`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`PATENT: 8,573,374
`
`INVENTOR: HEIKO MAGERKURTH et al.
`
`
`
`TITLE: HYDRODYNAMIC TORQUE CONVERTER
`
`TRIAL NO.: IPR2017-00441
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. STEVEN SHAW
`
`I, Dr. Steven Shaw, make this declaration in connection with
`
`1.
`
`
`
`this petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374 (“the
`
`’374 patent,” attached as Exhibit 1001 to the petition). I am over 21
`
`years of age and otherwise competent to make this declaration.
`
`Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the
`
`outcome of the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`I. QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including
`
`a list of publications, awards, and professional activities, can be found
`
`
`
`1
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 1
`
`
`
`in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix A to this
`
`declaration. I have provided testimony by deposition within the last five
`
`years in IPR2016-00502, filed against U.S. Patent No. 8,161,740.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently the Harris Professor of Mechanical and
`
`Aerospace Engineering at Florida Institute of Technology. I am on leave
`
`from Michigan State University (“MSU”), where I serve as a University
`
`Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering and an Adjunct
`
`Professor of Physics and Astronomy. Additionally, I am involved in a
`
`small family business that makes hand and specialty tools for Snap-On,
`
`etc. as 49% owner, Vice President, and Board Member, although I am
`
`not involved in day-to-day operations.
`
`4.
`
`Before joining the faculty at MSU in 1984, I was an
`
`Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering at Oakland University.
`
`I also served as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical
`
`Engineering at the University of Michigan during 1991-93, and have
`
`held visiting professor appointments at Cornell University, the
`
`University of Minnesota, Caltech, the University of Michigan, the
`
`University of California-Santa Barbara, and McGill University.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 2
`
`
`
`5. During the past 32 years, I have performed research
`
`relevant to the subject matter of the ’374 patent, including on dampers,
`
`rotor systems, and centrifugal pendulum vibration absorbers. Much of
`
`my work on this subject has been fundamental in nature, supported by
`
`the U.S. National Science Foundation. I have also worked on this topic
`
`with several companies, including Ford Motor Company off and on since
`
`1984, with Teledyne Continental Motors in 1994, with Chrysler (in its
`
`various incarnations) continually since 2006, with Honda in 2013, with
`
`Valeo starting in 2015, and with Achates Power in 2016.
`
`6. My work on this topic has included various types of
`
`fundamental studies, design assistance, and the development of
`
`experimental methods for system characterization. This work been
`
`funded by the companies noted above and by the U.S. National Science
`
`Foundation. I have also published extensively, with over 150 technical
`
`publications. Of these, approximately 25 archival journal papers and
`
`numerous conference papers relate to this topic. I have also given
`
`professional presentations on the subject at many conferences and
`
`university seminars. I have graduated 7 Ph.D. students and 8 M.S.
`
`students working in this area, and currently have one Ph.D. student in
`
`
`
`3
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 3
`
`
`
`progress on this subject. My 1997 SAE Arch T. Colwell Merit Award
`
`and my 2013 ASME N. O. Myklestad Award, which is “presented in
`
`recognition of a major innovative contribution to vibration engineering,”
`
`were based on my technical contributions to this topic.
`
`7.
`
`In addition, I have consultation experience with torque
`
`converters, and regularly use torque converters as an example in my
`
`classes when I teach system dynamics and vibrations.
`
`8.
`
`I hold an A.B. degree in Physics and an M.S.E. in Applied
`
`Mechanics from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Theoretical
`
`and Applied Mechanics from Cornell University.
`
`9.
`
`I have used my education and experience working in the
`
`mechanical engineering field, and my understanding of the knowledge,
`
`creativity, and experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art in
`
`forming the opinions expressed in this report, as well as any other
`
`materials discussed herein.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`10.
`In forming my opinions, I read and considered the ’374
`
`patent and its prosecution history, the exhibits listed in the Exhibit List
`
`
`
`4
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 4
`
`
`
`filed with the petition for inter partes review of the ’374 patent, as well
`
`as any other material referenced herein.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`11.
