`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`Date: April 4, 2017
`
` Cary Kappel, Lead Counsel
`William Gehris, Backup Counsel
`David Petroff, Backup Counsel
`Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
`589 8th Avenue, 16th Floor
`New York, NY 10018
`Telephone: (212) 736-1257
`
` (212) 736-2015
` (212) 736-1940
`Facsimile: (212) 736-2427
`Email: ckappel@ddkpatent.com
` wgehris@ddkpatent.com
` dpetroff@ddkpatent.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` _______________
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. and VALEO EMBRAYAGES,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`SCHAEFFLER TECHNOLOGIES AG & CO. KG,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374 B2
`_______________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 2
`
`"Torsional Vibration Absorber" ............................................................. 3
`
`Torsional Vibration Absorber "Is Parallel To" Both Damper Stages .... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Ignores The Claim Language "Both
`
`Damper Stages" ..................................................................... 7
`
`Petitioner Improperly Imports The Language "Power Path"
`
`And "Torque Generated" Into The Claims .........................11
`
`Petitioner Improperly Relies On Alleged Prior Art Haller To
`
`Support Their Construction .................................................13
`
`Patent Owner's Construction "the Torsional Vibration
`
`Absorber is Connected Via a Single Piece Connection to the
`
`Input of the Second Stage and to the Output of the First
`
`Stage" is Supported by the Claim Language and the
`
`Specification ........................................................................15
`
`III.
`
`Petitioner Cannot Demonstrate A Reasonable Likelihood Of Prevailing
`
`On Any Asserted Ground Because Their Construction Of "Is Parallel
`
`To" Is Improper And Required For Every Claim ...................................... 17
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`Petitioner's Expert Report Is Conclusory And Not Entitled To Any
`
`Weight ........................................................................................................ 18
`
`V.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 And 3 Are Not Anticipated By Haller ...................... 19
`
`A.
`
` Claim 1: Haller Fails To Disclose A Torsional Absorber That Is
`
`Parallel To Both Damper Stages ...................................................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Identify Sufficient Evidence To
`
`Anticipate Claim 1 ..............................................................19
`
`Petitioner Relies On Inapplicable Passages Of Haller To
`
`Support Their Analysis .......................................................25
`
`Haller Figure 8, At The Very Least, Fails To Disclose A
`
`Torsional Absorber That Is "Parallel To Both Damper
`
`Stages" .................................................................................28
`
`VI.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 8-10 And 14-16 Are Not Obvious Over Sasse
`
`And Haller .................................................................................................. 32
`
`A.
`
` Claim 1: Neither Sasse Nor Haller Discloses The Limitation: "The
`
`Torsional Vibration Absorber Is Parallel To Both Damper Stages"
`
` .......................................................................................................32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Sasse Does Not Disclose A Torsional Vibration Absorber
`
` .............................................................................................33
`
`Haller Does Not Disclose a Torsional Vibration Absorber
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`That is Parallel to Both Damper Stages" .............................35
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Proposed Modification of Sasse in View of Haller is
`
`Improper Because it Changes the Principle Operation of Sasse ...36
`
`Petitioner's Allegation of Invalidity under Ground 3 for Dependent
`
`Claims 2, 3, 8-10 And 14-16 Fail For the Same Reasons as Claim
`
`1 From Which They Depend .........................................................38
`
`VII.
`
`Ground 7: Claims 1-3, 10 And 14-16 Are Not Obvious Over Heuler And
`
`Haller .......................................................................................................... 38
`
`VIII.
`
`Grounds 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 Each Fail For the Same Reasons as Grounds
`
` 1 and 3 ....................................................................................................... 39
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................. 40
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985) ....................................................................................................................12
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ....................................... 3
`
`Ex parte Habashi et al, Appeal 2011-008847, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 8057 (Pat.
`
`App. 2013) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`Ex parte Vanscoyoc, Appeal 2011-011717, 2013 Pat. App. LEXIS 7627 (Pat.
`
`App. 2013) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`Ex parte Yasuhisa Ito, Appeal 2009-001701, 2009 Pat. App. Lexis 8758, 5-6
`
`(Pat. App. 2009) ...................................................................................................37
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................10
`
`In re American Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..........................................................14
`
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ...................................................................37
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................... 3
`
`Medtronic, Inc. And Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Lifeport Sciences LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00288, Final Written Decision, Paper 34, 2015 ...................................18
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................... 3
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc., v Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d
`
`747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 3, 7, 15
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ... 3
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Shaun L.W. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .... 3, 9, 10
`
`Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..............................................18
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................. 2, 17, 32, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3) ................................................................................................24
`
`35 U.S.C. §313 ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) .......................................................................................... 18, 24
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ...........................................................................................2, 14
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.107 ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(c) .................................................................................................. 2
`
` OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`J.P. Den Hartog, MECHANICAL VIBRATIONS, Sections 3.2, 3.3, 5.9 (1985),
`
`Ex. 2001 ...........................................................................................................6, 34
`
`MPEP 2143.01 (VI) (9th Ed. March 2014) .............................................................37
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §313 and 37 C.F.R. §42.107, Schaeffler Technologies
`
`AG & Co. KG ("Patent Owner"), submits the following Patent Owner's
`
`Preliminary Response in response to a Petition for inter partes review filed by
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. and Valeo Embrayages ("Petitioner") concerning claims
`
`1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374 ("the '374 patent"). (Ex. 1001).
`
`Petitioner asserts the following Grounds: claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by
`
`Haller, WO 2004/18897 ("Haller") (Ex. 1004) (Ground 1); claims 1-3, 8-10 and
`
`14-16 are obvious over Sasse, U.S. 7,073,646 ("Sasse") (Ex. 1003) and Haller
`
`(Ground 3); claims 1-3, 10 and 14-16 are obvious over Heuler, U.S. 2007/0235277
`
`("Heuler") (Ex.1018) and Haller (Ground 7); claims 2 and 10 are obvious over
`
`Sasse, Haller and Heuler (Ground 6); claim 4 is obvious over Haller and Eckel,
`
`U.S. 5,884,735 ("Eckel") (Ex.1010) (Ground 2); claims 4-7 are obvious over Sasse,
`
`Haller and Eckel (Ground 4); claim 4 is obvious over Heuler, Haller and Eckel
`
`(Ground 8); claims 11-13 are obvious over Sasse, Haller and MacDonald, U.S.
`
`6,053,292 ("MacDonald") (Ex. 1026) (Ground 5); claims 11-13 are obvious over
`
`Heuler, Haller, MacDonald and Schierling, DE 196 54 894, DE 19654,915, and
`
`DE 196 09 553 (collectively "Schierling") (Ex. 1022, 1023, 1024) (Ground 9).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`(Petition, pp. 15-91).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`The Petition should be denied because Petitioner fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. §42.108(c). Petitioner’s positions are based on clearly
`
`erroneous claim constructions. For example, the Petitioner astonishingly bases its
`
`key claim construction not on the ‘374 patent specification and the actual claim
`
`language, but rather on language found in the Haller prior art reference. This claim
`
`construction violates clear Federal Circuit precedent, as will be detailed below.
`
`Patent Owner argues in its preliminary response that the Petitioner has not
`
`met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. §314(a) with respect to independent claim
`
`1, and that the Petition fails with respect to claims 2-16 for at least the same
`
`reasons. The fact that this Preliminary Response does not address other aspects of
`
`the Petition is not an indication that the Patent Owner concedes any fact or issue.
`
`To the contrary, the Patent Owner expressly reserves its rights to contest any
`
`ground of patentability for which review is instituted.
`
`II. Claim Construction
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) specifies that in an inter partes review a patent claim
`
`"shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears" as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`the art. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). This
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`requires consideration of how the claims themselves, as well as the specification,
`
`inform a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PPC Broadband, Inc., v Corning
`
`Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The
`
`Board's approach in this case fails to account for how the claims themselves and
`
`the specification inform the ordinarily skilled artisan"). "Under a broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning,
`
`unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history."
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Shaun L.W. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
`
`citing Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). For a construction to be reasonable it must reasonably reflect the plain
`
`language and disclosure. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292,
`
`1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) ("A construction that is 'unreasonably broad' and which does not
`
`'reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure' will not pass muster").
