`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 48
`Entered: May 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patent 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`____________
`
`Held: April 30, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: GLENN J. PERRY, HYUN J. JUNG, and JASON J.
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, April 30,
`2015, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRAIG D. LEAVELL, ESQUIRE
`ELIZABETH A. CUTRI, ESQUIRE
`Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`MONTE L. FALCOFF, ESQUIRE
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`5445 Corporate Drive
`Suite 200
`Troy, Michigan 48098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PERRY: We are convened for oral argument in
`cases IPR2014-00416 and 00417. Petitioner, Brose, versus Patent
`Owner, UUSI. These two IPRs are being argued together because
`they raise common issues and have overlapping prior art. Each side
`has 90 minutes per the trial order. Petitioner has the burden of proof,
`of course, to establish the unpatentability of the challenged claims and
`will argue first. Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time. And before
`your presentation, please identify yourself for the record. And if
`anyone wants a five-minute break between arguments since we are
`going three hours this morning, feel free to raise your hand and say so
`and we'll take a break between arguments.
`So with that, petitioner, when you are ready.
`MR. LEAVELL: Thank you, Your Honor. I have got hard
`copies of the slides.
`JUDGE PERRY: Thanks. Appreciate it.
`MR. LEAVELL: Good morning, Your Honor. Craig
`Leavell on behalf of the petitioners and along with me is Elizabeth
`Cutri. And I've given you the slides. We are going to go through
`them in order, but I will be skipping some of the slides for the most
`part.
`
`JUDGE PERRY: Would you like to reserve any time for
`rebuttal?
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`MR. LEAVELL: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
`Twenty minutes.
`So I would like to begin by talking about the '802 patent
`which is the 417 IPR. And on slide 9 here, this slide summarizes the
`grounds that were instituted that were raised by Brose against the '802
`patent. So the claims across the top row and the various grounds
`along the first column.
`But today's argument can be focused on a subset of those
`grounds and claim combinations. First of all, ground 6 and 7
`petitioner, Brose, relied on Zuckerman only for the principle that it
`was obvious or would have been well known in the art to rewrite or
`rethink Itoh's equation in terms that are mathematically identical.
`Because patent owner doesn't contest that obviousness of that
`principle, ground 6 and 7 are essentially, largely overlap prior
`grounds. So we won't focus on ground 6 or 7 today.
`Also, UUSI, the patent owner, does not separately argue
`dependent claims 8 or 9. So I think we all agree that dependent
`claims 8 or 9 will rise or fall with independent claim 7. So I won't
`discuss claims 8 or 9 today either.
`Now, on slide 7 here, these are the grounds raised against
`claim 1 of the '802 patent. And claim 1 of the '802 patent is
`unpatentable for three reasons. First of all, it's anticipated by the Itoh
`reference. Ground 1 is obvious over Itoh. Ground 2 is anticipated by
`Itoh. And ground 5 is obvious over the combination of Itoh and
`Kinzl.
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`Now UUSI briefly raises some arguments about the
`motivation to combine Itoh and Kinzl with respect to ground 5 and
`very briefly raises some enablement issues, and we'll address those at
`the end of the presentation.
`But in terms of distinctions, differences between the require
`part and claim 1 of the '802, patent owner identifies only one. And
`that difference only exists under patent owner's proposed construction.
`So really the key issue on the patentability of claim 1 of the '802
`patent is a claim construction issue and it's whether or not claim 1 is
`limited to a particular type of sensor. Patent owner argues it's limited
`to a current amplitude sensor. Whereas, petitioners argue that the
`plain and ordinary meaning should apply and any type of sensor
`would fall within the scope of claim 1.
`The disputed phrase is found --
`JUDGE PERRY: Let me interrupt you. We are using the
`Philips standard for construction because we are dealing with an
`expired patent?
`MR. LEAVELL: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE PERRY: So the spec is relevant?
`MR. LEAVELL: Yes, the parties agree on that. The
`disputed limitation is found in limitation A of claim 1. And it's a
`sensor for measuring a parameter of a motor coupled to a
`motor-driven element. For example, the window or the sunroof is the
`motor-driven element that varies in response to a resistance to motion.
