`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`_________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE
`CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. JEFFREY STEIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`Ex. 2901
`
`Ex. 2902
`Ex. 2903
`
`Ex. 2904
`Ex. 2905
`Ex. 2906
`
`Ex. 2907
`
`Ex. 2908
`
`Exhibit Name
`Table of Ford’s IPR Petitions
`Bosch Automotive Handbook, 1996 ed.
`Declaration of Daniel A. Tishman in Support of
`Patent Owners’ Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Neil Hannemann
`Neil Hannemann CV
`ZVEI, Voltage Classes for Electric Mobility
`(December 2013)
`Gregory W. Davis Deposition Tr. (IPR2015-00758)
`(January 13, 2016)
`Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Stein, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`In exhibit 2908, on page 31, line 24 to page 34, line 3, Dr. Stein
`
`1.
`
`testified that claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“the ’970 patent”) discloses a
`
`battery providing a maximum current of 75 amperes to the electric motor, that the
`
`corresponding voltage would be a voltage under load, and that claim 8 (which
`
`depends from claim 7) states that the corresponding voltage is between 500 to
`
`1,500 volts. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 64-68 of Dr. Stein’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1999). The testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Stein’s
`
`reply declaration testimony that the ’970 patent does not disclose 500 to 1,500
`
`volts under load.
`
`2.
`
`In exhibit 2908, on page 46, line 7-21 and page 47 line 18 to page 48,
`
`line 3, Dr. Stein testified that both claim 7 (at column 23) and column 19 of
`
`the ’970 patent disclose providing a maximum current of 75 amperes and that both
`
`claim 8 (which depends from claim 7 and also found at column 23) and column 19
`
`of the ’970 patent both disclose voltages of 500 to 1,500 volts. This testimony is
`
`relevant to paragraphs 64-68 of Dr. Stein’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1999). The
`
`testimony is relevant because it calls into question Dr. Stein’s reply declaration
`
`testimony that the ’970 patent disclosure that “[t]ypical maximum voltages
`
`corresponding to light and heavy vehicles are between 500 and 1,500 volts” found
`
`on column 19 of the ’970 patent are not clearly voltages under load.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`In exhibit 2908, on page 73, line 17-25, Dr. Stein testified that when
`
`3.
`
`the battery is providing power and there's a current flowing, the corresponding
`
`voltage is a voltage under load. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 25-31 of
`
`Dr. Stein’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1999). The testimony is relevant because it
`
`calls into question Dr. Stein’s reply declaration testimony that U.S. Application
`
`No. 09/392,743’s disclosure that disclosed operating voltages in the sentence “the
`
`vehicle’s electrical system operates at higher voltage than conventional electric and
`
`hybrid vehicles, e.g., 800 - 1200 V as compared to 240 V; this approximate three-
`
`fold increase in the operating voltage provides a concomitant reduction in the
`
`current that flows in the various modes of operation of the vehicle, to one-third the
`
`current that would flow for the same amount of power transfer in a low-voltage
`
`system” are not voltages under load.
`
`4.
`
`In exhibit 2908, on page 70, line 15 to page 71, line 8, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that when a hybrid vehicle is being driven, the electrical system will
`
`provide current for movement of the vehicle. This testimony is relevant to
`
`paragraphs 25-31 of Dr. Stein’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1999). The testimony is
`
`relevant because it calls into question Dr. Stein’s reply declaration testimony that
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/392,743’s disclosure that disclosed operating voltages in
`
`the sentence “the vehicle’s electrical system operates at higher voltage than
`
`conventional electric and hybrid vehicles, e.g., 800 - 1200 V as compared to 240
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`V; this approximate three-fold increase in the operating voltage provides a
`
`concomitant reduction in the current that flows in the various modes of operation
`
`of the vehicle, to one-third the current that would flow for the same amount of
`
`power transfer in a low-voltage system” are not voltages under load.
`
`5.
`
`In exhibit 2908, on page 77, line 18 to page 78, line 2, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that when the nominal voltage is increased by threefold, the corresponding
`
`current remains zero. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 25-31 of Dr. Stein’s
`
`Reply Declaration (Ex. 1999). The testimony is relevant because it calls into
`
`question Dr. Stein’s reply declaration testimony that U.S. Application No.
`
`09/392,743’s disclosure that disclosed operating voltages in the sentence “the
`
`vehicle’s electrical system operates at higher voltage than conventional electric and
`
`hybrid vehicles, e.g., 800 - 1200 V as compared to 240 V; this approximate three-
`
`fold increase in the operating voltage provides a concomitant reduction in the
`
`current that flows in the various modes of operation of the vehicle, to one-third the
`
`current that would flow for the same amount of power transfer in a low-voltage
`
`system” are nominal voltages and not voltages under load.
`
`6.
`
`In exhibit 2908, on page 90, line 23 to page 91, line 15, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that hybrid vehicle design considerations prevent the maximum voltage of
`
`the electrical system to reach infinity. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 64-
`
`68 of Dr. Stein’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1999). The testimony is relevant because
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`it calls into question Dr. Stein’s reply declaration testimony that the ’970 patent
`
`does not provide written description support for the at least 500 volts limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Brian J. Livedalen/
`
`Timothy W. Riffe (Reg. No. 43,881)
`Kevin Greene, (Reg. No. 46,031)
`Brian J. Livedalen (Reg. No. 67,450)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`P.O. Box 1022
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`Tel: (202) 626-6447
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Paice LLC & Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2015-00799
`Patent 7,237,634
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on May 20,
`
`2016, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations
`
`was provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email
`
`address of record as follows:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`Michael D. Cushion
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`
`Email: FPGP0104IPR13@brookskushman.com
`Email: ipt.docketchi@dentons.con
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420