`Monte
`By
`Falcoff mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`Nye mnye@hdp.com
`Michael
`HARNESS DICKEY
`PIERCE P.L.C
`545 Corporate Drive Ste 200
`Troy Ml 48098
`Telephone 248 641-1600
`Facsimile 248 641-0270
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BROSE NORTH AMERICA INC
`and
`BROSE FAHRZEUGTEILE GMBH
`
`CO KG HALLSTADT
`
`Petitioner
`
`UUSI LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case 1PR2014-00416
`Patent 8217612
`
`DECLARATION OF DR MARK EHSANI
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 1
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr MarkEhsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`EDUCATION AND BACKGROUND
`
`My name is Mark Ehsani
`
`SUMMARY
`l.A
`have been retained by Patent Owner UUSI
`
`LLC to testify as an engineering expert at the hourly rate of $600 through
`
`Thomson Reuters My compensation in this matter is not affected in any way by
`
`the opinions
`
`reach or the outcome of this matter
`
`submit this Declaration in support of Patent Owners Response
`
`regarding the inter partes review of U.S Patent No 8217612 the 612 Patent
`
`filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Brose
`
`consider myself an expert in the field of electrical and computer
`
`engineering specifically within the motor vehicle realm and have been an expert
`
`in this field since before 1992 That expertise includes specific expertise in the
`
`areas of body control systems sensorless and Hall effect-based motor control
`
`microprocessor-based and discrete circuit logic design and programming and
`
`safety systems all with applications in the field of motor vehicles
`
`copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 2002 to this
`
`Declaration and provides
`
`comprehensive description of my relevant experience
`
`including academic and employment history publications conference
`
`participation and patenting activity
`
`of 42
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 2
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`Based on my review of the 612 Patent the prior art cited in the
`
`Petition the additional documents listed below my understanding of the
`
`applicable legal standards and my knowledge of the art it
`
`is my expert opinion
`
`that the claims of the 612 Patent are not anticipated or rendered obvious in view
`
`of the references cited by Petitioner Brose
`
`EDUCATION
`l.B
`Doctor of Philosophy degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`have
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison 1981
`
`have Masters of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin 1974
`
`have
`
`Bachelors of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin 1973
`
`BACKGROUND
`l.C
`For the past 33 years my research work has been in power electronics
`
`10
`
`motor drives hybrid vehicles and their control systems am Professor of
`electrical engineering at Texas AM University College Station Texas
`
`am
`
`Director of the Advanced Vehicle Systems Research Program and the Power
`Electronics and Motor Drives Laboratory at Texas AM University
`
`of 42
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 3
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`of Dr Mark Ehsani
`Declaration
`IPR2O14-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`11
`
`am the co-author of sixteen books on automobile power electronics
`
`motor drives and advanced vehicle systems including Vehicular Electric Power
`
`Systems Marcel Dekker
`
`Inc 2003 identifying pages attached as Exhibit 2006
`
`and Modern Electric Hybrid Vehicles and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`
`Fundamentals
`
`Theory and Design CRC Press 2004 am the author of over 350 publications in
`
`motor drives advanced vehicle systems pulsed-power supplies high-voltage
`
`engineering and power electronics
`
`am an inventor on more than 30 granted or
`
`pending US and EU patents related to automotive power and propulsion systems
`
`and their subsidiary technologies
`
`12
`
`In 2005 was elected as
`
`Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`SAE was selected for the IEEE Vehicular Society 2001 Avant Garde Award for
`
`Contributions to the theory and design of hybrid electric vehicles In 2004 was
`
`elected to the Robert
`
`Kennedy endowed Chair in Electrical Engineering at
`Texas AM University In 2003 was selected for the IEEE Undergraduate
`
`Teaching Award For outstanding contributions to advanced curriculum
`
`development and teaching of power electronics and drives
`
`13
`
`am the founder of the IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference
`
`VPPC which is an annual
`
`international conference that has been held
`
`continuously for the past 15 years all over the world and brings together experts
`
`of 42
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`and technologies related to vehicle power systems and propulsion systems and
`
`their components
`
`am also the founding chairman of the IEEE Vehicular
`
`Technology Society VTS Vehicle Power and Propulsion Committee which is the
`
`organizing committee of the VPPC
`
`14
`
`In 2002 was elected to the Board of Governors of the Vehicular
`
`Technology Society VTS serve on the editorial board of several
`
`technical
`
`journals and am the associate editor of IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
`
`and IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology
`
`am Fellow of IEEE an IEEE
`
`Industrial Electronics Society and Vehicular Technology Society Distinguished
`
`Speaker and an IEEE Industry Applications Society and Power Engineering Society
`
`Distinguished Lecturer
`
`am registered professional engineer
`
`in the State of
`
`Texas
`
`am the recipient of the Prize Paper Awards in Static Power Converters and
`
`motor drives at the IEEE-Industry Applications Society 1985 1987 and 1992
`
`Annual Meetings
`
`15
`
`have reviewed
`
`INFoRMATIoN RELIED ON
`II
`variety of documents in preparing this Declaration
`
`and have relied on the following for my opinion
`
`U.S Patent No 8217612 Ex 1005 the 612 Patent
`
`U.S Patent No 7579802 Ex 2007 the 802 Patent
`
`of 42
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 5
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`U.S Patent No 4870333 Ex 1007 Itoh
`
`U.S Patent No 4468596 Ex 1008 Kinzl
`
`U.S Patent No 5069000 Ex 1009 Zuckerman
`
`U.S Patent No 3888047 Ex 2005 Chikaraishi
`
`The corrected Brose petition for the 612 Patent Paper 005 of 1PR2014-
`
`00416 referred to as the 612 Petition and associated exhibits
`
`The corrected Brose petition for the 802 Patent Paper 006 of lPR2014-
`
`00417 referred to as the 802 Petition and associated exhibits
`
`The deposition transcript of Dr
`
`Arthur MacCarley Ex 2004
`
`The declaration of Dr MacCarley with respect to the 612 Patent Ex 1001
`
`of 1PR2014-00416 and associated exhibits
`
`The declaration of Dr MacCarley with respect to the 802 Patent Ex 1001
`
`of lPR2014-00417 and associated exhibits
`
`UUSI Priority document U.S Patent No 5334876 Ex 1020 the 876
`
`Patent
`
`Application and drawings as filed for application 07/872190 which issued
`
`as the 876 Patent Ex 2011
`
`UUSI Priority document U.S Patent No 6064165 Ex 1010 the 165
`
`Patent
`
`Page 6of42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`Plungis Jeff Feds to Tighten Window Rules available at
`
`http//www.autosafety.org/feds-tighten-window-rules
`
`Ex 2010
`
`16
`
`have spoken at length with John Washeleski
`
`inventor of the 612
`
`Patent and the 802 Patent Mr Washeleski described the state of the art in 1992
`
`the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in 1992 and the design challenges confronted
`
`and overcome by the inventions described in the 612 Patent and the 802 Patent
`
`Mr Washeleski showed me photographs of the window lift mechanisms and
`
`controls for systems existing prior to 1992 and the evolution of window lift
`
`mechanisms and controls subsequent
`
`to 1992
`
`Ill STATE OFTHE ART
`
`lll.A
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`17
`
`Based on my conversation with John Washeleski and Consistent with my
`
`understanding of the state of the art the subject matter of the 1992 priority
`
`application to which the challenged patents claim priority represented
`
`significant
`
`improvement over systems then existing in production automobiles
`
`18
`
`In the 1980s power windows were transition ing from simply hand
`
`operated crank windows to those with an electric motor attached to essentially
`
`the same mechanical window lift mechanism instead of
`
`hand-operated crank
`
`of 42
`
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`These prior window lift mechanisms were of
`
`bulky sector-gear and scissor arm
`
`design as shown here
`
`Fig
`PRIOR ART
`
`7/
`
`Chikaraishi Ex 2005 at FIG
`
`In the mid-1990s changing the lift mechanism to
`
`cable-operated mechanism allowed cheaper motors to be used
`
`19
`
`There were no explicit safety features built
`
`into the motor Instead the
`
`motor simply had
`
`certain stall torque and once the stall
`
`torque was reached
`
`the motor could not apply any further force to the window The closing speed of
`
`the motor was not very fast because
`
`higher closing speed would require more
`
`of 42
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2O14-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`torque which would then increase the stall torque of the motor and allow the
`
`motor to apply more force to anything trapped between the moving window and
`
`the window seal Even with limited torque these mechanisms would apply
`
`350 Newtons
`
`400 Newtons of force which could snap or strangle the neck of
`
`toddler or cut off
`
`childs finger
`
`20
`
`Adding motor control circuitry which may be able to detect an
`
`obstruction before the motor reaches its stall current would allow for more
`
`powerful motors and therefore faster window closing cycles More importantly
`
`the motor control circuitry would ideally be able to limit
`
`the amount of force
`
`applied to an obstruction thereby limiting or eliminating the risk of injury In the
`
`years leading up to 1992 automotive suppliers were unable to bring motor
`
`control circuitry to market due to excessive false positives or excessive false
`
`negatives or sometimes both
`
`21
`
`false positive is when an obstruction is detected which may cause the
`
`window to stop and/or
`
`reverse even though there is in fact no obstruction
`
`present This is
`
`nuisance and
`
`significant concern to original equipment
`
`manufacturers concerned with perceived quality False positives may also have an
`
`impact on safety such as by distracting
`
`driver from operating the vehicle when
`
`determining why the window has not responded as expected
`
`false negative is
`
`of 42
`Page
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 9
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`when an obstruction that is actually present
`
`is not detected This may lead to
`
`damage to the window the motor the lift mechanism or worse to
`
`person
`
`whose body part is caught between the window and the window seal
`
`22
`
`According to
`
`1997 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`NHTSA Technical Report Ex 2003
`
`conservative Ex 2003 at
`
`estimate of
`
`power window injuries was 437 injuries per year Ex 2003 at 30 Table 17 These
`
`injuries were estimated for the 1-year period from October 1993 through
`
`September 1994 and include injuries caused by the closing of
`
`power window
`
`The majority of these injuries were to children under the age of 15 Ex 2003 at
`
`32 Table 21
`
`23
`
`The 1992 priority application is the practical development of
`
`system
`
`that in real world scenarios exhibits
`
`very low false positive rate and an even
`
`lower false negative rate For example only real world scenarios may include
`
`conditions experienced by many moving object systems such as mechanical wear
`
`and friction changes in response to heat The conditions may also include
`
`situations more specific to motor vehicles such as ice buildup fluctuating power
`
`supply voltage from the alternator and/or battery or static pressure changes due
`
`to for example ventilation changes Static pressure changes may change the
`
`amount of force the window applies against the seal and therefore change the
`
`Page 10 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 10
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 10
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`amount of friction experienced by the window Further the conditions may
`
`include conditions unique to
`
`vehicle in motion such as wind buffeting
`
`24
`
`The 1992 priority application achieves these results by among
`
`number
`
`of inventive details concurrently using multiple obstacle detection algorithms
`
`The obstacle detection algorithms are selected to detect different forms of
`
`obstacles such as hard obstacles for example
`
`bone and soft obstacles for
`
`example
`
`persons throat Each obstacle detection algorithm may be set with
`
`less aggressive parameters than if the obstacle detection algorithm were the only
`
`one in use thereby reducing false positives By using multiple obstacle detection
`
`algorithms the various obstacle types can each be detected more accurately
`
`according to the parameters that characterize them respectively reducing false
`
`negatives
`
`25
`
`For example see
`
`processing for hard and soft obstruction
`
`detection is divided into two separate equations weighting the various terms
`
`depending upon magnitude of importance and processing time requirements
`
`The 612 Patent at 2228-31 An example embodiment of hard obstruction
`
`detection essentially compares immediate average current with immediately
`
`prior average current and immediately prior average pulse period... The 612
`
`Patent at 2247-49 An example embodiment of soft obstruction detection is
`
`Page 11 of42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`
`Page 11
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`described as Soft obstruction detection is not nearly as time sensitive as is hard
`
`obstruction detection thus additional terms can be computed in the time allowed
`
