throbber
Filed on behalf of UUSI, LLC
`By: Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Michael R. Nye (mnye@hdp.com)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, Ste. 200
`Troy, MI 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
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00417
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK EHSANI IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`I. EDUCATION AND BACKGROUND
`
`I.A.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`2. My name is Mark Ehsani. I 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 I reach or the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I submit this Declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`regarding the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802 (the ‘802 Patent)
`
`filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Brose.
`
`4.
`
`I 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.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is provided as Exhibit 2002 to this
`
`Declaration and provides a comprehensive description of my relevant experience,
`
`including academic and employment history, publications, conference
`
`participation, and patenting activity.
`
`Page 2 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`6.
`
`Based on my review of the ‘802 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 ‘802 Patent are not anticipated or rendered obvious in view
`
`of the references cited by Petitioner Brose.
`
`I.B.
`
`EDUCATION
`
`7.
`
`I have a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison (1981).
`
`8.
`
`I have a Master’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin (1974).
`
`9.
`
` I have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin (1973).
`
`I.C. BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`For the past 33 years, my research work has been in power electronics,
`
`motor drives, hybrid vehicles, and their control systems. I am a Professor of
`
`electrical engineering at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. I am
`
`Director of the Advanced Vehicle Systems Research Program and the Power
`
`Electronics and Motor Drives Laboratory at Texas A&M University.
`
`Page 3 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`11.
`
`I 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. I am the author of over 350 publications in
`
`motor drives, advanced vehicle systems, pulsed-power supplies, high-voltage
`
`engineering, and power electronics. I 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 I was elected as a Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`(SAE). I was selected for the IEEE Vehicular Society 2001 Avant Garde Award for
`
`“Contributions to the theory and design of hybrid electric vehicles.” In 2004 I was
`
`elected to the Robert M. Kennedy endowed Chair in Electrical Engineering at
`
`Texas A&M University. In 2003 I was selected for the IEEE Undergraduate
`
`Teaching Award “For outstanding contributions to advanced curriculum
`
`development and teaching of power electronics and drives.”
`
`13.
`
`I 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
`
`Page 4 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`and technologies related to vehicle power systems and propulsion systems and
`
`their components. I 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 I was elected to the Board of Governors of the Vehicular
`
`Technology Society (VTS). I 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. I am a 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. I am a registered professional engineer in the State of
`
`Texas. I 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.
`
`II. INFORMATION RELIED ON
`I have reviewed a variety of documents in preparing this Declaration,
`
`15.
`
`and have relied on the following for my opinion:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802, Ex. 1005 (“the ‘802 Patent”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,217,612, Ex. 2007 (“the ‘612 Patent”)
`
`Page 5 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,870,333, Ex. 1007 (“Itoh”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,468,596, Ex. 1008 (“Kinzl”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,069,000, Ex. 1009 (“Zuckerman”)
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,888,047, Ex. 2005 (“Chikaraishi”)
`
`• The corrected Brose petition for the ‘612 Patent (Paper 005 of IPR2014-
`
`00416, referred to as “the ’612 Petition”) and associated exhibits
`
`• The corrected Brose petition for the ‘802 Patent (Paper 006 of IPR2014-
`
`00417, referred to as “the ’802 Petition”) and associated exhibits
`
`• The deposition transcript of Dr. C. Arthur MacCarley, Ex. 2004
`
`• The declaration of Dr. MacCarley with respect to the ‘612 Patent (Ex. 1001
`
`of IPR2014-00416) and associated exhibits
`
`• The declaration of Dr. MacCarley with respect to the ‘802 Patent (Ex. 1001
`
`of IPR2014-00417) and associated exhibits
`
`• UUSI Priority document U.S. Patent No. 5,334,876, Ex. 1031 (“the ‘876
`
`Patent”)
`
`• Application and drawings as filed for application 07/872,190, which issued
`
`as the ‘876 Patent, Ex. 2011
`
`• UUSI Priority document U.S. Patent No. 6,064,165, Ex. 1010 (“the ‘165
`
`Patent”)
`
`Page 6 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`• Plungis, Jeff, “Feds to Tighten Window Rules”, available at
`
`http://www.autosafety.org/feds-tighten-window-rules, Ex. 2010
`
`16.
