throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: November 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,455,134 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’134 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`Owner, Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., filed a Preliminary
`
`Response in both unredacted and redacted form. Papers 7 and 8 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.” ).1 Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Seal. Paper 9 (“Mot. to
`
`Seal.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that
`
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`
`presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in challenging any of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 as
`
`unpatentable. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we do not
`
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’134 patent is involved in Paice, LLC v. Ford Motor Company,
`
`No. 1-14-cv-00492, filed on February 19, 2014, in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Maryland. Pet. 1. Petitioner filed an earlier Petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’134 patent, but we did not institute trial. Ford
`
`Motor Company v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., Case IPR2014-
`
`00568 (PTAB Sept. 8, 2014) (Paper 12).
`
`
`
`1 Citations are to the redacted version of the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner marked Paper 8 for
`“Parties and Board Only.” The paper will be made publicly available in due
`course.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`B. The ’134 Patent (Ex. 1101)
`
`The ’134 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`
`combustion engine, a traction motor, a starter motor, and a battery bank, all
`
`controlled by a microprocessor. Ex. 1101, Abs. Figure 4, reproduced
`
`below, shows a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle. Id. at Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 illustrates a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle.
`
`The hybrid vehicle includes two wheels 34 operable to propel the
`
`vehicle, traction motor 25, starting motor 21, and engine 40 coupled to
`
`starting motor 21. Id. Inverter/charger 27 is coupled to traction motor 25
`
`and inverter/charger 23 is coupled to starting motor 21. Id. Battery bank 22
`
`is coupled to inverter/charger 23, as well as inverter/charger 27.
`
`Controller 48 controls the operation of engine 40 and motors 21 and 25. Id.
`
`The components of the vehicle “are to be sized so that the ratio between
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`battery voltage under load to peak current is at least about 2.5, and
`
`preferably is at least 3.5 to 4:1.” Id. at 50:5–9.
`
`C. Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3,
`
`5, 6, 19, 27, and 40, which depend directly from claim 1. Petitioner also
`
`challenges independent claim 58. Claim 1 reads:
`
`A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`1.
`
`at least two wheels, operable to receive power to propel
`
`said hybrid vehicle;
`
`a first alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to
`provide power to said at least two wheels to propel said hybrid
`vehicle;
`
`a second AC electric motor;
`
`an engine coupled to said second electric motor, operable
`to provide power to said at least two wheels to propel the
`hybrid vehicle, and/or to said second electric motor to drive the
`second electric motor to generate electric power;
`(AC-DC)
`
`a
`first alternating current-direct current
`converter having an AC side coupled to said first electric motor,
`operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to
`DC or AC current respectively;
`
`a second AC-DC converter coupled to said second
`electric motor, at least operable to accept AC current and
`convert the current to DC;
`
`an electrical storage device coupled to a DC side of said
`AC-DC converters, wherein the electrical storage device is
`operable to store DC energy received from said AC-DC
`converters and provide DC energy to at least said first AC-DC
`converter for providing power to at least said first electric
`motor; and
`
`a controller, operable to start and stop the engine to
`minimize fuel consumption;
`
`wherein a ratio of maximum DC voltage on the DC side
`of at least said first AC-DC converter coupled to said first
`electric motor to current supplied from said electrical storage
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`device to at least said first AC-DC converter, when maximum
`current is so supplied, is at least 2.5.
`
`Id. at 56:43–57:7.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 of the
`
`’134 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the
`
`following specific grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Ehsani2 and Ehsani NPL3
`Ehsani, Ehsani NPL, and Vittone4
`Ehsani
`Kawakatsu5 and Ehsani
`Kawakatsu, Ehsani, and Yamaguchi6
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Challenged
`
`Claim[s]
`
`1–3, 5, and 6
`
`40
`
`58
`
`1–3, 5, 6, 19, and 58
`
`27
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`
`we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this decision. In an
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613, issued Dec. 24, 1996 (Ex. 1103) (“Ehsani”).
