`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case IPR2014-_____
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`—————
`
`DECLARATION OF HAMID A. TOLIYAT, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case IPR2014-_____
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`—————
`
`DECLARATION OF HAMID A. TOLIYAT, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`1/120
`
`
`
`
`
`Tablee of Contennts
`
`
`
`
`
`SSUMMARYY OF QUAALIFICATTIONS .......................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`U A B C D E
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`................. Anticcipation .....................................
`
`
`
`Obvi
`
`
`
`ousness ....................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`Claimm Construcction ..........................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Priorrity Date ...
`
`................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`.................n the Art ...ary Skill inLevel of Ordina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNDERSTTANDING OF LEGAAL PRINC
`
`
`
`
`
`IPLES .....
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`..... 9
`
`LOGY ATART OF TTECHNOL
`
`
`
`
`III. BBACKGROOUND ANND STATEE OF THE
`
`
`
`
`ISSSUE ..........................................................................
`
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 12
`
`E (cid:3244)612 PAT
`IV. SSUMMARYY OF THE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TENT ........................
`
`
`
`PPage
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`..... 5
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`..... 9
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`..... 9
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 11
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 12
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 12
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 20
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 23
`
`
`
`CCLAIM COONSTRUCCTION .......................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 26
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 26
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 29
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 32
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 35
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 38
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 40
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.................OR ART ..VI. BBACKGROOUND OF THE PRIO
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Bern
`
`ard ...........
`
`
`
`..................................................
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Itoh ...................
`
`................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`Kinzl ...............
`
`................
`
`..................................
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Lammm ..............
`
`................
`
`..................................
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`Duhaame...........
`
`................
`
`..................................
`
`A B C D E
`
`
`
`VII. GGROUNDSS OF INVAALIDITY ..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.................nard .......... Grouund 1: Claimms 6-8 aree Anticipateed by Bern
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`... 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Claim 6 .........................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 40
`
`Cl
`
`aim 7 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 45
`
`2
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`2/120
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 8 .........................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 46
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 47
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`BB.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Grouund 2: Claimms 1-2 andd 5-8 are RRendered UUnpatentabble for
`
`
`
`Obviousness baased on Itooh in view
`of Kinzl ...
`
`..................................
`
`... 47
`
`
`
`
`
`.................Claim 1 ........................
`
`
`
`Cl
`
`aim 2 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 58
`
`Cl
`
`aim 5 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 59
`
`Cl
`
`aim 6 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 60
`
`Cl
`
`aim 7 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 68
`
`Cl
`
`aim 8 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 69
`
`
`
`Coombining IItoh and Kiinzl ..........
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 71
`
`
`
`CC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Grouund 3: Claimms 1-2 andd 5-8 are RRendered UUnpatentabble for
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness baased on Laamm in vieew of Itoh,
`
`
`and in furtther view oof
`
`
`
`
`.................Bernard ............................................
`
`..................................
`... 73
`
`Cl
`
`aim 1 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 73
`
`Cl
`
`aim 2 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 84
`
`Cl
`
`aim 5 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 88
`
`Cl
`
`aim 6 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 89
`
`Cl
`
`aim 7 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 95
`
`Cl
`
`aim 8 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 97
`
`
`
`Coombining LLamm, Itohh and Bernnard ............................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`... 97
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`DD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Grouund 4: Claimms 1-2 andd 5-8 are RRendered UUnpatentabble for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness baased on Duuhame in vview of Kinnzl .............................
`
`... 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 .........................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`... 99
`
`Cl
`
`aim 2 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`.109
`
`Cl
`
`aim 5 .......
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`..................................
`
`.110
`
`3
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`3/120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 6 ..........................................................................111
`
`Claim 7 ..........................................................................117
`
`Claim 8 ..........................................................................118
`
`Combining Duhame and Kinzl .....................................118
`
`
`
`4
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`4/120
`
`
`
`Toliyat Declaration
`
`I, Hamid A. Toliyat, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`(hereinafter, “WRSI”). I am being compensated for my work in this matter at a
`
`rate of $450 per hour, and my compensation is not dependent in any way on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-2 and
`
`5-8 (hereinafter, “Challenged Claims”) of the ’612 Patent are invalid because they
`
`are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention. In my opinion, those claims are invalid
`
`based on the grounds I discuss below.
`
`4.
`
`In forming by opinion, I have considered the ’612 patent claims and
`
`disclosure, the prosecution history of the ’612 patent, the petition for inter partes
`
`review of the ’612 patent including the exhibits, Brose’s previously filed petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’612 patent including exhibits, UUSI’s infringement
`
`contentions in litigation, and my own experience and expertise.
`
`I.
`
`5.
`
`SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
`
`My qualifications and background are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1004. A synopsis of my qualifications and
`
`background is set forth below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`5/120
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`I am a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Texas.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering with a specialization in Industrial
`
`Drives, Electrical Machines, Power Electronics, Power Systems and Control from
`
`the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1991, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering
`
`from West Virginia University in 1986 and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Sharif University of Technology in May 1982. Since 1987, I have held numerous
`
`teaching and research positions in the field of electrical engineering at the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison (Jan. 1987 – May 1991), Ferdowsi University of
`
`Mashhad (September 1991 – January 1994) and Texas A&M University (March
`
`1994 – present).
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional and honorary societies, including
`
`the Fellow of Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (“Fellow of IEEE”),
`
`American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
`
`(ASHRAE), Sigma Xi, and Phi Beta Delta.
`
`9.
`
`I have also received numerous professional honors. For example, I will be
`
`receiving one of the highest IEEE awards, namely the Nikola Tesla Field Award in
`
`2014 for “Outstanding contributions to the design, analysis and control of fault-
`
`tolerant multiphase electric machines.” I am a recipient of the IEEE Power
`
`Engineering Society’s Cyrill Veinott Award in Electromechanical Energy
`
`Conversion. In addition, since I began teaching at Texas A&M University, I have
`
`
`
`6
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`6/120
`
`
`
`received the Patent and Innovation Award from the Texas A&M University
`
`System Office of Technology Commercialization, the TEES Faculty Fellow
`
`Award, a Distinguished Achievement Award, the E.D. Brockett Professorship
`
`Award, the Eugene Webb Faculty Fellow Award, and the Texas A&M Select
`
`Young Investigator Award. I have also received Technical Awards from the
`
`Schlumberger Foundation on two occasions and the Space Act Award from
`
`NASA.
`
`10.
`
`I am a named inventor on numerous patent applications, including two that
`
`issued as patents, namely, U.S. Patent No. 7,049,786 for “Unipolar drive topology
`
`for permanent magnet brushless DC motors and switched reluctance motors.” The
`
`‘786 Patent is based on my application entitled “A Low-Cost Brushless DC Motor
`
`Drive with Improved Power Factor,” which discusses a system for improved power
`
`factor. I am also a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 6,426,605 for a Multiphase
`
`Induction Motor Drive System and Method.
`
`11.
`
`I am the author of DSP-Based Electromechanical Motion Control, CRC
`
`Press, 2003, and the Co-Editor of the Handbook of Electric Motors - 2nd Edition,
`
`Marcel Dekker, 2004. I have also published over 420 technical papers
`
`(approximately a third of which were published in IEEE Transactions publications)
`
`and have presented more than 80 lectures worldwide on such topics as electric
`
`machines, power electronics, motor drives, and high frequency power converters.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`7/120
`
`
`
`In 2005, I served as the General Chair of the IEEE International Electric Machines
`
`and Drives Conference.
`
`12.
`
`I have over twenty years of experience focusing on projects relating to
`
`improvements in the area of motor current signature analysis (MCSA). I am a co-
`
`author of the textbook, Electric Machines – Modeling, Condition Monitoring, and
`
`Fault Diagnosis (CRC Press, Florida, 2012.), which is one of the largest, most
`
`comprehensive textbooks available on the subjects of MCSA and condition
`
`monitoring of electric machines. These theoretical analysis and practical
`
`implementation strategies are based on many years of research and development at
`
`the Advanced Electric Machine and Power Electronics (EMPE) Laboratory at
`
`Texas A&M University.
`
`13.
`
`In my educational background, research and consulting duties I have
`
`developed a thorough understanding of variable speed motor drives, electric
`
`motors and electronic controllers of these systems.
`
`14.
`
`I also have significant practical experience as an electrical engineer for Neka
`
`Thermal Power Plant (June 1980 to December 1981) where I worked on
`
`developing the turbo-generator exciter and auxiliary systems such as inverters and
`
`rectifiers, Khorasan Regional Electric Company (June 1982 to February 1983)
`
`where I designed and constructed high voltage substations, including the auxiliary
`
`power supplies, Allen-Bradley Company (June 1989 to September 1989) where I
`
`
`
`8
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`8/120
`
`
`
`
`
`improveed a high pperformancce AC drivve, and Genneral Motoors Corporaation (Januuary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1991 to May 19911) where I designed aa concentraated windinng machinne for a DCC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`locomottive tractioon alternatiive. I havee also workked as a coonsultant inn such areaas as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electric machines,, electric mmotors, oil pplatform ppower systeems, powe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r electroni
`
`cs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subsea ppower systtems, navaal ships proopulsions, aand wind tturbine gennerators.
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Anticcipation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understandd that to annticipate a
`
`
`
`patent claiim, a singlle prior art
`
`
`
`reference
`
`
`must di
`
`
`
`sclose everry elementt of the claim, either
`
`
`
`
`
`rson tly to a perexplicitly oor inherent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of ordinnary skill inn the art. II understannd that an eelement off a claim is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“inherent”” in
`
`
`
`UNDERSTTANDINGG OF LEGGAL PRINNCIPLES
`
`
`
`
`
`U A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the discclosure of aa prior art rreference wwhen the mmissing ele
`
`
`
`
`
`ment is thee inevitabl
`
`e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`outcome of the process and//or thing thhat is descrribed in thee prior art rreference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BB.
`
`
`
`Obviiousness
`
`16.
`
`
`
`I understandd that a priior art referrence can rrender a paatent claimm obvious tto
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`matter set he subject mbetween thfferences bart if the dikill in the aone of oordinary sk
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`forth in the patentt claim andd the prior aart are suchh that the ssubject maatter of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim wwould have been obviious at the
`
`
`
`time the cllaimed invvention wa
`
`
`
`
`
`s made. Inn
`
`
`
`analyzinng obvioussness, I undderstand thhat it is impportant to cconsider thhe scope off the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims, the level oof skill in thhe relevantt art, the sccope and ccontent of tthe prior arrt,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`9/120
`
`
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining pre-
`
`existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. I also understand that in assessing
`
`whether a claim is obvious one must consider whether the claimed improvement is
`
`more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions. I understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of skill in the art would employ. I
`
`further understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity,
`
`not an automaton. However, I understand that obviousness cannot be based on the
`
`hindsight combination of components selectively culled from the prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the
`
`avowed purpose of the inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or problem known
`
`in the field at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
`
`reason for combining elements. For example, I understand that it is important to
`
`consider whether there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for
`
`which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I
`
`understand that known techniques can have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`
`
`10
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`10/120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purposees, and thatt in many ccases a perrson of orddinary skill
`
`
`
`
`
`can fit thee teachingss of
`
`
`
`
`
`multiplee pieces off prior art together likke pieces oof a puzzle..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understandd that, wheen there is
`
`
`
`a reason too solve a pproblem annd there aree a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e solutionspredictabledentified, pfinite nuumber of id
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`good reason to puursue the knnown optioons within
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, a person
`
`
`
`of ordinaryy skill has
`
`his or her
`
`
`
`technical ggrasp. I
`
`
`
`his leads tod that, if thfurther uunderstand
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`kely the ess, it is likthe anticippated succe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`productt not of innnovation buut of ordinaary skill annd commonn sense, whhich bears
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on
`
`
`
`whetherr the claimm would havve been obbvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`I understandd that secoondary con
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ample, ude, for exasiderationss can inclu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that -felt need te of a long-n, evidencee inventionmercial sucevidencce of comm cess of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`invention,
`was solvved by an
`
`
`evidence tthat others
`
`
`
`
`
` copied ann inventionn, or evidennce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that an iinvention aachieved aa surprisingg result. I ffurther undderstand thhat such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidencce must havve a nexus, or causal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relationshhip to the ellements off a claim, inn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`order too be relevannt. I am unnaware of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`any such ssecondary
`
`
`
`considerattions.
