trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121, Paper No. 85
`March 22, 2016
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD., et al.
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, February 23, 2016
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY; JUSTIN T. ARBES;
`BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD; JAMES A. TARTAL; and PATRICK M.
`BOUCHER (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`February 23, 2016, at 11:02 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121, Paper No. 85
`March 22, 2016
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD., et al.
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, February 23, 2016
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY; JUSTIN T. ARBES;
`BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD; JAMES A. TARTAL; and PATRICK M.
`BOUCHER (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`February 23, 2016, at 11:02 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEVEN F. MEYER, ESQ.
`Locke Lord LLP
`3 World Financial Center
`New York, New York 10281
`212-415-8535
`
`CHARLES S. BAKER, ESQ.
`
`Locke Lord LLP
`
`600 Travis
`
`Suite 2800
`
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`713-226-1200
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT R. BROWN, ESQ.
`Hovey Williams LLP
`10801 Mastin Boulevard, Suite 1000
`84 Corporate Woods
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`913-647-9050
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(11:02 a.m.)
`JUDGE WOOD: Please be seated. Good morning.
`This is the oral argument for IPR2014- 01121 to which has
`been joined IPR2015- 00762.
`Let's begin by having counsel introduce
`themselves, beginning with Petitioner?
`MR. MEYER: I am Steve Meyer, lead counsel for
`Petitioner, Broad Ocean.
`MR. BAKER: Charles Baker. I'm backup counsel
`for the Petitioner, Broad Ocean.
`JUDGE WOOD: Thank you. And for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MR. BROWN: Good morning. Scott Brown
`appearing on behalf of Patent Owner.
`JUDGE WOOD: Thank you. As set forth in the
`trial hearing order, Paper 82, each side has up to 60 minutes to
`present its argument.
`Petitioner will go first and present its case
`regarding the challenged claims, and may also discuss its
`motion to exclude. Patent Owner will respond to either
`opposition to Petitioner's arguments and may discuss its
`motion to amend and motion to exclude.
`Each side may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`the arguments presented by the opposing counsel. Petitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`can respond to any arguments raised by Patent Owner. Patent
`Owner's rebuttal will be restricted to responding in support of
`Patent Owner's motion to amend and motion to exclude.
`A couple of initial matters before we begin. There
`was some discussion in a prior conference call that
`confidential information may be discussed this morning.
`It is our preference that the hearing be kept public.
`So if there is any way the parties can refrain from doing that,
`we would appreciate that. On the other hand, if it is
`unavoidable, we can discuss it at that time.
`Second, we also understand there are some
`outstanding objections to demonstrative exhibits. We will
`defer ruling and discussion of those objections until such time
`that those demonstratives are presented.
`All right. Any questions before we begin? Thank
`
`you.
`
`As you can see, we do have one of our judges,
`Judge Boucher, participating remotely. So when you discuss a
`demonstrative, please identify it by slide number so that the
`transcript is clear and we can all follow along.
`All right. With that, Mr. Meyer, you may begin.
`MR. MEYER: Good morning, Your Honors. I am
`Steve Meyer, lead counsel for Petitioner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`I would like to spend several minutes on a brief
`background on the technology recited in the challenged claims
`of the '349 patent.
`JUDGE WOOD: Let me interrupt you, Mr. Meyer.
`Will you be reserving rebuttal time?
`MR. MEYER: We plan to use 35 minutes for this
`portion and save 25 minutes for addressing rebuttal plus
`opposition to their motion to amend.
`JUDGE WOOD: Okay. Thank you.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Mr. Meyer, could you kindly
`speak a little bit more closely to the microphone. I'm having a
`little bit of a problem hearing you.
`MR. MEYER: Yes, okay, and I will try to speak
`
`louder.
`
`Figure 4 depicts an air moving component 410 that
`is rotated by the motor 406 which is controlled by a motor
`controller 404.
`The motor controller 404 is configured for
`performing sine wave commutation in response to one or more
`signals received by the system controller 402 to produce
`continuous phase currents in the permanent magnet motor 406.
`One such control signal sent by the system
`controller to the motor controller may represent the desired
`speed of the motor 406.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`Now, the first sentence of this quote here appears
`essentially verbatim in claim 1 of the '349 patent, right there,
`the wherein clause. Now, according to Patent Owner's expert,
`Dr. Blank, in original claim 1, it is the overall function of sine
`wave commutation that is performed in response to the control
`signal received from a system controller.
`I would like to now briefly discuss the control
`signals from the system controller.
`Now, the '349 patent incorporates by reference the
`'379 patent and, in turn, the '379 patent discusses a torque
`control embodiment and a speed control embodiment. First,
`the torque control embodiment is depicted in figure 2 of the
`'379 patent.
`MR. BROWN: Your Honor, this is one of the
`slides that we have objected to.
`JUDGE WOOD: So what is the basis of the
`objection?
`MR. BROWN: The basis of the objection is that it
`is referring to evidence not previously referred to in the
`record.
`
`MR. MEYER: This patent is incorporated by
`reference. It is an exhibit. It is 3001. It is also Exhibit 1010
`in the 762 IPR which was joined with this one. I am using this
`merely to show a torque demand signal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`JUDGE WOOD: I think we are going to allow the
`discussion of this demonstrative. We understand it is not
`evidence. It sounds like you are making a new argument
`objection, is my understanding correct, that you are essentially
`saying that this is a new matter not previously discussed?
`MR. BROWN: Yes. In other words, there has been
`no reference in any of the prior briefing by Petitioners in this
`figure or discussion of this feature.
`JUDGE WOOD: I think we will allow discussion
`and we can straighten out that issue after the hearing.
`MR. MEYER: This depiction of the demanded
`torque signal 214 is indicative of torque control.
`Now, second, the speed control embodiment is
`depicted in figure 3 of the '379 patent. This depiction of a
`speed demand is indicative of speed control. Now, figure 8 of
`the '349 patent is substantially the same as figure 3 of the '379
`patent.
`
`Now, the Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Blank,
`testified that figure 8 depicts the receipt of a speed demand
`control signal.
`In this embodiment the difference between the
`speed demand, which is here, and the estimated current speed
`of the motor, which is calculated here, this determines a
`difference between the two, characterizes that as the speed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`error, and that is then sent up to the speed loop controller
`which generates a demanded torque signal.
`If we can go to the next slide, here is another
`version of figure 8 of the '349 patent with highlighting to
`show the performance of sine wave commutation. Sine wave
`commutation would occur at the box here, labeled PWM
`engine. The acronym PWM stands for Pulse Width
`Modulation.
`The pulse width modulation engine controls the
`voltage supplied to the motor by varying the width of the
`voltage pulses provided by the DC power supply.
`Simply put, the wider the pulse width, the greater
`the voltage that is supplied to the motor, and vice versa, the
`smaller the pulse, the less the voltage. Now, let me go into a
`little more detail.
`In pulse width modulation the width of the voltage
`pulse is modified in direct proportion to a control signal. The
`greater the control signal, the wider the resulting width, and in
`doing so the control signals direct the PWM engine to perform
`sine wave commutation to produce continuous phase currents
`in the motor.
`As explained by Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Blank,
`during his deposition, the alpha-beta voltage signals, right
`here, depicted in figure 8 above the left-hand corner of the
`PWM engine box, is the control signal used by the PWM
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`engine to generate the pulse width modulated sinusoidal
`voltages and the resulting continuous phase sine current. So
`sine wave commutation occurs right here.
`Now, stepping back in figure 8 or to the left of the
`PWM engine box, we can see that the alpha-beta voltage
`demand signal is generated by this box here, the blue box,
`entitled "Frame of Reference Transform, Qdr to Alpha-Beta"
`box, based on the rotating frame of reference voltages VQr and
`Vdr.
`
`Now, to get to the crux of the matter before this
`Board in this IPR.
`During prosecution of the '349 patent, the patentee
`added this phrase right here: "Using independent values of Q
`and d axis currents" to each of the independent claims.
`Outside of the issued claims, this specific phrase,
`independent values of Q and d axis currents, appears nowhere
`else in the '349 patent specification or even in the
`incorporated by reference '379 patent specification.
`Now, in its response at page 6 and its
`demonstrative exhibit PO 10, which you will see today, Patent
`Owner seeks to redefine independent values of Q and d axis
`currents to be the demanded values of the Q and d axis
`currents, not the actual values of the Q/d axis currents.
`Let me show you on figure 8 what the Patent
`Owner was saying. If you can go back to DX 6, please.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`Okay. What they are saying is the rotating
`currents here, are generated by their respective current
`controllers based on the IQdr actual and the IQdr demand and
`the estimated electrical speed.
`Patent Owner argues that the recited independent
`values of Q and d axis currents recited in the claims correlate
`with this only, the IQdr demand signal, not the IQdr actual
`signal. But this argument has no -- it is not outcome
`changing, because in Hideji, the actual values which would
`correspond to this, are independent of each other, and the
`demanded values of Q and d axis currents are independent of
`each other as well.
`Now, if we can go to Hideji. The challenged
`claims are anticipated by Hideji under Section 102(b).
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Actually, could we go back
`just to figure 8 for a moment, please?
`MR. MEYER: Sure. Okay, yes.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So what is the Petitioner's
`precise position with respect to the required independence of
`the Q/d axis currents? Is it that the actual currents, Q and d
`axis currents, have to be independent of each other? Is it that
`those have to be independent of each other and the demanded
`currents have to be independent of each other? What are the
`precise contours there?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`MR. MEYER: It was our understanding initially
`that it is the IQdr actual that corresponds to what is recited in
`the claims. And we believe that Hideji discloses that.
`However, if you agree with Patent Owner's position
`that it's IQdr demand, that that is what has to be independent,
`the IQ demand has to be independent of the ID demand, Hideji
`shows that, too, and their expert admitted that.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So how do I tell from figure 8
`that there is independence of Q and d axis currents?
`MR. MEYER: It is our position that you can't.
`That's our argument opposing their motion to amend, that there
`is not support for that in this figure.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Actually just to
`follow-up on that, though, do you agree with Dr. Blank that if
`I knew the IQdr map that I would then know whether or not
`the Q and d axis currents were independent? I think he
`testified to that.
`MR. MEYER: He testified to that. I have no
`reason to doubt that that is the case in connection with figure
`8.
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay.
`MR. MEYER: But the internals of this map are not
`disclosed anywhere.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`MR. MEYER: You are welcome. Okay. Hideji
`discloses an HVAC system that includes two permanent
`magnet brushless motors, here and one here. And both of
`those are coupled to a fan, this fan here. First motor, this
`motor drives -- motor 30A drives fan 20. Motor 30B
`drives fan 23.
`Patent Owner has limited its response to arguing
`that Hideji fails to disclose the "wherein the motor controller
`is configured for performing sine wave commutation using
`independent values of Q and d axis currents in response to one
`or more control signals received from the system controller to
`produce the continuous phase currents in the permanent
`magnet motor limitation."
`Therefore, a good place to start would be to
`identify which components depicted in figure 2 correlate with
`the motor controller recited in the challenged claims.
`Hideji at paragraph 30 states that the brushless
`motor driving device 50 comprises the alternating current
`power supply 32, the rectifier circuit 33, and, let's see, the
`power inverter 31, and the control device 34. Essentially
`everything depicted in figure 2 except for the motor itself.
`Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Blank, considers
`Hideji's motor driving device 50 to qualify as a motor
`controller.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`Now, elsewhere in Hideji, at paragraph 32, it states
`that the control device 34 includes parts 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
`41 and 42. Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Blank, also considers
`Hideji's control device 34 to qualify as a motor controller.
`Now, at page 10 -- while I'm going through this --
`at page 10 of its response, Patent Owner argues that in order
`for Hideji to be anticipatory, it must be shown that
`independently derived I sub q and I sub d values are fed into
`the current control part 40. Again, this current control part 40
`is just one of many constituent parts of the motor drive device
`34.
`
`The Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Blank, testified
`during his deposition that if the independently derived I sub q
`and I sub d values are used by some other part of the control
`device for performing sine wave commutation, the claim
`limitation would still be satisfied. So that contradicts what
`they said in their response.
`And as we will see, Hideji's motor control device
`does use independently developed I sub q and I sub d values
`for performing sine wave commutation.
`Now, the claim limitation at issue requires that the
`motor controller receive a control signal from a system
`controller. Here is figure 2 highlighted. The target speed is
`highlighted. And that's depicted in the left-hand upper portion
`of figure 2, and that comes from a system controller. That
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`target speed signal represents a desired speed of the permanent
`magnet motor 30A or 30B.
`Next slide, please. Now, as depicted in the green
`highlighting in slide 12, the difference between the motor 's
`current speed and the target speed is sent to the speed
`controller part 30A which, based thereon, generates a torque
`control IQ target value.
`Similarly, as depicted in the highlighted version of
`figure 8 of the '349 patent presented in our slide 8, the
`difference between the estimated speed of the motor and the
`demanded speed is sent to the speed loop controller which
`generates a demanded torque signal.
`Go to the next slide, please. Here is another
`version of figure 2 of Hideji with highlighting to show the
`performance of sine wave commutation. Now, the sine wave
`commutation occurs here, "Three-Phase PWM Inverter," Pulse
`Width Modulation inverter.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Before you get into the
`details, is there any dispute between the parties that Hideji
`discloses sine wave commutation?
`MR. MEYER: I don't believe so, no. I just wanted
`to show that there is almost a direct correlation. Stepping
`backwards in this figure, you will have the PWM inverter, you
`have the three control signals that are generated based upon
`the rotating frame of reference, V sub q and V sub d demand
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`signals. So they are all the same right through that point.
`They are identical, in fact.
`As described in paragraph 40 of Hideji, the current
`control part 40 calculates V sub d based upon the difference
`between the I sub q actual signal and the I sub q target value.
`Likewise, the current control part also calculates V
`sub d based upon the difference between the I sub d actual and
`the I sub d target value.
`Now, within the motor controller device 34, the I
`sub q value is independent of the actual I sub d value. So the
`two actual values are independent.
`Also, the I sub q demand value here is independent
`of the IQ demand value there.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So this seems to be the crux
`of the issue with Hideji, and I'm not sure I follow exactly how
`you get to the conclusion that there is this independence.
`And the Patent Owner has focused on this sentence
`at the beginning of paragraph 39 that there is this relationship
`between the target ID value being equal to k times IQ squared.
`So I have a couple of questions.
`First, what is IQ in that k and IQ squared? Is that
`Hideji's target Q- axis current, or is it something else?
`MR. MEYER: It is the IQ actual current. It goes
`in here. That's the only IQ value that goes into box 39, so it
`must be IQ actual.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So Hideji is saying that the
`ID target value is proportional to the square of the IQ actual
`value?
`
`MR. MEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay.
`MR. MEYER: As we will see, during the
`deposition I asked Dr. Blank about this. Yes, there is no
`denying that that is what Hideji says, but that does not alter
`the independence between the I sub q actual and the I sub d
`actual or the independence of the IQ target and the I sub d
`target.
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: And how do you know those
`are independent?
`MR. MEYER: Okay. Well, I asked Dr. Blank,
`their expert, and he agreed with that. And let me go through
`and I will show you why their expert -- why they are
`independent. They raised three arguments as to why they are
`not independent.
`Okay. First, Patent Owner contends that those of
`ordinary skill looking at the output of this part 36 would not
`know how Q and d axis currents are generated by the system.
`So apparently they are arguing that Hideji is non- enabling.
`However, under the Federal Circuit's Antor Media
`decision, Hideji must be presumed to be enabled. And they
`have presented no evidence rebutting that.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`If anything, their own expert, Dr. Blank, has shown
`Hideji to be enabling.
`If you could turn to slide 15, please. This is from
`a declaration that Dr. Blank prepared in IPR 01122, and he
`describes the equations for deriving I sub d and I sub q from
`the stationary frame of reference I sub a, I sub b and I sub c.
`And I asked him about this and he said that the
`values that are calculated by those equations would be
`independent of each other.
`He also testified that all motor controllers that he
`is aware of use these equations for calculating I sub q and I
`sub d.
`
`He is not aware of any controller that uses some
`other equation for developing I sub q and I sub d other than
`the ones that result in independent values of I sub q and I sub
`d.
`
`Okay. Second, Patent Owner argues that the output
`from the three- phase/two- phase coordinate conversion part 36
`are an interim value more normally referred to as alpha and
`beta. And this is at their response at page 8.
`Patent Owner is simply wrong. The Patent Owner's
`expert testified that alpha-beta is a stationary frame of
`reference, not the rotating frame of reference. And if you
`could go back to DX 14 for a second, right here, Hideji
`explicitly says that it is a rotating frame of reference.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`And, furthermore, Dr. Blank testified that the
`currents in the alpha-beta frame of reference would be
`indicated by an I sub alpha and an I sub beta, the Greek
`letters.
`
`Now, contrary to the Patent Owner's argument, and
`this is noted in the Decision to Institute, even in the original
`Japanese language version of Hideji it states I sub q and I sub
`d, not I sub alpha and I sub beta.
`Now, third, Patent Owner argues -- and this is what
`Judge Boucher just raised -- that the I sub q value is fed to the
`control part 39, which calculates an I sub d demand value
`according to the k times I squared formula. And this is in
`paragraphs 38 and 39 of Hideji.
`However, doing so does not change the actual
`value of I sub q or I sub d on this line.
`And, in fact, I asked Patent Owner's expert that if I
`sub q -- can you get back on that?
`MR. BAKER: 14?
`MR. MEYER: 14, yes. I asked Patent Owner's
`expert if I sub q and I sub d are independent coming out of
`here, and then you go up here, and it goes up here, if the
`values now at these two summers are independent of each
`other, and that's the last step before they go into the current
`control part 40. And if you could go to DX 18.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`And as you can see, when I asked him those
`questions he said, yes, at those two summers, I sub q actual is
`independent of I sub d actual.
`Now, if we could go back to figure 2 of Hideji.
`Now, in the event that the Board agrees with the Patent Owner
`that the Q and d axis currents recited in the challenged claims
`refer to the I sub q and the I sub d demand values, those values
`are also independent in Hideji.
`Paragraph 37 explains that the speed control part
`38 generates an I sub q target value based on the difference
`between the target speed and the calculated current speed.
`And paragraphs 38 through 39 explain that the
`phase control part 39 generates the I sub d target value based
`on the formula k times IQ squared.
`Now, put up DX 19. Even Patent Owner's expert,
`Dr. Blank, agrees that Hideji's I sub q demand and I sub d
`demand values are independent of each other because they do
`not share any common constituent parts.
`Lastly, in addition to being anticipatory during
`normal operations, during full speed, Hideji is also
`anticipatory during startup operations. Petitioner's expert, Dr.
`Ehsani, explained that Hideji's HVAC system starts up in
`response to a control signal from the system controller. That's
`at paragraph 39 of Exhibit 1009.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`And during this startup routine, I sub d is set to the
`value of zero. And this is very important as we will see
`throughout the course of this argument. And I sub q has a
`non- zero value.
`Now, referring to Patent Owner's demonstrative
`exhibit PO 25, the parties agree that when I sub d equals zero,
`I sub q is independent. That's what they point to in the '379
`patent at column 6, lines 1 through 7, that it says that, that
`when I sub d equals zero, I sub q is independent. And that's
`exactly what happens during the startup operations here.
`So by using their own definition, the I sub q is
`independent of I sub d during this startup phase.
`Now, there might be the argument, well, this
`occurs only during startup conditions. Yes, that's true. And
`in the Alza v. Mylan case, 388 F.Supp.2d 717 at page 735,
`which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit under other
`grounds, the District Court held that there can be part-time
`anticipation of a product claim if the limitations of the claim
`are satisfied under a foreseeable operating condition.
`Now, Hideji's disclosed startup routine is a
`foreseeable operating condition. Every time it starts up, it
`does it.
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Is sine wave commutation
`performed during setup?
`MR. MEYER: I believe so, yes.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. So this couldn't be an
`example of a situation where the Q and d axis currents are
`independent but there is no sine wave commutation going on
`because it is during a startup phase?
`MR. MEYER: I don't believe so, no.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay.
`MR. MEYER: Okay. I would like to briefly
`address the combination of Bessler and Kocybik. The
`combination of Bessler and Kocybik satisfies all of the
`limitations recited in the challenged claims.
`Now, what is important to this ground is not the
`independence of I sub q and I sub d but, rather, for some
`reason what constitutes a system controller. But we know
`from the '349 patent specification, which states at column 4,
`lines 35 through 38, that the system controller 402 may be a
`thermostat, an additional control module in communication
`with a thermostat, or a stand- alone controller. There are three
`possibilities of what constitutes a system controller.
`And every embodiment depicted in Bessler
`includes a system controller as defined by the '349 patent.
`Now, if we can go to DX 20. Figure 1 of Bessler
`depicts a prior art HVAC system. The thermostat 102 or the
`system controller 104 corresponds to the system controller
`recited in the challenged claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`Figure 1 also shows an electronically commutated
`motor, ECM right here, and right here, that drive the indoor
`blower and the outdoor fan. And the system controller sends
`the signals to the ECM which drive the motor.
`Turn to figure 2, please, of DX 21. Figure 2
`depicts an embodiment that does not require what Bessler calls
`a system controller between the thermostat and the rest of the
`system.
`
`The thermostat 202 sends a signal out on this line,
`the 204, to the motor controller, as required by the system
`controller recited in the challenged claims. And just like the
`specification of the '349 patent says, the system controller can
`be a thermostat, and there it is, and it is sending control
`signals.
`
`Now, figure 3, if you turn to DX 22, please, figure
`3 depicts a block diagram of the electronically commutated
`motor drive system. Bessler's microprocessor here controls
`the speed or torque of the electronically commutated motor
`which turns a blower or a fan in response to one or more
`control signals sent by the thermostat.
`The control signal is the T-Stat signal, which is
`generated by the thermostat.
`Now, admittedly, it is true Bessler does not
`explicitly disclose the shape of the commutation wave used to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`drive its electronically commutated motor, but the motor must
`be driven by some type of commutation wave.
`Bessler also does not explicitly disclose the use of
`independent Q and d axis currents. For these limitations
`recited in the challenged claims that are not explicitly
`disclosed by Bessler, we rely upon Kocybik as the secondary
`reference.
`Kocybik is a doctoral thesis that includes a survey
`of electric motor control schemes for permanent magnet
`motors.
`
`Kocybik also discloses sine wave commutation and
`the use of d -q reference frame.
`Now, Kocybik discloses an expression of the
`torque equation that uses independent values of Q and d axis
`currents.
`
`Can you please turn to slide 23. And this is it
`right here. This is an excerpt from Kocybik at page -- it is
`page 39 of the reference and 54 of the exhibit. And on the
`next page, either 40 or 55, Kocybik chooses the value of I sub
`d to be zero, which results in an equation in terms of I sub q
`only.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Kocybik
`discloses using independent values of Q and d axis currents.
`Petitioners have provided a rational basis with reasoned
`underpinnings for the combination of Bessler and Kocybik.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`Can you put up DX 24. And this is it right here,
`and it concludes a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have recognized that a permanent magnet motor using
`sinusoidal commutation, such as disclosed in Kocybik, could
`result in a motor that exhibits less unwanted ripple torque and,
`in turn, smoother output torque. And it cites to Kocybik at
`page 25.
`
`Now, the Chen patent, which was presented as
`Exhibit 2009 by Patent Owner, confirms that sine wave
`commutation provides lower torque ripple, noise and vibration.
`And that's 2009 at column 1, lines 20 through -- 22 through
`26.
`
`Now, Patent Owner's argument -- well, Patent
`Owner has not presented any technical expert declarations that
`contradicts or rebuts this direct testimony of Dr. Ehsani.
`Instead, Patent Owner argues that it was not
`economically feasible to adopt sine wave commutation for
`motors used in HVAC systems.
`But this argument must fail as a matter of law.
`The Federal Circuit in the Farrenkopf case held that economics
`is irrelevant. There the Federal Circuit said that a given
`combination would not be made by businessmen for economic
`reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not
`make the combination because of some technological
`incompatibility. Only the later fact would be relevant.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01121
`Patent No. 7,626,349
`
`
`Patent Owner has not identified any technological
`incompatibility that would have discouraged the upgrade from
`square wave commutation to sine wave commutation or that
`sine wave commutation would not work. So there was no
`teaching away. And the combination, we have shown the
`justification for combining the two, and when they are
`combined they satisfy all of the limitations of the claim.
`Thank you.
`JUDGE WOOD: Thank you, Mr. Meyer.
`Mr. Brown, you can start when you are read
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
