Paper 4
`Filed: April 30, 2014
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`—————
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1 
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 2 
`
`III.  REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................ 2 
`
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 2 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................... 2 
`
`How the Challenged Claims are to be Construed ................................. 3 
`
`Explanation of Unpatentability ............................................................. 4 
`
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE ’802 PATENT ............. 5 
`
`V. 
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS ........................................................ 7 
`
`A. 
`
`“de-activate” (claim 1); “stopping” (claim 7); and “stop” (claim
`15) .......................................................................................................... 7 
`
`B. 
`
`“buffer memory” (claim 8) .................................................................... 9 
`
`VI.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY .................................................................................. 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Itoh, in View of Kinzl, Renders Claims 1, 6-9 and 15-16
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................... 10 
`
`Itoh, in View of Kinzl, in Further View of Jones Renders Claim
`11 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................ 25 
`
`Lamm, in View of Itoh, Renders Claims 1, 6-9 and 15-16
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................... 28 
`
`Lamm, in View of Itoh, in Further View of Duhame Renders
`Claim 11 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................... 43 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`E. 
`
`Duhame, in View of Kinzl, Renders Claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 15-
`16 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................ 44 
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`Petitioner Webasto Roof Systems, Inc. (“WRSI”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,579,802 (“the
`
`’802 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). This Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that these claims are unpatentable. Petitioner requests that the claims be declared
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real party-in-interest: Webasto Roof Systems, Inc.
`
`Related matters: The following matters involving the ’802 Patent would affect, or
`
`be affected by, a decision in the proceeding: UUSI, LLC v. Webasto Roof Sys.,
`
`Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11704 (E.D. Mich.); UUSI, LLC v. Robert Bosch LLC and Brose
`
`North Am., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-10444 (E.D. Mich.); Brose North Am., Inc. and Brose
`
`Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. KG, Hallstadt v. UUSI, LLC, IPR2014-00417.1
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Charles H. Sanders (Reg. No. 47,053)
`(csanders@goodwinprocter.com)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Timothy J. Rousseau (Reg. No. 59,454)
`(trousseau@goodwinprocter.com)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`
`
`1 The only overlap between this petition and the petition in IPR2014-00417 is that
`
`both assert obviousness of claims 1 and 6-9 based on Itoh in view of Kinzl. This
`
`petition also asserts invalidity of claims 15-16 based on this combination and
`
`asserts other grounds of invalidity against all these claims and claim 11.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`Exchange Place, 53 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(T): 617.570.1315; (F): 617. 801.8804
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10018
`(T): 212.813.8000; (F): 212.355.3333
`
`Phong T. Dinh (Reg. No. 67,475)
`(pdinh@goodwinprocter.com)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`901 New York Ave., NW
`Washington, D.C. 22201
`(T): 202.346.4320; (F): 202.346.4444
`
`Counsel consents to electronic service at their email addresses. A power of
`
`attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`We hereby authorize the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a) for this Petition to a credit card, and further authorize payment of any
`
`additional fees to be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-4494.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`WRSI certifies that the ’802 Patent is available for IPR and that WRSI is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`WRSI requests IPR of claims 1, 6-9, 11, and 15-16 of the ’802 Patent based
`
`on the following prior art references. An Appendix of Exhibits is attached.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`Section VI below sets forth, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), the grounds under 35
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 on which the challenges to the claims are based.
`
`Type of
`Publication or
`Prior Art
`Filing Date
`Feb. 13, 1998 § 102(b)
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,870,333 to Itoh et al.
`(“Itoh”)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 4,468,596 to Kinzl
`(“Kinzl”)
`Ex. 1008 Translation of German Published Patent
`Application DE4000730A1 to Lamm et
`al.2 (“Lamm”)
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,218,282 to Duhame
`(“Duhame”)
`Ex. 1010 S. Patent No. 4,831,509 to Jones et al.
`(“Jones”)
`C. How the Challenged Claims are to be Construed
`
`Aug. 28, 1984 § 102(b)
`
`Aug. 1, 1991 § 102(a)
`
`Mar. 22, 1990 § 102(e)
`
`May 16, 1989 § 102(b)
`
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner provides interpretations
`
`for a claim term in Section V. An unexpired claim subject to inter partes review
`
`“shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). However, the ’802 Patent
`
`will expire on November 13, 2014, soon after the decision on institution and prior
`
`to the date on which any IPR initiated based on this petition would conclude.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner also provides information about how the claims are to be
`
`construed pursuant to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`2 Ex. 1017 is the German Published Patent Application DE4000730A1 to Lamm et
`
`al. Ex. 1018 is the certification that Ex. 1008, Lamm, is an accurate translation.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`(en banc). See, e.g., In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp. and Twitter Inc. v. Software Rights Archive,
`
`IPR2013-00479, Paper 18 at 9-10 (Feb. 3, 2014). Petitioner will note herein if
`
`application of the different standards affects Petitioner’s proposed constructions;
`
`otherwise, it should be assumed that Petitioner’s constructions apply under both
`
`standards. Petitioner has proposed constructions herein that take into account
`
`Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation of the claims, even if Petitioner disagrees;
`
`Petitioner expressly reserves the right to present interpretations of the claims in
`
`litigation that may differ from those set forth herein.
`
`D. Explanation of Unpatentability
`
`As required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and (5), explanations of how
`
`claims 1, 6-9, 11, and 15-16 of the ’802 Patent are unpatentable under the statutory
`
`grounds identified above are provided in Section VI below with reference to the
`
`supporting evidence. Additional background and support for each ground of
`
`rejection is set forth in the Declaration of Hamid A. Toliyat, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003). For
`
`purposes of this Petition, Petitioner adopts Dr. Toliyat’s definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill. (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 23 (“[A] person with at least a Bachelor of Science
`
`degree (or the equivalent) in a relevant scientific or engineering field, such as
`
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or automotive engineering, and
`
`having approximately two (2) years of experience related to control systems.”))
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE ’802 PATENT
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`The ’802 Patent relates to an apparatus for controlling the movement of a
`
`window or panel along a path of travel and stopping the motor if there is an
`
`obstruction. The apparatus contains a microcontroller that monitors the motor
`
`current and speed detected from a motor that is driving a window or panel along a
`
`path of travel. (Ex. 1001 at 15:32-37.) Based on the sensed motor current or
`
`speed, the microcontroller detects obstructions. (Id. at 16:46-17:60.) An
`
`obstruction is detected if the motor current, speed, or “derivatives thereof,”
`
`exceeds a threshold value. (Id. at 15:37-41) (See also Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 43-44.)
`
`The ’802 Patent describes that the threshold can be calculated using
`
`“adaptive” detection algorithms that use measurements derived from the current
`
`run of the window or panel. (Ex. 1001 at 17:6-24; 17:3-12.) In particular, the
`
`microcontroller uses measurements from the current run stored in first-in-first-out
`
`(FIFO) buffer memory to generate the threshold. (See, e.g., Id. at 18:8-18.) This
`
`threshold is then compared against the most recent measurement in order to detect
`
`an obstruction. (Id.) For instance, the ’802 Patent describes that to detect a hard
`
`object obstruction, the most recent measurement of motor current (IR0) is compared
`
`against a threshold that is based on an immediately prior motor current
`
`measurement (IR1), immediately prior motor speed measurement (PPR1), and
`
`constants (K1, K2, and K3):
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPPR2014-00650
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,579,,802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Atty.. Docket: 1130163.2311151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 10001 at 22:522-54) (See also Ex. 1003 at ¶ 444.)
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe ’802 Paatent soughht to solve a problemm that was wwell knowwn in the artt by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 222, 1992: windows, paanels, doorrs, and otheer forms off closures wwere potenntial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hazards to cause bbodily injurry when cllosing, andd safety proocedures wwere necesssary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to ensurre user safeety. (Ex. 11001 at 1:332-43; Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1003 at ¶ 225.) In facct, Congresss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recognized the potential dannger and isssued a manndate requiiring entraapment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`protectiion mechannisms in auutomatic gaarage doorr systems inn the Conssumer Prodduct
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Safety IImprovemeent Act of 1990. (Seee Ex. 10122.) Similarrly, regulattions were
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`implemmented by thhe Nationaal Highwayy Traffic S
`
`
`
`afety Admministrationn (NHTSAA) for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power-ooperated wwindows annd roof pannels in mottor vehicless. (Id. at 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:32-34; Exxs.