`
`
`
`CC.
`
`
`
`Claimm Construuction
`
`
`
`21.
`
`
`
`I understandd that claimms in an innter partes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`review of
`
`
`
`an expiredd patent claaims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have art would hkill in the aordinary skperson of othe way a pare interrpreted in t
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`understoood them aat the time of the alleeged inventtion, princ
`
`
`
`ipally in v
`
`iew of the
`
`
`
`patent sspecificatioon and prossecution hiistory, andd in view otther sourcees of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`informaation availaable at the time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`11/120
`
`
`
`
`
`DD.
`
`
`
`Priorrity Date
`
`22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I am informmed and unnderstand thhat for purprposes of mmy analysiss, I am to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assume
`
`
`
`that the prriority datee of each off claims 1--2 and 5-8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ’6122 Patent is
`
`
`
`
`
`12 hich the ’61ation to whent applicaarliest parete of the eahe filing datApril 222, 1992, th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent ccould conceivably claaim priorityy. All of thhe prior artt referencees I addresss in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this decclaration were filed annd/or publiished priorr to April 222, 1992.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EE.
`
`
`
`Leveel of Ordinnary Skill
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Artt
`
`23.
`
`
`
`Itt is my undderstandingg that my aanalysis off the interprretation annd validity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`must bee undertakeen from thee perspectiive of whatt would haave been knnown or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`understoood by sommeone of oordinary skkill in the aart at least aas early as
`
`
`
`
`
`April 22,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1992. IIt is my opiinion that tthe claims
`
`
`
`
`
`are directeed to a persson with at
`t least a
`
`
`
`Bacheloor of Sciennce degree (or the equuivalent) inn a relevannt scientificc or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`engineeering field,
`
`such as el
`
`ectrical enngineering,
`
` mechanic
`
`al enginee
`
`ring, or
`
`
`
`automottive engineeering, andd having appproximateely two (2)) years of eexperience
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`related tto control systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`ast as of at leanary skill aone of ordinwledge of owith knowcquainted wI am well ac
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT
`
`24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 222, 1992.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. BBACKGROOUND ANND STATEE OF THEE ART OFF TECHNNOLOGY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSSUE
`
`
`
`25. BBy April 222, 1992, it wwas well recognized
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that systemms that conntrol the
`
`
`
`
`
`movement of clossures such aas windowws and doorrs could caause bodilyy injury to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`12/120
`
`
`
`users during closing operations. There was an important need to ensure
`
`operational safety of closure devices such as garage doors, elevator doors, and,
`
`indeed, motor vehicle windows and panels. For instance, from my understanding,
`
`by 1990, Congress issued a mandate in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement
`
`Act of 1990 that included an entrapment protection requirement for garage doors
`
`with automatic openers. (Ex. 1012.) Similarly, as the named inventors of the ’612
`
`Patent acknowledged in the background section, the National Highway Traffic
`
`Safety Administration (NHTSA) Standard 118 contained regulations to assure safe
`
`operation of power-operated windows and roof panels. (Ex. 1001 at 30-41.) From
`
`my understanding, the original version of this standard issued in 1971, which
`
`specified “requirements for power-operated window and partition systems to
`
`minimize the likelihood of death or injury from their accidental operation.” (Ex.
`
`1011) (See also Ex. 1020 (1991 version).)
`
`26. As a result, a principal goal for those skilled in the art by April 22, 1992, and
`
`in fact much earlier, was the accurate and rapid detection of obstructions and
`
`collisions in apparatus that control the movement of windows, panels, and other
`
`moving objects that could potentially cause physical injury.
`
`27. By April 22, 1992, obstruction detection capabilities were implemented in a
`
`variety of apparatus that controlled the movement of objects that range from motor
`
`vehicle windows and sunroofs to garage doors. For instance, some prior art
`
`
`
`13
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`13/120
`
`
`
`systems detected an obstruction through the use of non-contact and proximate-
`
`contact methods, where, for example, electrical capacitive sensing devices were
`
`installed to sense the presence of nearby objects during operation. Similarly, some
`
`prior art systems relied on direct-contact devices to detect physical pressure or
`
`force of contact at the edge of the window or panel. Other systems utilized optical-
`
`based detection devices, such as photo-sensors to detect an obstruction based on
`
`the interruption of the optical beam. Yet other prior art apparatuses monitored for
`
`abrupt changes in the armature current, voltage or temperature of the window
`
`regulator motor.
`
`28.
`
`It was well recognized by this time that technology in this field could be
`
`readily applied across applications. For instance, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art could have readily utilized technology and methodology of detecting a collision
`
`of a garage door or elevator doors and applied them in automotive applications,
`
`such as vehicle windows or sunroofs. For instance, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art could program a controller that was used to control and monitor vehicle
`
`windows or sunroofs to detect a collision using techniques found in garage door
`
`controllers and elevator doors alike. As I discuss further in reference to the
`
`Duhame reference below, even the inventors of the ’612 Patent recognized that the
`
`collision detection techniques known at the time can be readily applied to a wide
`
`range of applications.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`14/120
`
`
`
`29. Many of these apparatuses detected an obstruction in the path of the moving
`
`panel of a device through the use of sensors that provide information related to the
`
`physical movement of the window or panel. For instance, these sensors were often
`
`coupled or integrated with the motor so that attributes of the motor, such as the
`
`motor speed, current, voltage, temperature, and other relevant data may be
`
`gathered and used to detect abnormalities in the movement of the window or panel,
`
`including any collision or obstruction. Indeed, it was well known by persons
`
`having ordinary skill in the art well prior to April 22, 1992 to use sensors such as
`
`Hall-effect sensors, current-based sensors, photo-optic sensors, and other types of
`
`sensors to monitor the movement of the window or panel.
`
`30.
`
`For example, it was well known that Hall-effect sensors that were coupled to
`
`the motor could be used to determine the speed, acceleration and other information
`
`related to the movement of the window or panel. In other well-known systems,
`
`current sensors were connected to the motor of the device from which the
`
`magnitude of current can be calculated by the controller of the prior art system. By
`
`April 22, 1992, many of those in the art realized that the increased accuracy of
`
`obstruction detection could be achieved by monitoring not just the instantaneous
`
`sensor measurement, but also rate of change of these measurements, taking into
`
`consideration measurements from earlier in the run. For example, it was well
`
`known that controllers could determine whether there is an obstruction based on
`
`
`
`15
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`15/120
`
`
`
`changes in speed (i.e., acceleration and deceleration), changes in acceleration,
`
`changes in measured motor current, and so on. For instance, the inventors of
`
`Lamm (discussed below) recognized this, stating that “[t]he additional or
`
`alternative determination of higher derivatives, preferably at least of the second
`
`derivative, further increases the detection reliability, because changes influence the
`
`result more strongly than in the first derivative.” (Ex. 1008 at 2.)
`
`31.
`
`In the collision detecting apparatuses of the prior art, motor speed, current
`
`and other parameters detected during the movement of the panel were compared
`
`with one or more threshold values in order to detect a collision. Based on these
`
`comparisons, it was possible to detect that the window or panel has encountered an
`
`obstacle during movement. For instance, in many prior systems, the controller of
`
`the system detected an obstruction or collision if the measured parameter value
`
`exceeded a predetermined threshold value stored in memory.
`
`32. Upon detection, responsive actions were taken, including stopping the motor
`
`with de-energization. It was well recognized that accurate and fast detection of
`
`obstructions is essential in order to prevent damage to the motor, the window or
`
`panel, and, of course, to prevent any injury to users.
`
`33. As many in the art recognized at least as early as April 22, 1992, the one
`
`shortcoming of using a simple threshold comparison against the instantaneous
`
`sensor measurement was the propensity of the system to erroneously detect an
`
`
`
`16
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`16/120
`
`
`
`obstruction. For instance, the system might incorrectly determine that the window
`
`or panel has come upon an obstacle based on detected increase in current or a
`
`decrease in motor speed, even when there is no obstruction. Similarly, the system
`
`might incorrectly continue to power the motor despite the presence of an obstacle
`
`in the path of travel. These false detections and failures to detect an obstruction
`
`might be caused by a variety of environmental and other external factors that affect
`
`the ability of the controller to perform its detecting capabilities.
`
`34.
`
`Speed and current of the motor could vary between different sections of the
`
`path of travel due to the inherent mechanical properties of the window or panel
`
`closure system. For example, the physical structure of rails guiding the window or
`
`panel along its path of travel might cause speed and the amount of current detected
`
`from the motor to vary during the movement of the window or panel. Similarly,
`
`the mechanical tightness of system components and slack in the cables that are
`
`pulling the window or panel might also cause the motor speed and current to vary
`
`along its path of travel. For instance, during operation, the speed and current of the
`
`motor at the beginning of the path might be much less than the speed and motor
`
`current of the motor when the object is in the middle of the path of travel.
`
`35. Variations of the parameter may also be caused by environmental
`
`conditions, such as ice, dirt, grime accumulation, temperature, speed of the vehicle,
`
`voltage of the motor, and other attributes.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`17/120
`
`
`
`36.
`
`In addition, it was well recognized that there would be variations in motor
`
`speed and/or motor current as the apparatus aged and suffered physical fatigue due
`
`to use. As the apparatus aged, components suffered from degradation, warping,
`
`and other physical changes.
`
`37. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art understood that in practice,
`
`apparatuses that relied solely on a fixed threshold value or instantaneous sensor
`
`reading alone were sometimes inaccurate and ineffective in detecting obstructions.
`
`For instance, apparatuses sometimes produced more false positive and false
`
`negatives during operations with age and varying weather conditions. These are
`
`undesirable traits for systems that could cause serious bodily injury during normal
`
`operations, as recognized by those in the art prior to April 22, 1992. For instance,
`
`the inventors of U.S. Patent No. 4,831,509 to Jones described that “the relationship
`
`between motor load and door position will vary with door age, climatic conditions
`
`and track condition. Thus setting of load monitoring device to only detect actual
`
`obstructions is difficult as each of these variations must be compensated for in
`
`order to avoid false tripping of the door mechanism.” (Ex. 1010 at 1:34-40.)
`
`38. As those in the art recognized well prior to April 22, 1992, one way that
`
`false-positives and false negatives could be reduced was by taking into account
`
`variations are caused by the environmental and other external conditions. One
`
`well-known method to do this was to take into consideration not only the currently
`
`
`
`18
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`18/120
`
`
`
`sensed parameter value but also data from the current or speed sensed from the
`
`current run and previous cycles in determining whether there is an obstruction.
`
`These prior art systems, for instance, used measured motor speed or current values
`
`detected earlier during the current run to calculate or adjust the threshold value.
`
`The adjusted threshold value would then be compared against the current
`
`parameter measurement in order to determine whether there is an obstruction.
`
`39. By April 22, 1992, it was well known that controllers of systems for
`
`operating windows or panel could be readily programmed to perform any number
`
`of functions, including executing a wide range of mathematical calculations using
`
`any number and type of parameters in order to accurately and quickly detect when
`
`there is a collision along the path of travel.
`
`40.
`
`In many of the prior art references, the collision detection algorithms used
`
`by these apparatuses were often discussed by reference to a comparison that was
`
`processed by the controller of the apparatus. For example, some references
`
`described that a collision was detected if a sensed or calculated parameter (e.g.,
`
`acceleration) exceeded a predetermined value. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that the controller would be programmed to process a
`
`corresponding mathematical formula, e.g., St – St-1 > (cid:302), to detect the collision. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the equivalent
`
`mathematical formulas for algorithms that are based on any number or type of
`
`
`
`19
`
`Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 1003
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2005
`19/120
`
`
`
`measurements, including those based on speed, current, change in speed or current,
`
`or change in acceleration (and so on), as it would have been well within his or her
`
`knowledge and education.
`
`41. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that these
`
`comparisons could be equivalently expressed in a variety of manners, including
`
`expressed in the context of a comparison with the most current speed measurement
`
`(e.g., St). That is, using the same example listed in the previous paragraph, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the formula can be
`
`expressed as St > (cid:302) + St-1, whereby the controller is comparing the most recent
`
`speed measurement against an adaptive threshold ((cid:302) + St-1).
`
`42. By April 22, 1992, computer memory was widely used by these types of
`
`apparatuses in the industry in order to store the relevant data needed by the
`
`controller to detect a collision, including measurement data from t