` For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed
`
`about certain aspects of patent law that are relevant to my analysis and
`
`opinions, as set forth in this section of my declaration.
`
`A. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`12.
`I understand that the disclosure of patents and prior art
`
`references are to be viewed from the perspective of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“PHOSITA”). Unless I state otherwise, I provide my opinion herein
`
`from the viewpoint of a PHOSITA at the earliest alleged priority date
`
`for the ’374 patent, which I have been informed is July 4, 2008.
`
`13. The ’374 patent relates to the field of hydrodynamic torque
`
`converter design. The particular technical issue that the ’374 patent
`
`purports to address is the arrangement of components within the torque
`
`converter to decrease the assembly space while maintaining
`
`functionality. I understand from my own work experience and
`
`conversations with engineers who work in the field of hydrodynamic
`
`torque converter design that torque converter design involves three
`5
`
`
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 5
`
`
`
`main considerations: (1) efficient transfer of torque, (2) packaging of the
`
`torque converter parts so that the torque converter fits in the space
`
`specified by the customer, and (3) reduction of noise, vibration, and
`
`harshness (called “NVH” in the industry) to meet or exceed customer
`
`requirements. A PHOSITA in the field of hydrodynamic torque
`
`converter design would be skilled in each of those three areas, although
`
`practically speaking, torque converters are designed by teams of
`
`engineers.
`
`14. The various references that I discuss below are informative
`
`of the level of skill of a PHOSITA and are of the type that are
`
`reasonably relied upon by experts in my field to form opinions on the
`
`subject of vibration absorbers, including vibration absorbers used in
`
`hydrodynamic torque converters.
`
`15. Long before the ’374 patent application was filed, various
`
`components used to dampen and absorb vibrations in hydrodynamic
`
`torque converters were well-known.
`
`16. The ’374 patent acknowledges that combining (i) torsional
`
`vibration dampers positioned between the lock-up clutch and the output
`
`hub with (ii) turbine dampers positioned between the turbine and the
`
`
`
`6
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 6
`
`
`
`output hub to damp the torsional vibrations of an internal combustion
`
`engine was known prior to the filing date. (Ex. 1001, 1:23–42.)
`
`17. Torsional vibration absorbers were also well-known. The
`
`prior art also demonstrates that companies such as DaimlerChrysler,
`
`Mannesmann Sachs/ZF Sachs, and Carl Freudenberg were already
`
`seeking patent protection on compact torque converter designs with
`
`different damper and absorber arrangements. (Ex. 1004, Figs. 1–8,
`
`2:15–20; Ex. 1005; Ex. 1011; Ex. 1022.)
`
`18.
`
`It was also well-known in the art to arrange these
`
`components so as to reduce assembly space as much as possible. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1003, 5:3–34 (teaching sharing components and benefits of
`
`reducing space); Ex. 1004, 3:9–16 (describing benefits of using existing
`
`space to decrease assembly space.)
`
`19. Based on these factors, I have concluded that a PHOSITA
`
`was sufficiently skilled in the general design of hydrodynamic torque
`
`converters and experienced in arranging their layouts to most
`
`efficiently use available space in view of the numerous ways to connect
`
`torque converter components described in the prior art.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 7
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`20.
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of
`
`determining a patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and
`
`understand that the proper construction of a claim term is the meaning
`
`that a PHOSITA would have given to that term.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that claims in inter partes review proceedings
`
`are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification, which is what I have done when performing my analysis
`
`in this declaration. I provide comments on specific terms below.
`
`22. Torsional Vibration Absorber (Claims 1–16): Under its
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification,
`
`“torsional vibration absorber” means a component or device designed to
`
`absorb torsional vibrations. As 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.
`
`23. Parallel (Claims 1–16): Under its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification, “parallel” includes “does not
`
`
`
`8
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 8
`
`
`
`transfer torque generated by the engine along the power path but
`
`rotates with” the other components in the power path. This is consistent
`
`with the description of parallel components in the ’374 specification and
`
`in Haller. (Ex. 1001, 5:12–16; Ex. 1004, 3:1–3.) Both 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.
`
`24. Centered (Claims 2 and 11): Under its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification, “centered” includes
`
`“circumferentially mounted.” (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 2:24–28 (describing
`
`“centered” relationship between input part of first damper stage and
`
`output part of second damper stage), 3:30–33 (describing “centered”
`
`relationship between piston and output hub).)
`
`25.
`
`In a pocket (Claim 10): Under its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification, wherein the lock-up clutch is
`
`axially mounted “in a pocket” in claim 10 means “partially in a pocket.”
`
`Claim 11 specifies that the lock-up clutch is formed out of a piston, and
`
`the piston in the ’374 patent extends partially out of the pocket. Thus,
`
`
`
`9
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 9
`
`
`
`in the embodiment shown, the lock-up clutch is partially in the pocket.
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig.)
`
`C. Anticipation
`26.
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated if a PHOSITA during the relevant timeframe would have
`
`understood a single prior art reference to teach every limitation
`
`contained in the claim. The disclosure in a reference does not have to be
`
`in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim
`
`must be described in enough detail, or necessarily implied by or
`
`inherent in the reference, to enable a POSITA looking at the reference
`
`to make and use at least one embodiment of the claimed invention.
`
`D. Obviousness
`27.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the differences
`
`between the patented subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28. When considering the issues of obviousness, I understand
`
`that I am to do the following: (i) determine the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (ii) ascertain the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue; (iii) resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`10
`
`
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 10
`
`
`
`art; and (iv) consider objective evidence of non-obviousness. Moreover, I
`
`have been informed and I understand that so-called objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness (also known as “secondary considerations”) like the
`
`following are also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1)
`
`commercial success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief by
`
`experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the problem that the
`
`inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand that
`
`evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate
`
`in scope with the claimed subject matter. I am not aware of any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness relevant to the claims of the ’374
`
`patent.
`
`29. Put another way, my understanding is that not all
`
`innovations are patentable. Even if a claimed product or method is not
`
`disclosed in its entirety in a single prior art reference, the patent claim
`
`is invalid if the invention would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In particular, I
`
`understand that a patent claim is normally invalid if it would have been
`
`
`
`11
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 11
`
`
`
`a matter of “ordinary innovation” within the relevant field to create the
`
`claimed product at the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time that the invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, I have been informed of several
`
`principles regarding the combination of elements of the prior art:
`
`a. First, a combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it yields
`
`predictable results.
`
`b.
`
`Second, if a person of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implement a “predictable variation” in a prior art
`
`device, and would see the benefit from doing so, such a
`
`variation would be obvious. In particular, when there is
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identifiable, predictable solutions, it would
`
`be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to pursue
`
`those options that fall within his or her technical
`
`grasp. If such a process leads to the claimed invention,
`
`
`
`12
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 12
`
`
`
`then the latter is not an innovation, but more the
`
`result of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation”
`
`test is a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining elements
`
`of the prior art. This test poses the question as to whether there is an
`
`explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to combine
`
`prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention. Though
`
`useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that this test should not
`
`be treated as a rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise
`
`teachings; it is permissible to consider the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art (who is considered to have an
`
`ordinary level of creativity and is not an “automaton”) would employ.
`
`IV. THE ’374 PATENT
`32. The ’374 patent was filed as the national stage entry of
`
`PCT/DE2009/000819 on June 12, 2009 and issued November 5, 2013.
`
`33. The ’374 patent discloses a hydrodynamic torque converter
`
`having good vibration damping while taking up little assembly space.
`
`More particularly, the ’374 patent describes disposing multiple damper
`
`
`
`13
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 13
`
`
`
`stages in series between a lock-up clutch and an output hub, with a
`
`torsional vibration damper between them. (Ex. 1001, 1:63–2:5.)
`
`34. By integrating “both damper stages in a single damper that
`
`concurrently features a torsional vibration absorber assigned to both
`
`damper stages,” the ’374 patent explains that multiple components can
`
`be shared, providing a lighter and narrower torque converter. (Ex. 1001,
`
`2:5–18.)
`
`35. The ’374 patent acknowledges that combining (i) torsional
`
`vibration dampers positioned between the lock-up clutch and the output
`
`hub and (ii) turbine dampers positioned between the turbine and the
`
`output hub to damp the torsional vibrations of an internal combustion
`
`engine was known prior to the filing date. (Ex. 1001, 1:23–42.)
`
`36. The ’374 patent also acknowledges that it was known to use
`
`vibration absorbers such as centrifugal force pendulums to reduce
`
`torsional vibrations. (Ex. 1001, 1:43–50.)
`
`37. But the ’374 patent alleges that, due to restrictive assembly
`
`space specifications in motor vehicles, a torque converter that took up
`
`less assembly space while still providing sufficient vibration damping
`
`was needed. (Ex. 1001, 1:51–59.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 14
`
`
`
`38. The only Fig. in the ’374 patent, reproduced below with
`
`colored annotations, depicts a hydrodynamic torque converter 1 having
`
`a housing 3, an impeller 6, and a turbine 7 inside the housing 3. (Ex.
`
`1001, 3:56–4:8.)
`
`
`
`
`
`’374 Patent Fig.
`
`39. Additionally, Fig. 1 shows a lock-up clutch 13 (including
`
`piston 18 in blue) mounted on the housing 3.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 15
`
`
`
`40. When the lock-up clutch is closed, it transmits torque from
`
`an internal combustion engine to the output hub 12 (purple) via first
`
`and second damper stages 14, 15, as follows: The input 41 (yellow) to
`
`the first damper stage receives torque from the lock-up clutch. The
`
`output of the first damper stage is a disk part 25 (green) that also forms
`
`a portion of the input of the second damper stage. (Ex. 1001, 4:38–40.)
`
`41.
`
` The input of the second damper stage is completed by disk
`
`part 31 (red), which also forms the mounting part for the torsional
`
`vibration absorber 17. (Ex. 1001, 5:3–5.)
`
`42. The output (purple) of the second damper stage is part of the
`
`output hub (purple). When the lock-up clutch is open, torque flows via
`
`impeller 6 to the turbine 7 which is fastened to disk part 25 (green).
`
`Because disk part 25 is the input of the second damper stage, torque is
`
`transmitted through the second damper stage 15 to the output hub
`
`(purple). (Ex. 1001, 4:8–16.)
`
`43. The two damper stages 14, 15 are connected by a single disk
`
`part 25 (green). (Ex. 1001, 4:38–40.) The disk part 25 forms the
`
`complete output part 34 of damper stage 14 and part of the input part
`
`
`
`16
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 16
`
`
`
`35 of damper stage 15, completed by a second disk part 31 (red). (Ex.
`
`1001, 4:53–58.)
`
`44. The two disk parts 25 (green) and 41 (yellow) are axially
`
`spaced relative to one another by rivets 33 and accommodate flange
`
`part 36 (purple), welded to the output hub 12. (Ex. 1001, 4:58–62.)
`
`45. Disk part 31 (together with 32 and 37, red) forms the
`
`mounting part 37 of the torsional vibration absorber 17, shown in Fig. 1
`
`as a centrifugal force pendulum 38. (Ex. 1001, 5:3–5.)
`
`V. Summary of Select Prior Art
`46. All the components of the ’374 claims were known in the art,
`
`as detailed below. Moreover, these components were arranged in the
`
`prior art in the same space-saving fashion taught by the ’374 patent.
`
`1. Haller
`47. Like the ’374 patent, Haller (Ex. 1004) describes a
`
`hydrodynamic torque converter including a lock-up clutch and multiple
`
`damper stages disposed in series between the lock-up clutch and output
`
`hub with a torsional vibration absorber such as a spring-mass canceller
`
`installed in parallel. (Ex. 1004, 3:29–4:18.1)
`
`1 All citations in my declaration are to the internal page numbers of the
`references.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`448. Halller disclosses a hydrrodynam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an imppeller 34, a turbinee 35 driveen by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ic torque
`
`
`
`converteer includinng
`
`
`
`
`impeller
`
`
`
` connecteed with thhe
`
`
`
`the between tdisposed bdamper dorsional dturbine toer, and a ttorque converte
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transfer en side. A the driveturbinee 35 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`element
`
`
`
`42 conneects the
`
`
`
`outputt side of aa first turbbine torsiional dammper 40 too the inpuut side off a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`secondd turbine ttorsional damper 43. (Ex. 11004, 10:114–15.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s these comw) showsated below449. Fig. 8 (annota mponent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s;
`
`
`
`HHaller F
`
`
`
`ig. 8 (exccerpt)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`550. The spring-mmass systeems 22 of f Haller caan includde
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`centriffugal forcee penduluums.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 18
`
`
`
`51. Haller describes the spring-mass system 22 as “a
`
`translational oscillator that engages at the circumference of an element
`
`of the drive train, or as a rotational oscillator that introduces a torque
`
`into the drive train.” (Ex. 1004, 8:19–20.) “The damper is any nonlinear
`
`or linear damper known per se….” (Id., 4:19.) Moreover, Haller teaches
`
`that the cancellers act as rotational-speed-adaptive absorbers,
`
`characterizing its spring-mass system as possessing “a variable natural
`
`frequency” making utilization of the canceller effective “over a wider
`
`frequency band.” (Id., 5:17–19.) This language can describe rotational-
`
`speed-adaptive absorbers such as centrifugal force pendulums and their
`
`components.
`
`52. Page 2:15–20 of Haller refer to several prior art documents
`
`that use a “canceller,” i.e., the same term that Haller uses to describe its
`
`spring-mass system 22, to attenuate torsional vibrations. (Ex. 1004,
`
`2:15–20.) The “cancellers” in at least two of those documents (DE 199 14
`
`871 A1,2 Ex. 1009 and DE 196 04 160 C1,3 Ex. 1010) are centrifugal
`
`
`2 There is no U.S. equivalent to this German patent, but the translation
`
`is included in the exhibit.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 19
`
`
`
`force pendulums of the same type disclosed in the preferred
`
`embodiments of the ’374 patent, as can be seen from the Figs. (Ex. 1001,
`
`2:48–49; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010.)
`
`2. Sasse
`53. Like the ’374 patent, Sasse (Ex. 1003) describes a
`
`hydrodynamic torque converter including a lock-up clutch and multiple
`
`damper stages in series between the lock-up clutch and output hub. (Ex.
`
`1003, Figs. 1–2.)
`
`54. Fig. 1 (annotated below), shows a clutch housing 5
`
`permanently connected to a pump wheel shell 9, a pump wheel 17, a
`
`turbine wheel 19 (with turbine shell 21) that cooperates with the pump
`
`wheel 17, and a stator 23. (Ex. 1003, 7:21–50.)
`
`
`3 The translation is included, and the U.S. equivalent is U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,884,735, Ex. 1011.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Sassse Fig. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`555. Briddging/lockk-up clutch 48 incluudes a m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ovable piiston 54
`
`
`
`(blue) aand a plaate 65/fricction linerr carrier 666 with frfriction linnings 68 oon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8:14–446.) The teeeth 72 enngage witth opposiing teeth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circumfeerence. (EEx. 1003,
`
`
`
`
`
`74 on a ddrive-sidee
`
`
`
`
`
`its oppposite sidees and teeeth 72 at its outer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmmission element 788 (yellow) of a torsiional vibrration da
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mper 80,
`
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–48.) 003, 8:46–n. (Ex. 10ve rotationallow aaxial motiion but not relativ
`
`
`
`
`
`556.
`
`
`
`Inwaard-projeccting drivver elemeents 84 (yyellow) of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the drivee-
`
`
`
`side traansmissioon elemennt 80 (greeen) are bbrought innto contaact with fiirst
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 21
`
`
`
`energy-storage devices 86, which extend circumferentially and are
`
`supported between the driver element 84 (yellow) and radially outward-
`
`projecting driver element 88 of cover plates 90, 92. (Ex. 1003, 8:53–64.)
`
`57. The cover plates 90, 92 (green) have radially inward-
`
`projecting driver elements 98 for second energy-storage devices 100,
`
`which extend circumferentially and are supported by radially outward-
`
`projecting driver elements 102 of a radially inner hub disk 104 (purple).
`
`(Ex. 1003, 9:4–10.)
`
`58. The hub disk 104 serves as a take-off side transmission
`
`element 106 and is attached to the turbine wheel hub 33. (Ex. 1003,
`
`9:10–12.)
`
`59. The drive-side transmission element 78, the first energy-
`
`storage devices 86, and the intermediate transmission element 94
`
`together form the drive-side connecting device 96 of the torsional
`
`vibration damper 80, whereas the intermediate transmission element
`
`94, the second energy-storage devices 100, and the takeoff-side
`
`transmission element 106 together form a takeoff-side connecting device
`
`108. (Ex. 1003, 9:13–20.)
`
`
`
`22
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 22
`
`
`
`60. The drive-side connecting device 96 acts as a standard
`
`damper, and the takeoff-side connection device 108 acts as a turbine
`
`damper. (Ex. 1003, 9:38–51.) The standard damper and turbine damper
`
`are connected in series. (Ex. 1003, 9:52–56.)
`
`61.
`
`In Fig. 1, pin 93 at the actuation point 120 attaches a tie
`
`element 110 to the turbine wheel-side cover plate 92 of the turbine shell
`
`21. (Ex. 1003, 9:23–25.) The opposite end of the tie element 110 is
`
`attached to the turbine wheel 19, which acts as a mass element 112
`
`connected operatively to the intermediate transmission element 94
`
`between the two connecting devices 96, 108. (Ex. 1003, 9:25–31.)
`
`62. Also connected to the turbine shell 21 is a supplemental
`
`mass 114. (Ex. 1003, 9:31–37.) The embodiment in Fig. 2 is similar,
`
`except that tie element 110 is in the form of carrier 118, attaching
`
`supplemental mass 114 to plate 92, allowing supplemental mass 114 to
`
`shift circumferentially relative to the turbine wheel 19. (Ex. 1003, 9:57–
`
`67.)
`
`63. Sasse includes numerous other embodiments with
`
`components in different orientations. Sasse states that substitutions
`
`between different embodiments may be made and that features of the
`
`
`
`23
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 23
`
`
`
`different embodiments may be incorporated into one another as a
`
`general matter of design choice. (Ex. 1003, 14:25–40.)
`
`3. Heuler
`64. Heuler (Ex. 1018) describes a hydrodynamic torque
`
`converter including a lock-up clutch and multiple damper stages in
`
`series between the lock-up clutch and output hub. (Ex. 1018, Fig. 11.)
`
`65. The torque converter includes a pump, turbine, and stator.
`
`(Id., [0044-45].) The lock-up clutch operates through the use of friction
`
`elements. (Id., [0053].)
`
`66. Fig. 11, annotated below, shows the piston of the lock-up
`
`clutch (blue), the input (yellow), transfer elements (green) and output of
`
`the second damper (purple):
`
`
`
`24
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Heuller Fig. 111
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. AANALYSIIS
`
`
`
`667.
`
`
`
`It is my opiniion that cclaims 1-116 of the ’’374 pate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nt are
`
`
`
`he low. At thart, as dethe prior aed over thanticipateobvious and/or a tailed bel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as denoted alements dms into eld the claimve dividedsel, I havrequesst of couns
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[a], [b], [c], etc. to corresppond to thhe discusssion of thhe same eelements
`
`
`
`
`
`in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ows: w, as follortes reviewinter parthe pettition for
`
`
`
`
`CClaim 1:
`
`
`
`[a] AA hydrodyynamic toorque connverter (1
`
`
`
`25
`
`)
`
`
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 25
`
`
`
`[b] with a turbine (7) driven by an impeller (6) as well as
`housing (3)
`[c] in which a torsional vibration damper (16) with multiple
`of damper stages (14, 15),
`[d] a torsional vibration absorber (17) and
`[e] a lock-up clutch (13) are additionally installed,
`[f] wherein a first damper stage (14) and a second damper
`stage (15) are disposed between the lock-up clutch (13) and an
`output hub (12),
`[g] the second damper stage (15) is disposed between the
`turbine (7) and the output hub (12)
`[h] and the torsional vibration absorber (17) is parallel to
`both damper stages (14, 15).
`
`Claim 2:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 1,
`wherein an input part (41) of the first damper stage (14) and an
`output part (48) of the second damper stage (15) are centered on
`one another.
`
`Claim 3:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 1,
`wherein a disk part (25) is allocated to two damper stages (14, 15)
`as one piece.
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 26
`
`
`
`Claim 4:
`[a] The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to
`claim 1, wherein the torsional vibration absorber (17) comprises a
`plurality of absorber masses (39), and
`[b] a mounting part (37) of the torsional vibration absorber
`(17) forms a disk part (31) of an input part (35) of the second
`damper stage (15).
`
`Claim 5:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 1,
`wherein absorber masses (39) of the torsional vibration absorber
`(17) and energy accumulators (29) of the first damper stage (14)
`disposed over the circumference are radially at the same height
`but axially spaced apart.
`
`Claim 6:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 5,
`wherein a middle mounting diameter of the energy accumulators
`(29) is disposed radially outside the turbine (7).
`
`Claim 7:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 5,
`wherein the energy accumulators (29) overlap the turbine (7) at
`least partially and axially.
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 27
`
`
`
`Claim 8:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 1,
`wherein energy accumulators (27) are distributed over the
`circumference of the second damper stage (15) based on a middle
`mounting diameter radially within turbine blades (8) of the
`turbine (7).
`
`Claim 9:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 8,
`wherein the energy accumulators (27) of the second damper stage
`(15) and the turbine (7) at least partially and axially overlap.
`
`Claim 10:
` The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim 1,
`wherein the lock-up clutch (13) in a closed state is axially mounted
`in a pocket (24) formed in a housing wall (23) radially inward of
`fastening means (9) provided on external part of the torque
`converter (1).
`
`Claim 11:
`[a] The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to
`claim 10, wherein the lock-up clutch (13) is formed out of a piston
`(18) centered on the output hub (12) and
`[b] mounted non-rotatably and axially displacably on the
`housing (3), and axially pressurizes a friction plate (22) that can
`be clamped between said piston and said housing (3) to develop a
`frictional engagement.
`
`
`
`28
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 28
`
`
`
`Claim 12:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim
`11, wherein a mounting part (37) of the torsional vibration
`absorber (17) is disposed axially between lock-up clutch (13) and
`the first damper stage (14).
`
`Claim 13:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter (1) according to claim
`12, wherein between the friction plate (22) and an input part (41)
`of the first damper stage (14) transition connections (44) are
`formed, which reach through circular segment-shaped openings
`(47) of the mounting part (37).
`
`Claim 14:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter according to claim 1,
`wherein in the closed state of the lock-up clutch (13) the torsional
`vibration absorber (17) acts between both damper stages (14, 15).
`
`Claim 15:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter according to claim 1,
`wherein the torsional vibration absorber (17) is connected non-
`rotatably with the turbine (7).
`
`Claim 16:
`The hydrodynamic torque converter according to claim 15,
`wherein in the opened state of the lock-up clutch (13) the torsional
`
`
`
`29
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 29
`
`
`
`vibration absorber (17) is connected non-rotatably with the
`turbine (7).
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 Are Anticipated By Haller
`68. The ’374 patent describes two torque paths: (1) when the
`
`lock-up clutch is closed, torque is introduced mechanically through the
`
`lock-up clutch and transmitted via first 14 and second 15 damper stages
`
`into the output hub 12; and (2) when the lock-up clutch is open, torque
`
`flows from the turbine to the second damper stage 15 into the output
`
`hub 12. (Ex. 1001, 4:8–14.) This can be depicted as:
`
`Lock up
`clutch
`
`First
`damper
`
`Second
`damper
`
`
`
`Turbine/pump/stator
`
`Absorber
`
`69. The same representations for lock-up clutch,
`
`turbine/pump/stator, dampers, and torsional vibration absorbers will be
`
`used throughout my declaration without labels.
`
`
`
`30
`
`Valeo Exhibit 1002, pg. 30
`
`
`
`70.
`
`In other words, throughout the ’374 patent and as show