`
`Petitioner provides proposed constructions for two terms in claim 1:
`
`"torsional vibration absorber" and "is parallel to." Each is addressed below.
`
`A.
`
`"Torsional Vibration Absorber"
`
`Petitioner alleges that "'Torsional vibration absorber' (claims 1–16)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`means a component or device designed to absorb torsional vibrations. As
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`described in the '374 patent, this includes movable masses disposed on
`
`mounting parts. (Ex. 1001, 1:43–45.) Some examples of movable masses
`
`disposed on mounting parts are compensation flywheels, frequency tuned mass-
`
`spring devices, and centrifugal force pendulums. (Id.; Ex. 1002 ¶ 22.)."
`
`(Petition, p. 12).
`
`Patent Owner disagrees. Petitioner’s definition is unreasonably broad, as
`
`is clear from the present specification. Rather, when considered in view of the
`
`specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "torsional
`
`vibration absorber" is "masses disposed movably on mounting parts to
`
`absorb torsional vibrations." This construction flows directly from the
`
`specification which draws a clear distinction between torsional dampers and
`
`torsional absorbers in the Background of the Invention section:
`
`To damp torsional vibrations of an internal combustion engine, the so-
`called torsional vibration dampers are used, which are driven via an
`input part, whereby the torque is transmitted to an output part that is
`relatively and limitedly rotatable with respect to said part, and through
`compression of energy accumulators, the energy is temporarily stored
`at torque peaks and released to the output part at torque troughs.
`***
`Another form of reducing torsional vibrations is the absorber
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`principle by which movable masses are disposed on mounting parts
`to counteract the effect of energy accumulators or in the case of
`centrifugal force pendulums, absorber masses are disposed tiltably
`on raceways extending in circumferential- and radially direction
`and hence the inertial moment of the mounting part is varied
`depending on vibration influences.
`(Ex. 1001, '374 patent, 1:37-50)
`
`As is known in the art, a torsional vibration absorber absorbs vibrations by
`
`providing masses disposed movably on mounting parts. Petitioner appears to
`
`concede this in the last two sentences of their construction.
`
`Further, when applying the prior art to the claims of the '374 patent,
`
`Petitioner appears to treat "damper" as a synonym for "absorber". (Petition, p. 30
`
`("[b]ecause the supplemental mass … dampens vibrations, it is an example of a
`
`torsional vibration absorber")). This is improper in view of the clear distinction
`
`between "torsional vibration damper" and "torsional vibration absorber" made both
`
`in the claims of the '374 patent and in the passage of the specification outlined
`
`above.
`
`Further, the distinction between torsional vibrational dampers and torsional
`
`vibration absorbers is also well known in the art, and it is manifestly improper for
`
`Petitioner to treat one as a synonym for the other. For example, in Ex. 2001, J.P.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`Den Hartog, MECHANICAL VIBRATIONS, pp. 87-105, 210-224 (1985), section
`
`
`
`5.9, entitled "Dampers and Other Means of Mitigating Torsional Vibrations"
`
`contrasts torsional dampers such as the damper flywheel (pp. 213-16) with
`
`torsional absorbers such as centrifugal pendulum absorbers (pp. 219-222).
`
`Further, Section 3.2 (pp. 87-93) is entitled "The Undamped Dynamic Vibration
`
`Absorber" and discusses a Frahm Dynamic Vibration Absorber as well as
`
`centrifugal pendulums. Finally, Section 3.3 (pp. 93-105) is entitled "The Damped
`
`Vibration Absorber" and discusses still other arrangements.
`
`B.
`
`Torsional Vibration Absorber "Is Parallel To" Both Damper
`Stages
`
`Petitioner’s key claim construction proposes that "'Is parallel to' (claims 1–
`
`16) means 'does not transfer torque generated by the engine along the power path
`
`but rotates with' the other components in the power path." (Petition, p. 12). This
`
`proposed construction ignores the words of the claim in which "is parallel to" is
`
`found, which clearly states that torsional vibration absorber is "parallel to both
`
`damper stages", as well as passage in the specification of the '374 patent that
`
`specifically discusses what is meant by "parallel to both damper stages." ('374
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`patent, 5:11-161).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`Petitioner's construction is unreasonable and vastly inconsistent with both
`
`the claim language and the specification.
`
`When properly considered in view of the claim language and specification,
`
`the phrase "torsional vibration absorber (17) is parallel to both damper stages (14,
`
`15)" means "the torsional vibration absorber is connected via a single piece
`
`connection to the input of the second stage and to the output of the first stage."
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Ignores The Claim Language "Both
`Damper Stages"
`
`Petitioner's proposed claim construction of "is parallel to" reflects a failure
`
`by Petitioner and its Expert Dr. Shaw to consider the express language "is parallel
`
`to both damper stages." This is significant because Petitioner's construction
`
`improperly seeks to excise this language from the claim in order to arrive at an
`
`unreasonably broad construction. See PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 752 ("The
`
`Board's approach in this case fails to account for how the claims themselves and
`
`
`
`1 In this paper, the nomenclature xx:yy will be used to refer to page:line or
`
`column:line. For consistency with the Petition, the page numbers in the Exhibits
`
`refer to the page number in the underlying document that makes up the Exhibit.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`the specification inform the ordinarily skilled artisan"). In fact, Petitioner's Expert
`
`
`
`Dr. Shaw does not reference the claim language "is parallel to both damper stages"
`
`in his Declaration nor indicate that he even considered it in his analysis, and this is
`
`reflected in the stark contrast between the claim language and Petitioner's proposed
`
`construction. (Ex. 1002, ¶23).
`
`In particular, the claim language recites that the "torsional vibration absorber
`
`(17) is parallel to both damper stages (14, 15)", and the specification contains the
`
`following description of what is meant: "[t]hrough the single-piece connection of
`
`the mounting part 37 with the input part 35 of the damper stage 15 and the output
`
`part 34 of the damper stage 15 by means of the rivets 33 is the centrifugal force
`
`pendulum 382 assigned parallel to both damper stages." ('374 patent, 5:11-16).
`
`Indeed, this is the only use of the word "parallel" in the specification of the
`
`'374 patent. Notably absent from this passage is reference to anything resembling
`
`Petitioner's proposed construction of "'does not transfer torque generated by the
`
`engine along the power path but rotates with' the other components in the power
`
`path." (Petition, p. 12).
`
`
`
`2 In Figure 1, torsional vibration absorber 17 "forms a centrifugal pendulum 38."
`
`('374 patent, 5:4-5).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`This failure to consider the claim language is not only contrary to well
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`established law, but significant in this case because the proposed construction is
`
`vastly different from the claim language and the specification.
`
`Without providing any analysis or support showing, at the very least,
`
`consistency between the proposed claim construction and the claims themselves,
`
`Petitioner simply creates a claim construction that removes features from the claim
`
`so that they can allege that the claim is either anticipated or obvious. Petitioner's
`
`Expert Dr. Shaw provides no evidence to support how a skilled artisan would find
`
`their construction reasonable in view of the claims and the specification (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶23), and thus, his opinion should be given no weight. See In re American
`
`Academy Of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he
`
`Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual
`
`corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations”).
`
`Petitioner's Expert offers nothing in support of their construction other than simply
`
`repeating the attorney arguments put forth in the petition, which themselves are
`
`nothing more than conclusory statements. (Petition, p.12, Ex. 1002 ¶23).
`
`Ignoring the claim language "both damper stages" in their analysis is
`
`nothing more than an attempt to seek a construction broad enough to read on
`
`their alleged prior art references. Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1062 ("While the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give [one] an
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard for the full
`
`claim language and the written description.") (citations omitted).
`
`Petitioner and its Expert Dr. Shaw fail to explain how the claims
`
`themselves or the specification inform an ordinary skilled artisan to reach their
`
`proposed claim construction "'does not transfer torque generated by the engine
`
`along the power path but rotates with' the other components in the power path."
`
`(Petition, p.12, Ex. 1002 ¶23). Nor does the Petitioner or its Expert explain how
`
`their proposed construction reflect the claim requirement that the torsional
`
`absorber is "parallel to both damper stages", or how their proposed construction
`
`flows from the only passage of the specification that even contains the word
`
`parallel. ('374 patent, 5:11-16).
`
` Petitioner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad and not supported by the
`
`claims or the specification, while their expert declaration fails to consider, at the
`
`very least, the claim language. See Trivascular, 812 F.3d at1063
`
`("[C]onstruction [was] unreasonably broad because it was [] 'inconsistent with
`
`the language of the claims and the specification'"), quoting In re Abbott
`
`Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148-50 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The failure to
`
`consider the claim language "both damper stages" is fatal to their proposed
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Imports The Language "Power Path"
`And "Torque Generated" Into The Claims
`
`Petitioner's inclusion of the terms "power path" and "torque generated" in
`
`their claim construction is inconsistent with the claim language and the
`
`specification of the '374 patent. Here, Petitioner improperly seeks to import
`
`additional language that is supported by neither the claims, nor the specification
`
`nor the prosecution history. In fact the terms "power paths" and "torque generated"
`
`are not even mentioned in the claims or the specification and Petitioner and their
`
`Expert provide no explanation as to how these terms are supported. (Ex. 1002, ¶23;
`
`Petition p. 12). Petitioner simply states that their broadest reasonable construction
`
`is "consistent with the description of parallel components in the '374 specification
`
`and in [alleged prior art] Haller" while asserting that "[b]oth documents describe
`
`absorbers with mounting parts that are parallel to the drivetrain such that they don't
`
`transfer engine torque, but they do rotate with the other components in the
`
`drivetrain." (Petition, p. 12) However, this is plainly inconsistent with the
`
`language of the claim which recites that the torsional absorber be parallel to the
`
`damper stages, not parallel to the drive-train.
`
`Citing to the '374 patent specification at column 5, lines 12-16, Petitioner
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`allegedly finds support for their construction, yet the cited support does not
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`mention the terms "power path" or "torque generated." Rather, that passage
`
`supports Patent Owner's proposed construction:
`
`Through the single-piece connection of the mounting part 37 with
`the input part 35 of the damper stage 15 and the output part 34 of
`the damper stage 15 [sic 14] by means of the rivets 33 is the
`centrifugal force pendulum 38 assigned parallel to both damper
`stages. (Emphasis added).
`
`This passage provides no support for Petitioner's construction and Petitioner
`
`does not identify any portion of the '374 patent's prosecution history that would
`
`support reading in these limitations. Dr. Shaw's declaration offers nothing more in
`
`support of Petitioner's construction other than simply restating the conclusory
`
`attorney arguments in the Petition. (Petition, p.12; Ex. 1002 ¶23) Dr. Shaw's
`
`opinion should be afforded no weight. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
`
`Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("Lack of factual support for
`
`expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony
`
`of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (citations omitted).
`
`Neither Petitioner nor its Expert has identified any evidence that justifies
`
`using the arbitrary terms "power paths" and "torque generated." (Petition, p. 12;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶23) There is no corresponding disclosure to support a construction with
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`these terms and Petitioner points to no evidence of any special definitions in the
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`specification or prosecution history. Use of the terms "power paths" and "torque
`
`generated" in their construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic record and does
`
`not reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure. Petitioner cannot
`
`construe the claim language to be something that it is not. Petitioner provides no
`
`reasoning or evidence in support of why the phrase should not be interpreted in
`
`accordance with its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, the Board should not adopt
`
`Petitioner's construction for the claim phrase "is parallel to".
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Improperly Relies On Alleged Prior Art Haller To
`Support Their Construction
`
`To support its construction, Petitioner improperly relies on the asserted prior
`
`art reference Haller, which allegedly describes "absorbers with mounting parts that
`
`are parallel to the drivetrain such that they don’t transfer engine torque, but they do
`
`rotate with the other components in the drivetrain." (Petition, p. 12; Ex. 1002, ¶23)
`
`Relying on Haller to define a claim term in the '374 patent fails on numerous
`
`grounds.
`
`First, it is manifestly improper for the Petitioner to attempt to define a term
`
`in a challenged patent based on the structure of an allegedly anticipatory prior art
`
`reference. Claims are construed in light of the specification and prosecution
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`history of the '374 patent, not based on the prior art asserted by a challenger. See
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) a patent claim "shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears."(Emphasis added).
`
`Second, the passage of Haller cited by Petitioner (ex. 1004, 3:1-3) states that
`
`the alleged torsional absorber (spring mass system) is parallel to the drivetrain, but
`
`does not state that the spring mass system is in a hydrodynamic torque converter
`
`and contains no mention whatsoever of the first and second damper stages.
`
`Third, even if the '374 patent and Haller "describe absorbers with mounting
`
`parts that are parallel to the drivetrain," this is entirely irrelevant to the claim term
`
`at issue. The claim does not recite that the torsional absorber is parallel to the
`
`drivetrain, it recites that the torsional absorber is "parallel to both damper stages."
`
`See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ([W]ords of the claim are
`
`generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the
`
`specification or the file history that they were used differently by the inventor.")
`
`Petitioner's alleged support for their proposed claim construction ("'does not
`
`transfer torque generated by the engine along the power path but rotates with' the
`
`other components in the power path") ignores both the plain language of the claims
`
`and the specification of the '374 patent. (Petition, p. 12). While claims are given
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`their broadest reasonable construction, Petitioner cannot simply ignore the intrinsic
`
`
`
`record. See PPC Broadband, 815 F.3d at 755 ("Above all, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification.")
`
`(Emphasis in original).
`
`Relying on structure from an allegedly anticipatory prior art reference to
`
`define claim language, while ignoring the intrinsic record of the '374 patent, is
`
`erroneous and contrary to well established law. Petitioner's alleged support for
`
`their construction is inconsistent with the specification and the claims of the '374
`
`patent. Accordingly, an ordinary skilled artisan reviewing the '374 patent would
`
`not find Petitioner's construction reasonable, and thus, it should not be adopted by
`
`the Board.
`
`As each and every ground of unpatentability alleged by Petitioner is
`
`predicated on this erroneous construction, the Petition should be denied.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner's Construction "the Torsional Vibration
`Absorber is Connected Via a Single Piece Connection to the
`Input of the Second Stage and to the Output of the First Stage"
`is Supported by the Claim Language and the Specification
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable construction of the claim language in light
`
`of the specification, the term "torsional vibration absorber (17) is parallel to both
`
`damper stages (14, 15)" means "the torsional vibration absorber is connected via a
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`single piece connection to the input of the second stage and to the output of the
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`first stage." This construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`interpreted by the specification and claims. The specification of the '374 patent
`
`describes to an ordinarily skilled artisan precisely what is meant by "parallel to
`
`both damper stages":
`
`[T]orsional vibration absorber 17 . . . forms a centrifugal force
`pendulum . . .. Through the single-piece connection of the mounting
`part 37 with the input part 35 of the damper stage 15 and the output
`part 34 of the damper stage 15 (sic 14) by means of the rivets 33 is
`the centrifugal force pendulum 38 assigned parallel to both damper
`stages.
`(Ex. 1001, 5:4-6, 12-16)
`
`
`
`Although Petitioner cites to those lines, neither Petitioner nor its Expert
`
`provides any analysis whatsoever of this passage, which not only uses the exact
`
`words "parallel to both damper stages," but is the only passage in the specification
`
`that even contains the word "parallel." Patent Owner looks to the specification
`
`for guidance and does not disregard the express language of the claims and the
`
`specification.
`
`The meaning of the term “torsional vibration absorber is parallel to both
`
`damper stages" is drawn directly from the above-referenced passage, and is
`
`properly construed to mean "the torsional vibration absorber is connected via a
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`single piece connection to the input of the second stage and to the output of the
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`Patent 8,573,374
`
`
`first stage." The Board should adopt Patent Owner's claim construction because a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would find that it is
`
`the broadest reasonable construction in view of the intrinsic record of the '374
`
`patent.
`
`III. Petitioner Cannot Demonstrate A Reasonable Likelihood Of
`Prevailing On Any Asserted Ground Because Their Construction Of
`"Is Parallel To" Is Improper And Required For Every Claim
`
`All of the claims in the '374 pa