`before the slow increase in entrapment force exceeds maximum allowable
`
`values The 612 Patent at 2262-65
`
`26
`
`Therefore it
`
`is my understanding and belief that production
`
`automobiles prior to April of 1992 did not employ any control
`
`logic that sensed or
`
`monitored hard and soft obstacle detection while practically accounting for real-
`
`world operating conditions including wind buffeting cold versus hot temperature
`
`effects on the window weatherstrips vehicular voltage variations G-forces while
`
`hitting holes in the road and the like Unfortunately even after the inventions
`
`described in the 612 Patent and the 802 Patent regulations still allowed unsafe
`
`older mechanisms to be used in vehicles For example in 2004 Exhibit 20t0
`
`describes
`
`NHTSA meeting with Patent Owner UUSI and specifically John
`
`Washeleski
`
`inventor on the 612 Patent and the 802 Patent to discuss mandating
`
`the safer systems developed by UUSI
`
`In 2004 alone watchdog group had
`
`documented
`
`children being killed by power window mechanisms Ex 2010
`
`Page 12 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 12
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 12
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`IV LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`IV.A OVERVIEW
`
`27
`
`In preparing this report
`
`have been provided With certain legal
`
`principles Which
`
`have included below have formed my opinions With these
`
`legal principles in mind If
`
`it
`
`is determined that any other legal principles apply
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or supplement
`
`the opinions expressed herein
`
`IV.B ANTICIPATION/NOVELTY
`Because of its filing prior to March 16 2013 understand the condition
`
`28
`
`for novelty for the 612 Patent
`
`is governed by the following version of 35 U.S.C
`
`102a and
`
`person shall be entitled to
`
`patent unless
`
`the invention was known or used by others in this country or
`
`patented or described in
`
`printed publication in this or
`
`foreign
`
`country
`
`before the invention
`
`thereof by the applicant
`
`for
`
`patent or
`
`the
`
`invention
`
`was
`
`patented
`
`or described
`
`in
`
`printed
`
`publication in this or
`
`foreign country or in public use or on sale in
`
`this country more than one year prior to the date of application
`
`for patent
`
`in the united States..
`
`29
`
`For
`
`claim to be anticipated under Section 102a or
`
`understand
`
`that each claim element must be disclosed either expressly or inherently in
`
`single prior art reference and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
`
`Page 13 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 13
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 13
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`elements must also be disclosed either expressly or inherently in that same prior
`
`art reference
`
`30
`
`understand that
`
`concept of inherent disclosure does not alter
`
`the requirement
`
`that all elements must be disclosed in an anticipatory reference
`
`in the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim and that
`
`anticipation
`
`by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference
`
`discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation Thus to
`
`rely on inherent disclosure to support an argument of anticipation the limitation
`
`inherently disclosed must be necessarily present not merely potentially present
`
`31
`
`In terms of non-obviousness or obviousness and again because of the
`
`IV.C OBVIOUSNESS/NONOBVIOUSNESS
`
`filing date of the 612 Patent prior to March 16 2013 understand the following
`
`version of 35 U.S.C 103a governs
`
`patent may not be obtained
`
`though
`
`the invention
`
`is not
`
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
`
`title if
`
`the differences between the subject matter sought
`
`to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
`
`whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was
`
`made to
`
`person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which the said
`
`subject matter pertains Patentability shall not be negated by the
`
`manner in which the invention was made
`
`Page 14 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 14
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`32
`
`In order to determine obviousness under Section 103 it
`
`is my
`
`understanding that four factual
`
`inquiries must be made concerning
`
`the scope
`
`and content of the prior art
`
`the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art and
`
`secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness
`
`such as commercial success long-felt but
`
`unresolved need failure of others copying and unexpected results
`
`33