`
`I 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.
`
`III. STATE OF THE ART
`
`III.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 a
`
`significant improvement over systems then existing in production automobiles.
`
`18.
`
`In the 1980s, power windows were transitioning from simply hand-
`
`operated crank windows to those with an electric motor attached to essentially
`
`the same mechanical window lift mechanism instead of a hand-operated crank.
`
`Page 7 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`These prior window lift mechanisms were of a bulky sector-gear and scissor arm
`
`design as shown here:
`
`
`
`Chikaraishi, Ex. 2005 at FIG. 1. In the mid-1990s, changing the lift mechanism to a
`
`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 a 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 a higher closing speed would require more
`
`Page 8 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`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 a
`
`toddler or cut off a child’s 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. A 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 a nuisance and a significant concern to original equipment
`
`manufacturers concerned with perceived quality. False positives may also have an
`
`impact on safety, such as by distracting a driver from operating the vehicle when
`
`determining why the window has not responded as expected. A false negative is
`
`Page 9 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`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 a person
`
`whose body part is caught between the window and the window seal.
`
`22. According to a 1997 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`
`(NHTSA) Technical Report (Ex. 2003), a “conservative” (Ex. 2003 at 9) 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 a 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 a system
`
`that, in real world scenarios, exhibits a 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 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`amount of friction experienced by the window. Further, the conditions may
`
`include conditions unique to a vehicle in motion, such as wind buffeting.
`
`24.
`
`The 1992 priority application achieves these results by, among a 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, a bone) and soft obstacles (for
`
`example, a person’s 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 “[a]lgorithm 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 ‘802 Patent at 22:44-47. An example embodiment of hard obstruction
`
`detection “essentially compares immediate average current with immediately
`
`prior average current and immediately prior average pulse period….” The ‘802
`
`Patent at 22:63-65. An example embodiment of soft obstruction detection is
`
`Page 11 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 11
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`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 ‘802 Patent at 23:10-13.
`
`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 2010
`
`describes a 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, a watchdog group had
`
`documented 8 children being killed by power window mechanisms. Ex. 2010.
`
`Page 12 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 12
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`IV.A. OVERVIEW
`
`27.
`
`In preparing this report, I have been provided with certain legal
`
`principles, which I have included below. I have formed my opinions with these
`
`legal principles in mind. If it is determined that any other legal principles apply, I
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or supplement the opinions expressed herein.
`
`IV.B. ANTICIPATION/NOVELTY
`
`28. Because of its filing prior to March 16, 2013, I understand the condition
`
`for novelty for the ‘802 Patent is governed by the following version of 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`102(a) and (b):
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
`
`(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a
`
`patent, or
`
`(b) the
`
`invention was patented or described
`
`in a printed
`
`publication in this or a 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 a claim to be anticipated under Section 102(a) or (b), I understand
`
`that each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a
`
`Page 13 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
`
`elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior
`
`art reference.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that [t]he 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.
`
`IV.C. OBVIOUSNESS/NONOBVIOUSNESS
`
`31.
`
`In terms of non-obviousness or obviousness, and again, because of the
`
`filing date of the ‘802 Patent prior to March 16, 2013, I understand the following
`
`version of 35 U.S.C. §103(a) governs:
`
`A 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 a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the said
`
`Page 14 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 14
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
`
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`32.
`
`In order to determine obviousness under Section 103, it is my
`
`understanding that four factual inquiries must be made concerning: 1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; 2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; 3) the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and 4) secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but
`
`unresolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that it is not enough that all of the elements may be found
`
`in a combination of prior art references; rather, a party seeking to invalidate a
`
`patent as obvious must demonstrate that a skilled artisan would have had reason
`
`to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`
`invention. I 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.
