Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: September 8, 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 IPR2014-00568
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: September 8, 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 IPR2014-00568
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,455,134 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’134 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`
`Patent Owner, Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., filed an unredacted
`
`and redacted Preliminary Response. 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, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62
`
`as unpatentable. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we do not
`
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19,
`
`20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62 of the ’134 patent.
`
`
`
`1 Citations are to the Patent Owner redacted 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 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’134 patent is involved in Paice, LLC et al. 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. 2.
`
`B. The ’134 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`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. 1001, 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`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 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, 20, 26, 27, and 40, which depend directly from claim 1. Petitioner
`
`also challenges independent claim 58 and dependent claim 62, which
`
`depends directly from claim 58. Claim 1 reads:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`
`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)
`first alternating current-direct current
`a
`
`converter having an AC side coupled to said first electric motor,
`4
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62
`
`of the ’134 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on
`
`the following specific grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`’455 PCT publication2
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`’455 PCT publication
`
`’455 PCT publication and Ehsani3
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26,
`27, 40, 58, and 62
`1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26,
`27, 40, 58, and 62
`6
`
`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
`
`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
`
`also 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.
`
`
`
`2 PCT International Publication Number WO 00/015455, published Mar. 23,
`2000 (Ex. 1016) (“the ’455 PCT publication”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613, issued Dec. 24, 1996 (Ex. 1017) (“Ehsani”).
`6
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`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. 16-17. 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. 1002 ¶¶ 98, 150. We
`
`agree with the parties 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).
`
`B. Anticipation by the ’455 PCT publication
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the ’455 PCT
`
`publication. Pet. 23-38. To support its contention, Petitioner provides
`
`detailed claim charts explaining how each claim limitation is described in
`
`the ’455 PCT publication. Id. at 25–27, 29–38. Petitioner also cites the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stein for support.
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`1. The ’455 PCT publication as prior art
`
`The ’455 PCT publication is a printed publication of International
`
`Application No. PCT/US99/18844, filed September 10, 1999. Ex. 1016.
`
`The application that issued as the ’134 patent was filed May 8, 2006, but
`
`claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the benefit of applications that have a date
`
`prior to September 10, 1999. Although the ’455 PCT publication is an
`
`intervening printed publication—published prior to the actual filing date of
`
`the ’134 patent, but after the earliest filing date claimed under § 120—
`
`Petitioner nevertheless alleges that the ’455 PCT publication is prior art to
`
`the challenged claims. Pet. 9.
`
`The ’134 patent contains the following benefit claims under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 120:
`
`Division of application No. 10/382,577, filed on Mar. 7, 2003,
`now Pat. No. 7,104,347, which is a division of application No.
`09/822,866, filed on Apr. 2, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,554,088, and
`a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/392,743, filed on
`Sep. 9, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,338,391, which is a continuation-
`in-part of application No. 09/264,817, filed on Mar. 9, 1999,
`now Pat. No. 6,209,672.
`
`Provisional application No. 60/122,296, filed on Mar. 1, 1999,
`provisional application No. 60/100,095, filed on Sep. 14, 1998.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1. The ’455 PCT publication was published on March 23, 2000,
`
`prior to the actual filing date (May 8, 2006) of the application that issued as
`
`the ’134 patent and the filing dates of application No. 10/382,577 (“the ’577
`
`application”) and application No. 09/822,866 (“the ’866 application”). The
`
`’455 PCT publication was published, however, after the filing dates of
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`application No. 09/392,743 (“the ’743 application”) and application No.
`
`09/264,817 (“the ’817 application”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the application that issued as the ’134 patent is
`
`not entitled to benefit under § 120 of an application having a date prior to
`
`April 2, 2001—the date of the ’866 application. Pet. 7, 9. Petitioner
`
`recognizes that under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the challenged claims are entitled to
`
`priority if the claimed subject matter is disclosed continuously to the claimed
`
`priority date. Petitioner argues, however, that prior to the April 2, 2001,
`
`filing date of the ’866 application, there is no disclosure of the claimed “at
`
`least 2.5” ratio of maximum DC voltage to current supplied. Id. at 9;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 88–113. Patent Owner does not argue that the challenged
`
`claims of the ’134 patent are entitled to a date prior to April 2, 2001. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 3–4.
`
`A patent claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-
`
`filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier-filed application
`
`provides support for the patent claim as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`paragraph. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The test for
`
`determining compliance with the written description requirement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is whether the disclosure of the earlier-filed
`
`application reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor
`
`had possession at that time of the claimed subject matter. Ariad Pharms.,
`
`Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); In re
`
`Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues, directing attention to the Declaration of Dr. Stein,
`
`that prior to the April 2, 2001 filing date of the ’866 application, there is no
`
`explicit disclosure of the “at least 2.5” ratio recited in all of the challenged
`
`claims. Pet. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96-97. On this record, we credit the testimony
`
`of Dr. Stein that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`that nothing in the ’743 application or in the ’817 application shows that the
`
`’134 patentee possessed the “at least 2.5” ratio claimed in the challenged
`
`claims. Moreover, we find persuasive, for purposes of this decision,
`
`Petitioner’s argument, with supporting evidence, that prior to the April 2,
`
`2001, filing date of the ’866 application, there is no implicit or inherent
`
`disclosure of the range of the “at least 2.5” ratio. Pet. 12-14. For the above
`
`reasons, and based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown that the
`
`challenged claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than April 2, 2001,
`
`and, therefore, the ’455 PCT publication is available as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) against the ’134 patent claims.
`
`2. The ’455 PCT publication description
`
`The ’455 PCT publication describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`
`combustion engine, a traction motor, a starting motor, and a battery bank, all
`
`controlled by a microprocessor. Ex. 1016, Abs. Figure 4, which is identical
`
`to the ’134 patent Figure 4 reproduced above, shows a block diagram of a
`
`hybrid vehicle. Id. at Fig. 4. 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.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that the ’455 PCT publication discloses all the
`
`limitations of claims 1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62. Pet. 23–38.
`
`Both parties appear to agree that the ’455 PCT publication is a combination
`
`of the disclosures of the ’743 and ’817 applications. Pet. 24; Prelim. Resp.
`
`3.
`
`The ’455 PCT publication does not expressly disclose the “wherein”
`
`limitation of independent claims 1 and 58. 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. 1001, 64:12-16. The limitation in all of the claims
`
`requires a maximum DC voltage to current supplied to be at least 2.5.
`
`Although Petitioner argues that the ’455 PCT publication does not
`
`provide written description support for the entire range of the “at least 2.5”
`
`ratio, Petitioner further contends that the ’455 PCT publication inherently
`
`describes an embodiment within the scope of the “at least 2.5” ratio range.
`
`In particular, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Stein to demonstrate
`
`that the ’455 PCT publication describes parameters that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have recognized would lead to two different ratios of
`
`DC voltage to current supplied. Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 150-151.
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`The first ratio of maximum DC voltage to current supplied of 3.84:1 is
`
`calculated by Dr. Stein using parameters found in the ’455 PCT publication
`
`of a nominal voltage of 768V divided by a maximum current of 200A. Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 150. 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 is not an embodiment within the scope of the at
`
`least 2.5 ratio range. Dr. Stein appears to recognize this. Id.
`
`The second ratio of maximum DC voltage to current supplied of
`
`2.76:1 is calculated by Dr. Stein using parameters found in the ’455 PCT
`
`publication and the ’866 application, for which the ’134 Patent is entitled to
`
`priority. Pet. 27, Ex. 1002 ¶ 151. The ’455 PCT publication describes that
`
`battery bank 22 comprises lead-acid batteries. Ex. 1016, 34:33-36.4 Dr.
`
`Stein testifies that although the “’455 PCT publication does not disclose the
`
`voltage of battery bank 22 ‘under load,’” the maximum voltage drop of the
`
`’455 PCT publication 768 volt lead-acid battery bank under peak electrical
`
`load conditions would be approximately 215 volts, resulting in a lowest
`
`maximum voltage of the battery under load of 553 volts. Ex. 1002 ¶ 151.
`
`Dr. Stein opines that under the maximum current condition, the ratio, then,
`
`of the maximum DC voltage to current is 2.76:1. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Stein’s calculation of the DC maximum
`
`voltage to current supplied of 2.76:1 is based on parameters found in the
`
`
`
`4 Citations are to the annotated page numbers added by the Petitioner.
`12
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`disclosure of the ’866 application, to which the ’134 patent is entitled to
`
`priority, as opposed to parameters that are found in the ’455 PCT
`
`publication. Prelim. Resp. 25-26. Dr. Stein, in arriving at the 2.76:1 ratio,
`
`refers back to earlier paragraphs 100–110 of his Declaration in support of
`
`the ratio. In one of those earlier paragraphs of his Declaration, Dr. Stein
`
`explains that “[u]sing the ‘Further Improvements’ section of the ’866 CIP
`
`application as a basis for my calculations, it is my determination that the
`
`approximate voltage drop of a 768 volt lead-acid battery bank under these
`
`load conditions (i.e., ‘when maximum current is so supplied’) would be
`
`approximately 215 volts.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. The voltage drop calculation is
`
`arrived at by using examples from the ’866 application. Id. ¶ 102-109.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that it is impermissible for the Petitioner
`
`to take parameters from the ’866 application to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention. First, the proposed ground is one of anticipation, not
`
`obviousness. There is no indication that the “inherent” or “implicit” ratio of
`
`2.76:1 could be arrived at with the parameters solely from the ’455 PCT
`
`publication and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Stein opines that the ratio is arrived at by considering parameters
`
`in the ’866 application. Moreover, as Patent Owner correctly notes, there is
`
`no explanation as to why the battery bank in the ’455 PCT publication
`
`necessarily has the same value for the resistance/volt metric calculated in the
`
`Stein Declaration based on the examples given in the ’866 application. As
`
`pointed out by Patent Owner, Dr. Stein does not establish that the metrics he
`
`uses are the same for every battery of a given type. Prelim. Resp. 27. Dr.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`Stein does not indicate in his Declaration that the battery described in the
`
`’455 PCT publication necessarily would have the same internal resistance as
`
`the battery described in the ’866 application.
`
`Without an explanation to the contrary we determine that the
`
`Petitioner is combining the teachings of two references to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention. We agree with Patent Owner that this is not permissible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Moreover, the information contained in the ’866
`
`application 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 ’866 application. Because
`
`the ’134 patent is entitled to the benefit of the ’866 filing date, Petitioner has
`
`not shown that the information Dr. Stein relies on from the ’866 application
`
`to arrive at an embodiment within the scope of the claim was known to
`
`anyone other than the inventors of the ’134 patent.
`
`For these reasons, we determine that the information presented by
`
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`
`ground that claims 1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the ’455 PCT publication.
`
`C. Obviousness based on the ’455 PCT publication
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the ’455 PCT
`
`publication. Pet. 38. The Petition states that “[i]f the Board were to find
`
`that the ’455 PCT publication did not exactly teach any of the limitations of
`
`claims 1-3, 5, 19-20, 26-27, 40, 58 and 62, then slight variations of the ’455
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`PCT publication would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`(Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶212).” Paragraph 212 of the Stein Declaration
`
`essentially repeats this statement. No other explanation is provided.
`
`A petition must identify with particularity each claim challenged, the
`
`grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that
`
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).
`
`In addition, each petition must include a statement of the precise relief
`
`requested and a full statement of the reasons for the requested relief,
`
`including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including
`
`material facts, the governing law, rules, and precedent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.22(a). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), the petition must specify where
`
`each element of a challenged claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`
`publications. The relevance of the evidence supporting the challenge must
`
`be provided including identification of specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support the challenge. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5).
`
`Petitioner’s conclusory statement fails to satisfy any of the above-
`
`noted requirements and is lacking in detail. The Petition fails to provide an
`
`analysis to support the assertion of obviousness over the ’455 PCT
`
`publication, or explain the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`’455 PCT publication. Nor does the Petitioner explain why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious
`
`in spite of those differences. Petitioner has not provided sufficient reasoning
`
`or facts on which to base a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have found it obvious, in light of the ’455 PCT publication, to
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`adjust parameters so that “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.”
`
`For these reasons, we determine that the information presented by
`
`Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`
`ground that claims 1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the ’455 PCT publication.
`
`D. Obviousness based on the ’455 PCT publication and Ehsani
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over the ’455 PCT publication and Ehsani. Pet. 39.
`
`Petitioner relies on Ehsani to meet the limitations of claim 6. For the
`
`reasons set forth above, however, Petitioner has not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the ground that claim 1 is
`
`unpatentable. Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and by virtue of its
`
`dependency, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on the ground of unpatentability of claim 6 over the ’455
`
`PCT publication and Ehsani.
`
`E. Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner moves to seal the unredacted Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 7) and Exhibit 2001. Paper 9 at 1. 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
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`Response and Exhibit 2001. Patent Owner’s motion to seal is dismissed as
`
`moot.
`
`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,
`
`20, 26, 27, 40, 58, and 62 of the ’134 patent as unpatentable. In rendering
`
`our decision, we found it unnecessary to rely on documents the Patent
`
`Owner seeks to maintain as sealed, and, therefore, we expunge from the
`
`record the sealed documents and dismiss the 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 2001 be expunged from the record.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00568
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Frank Angileri
`Sangeeta Shah
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Lissi Mojica
`Dentons US LLP
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`IPR36351-0012IP1@fr.com
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`FORD 1967
`
`
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
