
`‘100 Patent
`
`2015 Model
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`43. As explained above, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`’100 Patent is only entitled to claim priority to the 2015 Model if the 2015 Model
`
`depicts the ornamental design claimed in the ‘100 Patent. For the reasons explained
`
`below, it is my opinion that the 2015 Model fails to disclose and/or otherwise
`
`depict the claimed design of the ‘100 Patent.
`
`44. Figures 2 and 3 of the ‘100 Patent show a levitating light bulb having
`
`an array of seven vertically aligned LEDs wherein the top of the center LED is
`
`located a mere 27% higher2 than the other LEDs, based on measurements of
`
`images 2 and 3. In contrast, in the 2015 Model the center LED is located 125%
`
`
`2 The 27% higher calculation is based on the vertical measurement of the top of the center LED
`to the bottom of a non-center LED divided by the vertical measurement of the top of a non-
`center LED to the bottom of a non-center LED in Image Analysis Declaration. Ex 1019.
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`higher based than the other LEDS base on measurements of the images in the 2015
`
`Model.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45. The differences in the LED placement have a significant impact on
`
`the overall appearance of the design because the vertical orientation of the LEDs in
`
`the ‘100 Patent simulates the look of a traditional incandescent filament when
`
`viewed from the side.
`
`Figure 2 of the ‘100 Patent
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 223,898 issued to Edison
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
`In view of the substantial differences revealed in this comparison of
`
`the figures 2 and 3 of the ‘100 Patent and the 2015 Model, it is my opinion that the
`
`2015 Model does not disclose or depict the design claimed and illustrated in the
`
`‘100 Patent.
`
`47. Figure 6 of the ‘100 Patent shows a top view of the levitating light
`
`bulb with an LED array with six LEDs connected to a central LED via six distinct
`
`spokes. In contrast the 2015 Model has a significantly different appearance.
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48.
`
`In view of the substantial differences revealed in this comparison of
`
`the figure 6 of the ‘100 Patent and the 2015 Model, it is my opinion that the 2015
`
`Model does not disclose or depict the design claimed and illustrated in the ‘100
`
`Patent.
`
`49. Additionally, the LEDs in the design are of particular importance to
`
`the overall appearance as they form the “light” portion of the claimed “levitating
`
`light bulb and base.”
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`50.
`
`In view of the substantial differences revealed in this comparison of
`
`the figures 2 and 3 of the ‘100 Patent and the 2015 Model, it is my opinion that the
`
`2015 Model does not disclose or depict the design claimed and illustrated in the
`
`‘100 Patent.
`
`51. For at least all of the reasons explained above, the differences between
`
`what is disclosed in the 2015 Model and what is claimed in the ‘100 Patent are
`
`significant enough, in my opinion, that the 2015 Model fails to disclose the
`
`claimed subject matter of the ‘100 Patent.
`
`52.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Owner also was granted U.S.
`
`Design Patent No. D814,667 entitled Light Bulb (the “’667 Patent”) shown below.
`
`53.
`
`I have been informed that ‘667 Patent was filed more than one year
`
`after the publication of the Patent Owner’s 2015 Model. I have been informed that
`
`patent applicants are required to disclose anything material to patentability. I have
`
`been informed that the Patent Owner did not disclose the existence of the 2015
`
`Model during the application for the ‘667 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner’s ‘667 Patent
`
`2015 Model
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, the differences between the 2015 Model and the ‘100
`
`Patent appear to be greater than the differences between the 2015 Model and the
`
`‘667 Patent. Specifically, the differences in the overall appearance due to the
`
`lighting structure in the ‘100 Patent compared to the 2015 Model are greater than
`
`the differences in the overall appearance due to the band on the socket in the ‘667
`
`Patent compared to the 2015 Model.
`
`55. The existence of the ‘667 Patent further supports my position that the
`
`‘100 Patent is not entitled to the filing date of the 2015 Model.
`
`X. THE OVERALL VISUAL IMPRESSION OF THE EVENT PAGE
`AND THE LIEBERMAN BULB
`
`
`56.
`
`I understand that the hypothetical prior art reference is created by first
`
`choosing a primary reference that is already in existence and has characteristics
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`which are basically the same as the claimed design. I have been asked to determine
`
`if the Event Page and the Lieberman Bulb are references, or something in
`
`existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed
`
`design of the ‘100 Patent.
`
`A. Event Page Qualifies as a Primary Reference
`
`1. Overview
`
`57. The Event Page and the ‘100 Patent both disclose a rectangular base
`
`with a levitating light bulb a distance from the base. The bulbs both appear to be
`
`standard A19 bulbs screwed into sockets such that no threads on the light bulb are
`
`visible. Inside of the bulbs, wires extend up to lighting structures at about the
`
`widest part of the bulb.
`
`58. While the Event Page only shows a single perspective view of the
`
`design, ordinary purchasers and ordinary designers will recognize that light bulbs
`
`are highly symmetrical about a vertical axis, and a light bulb will generally look
`
`the same from the front, back, left, and right.
`
`59. Overall, the two designs are basically the same, and any differences
`
`are features that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
`
`interchange, add, or remove. A review of the individual components of the designs
`
`further supports my position that the two designs are basically the same.
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`2. Levitation
`
`60. The ‘100 Patent claims a “levitating light bulb” and I interpret this
`
`limitation to mean that the light bulb is a distance away from the base, and there is
`
`no visible means of support for the bulb in that position. It is highly unusual for a
`
`light bulb to be levitating, so I view this feature as a key factor in determining
`
`whether or not the designs are basically the same.
`
`61. Both the Event Page and the ‘100 Patent disclose a light bulb that is
`
`floating near a base with no visible means of support. It is my opinion that the
`
`levitation shown in the Event Page and ‘100 Patent are basically the same, and the
`
`similarity of the levitation supports my position that overall the two designs are
`
`basically the same.
`
`3. “Light” Bulb
`
`62. The ‘100 Patent claims a “light bulb” and I interpret this limitation to
`
`require that at least a portion of the levitating bulb includes a luminescent
`
`structure.
`
`63. As seen by the numerous reflections of the Event Page image, there is
`
`a luminescent structure within the bulb shown on the Event Page.
`
`
`
`- 26 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Reflection
`
`Reflection
`
`
`
`Reflection
`
`Reflection
`
`Reflection
`
`
`
`
`
`64.
`
`It is my opinion that light bulbs of the Event Page and ‘100 Patent are
`
`basically the same in that they both include luminescent structures within the bulb,
`
`and the illumination of the bulb supports my position that overall the two designs
`
`are basically the same.
`
`65.
`
`If it is determined that the “light” bulb claimed in the ‘100 Patent does
`
`not require illumination, my position is unchanged regarding to the two designs
`
`being basically the same. Even if illumination is not required by the ‘100 Patent,
`
`actual illumination of the bulb in the Event Page reinforces the bulb as a “light”
`
`bulb and supports my opinion that the two designs are basically the same.
`
`4. The Base
`
`
`
`
`
`- 27 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`66. Both designs disclose bases that appear to have a flat rectangular
`
`surface proximate to the levitating bulb with vertical sides extending from the
`
`rectangular surface proximate to the bulb. The vertical sides also appear to be flat,
`
`and the dimensions of the vertical sides are basically the same.
`
`67.
`
`I have been informed that vertical sides of the Event Page and Figures
`
`2-5 of the ‘100 Patent were measured and were found to have length-to-height
`
`ratios of 4.7 and 5.0, respectively. (Image Analysis Declaration, Ex. 1019.) It is my
`
`opinion that the length-to-height ratios of the two designs are basically the same.
`
`The slight difference may be due to Figures 2-5 showing orthogonal elevational
`
`views while the image of the Event Page shows a slight perspective view.
`
`68. While only a single view of the base is shown in the Event Page,
`
`based on the shadow of the socket shown on the flat rectangular surface, it is clear
`
`that the flat rectangular surface is approximately square with the floating light bulb
`
`positioned at approximately center, and the socket structure is a cylindrical shape
`
`similar to a typical light socket.
`
`
`
`- 28 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Shadow
`
`
`
`69. The shadow below the base on the Event Page and the close proximity
`
`of the base to the floor on which the structure rests, indicate that the bottom surface
`
`of the base has a shape similar to the flat rectangular surface proximate to the
`
`levitating bulb. The shadows in the image and the four visible top edges of the four
`
`vertical sides indicate that the vertical sides have the same shape. In both designs,
`
`the vertical sides form sharp 90-degree corners with the rectangular surface.
`
`70.
`
`It is my opinion that the bases of the Event Page and ‘100 Patent are
`
`basically the same, and the similarity of the bases supports my position that overall
`
`the two designs of the Event Page and the ‘100 Patent are basically the same.
`
`5. The Socket
`
`71. The Event Page and ‘100 Patent both disclose bulbs in socket
`
`structures such that there is no visible screw threading. The sockets of both designs
`
`
`
`- 29 -
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`appear to have a cylindrical bottom portion with a constant diameter and a tapered
`
`top portion adjacent to the bulb. The sockets appear to be the same in both designs.
`
`72.
`
`I have been informed that the images of the Event Page and the ‘100
`
`Patent were measured. (Image Analysis Declaration, Ex. 1019.) As shown below,
`
`the maximum diameters of the sockets (blue), the height of the socket (green), the
`
`height of the bottom portion of the socket (purple), and the diameter of the socket
`
`at the bulb (red) were measured.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown below, there are only slight differences between the proportional sizes of
`
`the socket structures of the Event Page and ‘100 Patent, and the socket of the Event
`
`Page is basically the same as the socket of the ‘100 Patent.
`
`
`Maximum Width
`(blue measurement)
`Height of Socket
`(Green Measurement)
`
`
`
`Event Page
`1.0
`
`0.91
`
`- 30 -
`
`‘100 Patent
`1.0
`
`0.93
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Height of Bottom Portion
`(Purple Measurement)
`Width of Socket at Bulb
`(Red Measurement)
`
`
`0.65
`
`0.84
`
`0.62
`
`0.80
`
`73. While only a single view of the socket is shown in the Event Page,
`
`based on the shadow cast on the base, it is clear that the socket of Event Page has a
`
`circular cross section.
`
`74.
`
`It is my opinion that the dimensions of the sockets are the same, and
`
`the overall appearance of the sockets of the Event Page and ‘100 Patent are
`
`basically the same. The similarity of the sockets supports my position that overall
`
`the two designs are basically the same.
`
`6. The Bulb
`
`75. The Event Page and the ‘100 Patent both include a bulb with a
`
`standard pear shape.