`
`I 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 a structure in the prior art and a structure of the claimed
`
`invention achieve different purposes, modifying the structure of the prior art to
`
`Page 15 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 15
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`arrive at the structure of the claimed invention would not be considered an
`
`obvious design choice.
`
`35.
`
`I further understand that a reference must enable one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (at least as of the effective filing date of a later invention) to make and use
`
`the later invention in order for the reference to render the later invention
`
`obvious. I 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.
`
`IV.D. MEANS PLUS FUNCTION
`
`36.
`
`I understand that claim limitations can be expressed in a form referred
`
`to as means plus function. When the limitation does not use a term having a
`
`known structure and instead uses a placeholder term combined with a functional
`
`description, the limitation is treated as a means plus function limitation under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the correct interpretation of a means plus function
`
`limitation is determined by referring to the specification – specifically, the
`
`Page 16 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 16
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`limitation encompasses (i) the structures disclosed in the specification as
`
`corresponding to the specified function and (ii) the equivalents of those
`
`structures.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that when a general-purpose processor or controller
`
`corresponds to a specified function, the structure requires that the processor or
`
`controller be programmed with a disclosed algorithm that accomplishes the
`
`specified function.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`39. A person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of invention
`
`would likely be an individual with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical or
`
`Electronics Engineering with at least a year of practical experience. At the time of
`
`invention, however, there were many individuals working in the pertinent art
`
`without an engineering Bachelor’s degree but with an aptitude for electronics and
`
`multiple years of hands-on experience developing electronic motor control
`
`systems and programming microcontrollers.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART
`
`VI.A. ITOH
`
`40.
`
`I have read and understand Itoh, which describes an automatic opening
`
`and closing device for a window. Itoh, Abstract. The device controls a motor
`
`Page 17 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 17
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`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. 8 of Itoh:
`
`41. An integer number, n, of prior Tp values are stored. See FIG. 9 of Itoh:
`
`
`
`42.
`
`The n prior Tp values are averaged to create an average value, Tm. Itoh
`
`
`
`at 10:37-44. The ratio of Tp and Tm is compared to a fixed threshold parameter.
`
`Page 18 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 18
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`The threshold parameter can assume one of two values depending on which
`
`control regime Itoh is operating in. In a first regime, when the window is opening,
`
`the threshold parameter is β. See decision diamonds 116 and 110 of FIG. 5 of Itoh.
`
`In a second regime, when the window is closing, and is nearly closed (within
`
`“range of closed position”), the threshold parameter for obstacle detection is β.
`
`See decision diamond 112 of FIG. 5 of Itoh. In a 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 α. See decision diamond 108 of FIG. 5 of Itoh.
`
`43.
`
`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 a pulse counter to a reference value. In the second
`
`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.
`
`44.
`
`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 a threshold. Tp is a single
`
`Page 19 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 19
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`measurement, however. If Itoh misses reading a 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 a result, the
`
`ratio of Tp to Tm would be doubled, even though this represented only a single
`
`erroneous reading. If parameter α is less than two, which seems likely, this single
`
`bad reading would lead to a false obstacle detection and a nuisance opening.
`
`Increasing the parameter α (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 a viable alternative. As a 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.
`
`VI.B. KINZL
`
`45.
`
`I have read and understand Kinzl, which discloses controlling a window
`
`drive motor. Kinzl uses a sensor, such as a Hall effect sensor, to detect motor
`
`speed and control the motor accordingly. Kinzl discloses three zones of operation,
`
`zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3. See FIG. 2 of Kinzl:
`
`Page 20 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 20
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`46.
`
`Zone 1 corresponds to the window being at least approximately half
`
`
`
`open. Kinzl at 6:41-42. Zone 2 corresponds to the window being less than
`
`approximately half open but not “almost fully closed.” Kinzl at 6:42-44. Zone 3
`
`corresponds to the window being “almost fully closed.” Kinzl at 6:45-46.