`
`understand that it
`
`is not enough that all of the elements may be found
`
`in
`
`combination of prior art references rather
`
`party seeking to invalidate
`
`patent as obvious must demonstrate that
`
`skilled artisan would have had reason
`
`to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`
`invention
`
`further understand hindsight analysis is inappropriate because
`
`obviousness must be assessed at the time the invention was made and from the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art
`
`34
`
`understand that
`
`in view of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art some
`
`modifications to the teachings of the prior art may be considered obvious design
`
`choices However when
`
`structure in the prior art and
`
`structure of the claimed
`
`invention achieve different purposes modifying the structure of the prior art to
`
`arrive at the structure of the claimed invention would not be considered an
`
`obvious design choice
`
`Page 15 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 15
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 15
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`35
`
`further understand that
`
`reference must enable one of ordinary skill
`
`in
`
`the art at least as of the effective filing date of
`
`later invention to make and use
`
`the later invention in order for the reference to render the later invention
`
`obvious
`
`understand that enablement
`
`requires no undue experimentation
`
`which can be assessed by weighing factors including the quantity of
`
`experimentation necessary the amount of direction or guidance presented the
`
`presence or absence of working examples the nature of the invention the state
`
`of the prior art the relative skill of those in the art and the predictability of the
`
`art
`
`36
`
`person of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art at the time of invention
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`would likely be an individual with Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical or
`
`Electronics Engineering with at
`
`least
`
`year of practical experience At the time of
`
`invention however there were many individuals working in the pertinent art
`
`without an engineering Bachelors degree but with an aptitude for electronics and
`
`multiple years of hands-on experience developing electronic motor control
`
`systems and programming microcontrollers
`
`Page 16 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 16
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`VI PRIOR ART
`
`37
`
`VI.A ITOH
`have read and understand Itoh which describes an automatic opening
`
`and closing device for window Itoh Abstract The device controls motor
`
`based on measuring the commutation ripple current induced in the motor current
`
`by motor rotation Itoh makes obstacle detection decisions based on the time
`
`between rising edges of motor commutation current pulses Each measurement
`
`of rising edge to rising edge is called Tp See FIG of Itoh
`
`TIMER INTERRUPTION
`SIGNAL
`
`MOTOR PULSE SIGNAL
`HIGH SPEED
`
`MOTOR PULSE SIGNAL____
`LOW SPEED
`
`ii
`
`Tp O.lmsec
`
`38
`
`An integer number
`
`of prior Tp values are stored See FIG of Itoh
`
`Page 17 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 17
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 17
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`IPR2O14-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`11
`
`Tpn
`
`Tpn1
`
`Tpn2
`
`TP2
`
`Tpl
`
`Tp
`
`SPEED DATA OF THE LAST TIME BUT ONE
`
`SPEED DATA OF THE LAST TIME
`
`SPEED DATA OF THE PRESENT TIME
`
`39
`
`The
`
`prior Tp values are averaged to create an average value Tm Itoh
`
`at 1037-44 The ratio of Tp and Tm is compared to
`
`fixed threshold parameter
`
`The threshold parameter can assume one of two values depending on which
`
`control regime Itoh is operating in In
`
`first regime when the window is opening
`
`the threshold parameter is J3 See decision diamonds 116 and 110 of FIG of Itoh
`
`In
`
`second regime when the window is closing and is nearly closed within
`
`range of closed position the threshold parameter for obstacle detection is f3
`
`See decision diamond 112 of FIG of Itoh In
`
`third regime when the window is
`
`closing but is not nearly closed out of range of closed position the threshold
`
`parameter for obstacle detection is
`
`See decision diamond 108 of FIG of Itoh
`
`40
`
`In response to the ratio exceeding the threshold parameter
`
`Itoh
`
`performs an action based on the present control regime In the first
`
`regime the
`
`ratio exceeding the threshold parameter causes Itoh to assume the window is
`
`fully opened and resets
`
`pulse counter to
`
`reference value In the second
`
`Page 18 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 18
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 18
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`regime the ratio exceeding the threshold parameter causes Itoh to assume the
`
`window is fully closed and clear the pulse counter to zero In the third regime the
`
`ratio exceeding the threshold parameter causes Itoh to assume the window has
`
`encountered an obstacle and open the window fully
`
`41
`
`In real-world situations Itoh would be prone to experiencing false
`
`positives
`
`that is detecting obstacles that do not in fact exist Itoh declares an
`
`obstacle whenever
`
`the ratio of Tp to Tm is greater than
`
`threshold Tp is
`
`single
`
`measurement however
`
`If Itoh misses reading
`
`single pulse which can be caused
`
`by any number of electrical nonidealities or the influence of external
`
`forces such
`
`as noise the resulting value of Tp will be approximately doubled As
`
`result the
`
`ratio of Tp to Tm would be doubled even though this represented only
`
`single
`
`erroneous reading If parameter
`
`is less than two which seems likely this single
`
`bad reading would lead to
`
`false obstacle detection and
`
`nuisance opening
`
`Increasing the parameter
`
`such as to be greater than two would cause actual
`
`obstacles to be less likely to be detected and to take longer to be detected and
`
`therefore does not represent
`
`viable alternative As
`
`result my opinion is that
`
`the obstacle detection features of Itoh require undue experimentation and are
`
`not enabling to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of 1992
`
`Page 19 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 19
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`VI.B KINZL
`have read and understand Kinzl which discloses controlling window
`
`42
`
`drive motor Kinzl uses
`
`sensor such as Hal effect sensor to detect motor
`
`speed and control
`
`the motor accordingly Kinzl discloses three zones of operation
`
`zone
`
`zone
`
`and zone
`
`See FIG of Kinzl
`
`ZONE
`
`43
`
`Zone
`
`corresponds to the window being at
`
`least approximately half
`
`open Kinzl at 641-42 Zone
`
`corresponds to the window being less than
`
`approximately half open but not almost fully closed Kinzl at 642-44 Zone
`
`corresponds to the window being almost fully closed Kinzl at 645-46
`
`44
`
`Kinzl executes
`
`single detection algorithm in each zone In zone
`
`Kinzl
`
`only executes
`
`blocking counter process which determines how long of
`
`period
`
`of time has elapsed since
`
`change was observed in the sensor signal Kinzl at 38-
`
`16 If the blocking counter exceeds
`
`predetermined period of time meaning that
`
`no changes in the sensor signal have been observed for that predetermined
`
`Page 20 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 20
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 20
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`period of time the window motor is turned off Kinzl at513-14 The
`
`predetermined period is described as variable with an example value of 500
`
`milliseconds Kinzl at 354
`
`45
`
`In zone
`
`Kinzl compares
`
`present signal related to
`
`present speed of
`
`the motor to
`
`threshold value The threshold value is set equal to the time
`
`between two rising edges of the sensor signal or to the time between two falling
`
`edges of the sensor signal Kinzl at 340-42 The threshold value is set once at the
`
`time the closing window transitionsfrom zone
`
`to zone
`
`Kinzl at 425-27 The
`
`threshold value is used unchanged
`
`for the remainder of the windows travel
`
`through zone
`
`Kinzl at 429-30 If the threshold value is exceeded meaning that
`
`the window speed is slowing down an emergency opening of the window is
`
`performed Kinzl at 430-32 In zone
`
`Kinzl again executes the blocking counter
`
`process Kinzl at 32-10
`
`46
`
`In real-world situations Kinzl would be prone to experiencing false
`
`positives
`
`that is detecting obstacles that do not in fact exist Kinzl declares an
`
`obstacle whenever
`
`threshold timing value is exceeded As explained above that
`
`threshold timing value is determined at the time the window transitions from
`
`zone
`
`to zone
`
`In other words throughout zone
`
`Kinzl declares an obstacle
`
`any time the windows speed decreases below the speed achieved at the
`
`Page 21 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`
`Page 21
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 21
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`transition between zones
`
`and
`
`This is an exacting requirement meaning that
`
`any slowing of the window no matter how minor will cause an obstruction to be
`
`declared resulting in an immediate emergency opening of the window As
`
`result my opinion is that the obstacle detection features of Kinzl require undue
`
`experimentation and are not enabling to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of 1992
`
`47
`
`Vl.C ZUcKERMAN
`have read and understand Zuckerman which discloses
`
`sliding door
`
`assembly and control system that relies on an intricate pattern of limit switches to
`
`determine in which region the door is positioned Zuckerman discloses using
`
`analog computing to determine when an obstacle is detected and actuate
`
`reversing apparatus Specifically Zuckerman determines
`
`difference between
`
`voltage corresponding to
`
`present current value and
`
`voltage corresponding to
`
`threshold value Zuckerman then compares the difference to
`
`reference value
`
`See FIG 24 of Zuckerman excerpted here
`
`Page 22 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 22
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 22
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2O14-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`8v
`
`Regulated
`
`401
`
`20/C
`
`41
`
`10
`
`JJcj
`
`fit
`
`L_
`
`ii
`
`425
`
`Li
`
`422
`
`48
`
`The output of operational amplifier circuit 412 is
`
`representation of an
`
`average of motor current over approximately 500 ms Zuckerman 2019-22 The
`
`output of operational amplifier circuit 413 is
`
`representation of an average of
`
`motor current over approximately 15 ms Zuckerman 2022-27 The output of
`
`difference amplifier 419 represents
`
`difference between the average current
`
`from the operational amplifier circuit 412 and the instantaneous current from the
`
`operational amplifier circuit 413
`
`49
`
`The output of
`
`comparator amplifier 420 is active when the difference
`
`from the difference amplifier 419 exceeds
`
`threshold voltage from
`
`potentiometer 422 The output of comparator 420 drives
`
`relay-reversing circuit
`
`Page 23 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 23
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 23
`
`
`
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration of Dr Mark Ehsani
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`423 to reverse the motor In other words if
`
`the difference exceeds the reference
`
`value th motor is stopped and reversed Zuckerman 2034-39
`
`50
`
`Independent Claim recites identifying
`
`collision of the window or
`
`VII
`
`CLAIM
`
`panel with an obstacle and deactivate said motor in response to
`
`sensing of
`
`collision My understanding of this limitation of Claim is that two different
`
`collision detection algorithms are being used concurrently and my analysis below
`
`is based on this assumption In other words identifying
`
`collision requires
`
`first algorithm and sensing of
`
`collision requires
`
`second algorithm This would
`
`be
`
`logical
`
`interpretation for this claim to
`
`person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in
`
`April of 1992 and is in harmony with the objective and embodiments disclosed in
`
`the 612 Patent
`
`51
`
`An exemplary description of two algorithms encompassed by Claim is
`
`supported by the Detailed Description of the 612 Patent as follows
`
`first
`
`algorithm is presented for hard obstruction detection The first algorithm is
`
`expressed as an inequality
`
`IF IRO/KlIRJ
`
`The 612 Patent 2235-38 1R0
`
`is an average of current values over
`
`small
`
`timeframe Range
`
`and is compared to an expression made up of constants K1
`
`Page 24 of 42
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 24
`
`BNA/Brose Exhibit 1067
`IPR2014-00417
`Page 24
`
`
`
`of Dr Mark Ehsani
`in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`Declaration
`1PR2014-00416 for U.S Patent 8217612
`
`K2 and K3
`
`pulse period quantity PPR1 and
`
`current quantity lRl If the
`
`inequality is satisfied
`
`hard obstruction style of collision is identified as being
`
`present The current quantity is an average of current values over the timeframe
`
`of Range
`
`The 612 Patent 1842-43 The pulse period quantity is an average of
`
`pulse periods over
`
`timeframe referred to as Range
`
`The 612 Patent 1853-54
`
`Range
`
`encompasses the most recent data readings which may be for example
`
`the most recent 4-8 data readings Range
`
`encompasses the most recent data
`
`readings immediately prior to Range
`
`and may for example be of
`
`similar
`
`length to Range
`
`The 612 Patent 1857-63
`
`52
`
`second algorithm is presented for soft obstruction detection The
`
`second algorithm is expressed as an inequality
`
`IF 1Rc1PFfthf1MRfJiLoMRbi4
`K7
`
`The 612 Patent 2257-60 RO is the average of current values over Range
`
`and is
`
`compared to an expression made up of constants K4 K5 K6 and K7
`
`pulse
`
`period quantity PPRb.4 a