470515US
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. and Valeo Embrayages,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-16 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,573,374
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`Valeo North America, Inc. and Valeo Embrayages,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00441
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF CLAIMS 1-16 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,573,374
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices—Rule 42.8(a)(1) ................................................ 1
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing—Rule 42.104(a)................... 2
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested—Rule
`42.104(b) ............................................................................................. 2
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................ 2
`B. Grounds for Challenge ............................................................. 4
`IV. Overview of the ’374 Patent and the Prior Art ................................ 6
`A. The ’374 Patent ......................................................................... 6
`B.
`Summary of Select Prior Art ................................................... 8
`1. Haller ............................................................................... 9
`2.
`Sasse .............................................................................. 10
`3. Heuler ............................................................................ 11
`V. Claim Construction .......................................................................... 12
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 13
`VII. Identification of How the Challenged Claims Are
`Unpatentable ................................................................................... 15
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 Are Anticipated by Haller .......... 15
`B. Ground 2: Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Haller and Eckel ......... 24
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1–3, 8–10, and 14–16 Are Obvious
`Over Sasse and Haller ............................................................ 26
`D. Ground 4: Claims 4–7 Are Obvious Over Sasse,
`Haller, and Eckel .................................................................... 47
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`E. Ground 5: Claims 11–13 Are Obvious Over Sasse,
`Haller, and MacDonald .......................................................... 55
`F. Ground 6: Claims 2 and 10 Are Obvious Over Sasse,
`Haller, and Heuler.................................................................. 64
`G. Ground 7: Claims 1–3, 10, and 14–16 Are Obvious
`Over Heuler and Haller ......................................................... 68
`H. Ground 8: Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Heuler, Haller
`and Eckel ................................................................................ 81
`Ground 9: Claims 11–13 Are Obvious Over Heuler,
`Haller, MacDonald and Schierling ........................................ 83
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 91
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................. 92
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
` 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................ 13
`
`In re Larson,
` 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965) ............................................................ 50
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(c) ................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................... 5
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................... 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374 to Magerkurth et al.
`
`Declaration of Professor Steven Shaw
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,073,646 to Sasse et al.
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 2004/018897 to Haller et al.
`and certified translation
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,026,940 to Sudau
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 2009/067987 to Degler et al.
`and certified translation
`
`Declaration of Jochen Sties
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374 to
`Magerkurth et al.
`
`DE 199 14 871 A1 to Röhrig et al. and certified
`translation
`
`DE 196 04 160 C1 to Eckel et al. and certified
`translation
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,884,735 to Eckel et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,295,411 to Speckhart
`
`UK Patent Application No. 2 271 411 to Seebacher et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,080,215 to Förster et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,244,401 to Maienschein et al.
`
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`
`1009
`
`
`1010
`
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0205067
`to Frey et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0121483
`to Sasse et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0235277
`to Heuler et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,161,739 to Degler et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,161,740 to Krause et al.
`
`DE 196 188 64 to Sudau and certified translation
`
`DE 196 54 894 A1 to Schierling et al. and certified
`translation
`
`DE 196 54 915 A1 to Schierling et al. and certified
`translation
`
`DE 196 09 553 to Schierling et al. and certified
`translation
`
`GB 2231123 to Graton et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,053,292 to MacDonald
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0039998 to Zuehl et al.
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0201765 to Arhab
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2007/0284206 to Davis
`
`1016
`
`
`1017
`
`
`1018
`
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`
`1023
`
`
`1024
`
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices—Rule 42.8(a)(1)
`Valeo North America, Inc. and Valeo Embrayages (collectively,
`
`“Valeo” or “Petitioner”) provide notice of the following:
`
`Real Party-In-Interest: Valeo is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Petitioner is unaware of any matters related
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374 other than Patent Owner is filing a
`
`separate petition directed against the same patent, IPR2017-00442,
`
`directed against different prior art. The other petition is based on a
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(c) bar to priority and therefore is not redundant with
`
`this petition, which does not raise this issue.