`
`47. Kinzl executes a single detection algorithm in each zone. In zone 1, Kinzl
`
`only executes a blocking counter process, which determines how long of a period
`
`of time has elapsed since a change was observed in the sensor signal. Kinzl at 3:8-
`
`16. If the blocking counter exceeds a predetermined period of time, meaning that
`
`no changes in the sensor signal have been observed for that predetermined
`
`period of time, the window motor is turned off. Kinzl at 5:13-14. The
`
`predetermined period is described as variable, with an example value of 500
`
`milliseconds. Kinzl at 3:54.
`
`Page 21 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 21
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`48.
`
`In zone 2, Kinzl compares a present signal related to a present speed of
`
`the motor to a 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 3:40-42. The threshold value is set once at the
`
`time the closing window transitions from zone 1 to zone 2. Kinzl at 4:25-27. The
`
`threshold value is used unchanged for the remainder of the window’s travel
`
`through zone 2. Kinzl at 4:29-30. If the threshold value is exceeded (meaning that
`
`the window speed is slowing down), an emergency opening of the window is
`
`performed. Kinzl at 4:30-32. In zone 3, Kinzl again executes the blocking counter
`
`process. Kinzl at 3:8-10.
`
`49.
`
`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 a threshold timing value is exceeded. As explained above, that
`
`threshold timing value is determined at the time the window transitions from
`
`zone 1 to zone 2. In other words, throughout zone 2, Kinzl declares an obstacle
`
`any time the window’s speed decreases below the speed achieved at the
`
`transition between zones 1 and 2. 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 a
`
`Page 22 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 22
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`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.
`
`VI.C. ZUCKERMAN
`
`50.
`
`I have read and understand Zuckerman, which discloses a 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 a
`
`reversing apparatus. Specifically, Zuckerman determines a difference between a
`
`voltage corresponding to a present current value and a voltage corresponding to a
`
`threshold value. Zuckerman then compares the difference to a reference value.
`
`See FIG. 24 of Zuckerman, excerpted here:
`
`Page 23 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 23
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`51.
`
`The output of operational amplifier circuit 412 is a representation of an
`
`
`
`average of motor current over approximately 500 ms. Zuckerman, 20:19-22. The
`
`output of operational amplifier circuit 413 is a representation of an average of
`
`motor current over approximately 15 ms. Zuckerman, 20:22-27. The output of a
`
`difference amplifier 419 represents a difference between the average current
`
`from the operational amplifier circuit 412 and the instantaneous current from the
`
`operational amplifier circuit 413.
`
`52.
`
`The output of a comparator amplifier 420 is active when the difference
`
`from the difference amplifier 419 exceeds a threshold voltage from a
`
`potentiometer 422. The output of comparator 420 drives a relay-reversing circuit
`
`Page 24 of 46
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2001
`Page 24
`
`

`
`Declaration of Dr. Mark Ehsani in Support of Patent Owner Response in
`IPR2014-00417 for U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`423 to reverse the motor. In other words, if the difference exceeds the reference
`
`value, the motor is stopped and reversed. Zuckerman, 20:34-39.
`
`VII. CLAIM 1
`Independent Claim 1 recites “a sensor for measuring a parameter of a
`
`53.
`
`motor that varies in response to a resistance to motion.” My understanding of
`
`this limitation of Claim 1 is that the parameter must vary in response to a
`
`resistance to motion, not simply to a change in speed of the motor, and my
`
`analysis below is based on this assumption.
`
`54.
`
`This interpretation is consistent with and supported by the Detailed
`
`Description of the ‘802 Patent. The timing of motor current commutation pulses
`
`and the timing of Hall effect pulses both vary with respect to speed, but not
`
`necessarily with respect to a resistance to motion. The timing of these pulses
`
`varies only if the resistance to motion results in a change in

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket