Filed on behalf of UUSI, LLC
`By: Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Hemant M. Keskar (hkeskar@hdp_.com1
`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
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case lPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`By: Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Hemant M. Keskar (hkeskar@hdp_.com1
`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
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case lPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 3
`
`COMBINATION CANNOT BE OBVIOUS IF ONE REFERENCE
`
`EXPRESSLY DEFEATS ANOTHER ................................................... 4
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`A.
`
`GROUND A: CLAIMS 1, 6-9, AND 15-16 ....................... 4
`
`1.
`
`REQUEST TO STAY INSTITUTION OF GROUND A
`
`DUE TO PRIOR IPR AND GROUND A
`
`IS REDUNDANT WITHIN THIS PETITION ............... 4
`
`2.
`
`ITOH AND KINZL CANNOT BE COMBINED ............. 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GROUND C: CLAIMS 1, 6-9, AND 15-16 ....................... 6
`
`GROUND B: CLAIM 11 ................................................ 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`ROLLER DOOR OF JONES ................................. 7
`
`CALIBRATION DIFFERENCES .............................. 9
`
`D.
`
`GROUND D: CLAIM 11 ............................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`CALIBRATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
`
`DUHAME AND LAMM ....................................... 18
`
`2.
`
`CALIBRATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
`
`DUHAME AND ITOH ......................................... 21
`
`E.
`
`GROUND E: CLAIM 11 .............................................. 22
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner UUSI,
`
`LLC (“UUSI”) submits the following Preliminary Response to the Petition for In-
`
`ter Partes Review of US. Patent 7,579,802 (“the ‘802 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Corrected Petition (Paper No. 4, “Petition”) for inter partes review of
`
`the ‘802 patent should be denied at least with respect to the alleged grounds for
`
`unpatentability discussed below because Petitioner does not meet its burden of es—
`
`tablishing obviousness on these grounds. Petitioner’s other grounds and allegations
`
`not discussed below shall also fail, but UUSI will address the deficiencies of these
`
`grounds as may be necessary and appropriate if the inter partes review is institut—
`
`ed. In other words, this Preliminary Response simply refutes the clearest alleged
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner without requiring a full substan—
`
`tive claim—by—claim analysis; UUSI shall later challenge Petitioner’s other grounds.
`
`
`
`ll.
`
`COMBINATION CANNOT BE OBVIOUS IF ONE REFERENCE
`
`EXPRESSLY DEFEATS ANOTHER
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`GROUND A: CLAIMS 1, 6-9, AND 15-16
`
`1.
`
`REQUEST TO STAY INSTITUTION OF GROUND A DUE TO PRIOR
`
`IPR AND GROUND AIS REDUNDANT WITHIN THIS PETITION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a), UUSI respectfully requests the Board to
`
`stay the institution of Ground A for common claims challenged in Ground 5 in an
`
`earlier filed proceeding, IPR 2014—00417, where the combination of Itoh and Kinzl
`
`is being asserted against many of these same claims. Alternatively, UUSI respect—
`
`fully requests the Board to follow the decision of Ground 5 in IPR 2014—00417.
`
`UUSI additionally respectfully requests the Board to not institute Ground A
`
`because Ground A is redundant since it cites two references that are also separately
`
`cited in combination with other references in Grounds C and E to allege unpatenta-
`
`bility of the same claims as in Ground A. “[T]o secure just, speedy, and inexpen-
`
`sive resolution of every proceeding” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42. l (b), “the Board
`
`may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged
`
`claims.” 37 CPR. § 42.108(b).
`
`2.
`
`ITOH AND KINZL CANNOT BE COMBINED
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Claims 1, 6—9, and
`
`15—16 are obvious in view of US. Patent No. 4,870,333 (“Itoh”, Ex. 1006) and
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`US. Patent No. 4,468,596 (“Kinzl”, Ex. 1007). Kinzl cannot be combined with It—
`
`oh to render Claims 1, 6-9, and 15—16 obvious because Kinzl expressly requires a
`
`sensor to determine window position whereas Itoh expressly emphasizes that no
`
`sensor is desired. Specifically, Kinzl states that “[s]ome of the essential character—
`
`istics of the invention” include “[p]osition recognition which is carried out by the
`
`sensor means[.]” Ex. 1007 at 4:59-60, and 5:1-2 (emphasis added).
