`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