UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`BROSE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`and
`BROSE FAHRZEUGTEILE GMBH & CO. KG, HALLSTADT,
`Petitioners
`v.
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00417
`Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`BROSE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`and
`BROSE FAHRZEUGTEILE GMBH & CO. KG, HALLSTADT,
`Petitioners
`v.
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00417
`Patent No. 7,579,802
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00417
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), Petitioners Brose North America, Inc. and
`
`Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kg, Hallstadt (“Brose”), hereby request oral
`
`argument. The oral argument is presently scheduled for April 30, 2015. (Paper
`
`16).
`
`Brose requests that oral argument for this IPR be scheduled in connection
`
`with the oral argument for IPR2014-00416, for which Brose is filing a similar
`
`request for oral argument. The two IPRs, which address related patents, have been
`
`on the same schedule throughout the proceedings, and are presently both scheduled
`
`for oral argument on the same date, April 30, 2015.
`
`Brose also requests that oral argument for the two IPRs be combined into a
`
`single argument, thereby eliminating the need to twice address issues overlapping
`
`among the two IPRs. Brose requests that the combined arguments be scheduled
`
`for a total of three (3) hours, with 90 minutes per side. Patent owner UUSI does
`
`not oppose this requested format.
`
`Brose, as Petitioners, requests it be permitted to argue first. Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Brose would
`
`address both IPRs, followed by patent owner UUSI, with Brose having the right to
`
`reserve a portion of its allotted time for rebuttal.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00417
`
`The issues to be argued relating to IPR2014-00416 are identified in Brose’s
`
`request for argument submitted in that IPR. The issues to be argued relating to this
`
`IPR (2014-00417) include the following:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`1.
`The proper construction of the phrase “a sensor for measuring a
`
`parameter of a motor coupled to the motor driven element that varies in response to
`
`a resistance to motion” in claim 1: Whether the sensor limitation, limitation 1(a)
`
`requires a current value (magnitude) sensor (as Patent Owner contends), or
`
`whether, instead, the limitation is sufficiently broad to include other types of
`
`sensors, including speed sensors, including a speed sensor in the form of a motor
`
`current commutation pulse sensor (as Brose contends).
`
`2.
`
`The proper construction of the phrase “a movement sensor for
`
`monitoring movement of the object” in claim 7: Whether the sensor limitation,
`
`limitation 7(a) requires a separate, discrete physical sensor (such as a Hall effect
`
`sensor or other encoder (as Patent Owner contends), or whether, instead, the
`
`limitation is sufficiently broad to include other types of sensors from which motor
`
`speed of movement can be determined, including, for example, a motor current
`
`commutation pulse sensor (as Brose contends).
`
`3.
`
`The proper construction of the preamble phrase “[a]pparatus for
`
`controlling activation of a motor for moving an object along a travel path” and the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00417
`
`phrase “a movement sensor for monitoring movement of the object as the motor
`
`moves said object along a travel path” in claim 7: Whether claim 7 requires that
`
`obstacle detection based on the obstacle detect threshold and/or monitoring
`
`movement of an object be performed along the entire path of travel of the window
`
`(as Patent Owner contends), or whether, instead, claim 7 merely requires such
`
`detection and/or movement monitoring at some position(s) along the travel path
`
`(such as in a safety zone, for example) (as Brose contends).
`
`4.
`
`The proper construction of claim 14: Whether limitations (c) and
`
`(c)(i)–(iv) of Claim 14 are written in “means-plus-function” format (as Patent
`
`Owner contents), or not (as Brose contends).
`
`B. Unpatentability
`Patent Owner UUSI does not separately argue either of dependent claims 8
`
`and 9. Thus, Brose submits (and UUSI does not dispute) that, if independent claim
`
`7 is canceled as unpatentable, dependent claims 8 and 9 should also be canceled as
`
`unpatentable. For this reason, Brose does not plan to focus on challenged
`
`dependent claims 8 and 9 at the argument.
`
`Patent Owner UUSI also does not contest the mathematical equivalence
`
`and/or the obviousness of re-writing prior art reference Itoh’s equation, which is
`
`the only concept for which Brose relies on prior art reference Zuckerman.
`
`Accordingly, Ground 6 (obviousness over Itoh in view of Zuckerman) essentially
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00417
`
`overlaps with Ground 1 (obviousness over Itoh), and Ground 7 (obviousness over
`
`Itoh in view of prior art reference Kinzl and Zuckerman) essentially overlaps with
`
`Ground 5 (obviousness over Itoh in view of Kinzl). Therefore, Brose does not plan
`
`to focus on Grounds 6–7 at oral argument, but maintains that claims 7–9 and 14
`
`should also be cancelled based on Grounds 6 and 7, among other grounds.
`
`Accordingly, the Grounds and corresponding claims that Brose intends to
`
`focus on at the argument are listed below, and summarized in the chart further
`
`below:
`
`1.
`
`Unpatentability based primarily on prior art reference Itoh
`
`(1) Anticipation of Claims 1, 7 and 14 by Itoh (Ground 2)
`
`(2) Obviousness of Claims 1, 6, 7 and 14 over Itoh and the
`
`knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art (Ground 1)
`
`(3) Obviousness of Claims 1, 6, 7 and 14 over Itoh in view of Kinzl
`
`(Ground 5)
`
`2.
`
`Unpatentability based primarily on prior art reference Kinzl
`
`(1) Anticipation of Claims 7 and 14 by Kinzl (Ground 3)
`
`(2) Obviousness of Claims 7 and 14 over Kinzl and the knowledge
`
`of one having ordinary skill in the art (Ground 4)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00417
`
`
`
`C. Other Issues
`1.
`Procedural and evidentiary issues raised, e.g., in Motions to Exclude;
`
`2.
`
`Any additional issues the parties raise or propose to raise at or before
`
`the oral argument; and
`
`3.
`
`Any additional issues on which the Board seeks information or
`
`clarification.
`
`Brose further requests the use of audio-visual equipment to assist with its
`
`arguments and to display its demonstrative exhibits, including a computer-
`
`connectable projector, an ELMO, and a screen.
`
`Brose requests the services of a court reporter to transcribe the proceeding.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Oral Argument: IPR2014-00417
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Craig D. Leavell
`Craig D. Leavell (Reg. No. 48505)
`Luke L. Dauchot, P.C. (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: 312.862.2000; F: 312.862.2200
`craig.leavell@kirkland.com
`luke.dauchot@kirkland.com
`Attorneys For Petitioners
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that a copy of
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT was served on March 26,
`
`2015, via email by agreement of the parties, directed to counsel of record for the
`
`Patent Owner at the following:
`
`Monte L. Falcoff
`Michael R. Nye
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
`Troy, Michigan 48098
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`mnye@hdp.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Craig D. Leavell
`Craig Leavell (Reg. No. 48505)
`Luke L. Dauchot, P.C. (pro hac vice)
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