`
`In contrast, Itoh states that “the number of rotations of the motor 20 is
`
`counted by the counter 36, whereby the position of the window 26 is detected and
`
`a sensor is never mounted in the part of transmission mechanism including the
`
`motor's own body”. Ex. 1006 at 12:32—36 (emphasis added). Itoh reiterates that “it
`
`is possible to detect the squeezing of obstacles in an early stage and it is possible to
`
`prevent damage or injury of the squeezed obstacle without providing a special
`
`sensor.” Id. at 13:58—61 (emphasis added). Accordingly, ordinarily skilled artisans
`
`would not have been motivated to combine Kinzl with Itoh because adding Kinzl’s
`
`sensor will defeat the express objectives of Itoh.
`
`Therefore, Kinzl cannot be combined with Itoh to render Claims 1, 6-9, and
`
`15-16 obvious, and the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Claims 1, 6-9, and 15—16 are obvious over the combination of Itoh and Kinzl.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`GROUND C: CLAIMS 1, 6-9, AND 15-16
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that at least Claims 1,
`
`6—9, and 15-16 are obvious in view of German Published Patent Application No. P
`
`40 00 730.8 corresponding to Patent No. DE 40 00 730 A 1 (“Lamm”, EX. 1008)
`
`and US. Patent No. 4,870,333 (“Itoh”, EX. 1006). Lamm cannot be combined with
`
`Itoh to render Claims 1, 6—9, and 15—16 obvious because Lamm expressly requires
`
`a separate sensor to infer the position of the window whereas Itoh requires the op-
`
`posite. Specifically, Lamm states that a “sensor 13 detects the rotary speed of the
`
`motor 10” and that a “Hall effect sensor is particularly suitable for the detection
`
`ofthe rotary speed ofthe drive 10.” EX. 1008; Page 3, Col. 5; and Page 5, Col. 7
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`In contrast, Itoh unequivocally states that “the number of rotations of the
`
`motor 20 is counted by the counter 36, whereby the position of the window 26 is
`
`detected and a sensor is never mounted in the part of transmission mechanism in-
`
`cluding the motor's own body”. Ex. 1006 at 12:32—36 (emphasis added). Itoh reit—
`
`erates that “it is possible to detect the squeezing of obstacles in an early stage and
`
`it is possible to prevent damage or injury of the squeezed obstacle without provid—
`
`ing a special sensor.” Ex. 1006 at 13:58-61 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, ordinarily skilled artisans will not be motivated to combine
`
`Lamm with Itoh because adding Lamm’s sensor to Itoh’s system will defeat a sig—
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`nificant objective of Itoh’s sensor-less system. Therefore, Lamm cannot be com-
`
`bined with Itoh to render Claims 1, 6—9, and 15—1 6 obvious, and the Petition fails to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Claims 1, 6-9, and 15—16 are obvious over the
`
`combination of Itoh and Lamm.
`
`GROUND B: CLAIM 11
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Claim 11 is obvi—
`
`ous in view of US. Patent No. 4,870,333 (“Itoh”, Ex. 1006), US. Patent No.
`
`4,468,596 (“Kinzl”, EX. 1007) and US. Patent No. 4,831,509 (“Jones”, Ex. 1010).
`
`Claim 11 recites “wherein the controller includes an interface for monitoring user
`
`actuation of control inputs for controlling movement of the object and wherein in
`
`response to a specified input the controller conducts a calibration motor energiza—
`
`tion sequence to determine parameters of [the] object.” EX. 1001 at 28:62-67. Itoh
`
`and Kinzl, however, cannot be combined as explained above with reference to
`
`Ground A. Additionally, Jones cannot be combined with each of Itoh and Kinzl for
`
`at least the following reasons.
`
`1.
`
`ROLLER DOOR OF JONES
`
`Jones relates to “roller type doors” that “comprise a flexible door curtain
`
`which can be raised and lowered from a drum located above the door aperture.”
`
`EX. 1010 at 1:6-9 (emphasis added). In contrast, Itoh relates to a “motor driven .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`power window .
`
`.
`
`. for an automobile.” Ex. 1006 at 1:7—12 (emphasis added). No-
`
`tably, Itoh’s power window is neither flexible nor mounted on a drum like Jones’s
`
`flexible door curtain. This is a similar distinction for Kinzl.
`
`Additionally, Jones discloses that “[t]he door curtain position .
`
`.
`
`. is obtained
`
`from an encoder coupled to the door drum” and “at least two optoelectric sensors
`
`are used to [sense] the direction of the door trave1[.]” Ex. 1010 at 327—16. In con-
`
`trast, Itoh states that “the number of rotations of the motor 20 is counted by the
`
`counter 36, whereby the position of the window 26 is detected and a sensor is nev-
`
`er mounted in the part of transmission mechanism including the motor's own
`
`body”. Ex. 1006 at 12:32-36 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Itoh neither uses a
`
`sensor to sense window position nor uses any sensors to sense the direction of
`
`travel of the window. Itoh emphasizes the desire to not use a special sensor, and
`
`certainly not one in a transmission.
`
`Accordingly, ordinarily skilled artisans will not be motivated to combine
`
`Jones with Itoh or Kinzl for at least two reasons: First, Jones’s teachings relating to
`
`drum-mounted, flexible door curtains are inapplicable to Itoh’s or Kinzl’s system
`
`comprising power windows, which are unlike Jones’s drum—mounted, flexible door
`
`curtains thereby improperly requiring radical hindsight reengineering; and second,
`
`adding Jones’s multiple sensors to Itoh’s sensor—less system will defeat Itoh’s ob-
`
`jectives.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`2.
`
`CALIBRATION DIFFERENCES
`
`Additionally, Jones uses a complex and extensive calibration procedure due
`
`to its roller door construction, which is described in sections titled “Door Charac-
`
`teristic Learning” and “Limit Setting”, which are reproduced as follows. For ex—
`
`ample, to determine door travel characteristics, Jones divides the door travel into
`
`segments and further sub—divides each segment into sectors, produces a running
`
`average of peak speed changes for each sector, and uses running average of peak
`
`speed changes for each segment to represent the door travel speed characteristic.
`
`Jones also updates a sector sensitivity value used in detection of an obstruction.
`
`Jones performs limit setting manually or by detecting motor overload conditions
`
`when the door curtain is driven down into the floor and then upward until the upper
`
`door stops are reached. Jones’s elaborate procedures for learning door characteris-
`
`tics and limit setting are as follows.
`
`Door Characteristic Learning
`
`In order to understand the characteristic learning function of the
`
`door controller the general concept of achieving such a function will
`
`first be described followed by one preferred implementation of this
`
`concept. The door curtain position relative to the door opening is ob—
`
`tained from an encoder coupled to the door drum. Pulses are provided
`
`to the encoder from optoelectronic sensors appropriately placed or po-
`
`sitioned in relation to a set of spinning blades coupled to the drive
`
`means for the roller door. In this way the encoder can produce signals
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`indicative of the position of the door curtain. For preference, at least
`
`two optoelectronic sensors are used so as to enable the direction of
`
`door travel to be sensed.
`
`In order to determine a door travel characteristic the processing
`
`means samples the time taken for the door curtain to travel a fixed dis-
`
`tance and therefrom determines changes in the speed of the door.
`
`Preferably this is done by notionally dividing the door travel into a
`
`plurality of segments and further sub-dividing each segment into a
`
`plurality of sectos (sic) and producing a running average of peak
`
`speed changes for each sector and storing this average for each seg—
`
`ment of the door travel. This running average of peak speed changes
`
`for each segment is used to represent the door travel speed character—
`
`istic.
`
`The running average is regularly updated with each run of the
`
`door unless the value of peak speed change is outside predetermined
`
`limits indicating an error in the system or detection of an obstruction.
`
`Thus over a period of time the processing means learns a door travel
`
`speed characteristic for the particular door being controlled.
`
`Referring to FIG.
`
`1 a particular example of a program imple—
`
`mentation of the door travel characteristic learning function will be
`
`described.
`
`In order to determine the time taken for the door to travel a
`
`fixed distance the processor determines Whether a fixed number of en—
`
`coder transitions have occurred, in this example sixteen, if they have
`
`not, the subroutine returns to main program and awaits the next test.
`
`When the number of transitions have occurred, that is the door has
`
`travelled a predetermined distance, the processor calculates the time
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`period to travel this distance by summing the last sixteen encoder pe-
`
`riods.
`
`This time summation is then compared with a previously stored
`
`time sum for the particular sector of interest. This comparison takes
`
`the form of subtracting the old time summation from tee (sic) newly
`
`calculated time sum. If the difference is negative, that is the new value
`
`is less than the old value, the difference value is set to zero. If the dif—
`
`ference is positive or zero the program drops through to the next test.
`
`The next test compares the newly calculated difference value
`
`for the particular sector with a previously stored peak difference val-
`
`ue. If the new difference value is greater than the old peak difference
`
`value, it replaces the old value and is stored. The new difference value
`
`is then compared with a value representing an 8% speed change. This
`
`value represents the upper limit of speed change considered accepta—
`
`ble, any higher value is considered an error or obstruction. If the new
`
`difference is above the 8% speed change value, it is replaced by this
`
`upper limit value.
`
`The processor next tests whether the values of peak difference
`
`are suitable for updating the sector sensitivity characteristic. This is
`
`done by testing whether the door curtain is travelling downward, and
`
`has been for more than a predetermined period, in this example 2 se—
`
`conds. If either of these tests is not satisfied, the peak difference value
`
`is reinitialized to a value representing a 1% speed change. If the door
`
`movement satisfies these two conditions a further test is made to de-
`
`termine whether the door curtain is approaching its lower limit, in this
`
`example within 25 mm of its lower limit. If the door curtain is not
`
`close to its lower limit the subroutine considers the value of peak dif-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`ference for a particular sector to be suitable for further processing. If
`
`the door is close to its lower limit the peak difference value is again
`
`reinitialized to a 1% speed change value.
`
`Once reinitialization has taken place the processor tests whether
`
`the sector number presently being reinitialized is greater than the pre—
`
`viously stored sector number, if it is not, the subroutine is exited. If it
`
`is greater, then the old sector number is replaced by the present sector
`
`number and the program loops back to reinitialize the value of the
`
`peak difference.
`
`If further processing of the peak difference value is indicated by
`
`the above tests the subroutine compares the new difference value with
`
`a previously stored sector sensitivity value. If the new difference val-
`
`ue is greater than the stored sector sensitivity value, this indicates the
`
`detection of an obstruction and the subroutine steps in relation to this
`
`result will be described later. If the new difference value is not greater
`
`than the previously stored sector sensitivity value, the door position is
`
`tested to determine whether it is close to its lower limit. If it is within
`
`50 mm of the lower limit the sector number is set to a value of zero
`
`and the value of sector number is then compared with the old stored
`
`sector number. If the sector sensitivity value has already been updat—
`
`ed, that is the present sector number equals the old stored sector num—
`
`ber, then the subroutine is again exited.
`
`If the sector sensitivity is to be updated, a running average
`
`technique is used, in this particular embodiment, the new sector sensi-
`
`tivity is set to 75% of the old sensitivity value plus half the new peak
`
`difference value. The old stored sector number is then replaced with
`
`
`
`the present sector number and the peak difference value is reinitialized
`
`before the subroutine is exited.
`
`Case IPR2014—00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`Limit Setting
`
`As the door controller is provided with information from the
`
`door position encoder, in order to ensure correct operation of the door
`
`this position information must in some way be referred to door curtain
`
`position in relation to the door opening. This requires setting the limits
`
`of the door travel within the opening.
`
`In the past this has been done by providing detectors at the low—
`
`ermost limit of door travel, usually ground level, and at the uppermost
`
`limit of door travel, usually near the top of the door opening. This has
`
`in most cases required accurate manual adjustment by the installer of
`
`the door limit detectors.
`
`The embodiments of the present invention overcome the need
`
`for adjustment of such detectors and also do away with the need for
`
`separate limit detectors by enabling the limits of door travel to be set
`
`within the memory of the door controller.
`
`The limit setting function is performed as follows. The door
`
`curtain is driven down into the floor or lower limit of the door open-
`
`ing by activation of a first switch until an overload condition is detect—
`
`ed and the motor cut-out activated. A second switch is then operated
`
`to cause the lower limit to be stored in a memory register of the con-
`
`troller. In the case where an overload condition has been detected a
`
`number or count representing the lower limit setting is reduced by
`
`several counts so that the lower limit is a predetermined distance
`
`above the overload condition point.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`An alternative form of lower limit setting can be also performed
`
`by manually moving the door to a desired lower limit point and oper-
`
`ating the second switch to store the limit setting in a memory register.
`
`In this case the count representing the lower limit is not altered as no
`
`overload condition has occurred.
`
`Once the lower limit has been set the first switch is again oper-
`
`ated and causes the door curtain to travel upward until the door curtain
`
`reaches the upper door stops and an overload condition is again de-
`
`tected and the motor de-activated. A similar procedure is then fol—
`
`lowed to set the upper limit. Manual adjustment of the door is again
`
`possible if an overload condition has not been caused.
`
`In normal operation a door position counter holding a count
`
`representative of the door curtain position is regularly compared with
`
`the limit setting counts stored in the appropriate memory registers.
`
`When an equality with either stored count is detected the door curtain
`
`will be considered to have reached the upper or lower limit of travel
`
`and the drive motor will be stopped.
`
`A particular example of a processor subroutine for performing
`
`the limit set function will now be described.
`
`The subroutine begins by testing whether the power limit button
`
`has been pressed. If the button is pressed the motor is activated and
`
`drives down towards the lower limit or floor. The subroutine then tests
`
`for the period of time the motor has been running. If this period is be-
`
`low a predetermined value, in this example 25 seconds, the program
`
`loops back to the start of the subroutine. If the predetermined time
`
`value is exceeded the subroutine tests for a motor overload. If a motor
`
`overload is detected the door position register is initialized, thus set-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014—00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`ting the lower limit. The motor is then turned off and depression of the
`
`limit set button is tested for, if the button is depressed the subroutine
`
`loops back and waits for release of the button before proceeding to the
`
`next test which tests for release of the power limit button.
`
`Once the power limit button is released the subroutine proceeds
`
`to the upper limit setting program. The state of the power limit button
`
`is again tested and if it is depressed the motor is activated in an up-
`
`ward direction and its running time is monitored and the program
`
`loops back continually to test for depression of the power limit button
`
`until the running time exceeds a predetermined value, in this example
`
`two seconds. Once this value is exceeded a motor overload is tested
`
`for with similar program to that used for lower limit setting until an
`
`overload occurs. When this condition is satisfied the door position is
`
`tested. If the door is not a predetermined distance above the lower
`
`limit when an overload occurs, in this example 500 mm, the program
`
`returns to the beginning of the limit setting procedure. If the door is
`
`above the predetermined distance, the door size register is set, the mo—
`
`tor is deactivated and the upper limit setting completed, followed by
`
`return by the subroutine to the main program.
`
`If the power limit button is not depressed once the upper limit
`
`setting program is entered, the motor is deactivated and the state of
`
`the limit set button is tested. When the limit set button is detected as
`
`being depressed and the door is a predetermined distance above the
`
`lower limit, the door register size is set allowing for door overrun and
`
`the motor is deactivated and the subroutine exited.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 3:1 to 4:46; 5:9 to 6:34.
`
`
`
`Case lPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`In contrast, Itoh uses a simple and very different procedure: “[I]f the value
`
`of the counter 36 is made to 0 when the window 26 is at the entirely closed posi-
`
`tion, and value Pmax of the counter 36 is 2000 when the window 26 is at the full-
`
`opened position, it is possible to detect the position of the window 26 according to
`
`the contents of the counter 36.” Ex. 1006 at 9:27-33. In other words, Itoh’s system
`
`detects position of the window simply according to the contents of the counter.
`
`Itoh’s system simply does not and cannot use Jones’s complicated procedure
`
`to determine door travel characteristics involving dividing the roller door travel in-
`
`to segments and further sub-dividing each segment into sectors, producing a run—
`
`ning average of peak speed changes for each sector, and using running average of
`
`peak speed changes for each segment to represent the door travel speed character—
`
`istic. Nor does Itoh’s system need the overhead of updating a sector sensitivity
`
`value since Itoh’s system simply does not use a sector sensitivity value to detect an
`
`obstruction. Itoh’s simple system also does not need and cannot use Jones’s limit
`
`setting procedure, which is performed either manually in contrast to Itoh’s auto—
`
`mated system, or by detecting motor overload conditions after forcing the door cur—
`
`tain to extremities since Itoh’s system does not detect the limits by driving the
`
`window to extreme positions and detecting motor overdrive conditions. Itoh’s sys-
`
`tem therefore plainly does not need and cannot use Jones’s complex and roller-
`
`door—specific calibration procedure, which would thereby be redundant or super—
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`fluous. Even radical, hindsight reengineering cannot combine these very different
`
`calibration procedures.
`
`Jones also cannot be combined with Kinzl because, unlike Jones, Kinzl does
`
`not utilize sector sensitivity to detect obstruction, and Kinzl does not set limits by
`
`detecting motor overdrive conditions after forcing the window to extreme open and
`
`closed positions. Instead, Kinzl uses a very straightforward procedure: Kinzle in-
`
`fers window position from a counter. EX. 1007 at 4: 17-24. Kinzl establishes a limit
`
`value based on a first measured value in Zone 2 with which each subsequent
`
`change is compared to detect an obstacle. Id. at 4:24—3 1. Accordingly, Kinzl simp—
`
`ly does not need and cannot use the extensive learning and limit—setting procedures
`
`of Jones.
`
`Therefore, Jones cannot be combined with Itoh or Kinzl to render Claim 11
`
`obvious, and the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Claim 11 is
`
`obvious over the combination of Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`GROUND D: CLAIM 11
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Claim 11 is obvi-
`
`ous in View of German Published Patent Application No. P 40 00 730.8 corre—
`
`sponding to Patent No. DE 40 00 730 A 1 (“Lamm”, EX. 1008), US. Patent No.
`
`4,870,333 (“Itoh”, Ex. 1006), and US. Patent No. 5,218,282 (“Duhame”, Ex.
`
`1009). Claim 11 recites “wherein the controller includes an interface for monitor-
`
`ing user actuation of control inputs for controlling movement of the object and
`
`wherein in response to a specified input the controller conducts a calibration motor
`
`energization sequence to determine parameters of [the] object.” Ex. 1001 at 28:62—
`
`67. Lamm cannot be combined with Itoh as explained above with reference to
`
`Ground C. Additionally, Duhame cannot be combined with each of Lamm and It—
`
`oh for at least the following reasons.
`
`1.
`
`CALIBRATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DUHAME AND LAMM
`
`Duhame cannot be combined with Lamm to render Claim 11 obvious be-
`
`cause Duhame relates to residential garage doors and performs manual calibra-
`
`tion of the garage door whereas Lamm determines thresholds for different motors
`
`instead of performing calibration for different windows or panels, and Lamm
`
`does not use manual calibration. Specifically, while Duhame calibrates every gar—
`
`age door, Lamm does not calibrate every window; instead, Lamm calibrates every
`
`motor. Additionally, Duhame performs calibration that involves a person to manu-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`ally move the garage door. In contrast, Lamm’s calibration does not involve manu-
`
`al movement of the window; rather, Lamm calibrates the motor theoretically or ex-
`
`perimentally using clamping tests, which is very different from Duhame’s manual
`
`calibration of every garage door.
`
`Duhame discloses: “Using the close limit switch 30 the installer adjusts
`
`the close travel limit to just beyond the location of the floor. Then the installer
`
`closes the door using the operator. The automatic door operator will detect an ob-
`
`struction at the floor and will stop and reverse the door.” EX. 1009 at 22:4—9 (em—
`
`phasis added). In one embodiment, “travel counter may also be employed for de-
`
`tection of the fully opened and fully closed limits. .
`
`.
`
`. The controller stops the mo—
`
`tor when the travel reaches or passes the close travel count while closing the door,
`
`and stops the motor when the travel count reaches or passes the open travel count
`
`while opening the door. In accordance with the preferred embodiment of this in-
`
`vention, both the close travel count and the open travel count are operator setta-
`
`ble.” Id. at 3:42—60 (emphasis added). In one embodiment, “[a]n obstruction is de-
`
`tected when closing if the detected motor speed indicates a motor torque greater
`
`than the lesser of the operator selected closing torque limit or the adaptive clos-
`
`ing torque limit[.]” Id. at 3:21—25 (emphasis added). The operator (or user) se—
`
`lects the appropriate closing torque limit by placing socket 64 over the corre-
`
`
`
`Case lPR2014—00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`sponding input pin 61.” Id. at 8:27-29 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Duhame
`
`discloses manual calibration of the garage door.
`
`Lamm does not and cannot use Duhame’s manual calibration for at least two
`
`reasons: First, Lamm determines thresholds for different motors instead of per-
`
`forming calibration for different Windows or panels. Second, Lamm determines
`
`the thresholds theoretically 0r experimentally. Therefore, ordinarily skilled arti-
`
`sans will not be motivated to incorporate Duhame’s manual calibration that is used
`
`for every garage door into Lamm’s system that performs calibration for different
`
`motors. Specifically, Lamm discloses: “The threshold values can be derived theo-
`
`retically. An experimental threshold value determination is preferably included.”
`
`EX. 1008, Page 5, Col. 7 (emphasis added). “In one practical embodiment, the
`
`threshold values are determined adaptively by means of clamping tests. With this
`
`measure, it is possible to pre-specify optimum threshold values of each individual
`
`component.” Id., Page 2, Col. 2 (emphasis added). “The adaptive threshold deter—
`
`mination described above is particularly advantageous because the characteristic
`
`curve 16 may be subject to variation between individual motors. .
`
`.
`
`. The specific
`
`slope of the characteristic curve is determined for this motor from various differ—
`
`ent measuring points. This measurement process can be carried out separately for
`
`each rotary device, .
`
`.
`
`. .” Id., Page 5, Col. 7 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`In other words, Lamm determines the thresholds for different motors in—
`
`stead of performing calibration for different windows or panels, and Lamm de—
`
`termines the thresholds theoretically or experimentally. Lamm therefore does not
`
`need and cannot use Duhame’s manual calibration procedure, which is performed
`
`for every garage door instead of every motor. Accordingly, Duhame cannot be
`
`combined with Lamm to render Claim 11 obvious.
`
`2.
`
`CALIBRATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DUHAME AND ITOH
`
`Itoh also does not need and cannot use Duhame’s manual calibration be-
`
`cause Itoh uses a simple procedure instead: “[I]f the value of the counter 36 is
`
`made to 0 when the window 26 is at the entirely closed position, and value Pmax
`
`of the counter 36 is 2000 when the window 26 is at the full-opened position, it is
`
`possible to detect the position of the window 26 according to the contents of the
`
`counter 36.” Ex. 1006 at 9227—33. In other words, Itoh simply sets a counter to zero
`
`when the window is fully closed and to Pmax when the window is fully open and
`
`detects position of the window according to the contents of the counter. According-
`
`ly, ordinarily skilled artisans will not be motivated to incorporate Duhame’s manu—
`
`al calibration into Itoh’s simple automated system, even with improper, radical
`
`hindsight reengineering. Therefore, Duhame cannot be combined with Lamm to
`
`render Claim 11 obvious, and the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Claim 11 is obvious over the combination of Lamm, Itoh, and Duhame.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`GROUND E: CLAIM 11
`
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Claim 11 is obvi—
`
`ous in View of US. Patent No. 5,218,282 (“Duhame”, Ex. 1009) and US. Patent
`
`No. 4,468,596 (“Kinzl”, Ex. 1007). Claim 11 recites “wherein the controller in-
`
`cludes an interface for monitoring user actuation of control inputs for controlling
`
`movement of the object and wherein in response to a specified input the controller
`
`conducts a calibration motor energization sequence to determine parameters of
`
`[the] object.” EX. 1001 at 28:62—67. Duhame, however, cannot be combined with
`
`Kinzl at least because Duhame relates to residential garage doors and performs
`
`manual calibration of the garage door while Kinzl does not use manual calibra—
`
`tion.
`
`Duhame discloses: “Using the close limit switch 30 the installer adjusts
`
`the close travel limit to just beyond the location of the floor. Then the installer
`
`closes the door using the operator. The automatic door operator will detect an ob-
`
`struction at the floor and will stop and reverse the door.” Ex. 1009 at 2224—9 (em—
`
`phasis added). In one embodiment, “travel counter may also be employed for de—
`
`tection of the fully opened and fully closed limits. .
`
`.
`
`. The controller stops the mo—
`
`tor when the travel reaches or passes the close travel count while closing the door,
`
`and stops the motor when the travel count reaches or passes the open travel count
`
`while ope
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