`
`
`
`
`
`1005 (1991 NHTSSA regulations), 2011 (1971 NHHTSA reguulations).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThus, a prinncipal goall for those skilled in tthe art by AApril 22, 11992, and iin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fact much earlier, was to dessign apparaatuses that t could accuurately andd rapidly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`detect oobstructionns and colliisions. (Seee Ex. 10033 at ¶¶ 25-442.) The rresult was tthat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by Apriil 22, 1992, the featurres claimedd by claimms 1, 6-9, 1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 and 15-116 of the ’8802
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`Patent wwere well kknown andd obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MMany prior art systemms, includinng those reelied upon,, below, weere capablee of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`detectinng an obstruction by ccomparingg speed or mmotor currrent agains
`
`
`
`
`
`ted
`t a calculat
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`or adaptive threshold value to detect an obstruction. (Id.) Indeed, those skilled in
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`the art recognized that ice, dirt, grime accumulation, temperature, speed of the
`
`vehicle, voltage of the motor, inherent mechanical properties and other factors
`
`could cause the speed or motor current to vary as the window or panel moves along
`
`the path of travel. (Id.) They further recognized that obstruction detection
`
`accuracy could be improved by adapting the threshold to take into account external
`
`and environmental conditions that are experienced by the system during the current
`
`run. (See, e.g., Ex. 1010 (published in 1989) at 1:34-40 (“[T]he 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.”))
`
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“de-activate” (claim 1); “stopping” (claim 7); and “stop” (claim
`15)
`
`Petitioner proposes that the term, “deactivate” should be construed
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning as “turn off.” Similarly, the term
`
`“stop” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning as “halt the
`
`motion of,” which means “stopping” would be construed as “halting the motion
`
`of.” These constructions are consistent with how one of skill in the art would
`
`understand the terms. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 51-56; Ex. 1021 (defining “stop” as “halt”
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`and “to cause (a motor, for example) to cease operation or function”).) Nothing in
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`the intrinsic record indicates a clear intention to deviate from the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of these terms.3
`
`Indeed, these constructions are consistent with the specification’s distinction
`
`between turning the motor off (i.e., de-activating or stopping the motor) and
`
`reversing it, and are further consistent with the specification’s criticism of motor
`
`plugging. The ’802 Patent distinguishes deactivation to stop the motor from
`
`immediately reversing (without first deactivating) the motor in response to an
`
`obstacle, and criticizes use of immediate reversal. (Ex. 1001 at 3:44-57 (describing
`
`“motor plugging,” “which is the application of reserve drive polarity while a motor
`
`is still rotating” as “unnecessary” and “undesirable” due to “undesired motor
`
`heating,” because it is “detrimental to the life and reliability” of the electrical
`
`
`3 Petitioner in IPR2014-00417 identified the phrases “a control . . . for determining
`
`to de-activate the motor,” “a signal for stopping the motor” and “a movement
`
`sensor for monitoring movement of the object” from claims 1 and 7 for
`
`construction. Petitioner here construes the key term in the first two phrases,
`
`“deactivate” and “stopping,” and proposes grounds of invalidity consistent with the
`
`interpretations proposed in IPR2014-00417 for the other remaining phrase, but
`
`does not believe that it requires construction here.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`switching components, and because it “can also cause undesirable transients, trip
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`breakers, and blow fuses in a power supply system”).)
`
`In addition, at least one of Patentee’s other, earlier patents, indicates that
`
`Patentee knew how to claim the broader concept of altering the motor. (See Ex.
`
`1016 at 24:41-44.) The choice of the word “de-activate” and “stop” have
`
`meanings that are distinct from the meaning of the words “alter” and “reverse,”
`
`and this distinction is properly reflected in Petitioner’s construction.
`
`B.
`
`“buffer memory” (claim 8)
`
`Petitioner proposes “buffer memory” should be construed according to its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning: “memory used for temporary storage of data.” The
`
`’802 Patent describes the use of a “first in, first out (FIFO) memory” to temporarily
`
`store measurements from the sensor. (Ex. 1001 at 16:46-53; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 57-59.)
`
`As the window or panel moves along the path of travel, new measurement values
`
`are added to the buffer and the oldest measurement values are removed. The
`
`controller accesses these temporarily stored values to determine whether the
`
`window or panel has come upon an obstruction. (Ex. 1001 at 16:46-53, 17:3-5,
`
`17:28-47, 18:10-13.) A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understood the term “buffer,” as used in this context, to
`
`mean memory that is used for temporary storage of data. (See, e.g., Ex. 1019
`
`(defining “buffer” to mean “an intermediate repository of data - a reserved portion
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`of memory in which data is temporarily held …”); Ex. 1020 (defining “buffer” to
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`mean “A temporary storage unit (as in a computer)”); Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 57-59.)
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`A.
`
`Itoh, in View of Kinzl, Renders Claims 1, 6-9 and 15-16 Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Itoh described an automatic opening and closing device for a window that
`
`could prevent the accident of squeezing an obstacle. (Ex. 1006 at 2:32-39.) Itoh
`
`disclosed a window position-detecting means to detect the position of the window
`
`relative to its closed position, and a speed operation means to calculate the
`
`rotational speed of the motor. (Id. at 3:28-60.) Itoh’s apparatus stopped the motor
`
`if the output of the speed change operation exceeded a predetermined set point and
`
`the window was not at the closed position. (Id.) Itoh disclosed several
`
`embodiments, and Embodiment 3 is discussed in detail in the chart below. (See
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 61-68.) It would have been obvious to either reverse or deactivate a
`
`window in response to an obstruction, and thus to modify Embodiment 3 to
`
`deactivate the motor, as discussed below.
`
`Kinzl disclosed a method and apparatus for operating electric windows that
`
`eliminated the danger of body parts getting caught in the window. (Ex. 1007,
`
`Abstract.) Like Itoh, Kinzl also disclosed measuring the speed of the drive motor
`
`and determining the position of the window. (Id.) Kinzl further disclosed
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`measuring the speed of the window directly by putting a screen into the window
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`pane and using optical-electronic sensors. (Id. at 2:17-19.) The position was
`
`determined by a microcomputer through use of a position counter. (Id. at 2:64-
`
`3:3.) (See also Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 69-74.)
`
`Itoh’s “CPU 34 detects at all times whether or not an obstacle 48 is caught
`
`between the window frame 24 and the window 26 in accordance with the flow
`
`chart shown in FIG. 5.” (Ex. 1006 at 8:49-52.) Itoh detected an obstacle by storing
`
`a number of “n” immediately prior speed values in a FIFO-type memory (id. at
`
`10:12- 17, Fig. 9), then calculating the average (Tm) of those speed values (id. at
`
`10:36- 44), then calculating the rate-of-change of motor speed (Tp/Tm, where Tp
`
`is the instant motor speed value), and comparing that rate-of-change to a
`
`predetermined value (α). (Id. at 10:61-66.) Itoh’s equation was described was:
`
`Collision identified if Tp/Tm > α
`
`where Tp is currently sensed motor speed of movement, Tm is the average of
`
`several, immediately preceding, speed values, and α is a constant value. (Id. at
`
`10:34-11:7) This equation is the same as the following:
`
`Collision identified if Tp > α*Tm
`
`(See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 66-69.) Itoh’s equation thus constituted disclosure of the claim
`
`limitations relating to calculation of an obstacle detect threshold based on
`
`immediate past measurement values. Kinzl’s disclosure would have taught and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the obvious point that Itoh’s
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`approach is mathematically identical to (and can be rewritten as, or thought of in
`
`terms identical to) the language recited in these limitations. It also would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “re-think” or “re-write” Itoh’s
`
`mathematically identical equation in language identical to what is recited in these
`
`limitations, especially in view of Kinzl. (Ex. 1007 at 4:17-41; Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 66-
`
`69, 129-134.)
`
`In response to an obstacle, the CPU of Itoh outputted a signal to reverse the
`
`motor in Embodiment 3. (Ex. 1006 at 11:16-20.) It would have been obvious to
`
`combine the apparatus of Embodiment 3 in Itoh with the teachings elsewhere in
`
`Itoh and in Kinzl, which taught that the apparatus deactivated the motor in
`
`response to detecting an obstacle. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 104-09; Ex. 1006 at Abstract
`
`and 3:44-68; Ex. 1007 at 2:24-30 and 3:21-49.) Indeed, it was a routine design
`
`choice as to how to respond to an obstacle condition, including at least the options
`
`of (i) stopping/deactivating the window motor, (ii) stopping/deactivating and then
`
`reversing the window motor, or (iii) reversing the window motor without first
`
`stopping/deactivating the motor. (See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 104-09.)
`
`With respect to claim 6, the Examiner set forth an alternative basis for
`
`deeming the claim obvious over Itoh (beyond finding the claim obvious merely
`
`based on consideration of Itoh’s disclosure) in explaining, “since it has been held
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 408-418. The same is true in the context of Itoh. Time could also be
`
`“set/preset,” or the motor could be chosen/geared in such a way as to increase the
`
`rotational speed of the motor as it drives the window, meaning all of the
`
`“immediately preceding values” on which Itoh relies in its equation would be
`
`within the 40 msec time frame. Such options were routine design choices, as is the
`
`number of immediately preceding values that would be used in Itoh’s calculation.
`
`(See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 110-12.)
`
`With respect to claim 7, it further was well within the ordinary skill in the art
`
`to make the routine design choice, within the context of Itoh, to use a direct
`
`window movement sensor (to the extent Patent Owner may argue this is required to
`
`satisfy the “movement sensor” claim elements). Kinzl’s disclosed approach of
`
`using a direct window movement sensor to determine motor speed for detecting an
`
`obstacle would have been an obvious and easy modification to Itoh for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 115-17, 127-28; Ex. 1007 at 2:17-19).
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine
`
`the teachings of Itoh and Kinzl. (See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 156-58.) Itoh and Kinzl both
`
`addressed the same problem of detecting an obstacle while closing an electric
`
`window in a motor vehicle, and disclosed quite similar approaches to addressing
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`this problem. Combining these references would have involved simply arranging
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
`
`perform, to yield no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
`
`Furthermore, market forces would have prompted development in this area prior to
`
`the 1992 filing of the original application from which the ’802 patent claims
`
`priority. Rules published in 1991 by the National Highway Safety Board included
`
`a discussion of anti-pinch features on car windows. (See Exs. 1005; 1011.)
`
`Itoh was of record during prosecution, but was not discussed in any office
`
`action. Kinzl was not of record during prosecution.
`
`Claim
`1. Apparatus for
`controlling motion of a
`motor driven element in
`a vehicle over a range of
`motion and for altering
`said motion when
`undesirable resistance to
`said motion is
`encountered, said
`apparatus comprising:
`
`Itoh (Ex. 1006) and Kinzl (Ex. 1007)
`Itoh disclosed, “An automatic opening and closing
`device for a window which has a forwardly and
`reversely rotatable motor for opening and closing the
`widow, switching means which instructs said motor to
`rotate, pulse-detecting means which detects a pulse
`generated along with a rotation of said motor, counting
`means which counts a pulse number detected by said
`pulse-detecting means and rotation- controlling means
`which performs rotation-control to said motor on basis
`of a count number counted by said counting means and
`a predetermined count number is disclosed, by which it
`is possible to stop the opening or closing action of the
`window at a halfway, or possible to convert the action
`of the window in the reverse direction.” Ex. 1006,
`Abstract. Itoh is for a motor vehicle window. Id. at
`Figure 1 and 1:6-12.
`
`Embodiment 3 (corresponding to Figures 5-11 and
`discussed in detail beginning at 7:47) was directed to
`detecting an obstacle squeeze condition. Itoh disclosed
`de-activating the motor in certain situations, and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`a) a sensor for
`measuring a parameter
`of a motor coupled to
`the motor driven
`element that varies in
`response to a resistance
`to motion during all or
`part of a range of
`motion of the motor
`driven element;
`
`b) a memory for storing
`a number of
`measurement values
`from the sensor based
`on immediate past
`measurements of said
`parameter over at least a
`portion of a present
`traversal of said motor
`driven element through
`said range of motion;
`
`c) a controller coupled
`to the memory for
`determining to de-
`activate the motor based
`on a most recent sensor
`measurement of the
`parameter and the
`immediate past
`measurement values
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`reversing it in others. Id. at 3:44-68. In the detailed
`description of Embodiment 3, if the squeezing of an
`obstacle was detected, the CPU would issue a signal to
`reverse the motor and the window is made to descend
`by rotation of the motor in the reverse direction. Id. at
`11:16-20. See also Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 93-94.
`
`Itoh disclosed “pulse-detecting circuit 30” connected to
`the motor and “which detects a pulse generated along
`with rotation of the motor 20 as a pulse-detecting
`means” connected to “a central processing unit (CPU)
`34 of a controller 32.” Ex. 1006 at 7:60-64; Figs. 7-8.
`Itoh disclosed this as a motor current ripple counter,
`which generated pulses that are used to count rotation of
`the motor and track the movement of the window. The
`sensor was used to detect both window movement and
`speed. Id. at 5:6-10, 8:33-48; 9:16-34 (position), 9:37-
`62 (speed). See also Ex. 1003 at ¶ 95.
`
`Itoh disclosed a FIFO-like memory in the form of the
`“speed data table” shown in Figure 9, which will store
`multiple speed values corresponding to a signal received
`from the sensor. The stored values were based on the
`immediate past measurements of speed over the
`immediately prior portion of the present traversal of the
`window. Ex. 1006 at 10:12-17; Fig. 9. See also Ex.
`1003 at ¶ 96.
`
`The FIFO-like “speed data table” shown in Figure 9 in
`Itoh was used by (and thus coupled to) Microcomputer
`32/CPU 34 to calculate the rate of speed change of the
`motor and to determine whether to alter the operation of
`the motor in response to an obstacle condition. Ex.
`1006 at 10:33-11:20.
`
`Itoh’s Embodiment 3 did not expressly disclose
`“determining to deactivate the motor,” but Itoh
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`stored in the memory
`obtained during a
`present run through the
`motor driven element
`range of motion; and
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`disclosed either stopping or reversing the motor in the
`Abstract: “it is possible to stop the opening or closing
`action of the window at a halfway, or possible to
`convert the action of the window in the reverse
`direction.” Id., Abstract. In the Summary of the
`Invention, Itoh again discussed the alternative of
`deactivating the motor. Id. at 3:44-68.
`
`Kinzl disclosed an embodiment where the motor is
`stopped in response to encountering an obstacle. Ex.
`1007 at 3:21-26 (“If the limit value is exceeded, the
`drive motor is stopped and subsequently put in
`operation in the opposite direction so that the window
`opens.”), 1:53-55 (“The drive motor can be turned off in
`a safe fashion, thus providing protection against parts of
`the body [g]etting caught in the window”), 2:26-28
`(“This recognition of the position makes it possible in
`case of danger, to safely turn off the drive motor and
`possible to open the window again.”).
`
`Itoh’s equation for determining the presence of an
`obstruction (and altering the motor as a result) was
`based on a most recent sensor measurement of the
`parameter and the immediate past measurement values
`stored in the memory obtained during a present run
`through the motor driven element range of motion. In
`Itoh, a collision was identified if Tp/Tm > α, where: Tp
`= instant speed (most recent speed value based on most
`recent sensor measurement); Tm = average of the
`immediately prior number (n) of speed values which
`stored in the “speed data table” memory and which were
`immediate past measurement values obtained during the
`present run; and α = a speed value. Ex. 1006 at 10:33-
`11:15; see also Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 97-106.
`
`d) a controller interface
`coupled to the motor for
`altering motion of said
`motor driven element
`during the present run in
`
`Itoh disclosed CPU 34 coupled to Motor 20 through
`Motor Driving Circuit 28. Ex. 1006 at Fig. 7. “The
`CPU 34 receives an ascending demand signal 40a or a
`descending demand signal 40b for the window 26 from
`an operation switch panel 38 which the occupant
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`response to a
`determination made by
`the controller.
`
`
`6. The apparatus of
`claim 1 wherein the
`immediate past
`measurements of said
`parameter were taken
`within a forty
`millisecond interval
`prior to the most recent
`sensor measurement.
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`operates and instructs the rotational action of the motor
`20 as a switching means, and outputs an ascending
`signal 42a or a descending signal 42b into the motor-
`driving circuit 28. The driving circuit 28 issues forward
`driving signal making the window 26 ascend or a
`reverse driving signal making the window 2 descend to
`the motor 20 according to the output signal of the CPU
`34.” Id. at 7:67 to 8:9.
`
`Itoh in response to an obstacle detection determined by
`the controller, its CPU would reverse the motor during
`the present run in Embodiment 3. Id. at 10:67-11:20.
`As discussed in element (c) above, both Kinzl and other
`passages in Itoh taught altering motion of the motor
`driven element by stopping the motor. See also Ex.
`1003 at ¶¶ 107-09.
`
`Itoh used immediate past measurements measured by a
`clock running at 0.1 msec. The clock took
`measurements at a rate between 0.4 msec and 0.8 msec,
`according to Figure 8. Itoh disclosed that, in
`experiments, the measurements were taken at 1.2 msec
`at maximum speed. Ex. 1006 at 9:63-68. Thus, 33
`measurements would have been taken within 40 msec
`(40/1.2 = 33.3). Itoh left it as a design choice how
`many immediately past measurements are used, but
`suggests at least 4 or 5. Id. at 10:40-45; Fig. 9. Even at
`very low motor speeds, several immediately preceding
`values, taken within 40 msec, would have been used in
`the obstacle detection equation, even if not all the values
`used are from within that time frame. See also Ex. 1003
`at ¶¶ 110-12.
`
`
`7. Apparatus for
`controlling activation of
`a motor for moving an
`object along a travel
`path and de-activating
`
`Itoh disclosed, “An automatic opening an