DOCKET NO: 470515US
`
`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 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
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