`3 Yimin Gao et al., The Energy Flow Management and Battery Energy
`Capacity Determination for the Drive Train and Electrically Peaking Hybrid
`Vehicle, SAE 972647 (1997) (Ex. 1106) (“Ehsani NPL”).
`4 Oreste Vittone et al., Fiat Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Car Design,
`12th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (1994) (Ex. 1107)
`(“Vittone”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429, issued June 15, 1982 (Ex. 1104)
`(“Kawakatsu”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263, filed Feb. 23, 1996, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex.
`1105) (“Yamaguchi”).
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired patent
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). For purposes of this decision, we only need to construe the term
`
`“maximum DC voltage.”
`
`“maximum DC voltage”
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the “maximum DC voltage” recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 58 refers to a voltage under load, and not a
`
`nominal voltage (i.e., a voltage not under load), citing to examples in the
`
`’134 patent. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. Although Petitioner does not construe the
`
`“maximum DC voltage” limitation, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jeffrey L.
`
`Stein, agrees with this construction. In particular, Dr. Stein opines that “[a]s
`
`it is used in the claims and the specification of the ’134 patent, the maximum
`
`DC voltage refers to a maximum DC voltage under load” and that the
`
`maximum DC voltage “when maximum current is so supplied” refers to the
`
`maximum DC voltage under peak electrical load. Ex. 1102 ¶ 181. We agree
`
`that the plain language of the claims of a “maximum DC voltage . . . when
`
`maximum current is so supplied” means a voltage under load and excludes a
`
`nominal voltage (a voltage not under load).
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`B. All Grounds of Obviousness Based in Part on Ehsani
`
`Petitioner contends that all challenged claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40,
`
`and 58 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various
`
`combinations of prior art. In each of the proposed challenges, Petitioner
`
`relies on Ehsani to teach the “wherein” limitation of independent claims 1
`
`and 58. Pet. 24–25, 41, 48–49, 56. In particular, claim 1 recites “wherein a
`
`ratio of maximum DC voltage . . . to current supplied from said electrical
`
`storage device to at least said first AC-DC converter, when maximum
`
`current is so supplied, is at least 2.5.” Claim 58 recites nearly an identical
`
`limitation. Ex. 1101, 64:12–16. The limitation in all of the challenged
`
`claims requires a maximum DC voltage to current supplied to be at least 2.5.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not made a sufficient
`
`showing that Ehsani teaches a maximum DC voltage to current supplied to
`
`be at least 2.5, or that that ratio would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`1. Ehsani
`
`Ehsani describes an electrically peaking hybrid system and method of
`
`generating hybrid electric-combustion power. Ex. 1103, 1:13–16. Figure 5,
`
`reproduced below, shows a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle. Id. at Fig. 5.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
` Figure 5 illustrates a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle.
`
`
`
`The hybrid vehicle includes two wheels 20, operable to propel the
`
`vehicle, electric motor 51, generator 50, engine 16 coupled to generator 50.
`
`Id. AC/DC converter 54 is coupled to electric motor 51 and AC/DC
`
`converter 52 is coupled to generator 50. Id. Battery 24 is coupled to AC/DC
`
`converter 52, as well as AC/DC converter 54. Controller 14 controls the
`
`operation of engine 16, converter 22, and battery 24. Id. at 7:1–2.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that Ehsani describes an embodiment within the
`
`scope of the “at least 2.5” ratio range recited in claims 1 and 58. Although
`
`Petitioner asserts that Ehsani describes, in general, operating the AC electric
`
`machines at a high voltage and relatively low current, citing to column six,
`
`lines 57–67 (Pet. 17), Petitioner acknowledges that Ehsani does not describe
`
`any specific numeric ratio of a maximum DC voltage to current supplied.
`
`Id. at 25. Nonetheless, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Stein to
`
`demonstrate that Ehsani describes parameters that a person of ordinary skill
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`in the art would have recognized would lead to two different ratios of DC
`
`voltage to current supplied. Id. at 24–26; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 182, 197.
`
`The first ratio of 10:1 is calculated by Dr. Stein using parameters
`
`found in Ehsani of a nominal voltage of 700V divided by a maximum
`
`current of 70A. Ex. 1102 ¶ 182. As discussed in the claim construction
`
`section, a “maximum DC voltage . . . when maximum current is so supplied”
`
`means a voltage under load and excludes a nominal voltage (a voltage not
`
`under load). Accordingly, the first ratio has not been shown to be an
`
`embodiment within the scope of the at least 2.5 ratio range.7
`
`The second ratio of 8.82:1 is calculated by Dr. Stein using parameters
`
`found in the ’134 patent. Pet. 25; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 183–197. Ehsani describes
`
`that battery 24 is a lead-acid battery. Ex. 1103, 5:16–17. Dr. Stein testifies
`
`that the maximum voltage drop of the Ehsani 700 volt lead-acid battery bank
`
`under peak load conditions would be approximately 70 volts, resulting in a
`
`DC bus voltage under load no less than approximately 630 volts when a
`
`maximum current of about 70 amperes is being supplied. Ex. 1102 ¶ 184.
`
`To determine the internal resistance of the Ehsani battery, and, thus, the
`
`voltage drop, Dr. Stein looks to the vehicle parameters used in the
`
`’134 patent. Id. ¶¶ 185–197. Dr. Stein concludes that under the maximum
`
`current condition, the ratio of the maximum DC voltage to current is 8.82:1.
`
`Id. ¶ 199.
`
`
`
`7 Dr. Stein opines that “[a] case can be made that the DC bus voltage refers
`to a voltage under load” but does not explain how that case can be made. Ex.
`1102 ¶ 182. Petitioner has not shown that the DC bus voltage described in
`Ehsani refers to a voltage under load.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Stein’s calculation of DC maximum
`
`voltage to current supplied of 8.82:1, based on parameters found in the
`
`disclosure of the’134 patent, as opposed to parameters found in Ehsani, is
`
`improper. Prelim. Resp. 20–32. We agree with Patent Owner that the
`
`information contained in the ’134 patent has not been shown by Petitioner to
`
`be information that would have been known by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, as opposed to information known only to the inventors of the ’134
`
`patent. Even Petitioner recognizes that the design parameters described in
`
`the ’134 patent, used by Dr. Stein to arrive at the 8.82:1 ratio, dictate the
`
`claimed ratio, which is described as the “further improvements” of the ’134
`
`patent. Pet. 25; Ex. 1101, 49:10–57. As such, Petitioner has not shown that
`
`the information Dr. Stein relies on from the ’134 patent to arrive at an
`
`embodiment within the scope of the claim was known to anyone other than
`
`the inventors of the ’134 patent. Petitioner, therefore, has failed to establish
`
`that Ehsani discloses the claimed ratio. Petitioner does not provide a
`
`rationale as to why the claimed ratio would have otherwise been obvious.
`
`For these reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging any of claims 1–3, 5,
`
`6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 as unpatentable.
`
`C. Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`
`
`Patent Owner moves to seal the unredacted Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 7) and Exhibit 2101. Paper 9. In rendering our decision
`
`not to institute trial, we found it unnecessary to rely on the information
`
`Patent Owner seeks to maintain as sealed. For these reasons, we expunge
`
`the unredacted version of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and
`
`Exhibit 2101. Patent Owner’s motion to seal is dismissed as moot.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19,
`
`27, 40, and 58 of the ’134 patent as unpatentable. In rendering our decision,
`
`we found it unnecessary to rely on documents Patent Owner seeks to
`
`maintain as sealed, and, therefore, we expunge from the record the sealed
`
`documents and dismiss Patent Owner’s motion to seal.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Upon consideration of the record before us, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to seal is
`
`dismissed; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s unredacted preliminary
`
`response (Paper 7) and Exhibit 2101 be expunged from the record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00852
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Frank Angileri
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Sangeeta Shah
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`riffe@fr.com
`
`Kevin E. Greene
`IPR36351-0012IP1@fr.com
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`FORD 1248
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket