UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00606
`
`AND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00799
`
`______________
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`(GROUP 2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00606
`
`AND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00799
`
`______________
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`(GROUP 2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos.: IPR2015-00606 & 2015-00799
`Attorney Docket Nos.: FPGP0104IPR2 & FPGP0104IPR13
`
`
`
`Attached please find Ford’s demonstrative exhibits to be used at the trial
`
`hearing on June 29, 2016 at 9:00 AM in regard to Case Nos. IPR2015-00606 &
`
`IPR2015-00799 (Group 2).
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 24, 2016
`
`
`
` /Frank A. Angileri /
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Sangeeta G. Shah ( Reg. No. 38,614)
`Michael D. Cushion (Reg. No. 55,094)
`Michael N. MacCallum (Reg. No. 63,108)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`DENTONS US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case Nos.: IPR2015-00606 & 2015-00799
`Attorney Docket Nos.: FPGP0104IPR2 & FPGP0104IPR13
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 24, 2016, a complete and
`entire copy of NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS (GROUP 2), was served via electronic mail by
`serving the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Reg. No. 33,487
`Linda L. Kordziel, Reg. No. 39,732
`Brian J. Livedalen, Reg. No. 67,450
`Daniel A. Tishman
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: IPR36351-0015IPA@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IPB@fr.com;
`
`Riffe@fr.com; Greene@fr.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Frank A. Angileri/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Sangeeta G. Shah ( Reg. No. 38,614)
`Michael D. Cushion (Reg. No. 55,094)
`Michael N. MacCallum (Reg. No. 63,108)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: IPR36351-0015IPA@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IPB@fr.com;
`
`Riffe@fr.com; Greene@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`FORD DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER v.
`PAICE LLC et al, PATENT OWNERS
`
`Inter Partes Review Consolidated Oral Hearing,
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Overview
`
`GROUND- IPR2015-00606
`
`CLAIMS
`
`§103 obvious over the ‘455 PCT
`Publication and Severinsky ’970
`
`56-65, 68-77, 242-
`251, 268-277, 292,
`293 and 298
`
`GROUND- IPR2015-00799
`
`CLAIMS
`
`§103 obvious over the ‘455 PCT
`Publication and Severinsky ’970
`
`81-90, 115-124, 162-
`171 and 216-225
`
`Single Disputed Issue: Whether the ‘455 PCT Publication is prior art to the
`Challenged Claims
`
`Sub-issues: 1) Written description 2)Incorporation 3) Burden
`
`*All cites will relate to IPR2015-00606, parallel citations for IPR2015-00799 are provided in the index
`
`2
`
`
`
`‘634 Patent Family
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`The ’634 Patent Family Chart
`
`WO 00/15455
`Pub. 3-23-00
`
`US 6,209,672
`Appl. No.: 09/264,817
`Filed 3-9-99
`
`Over 1 Year
`102(b)
`Prior Art
`
`C.I.P.
`
`60/100,095
`Filed 9-14-98
`
`US 7,237,634
`Appl. No.: 11/229,762
`Filed: 1-13-06
`
`US 6,554,088
`Appl. No.: 09/822,866
`Filed: 4-2-01
`
`US 7,104,347
`Appl. No.: 10/382,577
`Filed: 3-7-03
`
`60/122,296
`Filed 3-1-99
`
`US 6,338,391
`Appl. No.: 09/392,743
`Filed 9-9-99
`
`** Only relevant family members shown
`
`US 7,455,134
`Appl. No.: 11/429,457
`Filed: 5-8-06
`
`Petition at 7.
`(color annotation added)
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, subject matter found only in the ‘095 Provisional can not
`provide written description support for the ‘634 patent claims. Reply at 4.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Sub-issue 1: Whether the priority applications filed
`before the ‘866 CIP application provide written
`description support for the electrical limitations
`
`“a ratio of maximum DC voltage to [maximum current] supplied
`is at least 2.5” (the “at least 2.5 ratio” limitation);
`
`“maximum DC voltage . . . is at least approximately 500 volts”
`(the “500 volts” limitation); and
`
`“maximum current . . . is less than approximately 150 amperes”
`limitation (the “150 amperes” limitation).
`
`(POR at 6-12; Reply at 3.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1- ‘866 CIP Application Disclosure
`Disclosure
`Electrical Limitations Are Disclosed For
`The First Time In The ‘866 CIP Application
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Petition at 8.
`
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1161 at 89:18-90:28
`
`5
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1 – 2.5 ratio
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`The at least 2.5 ratio limitation
`
`• No disclosure of any numerical ratio. Reply at 4; Reply Dec. ¶¶12-13
`
`• No motivation to calculate a ratio. Reply at 4.; Reply Decl. ¶14
`
`No conception
`of at least 2.5
`ratio limitation
`
`No possession
`of the
`invention
`
`• ‘866 CIP Application:
`
`No written
`description
`
`Reply at 4-5, Reply Decl. ¶¶ 9-15
`
`‘866 CIP App, Ex. 1161 at 90:2-14
`
`6
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1 – 500 volts
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`The at least 500 volts limitation lacks support
`
`‘866 CIP App, Ex. 1161 at 90:26-28
`
`‘743 Application, Ex., 1163, at 16:5-8
`
`we tend to talk about batteries in terms
`of their open-circuit battery voltage. So you go to
`the store and you say I would like to buy a battery
`for my car, I need a 12-volt battery for my car, you
`classify that battery by its open-circuit voltage.
`That’s how we tend to talk about batteries.
`Because the voltage that the battery will have
`when it is connected to an electrical load will, of
`course, change, depending on what that load is.
`
`Stein Tr., Ex. 2109, at 81:16-24
`
`. . .
`
`‘817 Application, Ex., 1162, at 50-51
`
`7
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1 - “Derived” Ratio/Voltage lack support
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`“Derived” Ratio/Voltage lack support
`
`Disclosed Motor
`Power
`
`Disclosed
`Current
`
`Derived Voltage Under
`Load
`
`Derived Ratio of Voltage
`to Current
`
`50 hp/37.28 kW
`
`50 hp/37.28 kW
`
`100 hp/74.57 kW
`
`100 hp/74.57 kW
`
`100 A
`
`200 A
`
`100 A
`
`200 A
`
`372.85 V
`
`186.42 V
`
`745.70 V
`
`372.85 V
`
`3.7285:1
`
`0.9321:1
`
`7.457:1
`
`1.86425:1
`
`‘743 App.
`
`‘095 App.
`
`POR at 38. (color annotation added)
`
`POR at 38.
`(color annotation added)
`
`‘817 App.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1 - “Derived” Ratio/Voltage lack support
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`“Derived” Ratio/Voltage lack support
`
`Disclosed Motor
`Power
`
`Disclosed
`Current
`
`Derived Voltage Under
`Load
`
`Derived Ratio of Voltage
`to Current
`
`50 hp/37.28 kW
`
`50 hp/37.28 kW
`
`100 hp/74.57 kW
`
`100 hp/74.57 kW
`
`100 A
`
`200 A
`
`100 A
`
`200 A
`
`372.85 V
`
`186.42 V
`
`745.70 V
`
`372.85 V
`
`3.7285:1
`
`0.9321:1
`
`7.457:1
`
`1.86425:1
`
`POR at 38.
`(color annotation added)
`
`Claimed Ratio
`0.9321:1 | 1.86425:1 < 2:1 < at least 2.5:1 < 3.7285:1 | 7.457:1
`
`“Derived” Ratios Prior Art: Toyota Prius
`Ex. 1961, ‘634 Patent, 50:66-51:26
`From ‘743 and ‘817 Apps.
`Claimed Ratio
`186.42 V & 372.85 V < at least 500 volts < 745.70 V
`
`“Derived” Ratios
`From ‘095 Appl.
`
`“Derived” Voltage from ‘817 App.
`
`“Derived” Voltage from ‘095 App.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1 – 150 amperes
`There is no support for the “less than 150
`amperes” limitation
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Paice:
`
`The ‘817 application teaches:
`
`POR at 33
`
`‘817 Application, Ex. 1162 at 50:22-29
`
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1161 at 90:9-12
`
`10
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1- ‘866 CIP Application Disclosure
`Disclosure
`Electrical Limitations Are Disclosed For
`The First Time In The ‘866 CIP Application
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Petition at 8.
`
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1161 at 89:18-90:28
`
`11
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 1 - Admission
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Paice admits that the preferred ranges are new
`
`Ex.1164, ‘634 File History at 311
`
`Ex.1152, Stein Decl., at ¶113
`
`12
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 2
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Sub-Issue 2: Whether Severinsky ‘970 cures the lack
`of written description support in the priority applications
`
`Reply at 12-21.
`
`Question A: Is Severinsky ‘970 incorporated into the priority
`applications pre-dating the ‘455 PCT publication? Reply at 12-16.
`
`i.
`ii.
`
`Detailed particularity requirement Reply at 12-13.
`Impact of “differences” Reply at 14.
`
`Question B: Are the electrical limitations supported by Severinsky
`‘970? POR at 18-32; Reply at 16-21.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 2 - Incorporation
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`The incorporation language
`
`‘817 Application, Ex. 1162 at 18:24-30
`
`More specifically, the alleged incorporation by reference clause(s)
`fail to provide any clarity on what, if any, subject matter is to be incorporated
`in relation to the claimed electrical limitations.
`. . . the disclosures are different and thus the Severinsky ‘970 disclosure
`would not be incorporated into the priority applications.
`
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶¶43-44
`
`‘970
`
`Priority App
`
`1,000 -1,400 volts
`500-1500 volts open circuit
`
`1) 768 open-circuit voltage in ‘817 App.
`2) 800-1200 open-circuit voltage in ‘743 App.
`
`up to 75 amperes
`
`up to 200 amperes
`
`No disclosure of 2.5:1 or any ratio
`
`No disclosure of 2.5:1 or any ratio
`
`See Reply Decl., Ex. 1188, ¶¶45-48
`
`14
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 2 – Disclosed & “Derived” Ratios/Voltages
`Ratios/Voltages
`Severinsky ‘970 does not disclose the
`ratio or voltage limitations
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`POR at 37.
`
`Severinsky ‘970, Ex. 1154 at 19:39-53. (emphasis added.)
`
`(Toyota Prius) 2.1 < a ratio of at least 2.5:1 < 4.19:1 < 24:1 and 28:1
`
`Ex. 1151, ‘634 Patent, 50:66-51:26
`
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188, ¶59
`
`at least 500 volts <
`
`1,000-1,400 volts
`500-1500 volts (open circuit)
`
`“Derived” Ratios from Severinsky ‘970
`
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188, ¶60
`
`From Severinsky ‘970
`
`15
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 2 – Disclosed & “Derived” Currents
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Severinsky ‘970 does not disclose the
`current limitations
`
`POR at 27.
`
`Severinsky ‘970, Ex. 1154 at 20:25-32
`
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶69
`
`Paice relies on an incorrect “derivation” of 119 amperes as support for the 150 amperes
`limitation. . . Paice applies the same flawed approach to “derive” a current of 29.828 amperes
`using the 60 hp lower value in one example, while ignoring the 50 amperes maximum current
`value that is provided in that example.
`
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶¶ 71-72
`
`29.828 < 30-75 < 119 < less than 150 amperes limitation
`amperes
`Amperes maximum
`amperes
`“derivation”
`current range, to 50
`“derivation”
`amperes
`
`From Severinsky ‘970
`
`16
`
`
`
`Sub-Issue 3-Burden
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`Sub-Issue 3: Whether Paice has met its burden of
`proof that the priority applications support the
`challenged claims
`
`Reply at 6-12.
`
`Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 454 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`Reply at 24.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Index
`
`Slide
`Number
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`IPR2015-00606
`
`IPR2015-00799
`
`Petition at 7. (color annotation added)
`Reply at 4.
`
`POR at 18-32
`Reply, 29 at 6-12
`
`Petition at 7.
`Reply at 4.
`
`POR at 18-32
`Reply, 29 at 6-12
`
`Petition at 8.
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1161 at 89:18-90:28
`
`Petition at 8.
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1971 at 89:18-90:28
`
`Reply at 4; Reply Decl. ¶12-13
`Reply at 4; Reply Decl. ¶14
`Reply at 4-5, Reply Decl. ¶9-15
`‘866 CIP App, Ex. 1161 at 90:2-14
`
`‘866 CIP App, Ex. 1161 at 90:26-28
`‘743 Application, Ex., 1163, at 16:5-8
`Stein Tr., Ex. 2109, at 81:16-24
`‘817 Application, Ex., 1162, at 50-51
`
`Reply at 4; Reply Decl. ¶12-13
`Reply at 4; Reply Decl. ¶14
`Reply at 4-5, Reply Decl. ¶9-15
`‘866 CIP App, Ex. 1971 at 90:2-14
`
`‘866 CIP App, Ex. 1971 at 90:26-28
`‘743 Application, Ex., 1163, at 16:5-8
`Stein Tr., Ex. 2109, at 81:16-24
`‘817 Application, Ex., 1972, at 50-51
`
`POR at 38. (color annotation added)
`
`POR at 38.
`
`POR at 38. (color annotation added)
`Ex. 1151, ‘634 Patent, 50:66-51:26
`
`POR at 33.
`‘817 Application, Ex. 1162 at 50:22-29
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1161 at 90:9-12
`
`Petition at 8.
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1161 at 89-90
`
`Ex.1164, ‘634 File History at 311
`Ex.1152, Stein Decl., at ¶113
`
`Reply at 12-21.
`Reply at 12-16.
`Reply at 12-13.
`Reply at 14.
`POR at 18-32; Reply at 16-21
`
`POR at 38.
`Ex. 1961, ‘634 Patent, 50:66-51:26
`
`POR at 33.
`‘817 Application, Ex. 1972 at 50:22-29
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1971 at 90:9-12
`
`Petition at 8.
`‘866 CIP App., Ex. 1971 at 89-90
`
`Ex.1974, ‘634 File History at 311
`Ex.1962, Stein Decl., at ¶113
`
`Reply at 12-21.
`Reply at 12-16.
`Reply at 12-13.
`Reply at 14.
`POR at 18-32; Reply at 16-21
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`18
`
`
`
`Index
`
`Slide
`Number
`
`IPR2015-00606
`
`IPR2015-00799
`
`IPR 2015-00606
`IPR 2015-00799
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`‘817 Application, Ex. 1162 at 18:24-30
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶¶43-44
`See Reply Decl., Ex. 1188, ¶¶45-48
`
`POR at 37.
`Severinsky ‘970, Ex. 1154 at 19:39-53. (emphasis added.)
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶59
`Ex. 1151, ‘634 Patent, 50:66-51:26
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188, ¶60
`
`POR at 27.
`Servinsky ‘970, Ex. 1154 at 19:39-53.
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶69
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1188 at ¶¶71-72
`
`Reply at 6-12.
`Reply at 24.
`
`‘817 Application, Ex. 1972 at 18:24-30
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1999 at ¶¶43-44
`See Reply Decl., Ex. 1999, ¶¶45-48
`
`POR at 28.
`Servinsky ‘970, Ex. 1964 at 19:39-53.
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1999 at ¶59
`Ex. 1961, ‘634 Patent, 50:66-51:26
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1999 at ¶¶60
`
`POR at 28.
`Servinsky ‘970, Ex. 1964 at 19:39-53.
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1999 at ¶69
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1999 at ¶¶71-72
`
`Reply at 6-12.
`Reply at 24.
`
`19
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
