UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`
`BESTWAY (USA), INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTEX MARKETING LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`Case No. PGR2024-00036
`U.S. Patent No. 11,959,512
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KIMBERLY CAMERON
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 1
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`II.
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON .................................................................. 3
`III.
`IV. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED .................... 3
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS AND UNDERSTANDING APPLIED .................... 5
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 10
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`VIII. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 11
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE ’512 PATENT .......................................................... 19
`X. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-24 ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) AS
`INDEFINITE ........................................................................................................... 27
`A.
`Claims 1-19 ......................................................................................... 27
`B.
`Claims 20-24 ....................................................................................... 42
`XI. GROUND 2: CLAIM 19 IS INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) FOR
`LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 43
`XII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 9, 11-15 AND 17-18 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW
`OF THE INTEX POOL ........................................................................................... 46
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 46
`1.
`Element [1.0] ............................................................................. 46
`2.
`Elements [1.1] and [1.2] ............................................................ 47
`3.
`Element [1.3] ............................................................................. 51
`4.
`Element [1.4] ............................................................................. 53
`5.
`Elements [1.5] and [1.6] ............................................................ 55
`
` i
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 2
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`Element [1.7] ............................................................................. 58
`6.
`Element [1.8] ............................................................................. 60
`7.
`Element [1.9] ............................................................................. 62
`8.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 78
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 81
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 82
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 83
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 87
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 89
`1.
`Element [15.0] ........................................................................... 89
`2.
`Element [15.1] ........................................................................... 89
`3.
`Element [15.2] ........................................................................... 90
`4.
`Element [15.3] ........................................................................... 91
`5.
`Element [15.4] ........................................................................... 92
`6.
`Element [15.5] ........................................................................... 94
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 94
`H.
`XIII. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 4-6, 10, AND 18 ARE OBVIOUS OVER THE
`INTEX POOL IN VIEW OF LIU ............................................................................ 94
`A. Motivation to Combine the Intex Pool and Liu .................................. 94
`B.
`Claim 4 .............................................................................................. 104
`1.
`Element [4.0] ........................................................................... 104
`2.
`Element [4.1] ........................................................................... 106
`Claim 5 .............................................................................................. 107
`
`C.
`
`
`ii
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 3
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`B.
`
`Claim 6 .............................................................................................. 108
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................ 109
`Claim 18 ............................................................................................ 118
`1.
`Elements [18.0] and [18.1] ...................................................... 120
`XIV. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1, 4-6, AND 9-18 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER LIU IN VIEW OF CHENG AND HUNTER .... 121
`A.
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 121
`1.
`Element [1.0] ........................................................................... 122
`2.
`Element [1.1] ........................................................................... 122
`3.
`Element [1.2] ........................................................................... 122
`4.
`Element [1.3] ........................................................................... 123
`5.
`Element [1.4] ........................................................................... 124
`6.
`Element [1.5] ........................................................................... 125
`7.
`Element [1.6] ........................................................................... 126
`8.
`Element [1.7] ........................................................................... 127
`9.
`Element [1.8] ........................................................................... 128
`10. Element [1.9] ........................................................................... 129
`Claim 4 .............................................................................................. 138
`1.
`Element [4.0] ........................................................................... 138
`2.
`Element [4.1] ........................................................................... 143
`Claim 5 .............................................................................................. 143
`Claim 6 .............................................................................................. 144
`Claim 9 .............................................................................................. 145
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`
`iii
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 4
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`J.
`K.
`
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................ 147
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................ 148
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................ 149
`Claim 13 ............................................................................................ 151
`Claim 14 ............................................................................................ 153
`Claim 15 ............................................................................................ 153
`1.
`Element [15.0] ......................................................................... 153
`2.
`Element [15.1] ......................................................................... 154
`3.
`Element [15.2] ......................................................................... 155
`4.
`Element [15.3] ......................................................................... 156
`5.
`Element [15.4] ......................................................................... 157
`6.
`Element [15.5] ......................................................................... 157
`Claim 16 ............................................................................................ 158
`1.
`Elements [16.0], [16.1], and [16.2] ......................................... 158
`M. Claim 17 ............................................................................................ 159
`N.
`Claim 18 ............................................................................................ 159
`
`L.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 5
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Claim Language
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`[1.0]
`
`[1.1]
`
`[1.2]
`
`[1.3]
`
`[1.4]
`
`[1.5]
`
`[1.6]
`
`[1.7]
`
`[1.8]
`
`[1.9]
`
`[2.0]
`
`[3.0]
`
`[4.0]
`
`An above ground pool, comprising:
`
`a first frame member including a first opening;
`
`a second frame member including a second opening;
`
`a vertical frame member;
`
`a frame joint comprising:
`
`a first joint portion including a first pin configured to engage the first
`opening thereby coupling the first joint portion to the first frame
`member;
`
`a second joint portion including a second pin configured to engage the
`second opening thereby coupling the second joint portion to the second
`frame member; and
`
`a vertical joint portion connected to the first and second joint portions
`and configured to couple to the vertical frame member; and
`
`a liner positioned around the first and second frame members;
`
`wherein a width of the vertical joint portion accounts for at least 50%
`of a width between the first and second pins.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein the width of the vertical
`joint portion accounts for at least 40% of a total width of the frame
`joint.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 2, wherein the width of the vertical
`joint portion accounts for about 50% of the total width of the frame
`joint.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein the first joint portion
`includes a first coupling assembly including the first pin, a first base,
`and a first helical spring supported by the first base,
`
` v
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 6
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`[4.1]
`
`[5.0]
`
`[5.1]
`
`[6.0]
`
`[7.0]
`
`[8.0]
`
`[9.0]
`
`[10.0]
`
`[11.0]
`
`Claim Language
`
`the first pin being biased outward through a first hole in the first joint
`portion by the first helical spring to engage the first opening of the first
`frame member.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 4, wherein the second joint portion
`includes a second coupling assembly including the second pin, a
`second base, and a second helical spring supported by the second base,
`
`the second pin being biased outward through a second hole in the
`second joint portion by the second helical spring to engage the second
`opening of the second frame member.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 5, wherein the width of the vertical
`joint portion accounts for about 70% of a width between the first and
`second pins.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 5, wherein a width of the frame joint
`exceeds a width of a hole defined by the liner to expose the first and
`second coupling assemblies.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 7, wherein a height of the frame joint
`exceeds a height of the hole in the liner.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein the vertical joint portion is
`centered between the first and second joint portions to form a T-shaped
`frame joint.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein the first and second joint
`portions form an obtuse angle.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein the vertical joint portion is
`integrally formed with the first and second joint portions as a single
`piece.
`
`[12.0]
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein the vertical joint portion
`includes at least one internal vertical reinforcing rib.
`
`
`vi
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 7
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`[13.0]
`
`[14.0]
`
`[15.0]
`
`[15.1]
`
`[15.2]
`
`[15.3]
`
`[15.4]
`
`[15.5]
`
`[16.0]
`
`[16.1]
`
`[16.2]
`
`[17.0]
`
`[18.0]
`
`Claim Language
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first joint
`portion and the second joint portion includes an internal reinforcing rib.
`
`The above ground pool of claim 1, wherein at last one of the first joint
`portion and the second joint portion includes an internal support
`member.
`
`A method of assembling an above ground pool, the method comprising:
`
`coupling a first joint portion of a frame joint to a first frame member
`with a first pin configured to engage a first opening of the first frame
`member;
`
`coupling a second joint portion of the frame joint to a second frame
`member with a second pin configured to engage a second opening of
`the second frame member;
`
`coupling a vertical joint portion of the frame joint to a vertical frame
`member; and
`
`positioning a liner around the first and second frame members;
`
`wherein a width of the vertical joint portion accounts for a majority of
`a width between the first and second pins.
`
`The method of claim 15, wherein: an external cross-section of the first
`joint portion matches an internal cross-section of the first frame
`member;
`
`an external cross-section of the second joint portion matches an internal
`cross-section of the second frame member; and
`
`an external cross-section of the vertical joint portion matches an
`internal cross-section of the vertical frame member.
`
`The method of claim 15, wherein the first joint portion, the second joint
`portion, and the vertical joint portion are constructed of plastic.
`
`The method of claim 15, wherein: coupling the first joint portion to the
`first frame member comprises depressing the first pin into the first joint
`
`vii
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 8
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`Claim Language
`
`portion and releasing the first pin into engagement with the first frame
`member; and
`
`coupling the second joint portion to the second frame member
`comprises depressing the second pin into the second joint portion and
`releasing the second pin into engagement with the second frame
`member.
`
`The method of claim 15, wherein the vertical joint portion of the frame
`joint is coupled to the vertical frame member with a coupling assembly
`and
`
`wherein a height of the hole in the liner is less than a distance between
`the first pin and the coupling assembly.
`
`A frame joint for an above ground pool frame having a first frame
`member, a second frame member, and a vertical frame member, the
`frame joint comprising:
`
`a first joint portion including a first coupling assembly to couple with
`the first frame member;
`
`a second joint portion including a second coupling assembly to couple
`with the second frame member; and
`
`a vertical joint portion connected to the first and second joint portions
`and configured to couple with the vertical frame member;
`
`wherein a width of the vertical joint portion accounts for at least 50%
`of a width between the first and second coupling assemblies; and
`
`wherein the first joint portion comprises a first external cross-section
`which is generally triangular.
`
`The frame joint of claim 20, wherein the first external cross-section
`comprises rounded edges.
`
`[18.1]
`
`[19.0]
`
`[19.1]
`
`[20.0]
`
`[20.1]
`
`[20.2]
`
`[20.3]
`
`[20.4]
`
`[20.5]
`
`[21.0]
`
`
`viii
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 9
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Language
`
`The frame joint of claim 20, wherein the first and second coupling
`assemblies are actuatable from an exterior of the frame joint along a
`vertical direction.
`
`The frame joint of claim 20, wherein the first and second joint portions
`cooperate to form an obtuse angle that supports a liner that defines a
`water cavity.
`
`The frame joint of claim 20, wherein the vertical joint portion is
`integrally formed with the first and second joint portions as a single
`piece.
`
`Claim
`Element
`
`[22.0]
`
`[23.0]
`
`[24.0]
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 10
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Kimberly Cameron, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to submit this declaration.
`
`The statements and opinions herein are based on my personal knowledge and upon
`
`my background, education, research, training, and experience relating to the subject
`
`matter discussed.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Dickinson Wright PLLC on behalf of Petitioner
`
`Bestway USA, Inc. (“Bestway”) in this matter to offer technical opinions relating to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,959,512 (“the ’512 Patent”) and to submit this declaration in
`
`connection with the Post Grant Review (PGR) of Claims 1-24 of the ’512 Patent. If
`
`called upon to do so, I am prepared to testify as an expert witness in this regard.
`
`3. Where appropriate, I refer to the claim elements shown above in the
`
`“LIST OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS” table.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am a Principal Engineer at Engineering Systems Incorporated (ESi),
`
`a leading scientific and engineering firm committed to providing clear answers to
`
`challenging technical problems. I specialize in mechanical engineering and
`
`materials science and have extensive experience with the design of mechanical
`
`systems as well as with materials selection and analysis. Relevant to my Report
`
`here, I have worked on numerous projects involving structural supports and
`
` 1
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 11
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`consumer products. These projects include, but are not limited to, design evaluation,
`
`materials selection and evaluation, stress analysis, failure analysis, as well as patent
`
`validity and infringement analyses. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as
`
`Exhibit A to this Report. The curriculum vitae includes a current list of publications
`
`authored in the previous ten (10) years. A list of all other cases in which, during the
`
`last 4 years, I testified as an expert at trial or by deposition is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`5.
`
`I graduated with high honors from Princeton University with a
`
`bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and minors in Materials Science,
`
`Applied Mathematics and Engineering Physics. I also received a master's degree
`
`and doctorate in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Materials Science and
`
`Engineering from Stanford University.
`
`6.
`
`I have received numerous awards including fellowships from the
`
`Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, and Lucent Technologies.
`
`I am a Registered Professional Engineer in both Mechanical Engineering and
`
`Materials Science and Metallurgy and am a registered patent agent. Given the
`
`foregoing, I am qualified to provide an opinion as to what a person of skill in the art
`
`(“POSA” or “POSITA”) in the field of above-ground pools and associated frame
`
`joints would have understood, known, or concluded as of the priority date of the
`
`’512 Patent.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 12
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON
`7.
`In addition to my general knowledge from education and experience in
`
`this field, I have reviewed and considered, among other things: the ’512 Patent, the
`
`prosecution history of the ’512 Patent, the prior art of record, and the prior art
`
`described in this Declaration. I have also researched and reviewed other prior art
`
`references that are relevant to the ’512 Patent.
`
`IV. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`8.
`I have been retained as an expert on behalf of Bestway to provide
`
`information and opinions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) to
`
`assist in its analysis of the patentability of the ’512 Patent in the above-captioned
`
`Post Grant Review.
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $570 per hour. My compensation
`
`does not depend on the substance of my opinions nor on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`10.
`
`In formulating my opinions herein, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience that are relevant to the ’512 Patent. Furthermore, I have
`
`specifically considered the following documents listed below in addition to any other
`
`documents cited in this declaration. I understand that the references are true and
`
`accurate copies of what they appear to be:
`
` 3
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 13
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`EX1001
`U.S. Patent No. 11,959,512, (“the ‘512 Patent”)
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Cameron
`
`File History of the ‘512 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,692,572, “the ‘572 Patent”
`
`File History of the ‘572 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0222686 (“Liu”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0205121 (“Cheng”)
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 2014/100855 (“Hunter”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0042948 (“Lee”)
`
`Intex’s 2005 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2006 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2007 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2008 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2009 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2010 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2011 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Intex’s 2014 Above Ground Pool Catalog
`
`Declaration of Patrizio Fumagalli
`
`Online Listings of Intex Pool, Captured by Wayback Machine of
`Internet Archive
`
`(Intentionally Omitted)
`
`2006 Owner’s Manual for Intex Pool
`
` 4
`
`
`
`EX1002
`
`EX1003
`
`EX1004
`
`EX1005
`
`EX1006
`
`EX1007
`
`EX1008
`
`EX1009
`
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`
`EX1014
`
`EX1015
`
`EX1016
`
`EX1017
`
`EX1018
`
`EX1019
`
`EX1020
`
`EX1021
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 14
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`EX1022
`
`EX1023
`
`EX1024
`
`EX1025
`
`EX1026
`
`EX1027
`
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`
`EX1031
`
`2011 Owner’s Manual for Intex Pool
`
`June 27, 2015 YouTube Video of Intex Pool available
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETAiHLC89fI (screenshots
`of video)
`
`July 8, 2012 YouTube Video of Intex Pool available at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iilGN5cF-YU
`(screenshots
`of video)
`
`July 28, 2012 YouTube Video of Intex Pool available at
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iBwYtnzYfs&t=258s
`(screenshots of video)
`
`Cambridge English Dictionary Definition of “width”
`
`Transcript of Chat with Intex Representative
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,225,362 (“Barrera”)
`
`Intex Website https://intexcorp.com/replacement-parts/10573-
`corner-top-rail-joints-for-small-rectangular-frame-pools/
`
`Intex Website https://intexcorp.com/replacement-parts/corner-
`joint-with-corner-seal-for-small-rectangular-frame-pool/
`
`Intex Website https://intexcorp.com/replacement-parts/10574-
`pins-for-small-rectangular-frame-pools/
`
`EX1032
`
`Receipt of Order of Intex Pool
`
`
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS AND UNDERSTANDING APPLIED
`11.
`In connection with the opinions that I am offering herein, I am relying
`
`upon the legal standards and understandings that Petitioner’s attorneys have
`
`provided and/or explained to me, which I summarize below.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 15
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`12.
`
`I understand that in a PGR proceeding, the Petitioner must show that it
`
`is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim is indefinite if a POSA, viewing the claim in
`
`light of the specification and prosecution history, cannot determine the full scope of
`
`the invention with reasonable certainty. I understand that, if a claim term is
`
`amenable to two or more different constructions, any claim containing that term is
`
`indefinite.
`
`14.
`
`It is also my understanding that a claim may be indefinite if one
`
`measurement technique yields a measurement within the claim scope, but a different
`
`measurement technique results in a measurement outside of the claim scope.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim that depends from an indefinite claim is itself
`
`indefinite unless additional limitations resolve any indefiniteness.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a patent application must reasonably convey to a
`
`POSA that the inventor had possession of and actually invented the claimed subject
`
`matter at the time the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the first step in analyzing the patentability of a claim
`
`over the prior art is to determine the claim’s meaning and scope from the perspective
`
`of a POSA, i.e. what I understand is called claim construction. Next, I understand
`
`that the claim as construed is compared to the prior art, as described in more detail
`
`below.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 16
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`I understand that each claim must be analyzed from the perspective of
`
`a POSA at the time of invention. Petitioner’s counsel has asked me to consider the
`
`state of the art from the perspective of a POSA during the time period shortly before
`
`June 17, 2016, which is the earliest claimed priority date listed on the face of the
`
`’512 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that several factors should be considered in determining
`
`the ordinary level of skill in the art including (1) the types of problems encountered
`
`in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field of the patent.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by Petitioner’s counsel that in this proceeding,
`
`the Board interprets the claims of a patent in a PGR under the same standards used
`
`in a United States District Court. I understand that this standard requires interpreting
`
`the claims through the lens of a POSA in view of the entire patent and the
`
`prosecution history. I understand that, unless an express claim construction is
`
`adopted by the Board for any term, the terms of the claims should be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning to a POSA at the time of the invention, in the light of
`
`the specification and prosecution history. Accordingly, in formulating my opinions,
`
`I have reviewed the claims of the ’512 Patent as I perceive a POSA would have
`
`understood them at the time of the earliest claimed priority date (June 17, 2016) of
`
` 7
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 17
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’512 Patent, after reading the entire ’512 Patent specification and the prosecution
`
`history.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that, for a patent to be “anticipated” by the prior art, every
`
`limitation of the claim must be found expressly, implicitly or inherently, to be
`
`disclosed and arranged as required by the claim, in a single prior art reference which
`
`describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. I understand that if one limitation
`
`of a claim is missing from that prior art, then the claim is not anticipated by the prior
`
`art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a limitation of a claim may be expressly disclosed in
`
`the prior art even if the prior art does not use identical terminology. Rather, I
`
`understand that the focus is whether the substance of the limitation is disclosed. I
`
`understand that a limitation that is not expressly disclosed may be considered to be
`
`implicitly disclosed based on the inferences that a POSA would be expected to draw
`
`from the express disclosures based on the POSA’s knowledge and experience.
`
`Moreover, I understand that where an item is not expressly or implicitly disclosed in
`
`an item of prior art, the prior art may be considered to disclose that limitation
`
`inherently if the limitation would be necessarily present in the prior art, such as when
`
`a characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 18
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that even if a claimed invention is not anticipated, the
`
`claimed invention is still unpatentable as obvious 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 POSA.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that there must have existed an apparent reason, as of the
`
`effective filing date, for a POSA to have combined the prior art references in the
`
`manner claimed. I understand that reasons that can support conclusion of
`
`obviousness include:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
` 9
`
`
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 19
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`25. Based on my experience, and applying my above-explained
`
`understanding of the relevant legal principles, it is my opinion that a POSA of the
`
`’512 Patent, at the time of its earliest claimed priority date, would have at least a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, or an equivalent degree, with at least
`
`one year of experience in design evaluation of consumer products or other
`
`comparable experience. Alternatively, a person having 3-5 years of experience in
`
`the consumer product industry would quality as a POSA.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`26. Based on my experience, and applying my above-explained
`
`understanding of the relevant legal principles, it is my opinion that no express
`
`construction of any claim term of the ’512 Patent is needed to resolve any of the
`
`
`10
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 20
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`issues of patentability I opine about here. Except as otherwise noted below, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms of the patent to a POSA as of
`
`the purported earliest filing date (June 17, 2016) in light of the specification and the
`
`prosecution history.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that claim construction is ultimately a question of law, and
`
`that the Board may choose to provide a construction of certain terms should any
`
`dispute arise between the parties over how a term should be construed. I reserve the
`
`right to review and potentially modify any of my opinions discussed below in view
`
`of any such claim construction which is adopted by the Board or any other tribunal.
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`28. An above-ground pool (AGP) is a type of pool that can be assembled
`
`such that it sits above the ground. This serves as an alternative to pools that require
`
`digging of the ground. Above-ground pools are typically a more affordable option
`
`than in-ground pools.
`
`29. One type of above ground pool is known as a “frame pool.” A frame
`
`pools is a type of above-ground pool that features a frame structure that supports the
`
`pool walls and provides stability. The frame is typically made of metal or durable
`
`plastic, and it forms the skeleton of the pool. The pool liner, which holds the water,
`
`is then attached to the frame.
`
`
`11
`
`BESTWAY EX. 1002; Pg 21
`Bestway v. Intex PGR2024-00036
`
`

`

`
`
`30. Frame pools are well known in the recreational industry, and have been
`
`for decades. Frame pools first became popular in the 1960s. Consider, for example,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,225,362 (“Barrera”), which as shown below. Barrera discloses an
`
`AGP having a circular frame formed from frame uprights 15 connected to top rail
`
`sections 22 with top snap connectors. Once formed, the frame supports a flexibl