`
`For efficiency, Petitioner requests that the two petitions be
`
`handled by the same panel. And, if these petitions are not merged,
`
`Petitioner requests that the Final Written Decisions issue on the
`
`same day.
`
`Lead counsel: Robert C. Mattson (Reg. No. 42,850)
`
`Back-up counsel: Philippe J.C. Signore (Reg. No. 43,922) and
`
`Lisa M. Mandrusiak (Reg. No. 72,653).
`
`Service Information: Petitioner consents to email service.
`
`Email:
`
`cpdocketmattson@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cpdocketsignore@oblon.com
`
`cpdocketmandrusiak@oblon.com
`
`Post: Oblon LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Telephone: (703) 412-6466
`
`
`
`Fax: (703) 413-2220
`
`The Office is authorized to charge the fee required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 15-0030. Any
`
`additional fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing—Rule 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’374 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting review on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested—Rule
`42.104(b)
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancelation of claims
`
`1–16 of the ’374 patent. The ’374 patent is subject to pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`Review of the ’374 patent is requested in view of the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ex. 1003 – U.S. Patent No. 7,073,646 (“Sasse”), issued July 11,
`
`2006, is available as prior art under § 102(b). Sasse was cited during
`
`original prosecution (Ex. 1008, 226) but was not substantively relied
`
`upon by the Examiner. This Petition presents expert witness
`
`testimony (Ex. 1002) and prior art that was never considered by the
`
`Office in combination with Sasse.
`
`Ex. 1004 – PCT Publication No. WO 2004/018897 (“Haller”),
`
`published March 4, 2004, is available as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1011 – U.S. Patent No. 5,884,735 (“Eckel”), issued March
`
`23, 1999, is available as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1018 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2007/0235277 (“Heuler”), published October 11, 2007, is available as
`
`prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024 – German Published Patent Application
`
`No. DE 196 54 894 (“Schierling ’894”), published December 4, 1997, is
`
`available as prior art under § 102(b). German Published Patent
`
`Application No. DE 196 54 915 A1 (“Schierling ’915”), published
`
`February 5, 1998, is available as prior art under § 102(b). German
`
`internal priority document No. DE 196 09 553 (“Schierling ’553”), was
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the priority document on which the Schierling ’894 and ’915
`
`applications were based, and is available as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`(Ex. 1007, Sties Declaration.) Collectively, Schierling ’894, ’915, and
`
`’553 are referred to as “Schierling.”
`
`Ex. 1026 – U.S. Patent No. 6,053,292 (“MacDonald”), issued
`
`April 25, 2000, is available as prior art under § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancelation of the challenged claims under
`
`the following statutory grounds, which fall into three categories.
`
`First, grounds based on Haller (applicable if the claims are
`
`interpreted very broadly); second, grounds with Sasse as primary
`
`reference; and third, alternative grounds with Heuler as primary
`
`reference. Various secondary references are used in each group.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Haller under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over Haller and Eckel.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1–3, 8–10, and 14–16 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sasse and Haller.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claims 4–7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`4.
`
`obvious over Sasse, Haller, and Eckel.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 11–13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Sasse, Haller, and MacDonald.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 2 and 10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as obvious over Sasse, Haller, and Heuler.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1–3, 10, and 14–16 are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Heuler and Haller.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over Heuler, Haller, and Eckel.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 11–13 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Heuler, Haller, MacDonald, and Schierling.
`
`Section VII demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail for each of the statutory grounds. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a). Support for each ground of unpatentability is also
`
`provided in the Declaration of Professor Steven Shaw (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IV. Overview of the ’374 Patent and the Prior Art
`A.
` The ’374 Patent
`The ’374 patent describes a torque converter that purportedly
`
`dampens vibrations well while taking up little assembly space. The
`
`torque converter has multiple damper stages disposed in series
`
`between a lock-up clutch and an output hub. A torsional vibration
`
`damper is arranged between the damper stages. (Ex. 1001, 1:63–2:5;
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 33.) The ’374 patent touts that this configuration permits
`
`components of the damper stages to be shared, providing a lighter
`
`and narrower torque converter. (Ex. 1001, 2:5–18; Ex. 1002 ¶ 34.)