`For example, if the window or sunroof panel encounters an obstacle,
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`the parameter of the motor will change in response to encountering
`that resistance.
`And on slide 13, we show side-by-side petitioner Brose's
`position on the claim construction of this limitation and UUSI's
`position. Brose's position is that the sensor can be any type of sensor
`that measures any motor parameter that varies as a result of resistance
`to motion. This would include all types of sensors, including the
`current amplitude sensor the patent owner says is required but also
`other types of sensors like a Hall effect sensor, a motor current
`commutation pulse sensor and other types of sensors, particularly
`since there's the detect speed because motor speed is a parameter that
`will vary in response to a resistance to motion.
`And like we'll see on most of the claim construction issues
`and I submit, I think, probably all, essentially what patent owner is
`trying to do is import limitations from the specification into the claim
`without any basis for doing so. The limitations they are seeking to
`import are not supported by disavowals in the specification. They are
`not required by any disclaimers in the prosecution history. As we'll
`see, the specification and prosecution history actually support Brose's
`constructions and show that there was no disclaimer or disavowal of
`scope.
`
`On slide 14, this is a focus in on the disputed language. And
`the real issue here is not the meaning of sensor but really what type of
`parameters of the motor vary in response to a resistance to motion.
`Patent owner's expert opines that it's theoretically possible to design
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`some systems where the motor load can be adjusted or the power to
`the motor can be adjusted so that when the window slows down, the
`motor can be compensated with an increased power to try to maintain
`current speed on the motor. And that's not described in the patent. It's
`not required by the patent. In fact, it makes no sense in the patent. If
`you are in the context of an anti-pinch safety system for power
`windows, why would you respond to a trapped arm or a trapped neck
`by ramping up the power to the motor to try to keep it moving faster?
`It just doesn't make sense.
`Speeds does change. And in fact, there are other claims in
`the patent, claims 7 and 15 -- claim 7 is one of the challenged patent
`claims, claim 15 is not -- where the patent requires that speed be the
`parameter of the motor that allows the obstacle detection to work. So
`Brose submits that UUSI's position that speed theoretically doesn't
`have to change is irrelevant. It is a parameter that changes in response
`to resistance to motion and therefore, speed sensors are within the
`scope of claim 1.
`On slide 15, again, claims 7 and 15, these establish that
`motor speed is a parameter that can be used for detecting obstacles.
`On slide 16, this is a related patent that is at issue in the litigation but
`not at issue in the IPRs. The '802 patent claims of priority to the '165
`patent and has a little bit different specification but it's incorporated
`by reference into the '802 patent. And claim 1 of the '165, patent
`which is Exhibit 1010 in the '802 IPR has the exact same language, a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`sensor for measuring a parameter of a motor coupled to the
`motor-driven element that varies in response to a resistance to motion.
`And then claim 14, which depends directly from that
`claim 1, says the parameter's speed. And so the claim 1 and its
`dependent claim 14 of the '165 further show that speed is a parameter
`in the context of the '802 patent that does vary in response to a
`resistance to motion.
`On slide 17 UUSI's expert conceded during his deposition
`that Brose's construction is the correct construction. He was asked
`about the sensor limitation of claim 1A of the '802 patent and he was
`asked, Are there any characteristics associated with the term in claim
`1, a sensor for measuring the parameter of a motor?
`And he asked to repeat the question. The sensor for
`measuring a parameter recited in claim 1A, are there any
`qualifications on what that sensor or parameter is?
`No. It's a parameter, a sensor for a parameter.
`And this testimony was not elicited by me. It was elicited
`by patent owner's own counsel on redirect in the deposition of its own
`expert. So there's no argument that I tricked him into giving this
`admission.
`Then finally, in the litigation in the infringement contentions
`that were served on us, patent owner itself took the position with
`respect to claim 1 of the '802 patent that that claim covered our device
`because we had a sensor for measuring a parameter coupled to the
`motor-driven element that varies in response to resistance to motion, a
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`Hall sensor. And then in our system the change in motor speed was
`detected by Hall effect sensors. So prior to this IPR, patent owner
`said that claim 1 covers speed sensors. And now they are saying, no,
`it must be a current amplitude sensor.
`JUDGE PERRY: Counsel, do Hall effect sensors directly
`measure speed?
`MR. LEAVELL: Just like a motor current commutation
`pulse, they will time the duration between pulses or rotations of the
`motor. So they work by detecting the magnetic change of the motor
`rotates and they will measure time implements --
`JUDGE PERRY: So it's an indirect measure of motor
`rotational speed?
`MR. LEAVELL: I would argue it's probably -- well, it's
`close to a direct. It's almost a direct measurement. It's right on the
`motor itself, just like a motor current commutation pulse. But it's not
`directly measuring the speed of the window movement, which is an
`issue in a later claim.
`I think during the preliminary finding, I don't think this issue
`came up, but I think our position was that it can't directly sense or
`indirectly sense. And that was an issue with a later claim because the
`claim talks about monitoring movement of the window or panel. And
`the issue in our petition was whether indirectly monitoring that would
`suffice, and our position was that it would suffice, and that's the
`position the Board adopted.
`JUDGE PERRY: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`MR. LEAVELL: So on slide 22, this is from patent owner's
`response brief. And this shows that the only distinction that patent
`owner raised with respect to grounds 1, 2 and 3, I think this might
`be -- the heading is wrong. I apologize. Grounds 1, 2 and 5 are that
`Itoh does not have a current amplitude sensor. So the only difference
`they raise is under their unduly narrow construction. So if the claim is
`construed to cover speed sensors, there's no distinction between Itoh
`or the combination of Itoh and Kinzl in claim 1 of the '802 patent.
`So unless there's any questions on claim 1, I'll turn next to
`claim 6 of the '802 patent. And with respect to claim 6, there are two
`grounds that were initiated. The first ground 1, that claim 6 is obvious
`over Itoh and the second was ground 5, that claim 6 is obvious over
`the combination of Itoh and Kinzl.
`Now, the same issue and the same grounds were raised with
`respect to claim 5 of the '612 patent. It's a very similar claim. It's not
`identical, but both parties have briefed the issues identically on both
`claims. So the argument here with respect to claim 6 of the '802
`patent will apply equally to claim 5 of the '612 patent, but I won't
`reargue that later when we get to the '612 patent.
`Now, the main issue with respect to claim 6 is the
`40-millisecond claim limitation taught by or rendered obvious by Itoh
`or would it have been an obvious design choice in light of Itoh. And
`Brose contends that, yes, it would. And the Board, in its preliminary
`decision, agreed. And the Patent Office agreed during prosecution
`that this was just a mere design choice.
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`First by disclosing the value of N, Itoh leaves it as a design
`choice, but he teaches to those of skill in the art that you can choose N
`to be any value, including values that are sufficiently low so that the
`number of values that are used, the N number of values would be
`within the 40 milliseconds. So our position is that Itoh does actually
`teach one of skill in the art that they can use values that are less than
`40 milliseconds.
`But even if Itoh's leaving it unstated expressly, even if the
`fact that Itoh doesn't expressly state to use N sufficiently low so that
`all measurements would be within 40 milliseconds, one of skill in the
`art would understand very easily that you could do that.
`And moreover, regardless of what Itoh teaches, Itoh could
`be completely silent on this, and our position would be that it was an
`obvious design choice exercising routine engineering skill so that
`claim 6 is invalid or unpatentable over Itoh or the combination of Itoh
`and Kinzl. Although, we don't rely on Kinzl for the 40 milliseconds
`because that's really the only issue. There's only one issue for grounds
`1 and 5.
`Now, on slide 25 here, UUSI's expert concedes it is possible
`within the scope of Itoh for all the measurements to be taken within
`the prior 40 milliseconds. He does concede that that's possible. So
`Itoh doesn't exclude that possibility.
`Let me back up for a second on slide 24. And this is the
`actual language of the claim 6. And patent owner's position is that
`this 40-millisecond value is some uniquely successful number and
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`their expert goes on at length about why this is a uniquely successful
`interval and as if there's some magic to choosing 40 milliseconds as
`the interval.
`But the claim doesn't say take measurements up to
`40 milliseconds ago. It says the immediate past measurements were
`taken within 40 milliseconds. So this claim would cover if
`measurements are taken within 35, 30, 25, 20 and so forth. There is
`no magic or there is no unique success associated with
`40 milliseconds. And they don't claim, they don't say in their claim
`take the measurements at 40 milliseconds and before. It just says all
`the measurements are within --
`JUDGE PERRY: Is there anything in the specification that
`suggests that there is a particular advantage to that number?
`MR. LEAVELL: No, there's not. The '802 patent doesn't
`mention that number at all anywhere in the specification. The
`40 milliseconds comes from the original 1992 specification which is
`incorporated by reference. And it doesn't associate, doesn't explain
`why they chose that or any benefit to choosing that. But they simply
`point out they have got a FIFO 20 values deep and they are clocking it
`every 2 milliseconds, and that's how they get to the 40 milliseconds.
`So whether it was they just happened to choose FIFO 20 values deep
`or whether it was intentional, they don't say and they certainly don't
`explain any benefit to that number.
`JUDGE JUNG: Can the patent owner's argument for
`40 milliseconds also apply to 39 seconds, 35 seconds, 20 seconds?
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`MR. LEAVELL: They don't address that. They don't say
`anything about those other values. They just key in on the
`40 milliseconds. I don't think there's any uniqueness or value to any
`particular value. I think it depends on the system. It depends on a lot
`of the factors. In fact, the specification of the '802 patent says you can
`choose anywhere -- let me back up.
`The '802 patent doesn't say use 40 milliseconds. The
`preferred embodiment that's actually in the '802 four corners not
`incorporated by reference says use your design skills, and based on
`your system and the feedback and the interference, choose a value of
`measurements. And it says you can choose anywhere from one value
`up to over a hundred values, and it teaches to use your skill in the art
`to choose a number of measurements.
`But the preferred embodiment, let me jump ahead to slide
`number 27. So this is the preferred embodiment in the '802 patent. It
`says to use 90 values. It says use six sets of 15 values as the preferred
`embodiment. And the specification also says that the typical full
`travel span or it does say the full travel span for this embodiment is
`3,000 pulses. And so for 90 pulses to fit within 40 milliseconds over a
`window that goes 3,000 pulses, that window or sunroof -- it's actually
`a sunroof in the preferred embodiment -- would have to go from fully
`opened to fully closed in 1.33 seconds. It would be a superfast, unsafe
`at any speed type system.
`A typical window, and our expert addresses that, would take
`three seconds to go from fully opened to fully closed. If in three
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`seconds you could travel 3,000 pulses, that's one pulse per
`millisecond. So 90 pulses would take 90 milliseconds. So the
`preferred embodiment that they actually teach in the '802 patent itself
`measures values from a period two-and-a-half times as long as
`40 milliseconds which also undermines their argument that this is a
`magical, unique, inventive number that they invented and should be
`entitled to a patent.
`And the patent itself, the '802 patent does say that you
`choose the number of units, and this is on slide 28, based on all of
`these routine engineering design choices.
`They say to determine how many pulses you should use
`should be determined based on the system requirements and
`conditions, the motor parameters, the filtering needs, the noise level of
`the signal, the pulses per revolution, in other words, how many poles
`do you have on the motor, how fast the motor is spinning, the gear
`ratio between the motor and the window. All of these things are
`system design constraints that one of skill in the art would use to
`determine how many measurements to use and thereby determining
`what time period those measurements would be in. This is
`engineering 101 stuff. It's a routine design choice and the patent says
`so.
`
`Now, Itoh -- and I'm jumping back to slide 26 now. Itoh,
`again, says just use end values. He doesn't say how many to use
`because he doesn't try to pretend that he knows the right number for
`any system. In figure 9, he says to use -- these are the values. TP, the
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`bottom number in Figure 9, is the present time value. So Figure 9
`shows at least five prior values. In the equation of Itoh he uses four
`values, four past values with the ellipses indicating that you could use
`some more values.
`And as we explain in the petition, Itoh discloses at a high
`speed those pulses are going to be coming in at .4 milliseconds each.
`So at that speed, as long as N is less than 100, all of those pulses are
`going to be taken within 40 milliseconds.
`Itoh also discloses at low speed the pulse period is about
`0.8 milliseconds. So even at that lower speed, as long as N is less
`than 50, all the values are going to be taken within 40 milliseconds.
`Now, the specification elsewhere says that in actual
`experiments, Itoh saw a pulse period of 1.2 seconds per pulse. And if
`that's the speed of the motor, then as long as N is under 33, then all the
`measurements will be taken within 40 milliseconds.
`Now, those numbers are just math and in reality when the
`window hits an obstacle, it is going to slow down. So when I say N
`would be less than 100, maybe it needs to be 95 because those last
`pulses are going to be slower. Or if I say it's 50, maybe it's really 45.
`But the point is there are a lot of different values of N that would
`easily fall within 40 milliseconds and Itoh teaches one of skill in the
`art to choose that number.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Leavell, if we go back to your expert's
`example of a window that shuts in three seconds, how many pulses of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`Itoh would be counted in 40 milliseconds? I don't know if that's
`possible to figure out from the description of Itoh.
`MR. LEAVELL: So if each pulse is at 3,000 -- I think Itoh
`teaches that its system has 2,000 pulses. And so in order for 2,000
`pulses to come in three seconds -- I should have had that ready. I
`apologize. So it's probably 1.67 milliseconds per pulse. And so you
`could then do the math to figure out how many pulses and it would
`have to be under 40 milliseconds.
`But Itoh's disclosure of 200 pulses in a typical window is
`just an example, of course. Any system is going to have different
`pulses and it's going to depend how many poles are on the motor
`whether you would have 2,000 or 4,000 pulses. But the point is it's
`just a routine design choice.
`JUDGE JUNG: Based on what Itoh discloses, would we get
`to the 40 milliseconds window?
`MR. LEAVELL: To one of skill in the art, yes.
`JUDGE JUNG: If we applied it to the expert's example?
`MR. LEAVELL: Yes, because one of skill in the art reads
`in as including anything from one to infinity. So, yeah.
`JUDGE JUNG: But an expert wouldn't pick infinity. An
`expert would actually pick some subset that fits the criteria that the
`window is supposed to operate in.
`MR. LEAVELL: Correct.
`JUDGE JUNG: So we are not talking about infinity.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`MR. LEAVELL: Right. So 100 pulses, 200 pulses, 50
`pulses. And it depends on how fast of a reaction time you need, how
`much noise is in your signal and so forth. So one of skill in the art
`reading Itoh would understand that he's disclosing all of those values
`from N to something, from one to something reasonable, including the
`lower numbers which would clearly be 40 milliseconds.
`But the Board didn't institute on anticipation by Itoh. I still
`think Itoh discloses it to one of skill in the art, but that's not our
`burden here under obvious. It's just whether it would be obvious to
`one of skill in the art. And I think the issue of whether Itoh expressly
`or inherently or impliedly teaches that, I think it does. But you don't
`have to agree with me in order to find claim 6 unpatentable over Itoh.
`On slide 29, even -- well, first of all, Brose's expert,
`Dr. MacCarley, explained why 40 milliseconds would be a routine
`design choice and he did that in his declaration. That's at
`Exhibit 1063 in paragraphs 175 and 176.
`But Dr. Ehsani, patent owner's expert, also agrees that the art
`of engineering should be exercised to arrive at an appropriate time
`period. I asked him about the 40 milliseconds and he said, In practice,
`the art of engineering should be exercised to find the right value for
`the right motor for the right circumstance, both -- on the basis of both
`imperial and theoretical and intuitive understanding. So he
`recognized this is a design choice that engineers have to use.
`And interestingly, his definition of a person of ordinary skill
`in the art, Dr. Ehsani, patent owner's own expert, is even higher than
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`ours. In his deposition he testified that one of skill in the art would
`have to have a year of experience in this particular field and
`understand anti-pinch systems and algorithms.
`Our definition of level of skill in the art was somebody with
`a couple of years of experience designing automotive systems. Not
`necessarily window control systems. So we are happy to adopt his
`definition of level of skill in the art which is even higher, which
`makes it even more obvious that 40 milliseconds is a design choice.
`JUDGE JUNG: Is it possible that Dr. Ehsani is saying that
`an engineer would consider 40 milliseconds but there's other reasons
`why 40 milliseconds might be preferred over, say, 60 or
`20 milliseconds or some other number?
`MR. LEAVELL: He doesn't go into that. He doesn't render
`that opinion. It's not in their papers and it's certainly not in the patent,
`the specification.
`And this is an additional admission by patent owner's expert.
`He does say there may be other less or equally successful numbers
`than 40 milliseconds. So he admits that 40 milliseconds is not
`uniquely successful for every system.
`JUDGE JUNG: But he does say it may be less successful?
`MR. LEAVELL: It could be lesser or equally. I submit it
`could be even more successful. I don't know why 39 milliseconds
`would be any different than 40 in these systems, and he never explains
`that either. Again, the claim doesn't say 40 milliseconds. It says
`within 40. So it could be 2 milliseconds or 10 or 15.
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: He might be saying that pick 40 instead of
`41, 43 or 44.
`MR. LEAVELL: That's what the claim says. The
`specification never says why. But the claim also says you can use 39,
`38, 20 or 2.
`And then finally on claim 6, the examiner, he also agreed
`that 40 milliseconds was an obvious design choice. And this is from
`the prosecution history. Here are two examples. The first is from an
`office action in Exhibit 1017 and the second is from an office action at
`Exhibit 1020.
`JUDGE JUNG: What was the applicant's response to the
`examiner's finding?
`MR. LEAVELL: The applicant never argued these
`dependent claims at all. He either swore behind the reference by
`pointing to the earlier specifications or they occasionally amended the
`base claim. But there was never any comment or any response to this.
`They never took issue with this conclusion from the examiner.
`Then finally on claim 6, this is the case that we cited and I
`believe this is the case the examiner applied as well, the In re Aller
`case. It says, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
`the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
`ranges by routine experimentation.
`So even if Itoh doesn't expressly or inherently or impliedly
`disclose the limitation of 40 milliseconds, it is the prior art that
`discloses the general conditions of the claim. And it's not inventive
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`particularly in a mechanical or electromechanical case like this. This
`isn't an unpredictable art like chemical or biotech. The design choice
`of this interval is a routine design choice.
`Unless there's any questions on claim 6, I'll move ahead to
`claim 7 of the '802 patent. And here there's really two main issues.
`And again, both are claim construction issues. Under Brose's
`constructions, UUSI, patent owner, doesn't identify any distinction at
`all between Itoh or Kinzl or the combination of Itoh and Kinzl. And
`the patentability of claim 7, under our construction is undisputed other
`than perhaps the enablement issue or for ground 5, the motivation to
`combine issue.
`The disputed limitation on claim 7 is, again, the sensor
`limitation. Positions, again, petitioner, Brose, alleges or contends it's
`the plain and ordinary meaning, that any type of sensor that monitors
`movement either directly or indirectly of the object would suffice for
`claim 7.
`Patent owner, instead, says it has to be a special sensor. It
`has to be separate. It has to be discrete. It has to be physical
`hardware-based. It can't simply measure existing motor current or
`voltage. And in other words, the sensor is a separate sensor such as a
`positioning coder or Hall effect sensor. Not simply a current pulse
`counter as used in sensorless control.
`And the Board, in its preliminary construction, agreed with
`Brose that the sensor is any type of sensor, either directly or
`indirectly. And the Board wasn't presented with the exact issue that
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patents 8,217,612 and 7,579,802
`
`we have here today as to whether it has to be a Hall effect sensor or it
`could be something else. But the Board did agree it could be indirect
`or direct sensing. I don't think patent owner disputes that it could be
`indirect sensing.
`Now, the plain meaning on slide 37 here, we've got the plain
`meaning of the sensor for monitoring movement is any type of sensor
`that's going to indirectly or directly monitor movement. Now, claim
`7, in other limitations, specifies that speed is the parameter that's
`being used for the obstacle detection. So I think everybody agrees
`that this has to be a speed sensor of some type. Even though
`limitation A, the disputed phrase, doesn't require that, we concede that
`the sensor does have
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