`
`
`
`The ’374 patent admits that prior art torque converters also had
`
`dampers arranged between the lock-up clutch and the output hub and
`
`between the turbine and the output hub. (Ex. 1001, 1:23–42; Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 35.) 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; Ex. 1002 ¶ 36.)
`
`
`
`The only drawing figure 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
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`3. (Ex. 1001, 3:56–4:8; Ex. 1002 ¶ 38.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’374 Patent
`
`A lock-up clutch 13 (including piston 18 in blue) is mounted to
`
`the housing 3. When the lock-up clutch is closed, it transmits torque
`
`from an internal combustion engine to the output hub 12 (purple) via
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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; Ex. 1002 ¶ 40.) 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; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 41.) 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; Ex. 1002 ¶ 43.)
`
`B. Summary of Select Prior Art
`All claim elements of the ’374 patent were known in the prior
`
`art and used to perform the same functions. The subsections below
`
`briefly discuss prior art references and highlight the components
`
`corresponding to the ’374 patent in the same colors.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1. Haller
`Haller describes alternative arrangements for components of a
`
`torque converter, including (a) two damper stages disposed in series
`
`between a lock-up clutch and an output hub and (b) a torsional
`
`vibration absorber arranged in parallel with the damper stages. (Ex.
`
`1004, 3:29–4:18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–52.) Fig. 8 shows a piston (blue) for
`
`the lock-up clutch, an input (yellow) for the first damper stage, a
`
`shared output/input for the first/second damper stage, an output
`
`(purple) of the second damper stage, and a torsional vibration
`
`absorber (red).
`
`
`
`Haller Fig. 8 (excerpt)
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2. Sasse
`Sasse also describes alternative arrangements for components
`
`of torque converters, including two damper stages in series between a
`
`lock-up clutch and an output hub. (Ex. 1003, Figs. 1–2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`
`53–63.)
`
`Sasse Fig. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3. Heuler
`Heuler describes a torque converter having two damper stages
`
`
`
`in series between a lock-up clutch and an output hub. (Ex. 1018, Fig.
`
`11; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–66.)
`
`Heuler Fig. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V. Claim Construction
`This Petition shows that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification. See Rule 42.100(b).
`
`“Torsional vibration absorber” (claims 1–16) 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. (Id.; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 22.)
`
`“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. 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; Ex. 1002 ¶ 23.) 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“Centered” (claims 2 and 11) means “circumferentially
`
`mounted.” Column 2, lines 2:24–28, of the ’374 patent describe the
`
`centered relationship between the input part of first damper stage
`
`and output part of second damper stage. Similarly, column 3, lines
`
`30–33, describes the centered relationship between the piston and the
`
`output hub. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 24.)
`
`“In a pocket” (claim 10) means “partially in a pocket.” The ’374
`
`specification describes that the lock-up clutch is axially mounted in a
`
`pocket, but claim 11 specifies that the lock-up clutch is formed out of
`
`a piston. In Fig. 1, the piston extends out of the pocket such that it is
`
`only partially in the pocket. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 25.)
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior
`
`art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the
`
`Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in
`
`the art was best determined by the references of record).
`
`Before the earliest priority date of the ’374 patent, various
`
`components were used to dampen and absorb vibrations in torque
`
`converters. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 15.) The ’374 patent itself acknowledges that
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`prior art torque converters utilized dampers and torsional vibration
`
`absorbers to reduce the effect of torsional vibrations caused by
`
`internal combustion engines. (Ex. 1001, 1:23–42; Ex. 1002 ¶ 16.)
`
`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; Ex. 1002 ¶ 17.)
`
`The prior art also evidences that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“PHOSITA”) knew to arrange torque converter components
`
`to minimize assembly space. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 18.) For example, Sasse
`
`shares components to reduce space (Ex. 1003, 5:3–34), and Haller
`
`uses existing space within the torque converter to decrease assembly
`
`space. (Ex. 1004, 3:9–16.)
`
`As demonstrated by the prior art discussed below, the claims of
`
`the ’374 patent simply recite a combination of prior art elements that
`
`function predictably in their known manner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VII. Identification of How the Challenged Claims Are
`Unpatentable
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b), this section demonstrates that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Certain claim elements are
`
`annotated [a], [b], etc. for cross-referencing ease.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 Are Anticipated by Haller
`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; Ex. 1002 ¶ 68.) If claim 1
`
`encompasses torque converters having more than one damper stage
`
`arranged between the turbine and the output hub when the lock-up
`
`clutch is open, it is anticipated by Haller.
`
`Haller Fig. 8 describes a torque converter with a turbine driven
`
`by an impeller, a torsional vibration absorber, and a multi-stage
`
`torsional vibration damper disposed between a lock-up clutch and the
`
`output hub. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 8; Ex. 1002 ¶ 72.) Both of Haller’s damper
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`stages are disposed between the turbine and the output hub, relative
`
`to the torque path. (Ex. 1004, Fig. 8; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 73-75.)
`
`In addition, Haller discloses a spring-mass system 22 that forms
`
`a torsional vibration absorber that can be connected in parallel to
`
`both dampers. (Ex. 1004, 8:24–26 and 11:22–24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 76.)
`
`Claim 1[a]: A hydrodynamic torque converter (1):
`The preamble is not limiting, but nonetheless, Haller discloses
`
`hydrodynamic torque converters. (Ex. 1004, 3:19–20.) Thus, Haller
`
`teaches element 1[a]. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 77.)
`
`Claim 1[b]: with a turbine (7) driven by an impeller (6) as
`well as housing (3)
`The hydrodynamic torque converters in Haller include a turbine
`
`driven by an impeller in a housing. (Ex. 1004, 10:1–2.) Thus, Haller
`
`teaches element 1[b]. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 78.)
`
`Claim 1[c]: in which a torsional vibration damper (16)
`with multiple of damper stages (14, 15)
`The ’374 patent’s first damper stage 14 (green) and second
`
`damper stage 15 (red) are highlighted below, along with the first
`
`(green) and second (red) damper stages of Haller Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`’374 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Haller Fig. 8
`
`Haller’s two damper stages in Fig. 8 are examples of the claimed first
`
`and second damper stages. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 79.) Thus, Haller teaches
`
`element 1[c]. (Id. ¶ 80.)
`
`Claim 1[d]: a torsional vibration absorber (17)
`The ’374 patent and Haller depict torque converters with
`
`torsional vibration absorbers, highlighted in red below.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Pate
`
`nt No. 8,573,,374
`
`
`
`Pettition for Inteer Partes Revview
`
`
`
`Hall
`
`
`
`er Fig. 88
`
`
`
`
`
`’3774 Patentt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m ass systemspring-mais formedd by the s
`
`
`
`
`
`in Fig. 8
`Haller’s aabsorber
`
`
`
`
`22. (EEx. 1002 ¶¶ 85.) Pattent Owner’s U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent NNos. 8,1611,739 andd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8,161,740 discuuss Halleer’s prioriity applicaation andd acknowlledge thaat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a spriing-mass device fuunctions aas a vibraation absoorber. (Exx. 1019,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1:47–48; Ex. 10020, 1:47–48.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreoverr, Haller teaches ccentrifugaal pendullum vibraation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`absorbers. By referring to the sppring-masss systemm as a vibrration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`canceeller that possessess “a variaable naturral frequeency” andd is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`effective “over a wider frequency band,” Haller invokes centrifugal
`
`force pendulums. (Ex. 1004, 5:17–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 83.) Haller also
`
`refers to the centrifugal force pendulums in the prior art as
`
`“cancellers,” which is the same term that Haller uses to describe its
`
`spring-mass system. (Ex. 1004, 2:15–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 84.) The
`
`“cancellers” in at least two of those documents (DE 199 14 871 A1,1
`
`Ex. 1009 and DE 196 04 160 C1,2 Ex. 1010) are centrifugal force
`
`pendulums of the same type disclosed in the ’374 patent’s preferred
`
`embodiments, as can be seen from the figures. (Ex. 1001, 2:48–49; Ex.
`
`1009; Ex. 1010.)
`
`Thus, Haller teaches element 1[d]. (Id.¶ 86.)
`
`Claim 1[e]: and a lock-up clutch (13) are additionally
`installed
`The torque converter in Haller includes a lock-up clutch, which
`
`is visible in Fig. 8 and labeled with reference numeral 46 elsewhere.
`
`
`1 This German patent has no U.S. equivalent, but the translation is
`
`included in the exhibit.
`
`2 The translation is included, and the U.S. equivalent is U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,884,735, Ex. 1011.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1004, 10:25; Ex. 1002 ¶ 87.) Thus, Haller teaches element 1[e].
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 87.)
`
`Claim 1[f]: wherein a first damper stage (14) and a
`second damper stage (15) are disposed between the lock-
`up clutch (14) and an output hub (12),
`Claim 1[f] describes a first torque path where torque is
`
`transferred from the lock-up clutch through both dampers to the
`
`output hub. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 88.)
`
`Haller’s Fig. 8 depicts the same torque path. The first and
`
`second dampers are connected in series between the lock-up clutch
`
`and the output hub so that when the lock-up clutch is closed, torque
`
`is transferred from the lock-up clutch, serially through both damper
`
`stages, and then to the output hub. Thus, Haller teaches element 1[f].
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 89.)
`
`Claim 1[g]: the second damper stage (15) is disposed
`between the turbine (7) and the output hub (12) and
`Claim 1[g] describes a second torque path where torque passes
`
`from the turbine through the second damper stage to the output hub.
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 90.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1[g]
`
`does not exclude arrangements where additional damper stages are
`
`disposed between the turbine and the output hub.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Haller Fig. 8 describes such an arrangement, where both the
`
`first and second dampers stages are disposed between the turbine
`
`and the output hub. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 92.) Both the lock-up clutch and the
`
`turbine provide input to the first damper stage, so both damper
`
`stages remain disposed between the turbine and the output hub when
`
`the lock-up clutch is open. Thus, Haller teaches element 1[g]. (Ex.
`
`1002 ¶ 92.)
`
`Claim 1[h]: the torsional vibration absorber (17) is
`parallel to both damper stages (14, 15).
`Haller describes two variations, each of which places the
`
`torsional vibration damper parallel to both damper stages.
`
`In the first variation, the mount for the absorber 22 passes
`
`through windows in the input of the second damper stage and is
`
`connected directly to support ring 45 that forms the output of the
`
`second damper stage. (Ex. 1004, 12:5–6.) Thus, the absorber 22 is
`
`connected to the same torque flow path as the first and second
`
`damper stages, but it does not itself transfer the engine’s torque along
`
`the torque flow path. Accordingly, the absorber 22 is parallel to both
`
`damper stages. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 93.)
`
`In the second variation, Haller states that the absorber 22 “is
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`connected nonrotatably to transfer element 42.” (Ex. 1004, 12:5–6.)
`
`The transfer element 42 corresponds to the disk 25 of the ’374 patent
`
`because it forms the output for the first damper stage and the input
`
`for the second damper stage: “power flows from … springs 41,
`
`transfer element 42, springs 44 … in the aforementioned sequence.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 11:7–10.) Haller notes that this arrangement of the
`
`absorber “between the first torsional damper stage and the second
`
`torsional damper stage … results in particularly good dynamic
`
`transfer behavior.” (Id., 4:4–6.)
`
`When Haller’s absorber “is connected nonrotatably to transfer
`
`element 42,” the absorber is parallel to both damper stages. This is
`
`precisely the configuration of the ’374 patent, with the absorber
`
`connected via rivet 33 to the disk part 25 between the damper stages.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 5:12–16.) The disk part 25 and transfer element 42 are
`
`highlighted in green below. Accordingly, the second variation of the
`
`torque converter—described in the text of Haller—has an absorber
`
`that is parallel to both damper stages. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 95.)
`
`Patent owner also conceded in Degler (Ex. 1006, PCT
`
`application resulting in Ex. 1019) that Haller’s absorber is
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`advantageously parallel to the drivetrain—which includes both
`
`damper stages:
`
`Such an arrangement is already known, for example, from the
`publication DE 10236752 A1 [Haller’s priority document].
`Therein the drive machine is connected via at least one
`starting element, especially a … torque converter, with one or
`more gear-mechanism parts. This means that a spring-and-
`mass system … is not connected in series with the drivetrain
`but instead is disposed in parallel connection relative thereto,
`whereby the elasticity of the drivetrain is not impaired.
`(Ex. 1006, 1, emphasis added; see also Ex. 1019, 1:39–47 (similar
`
`recitation).)
`
`Thus, Haller teaches element 1[h]. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 98.)
`
`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.
`Claim 3 requires that a single disk part is shared between the
`
`first and second damper stages. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 99.) As shown in the ’374
`
`patent, disk part 25 (green) is a single component shared between
`
`both damper stages, and the same relationship is shown in Haller
`
`Fig. 8:
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’374 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Haller Fig. 8
`
`
`
`In Haller Fig. 8 above, plates (green) form the output of the first
`
`damper stage and the input of the second damper stage. (Ex. 1004,
`
`10, lines 13-14.) Thus, Haller anticipates claim 3. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 100.)
`
`B. Ground 2: Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Haller and Eckel
`As explained above for claim 1[d], Haller teaches a torque
`
`converter with a torsional vibration absorber, but does not expressly
`
`teach that the torsional vibration absorbers in the figures have
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`multiple masses. (Ex. 1004; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101.) Although, Haller refers
`
`to prior-art absorbers formed by centrifugal force pendulums, Haller
`
`does not state that the spring-mass system 22 can be a centrifugal
`
`force pendulum with multiple masses. (Ex. 1004, 2:15–20.) But,
`
`Haller specifically refers to DE 196 04 160 as a prior-art absorber,
`
`and the U.S. equivalent, Eckel, teaches centrifugal force pendulums
`
`with multiple masses. (Ex. 1011, Fig. 1.)
`
`It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to apply Eckel’s
`
`centrifugal force pendulum to a torque converter with multi-stage
`
`damper as in Haller Fig. 8 because the benefits of Eckel’s centrifugal
`
`force pendulum could be predictably applied to any rotating machine
`
`with order excitation, such as a torque converter. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 103.)
`
`Particularly, incorporating Eckel’s centrifugal force pendulum into a
`
`torque converter would yield the predictable result of attenuating
`
`rotational vibration, as observed by Haller. (Id. ¶ 103.) And, a
`
`PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in making
`
`that modification because it merely involves using Eckel’s pendulum
`
`absorber for its intended purpose. (Id.)
`
`Claim 4[a]: The hydrodynamic torque converter (1)
`according to claim 1, wherein the torsional vibration
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,374
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`absorber (17) comprises a plurality of absorber masses
`(39), and
`Eckel’s drawings show a centrifugal force pendulum including a
`
`plurality of absorber masses 2. (Ex. 1011, Figs. 1–3.) Thus, the
`
`Haller/Eckel combination renders obvious element 4[a]. (Ex. 1002 ¶
`
`105.)
`
`Claim 4[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).
`As noted above in the discussion of claim 1[h], Haller teaches
`
`that the absorber can be “connected nonrotatably to transfer element
`
`42” and that the transfer element forms the input of the second
`
`damper stage (Ex. 1004, 4:4–5, 10:13–14, 12:5–6.) In all
`
`embodiments, Haller’s transfer element includes a disk part that
`
`forms the input of the second damper stage. (Id. Figs. 6–8.) Thus, the
`
`Haller/Eckel combi
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
