UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AND DENSO CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PAGE
`The ’952 Patent ................................................................................................ 2
`
`The ʼ952 Patent Discloses and Claims an Improved Stator
`Assembly ............................................................................................... 2
`1.
`Conventional Stator Assemblies ................................................. 2
`2.
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Improved Stator Assembly Features
`Bridges Linking Together Stator Segments to Form a
`Continuous Strip ......................................................................... 5
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Challenged Claims ................................................... 8
`
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Relevant Prosecution History .................................. 9
`
`The Material Claim Constructions ................................................................ 10
`
`The Applicable Claim Construction Standard .................................... 10
`
`Claim Terms Needing Construction .................................................... 12
`1.
`“a phase change material” ......................................................... 12
`2.
`“the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating
`sections formed from the phase change material” .................... 14
`“a bridge between adjacent segments to link adjacent
`segments into a continuous strip” ............................................. 16
`“a plurality of discrete stator segments” ................................... 16
`4.
`III. The Nakahara Ground: Petitioners Failed to Prove that Claim 10 Is
`Obvious Over Nakahara in View of Ishihara ................................................ 18
`
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that Nakahara Discloses or Suggests
`“a plurality of discrete stator segments” ............................................. 19
`1.
`Nakahara does not disclose “a plurality of discrete stator
`segments” .................................................................................. 20
`Ishihara does not disclose “a plurality of discrete stator
`segments” .................................................................................. 22
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that Nakahara or Ishihara Discloses
`the Claimed Bridge .............................................................................. 23
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners do not assert that Nakahara discloses a bridge
`“formed by interconnecting two mating sections” ................... 23
`Petitioners do not assert that Ishihara discloses a bridge
`“to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip” .................. 25
`IV. The Sheeran Grounds: Petitioners Did Not Prove Claims 10-12 Are
`Obvious Over Sheeran in View of Nakahara, and/or Lieu ............................ 29
`
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that Sheeran Discloses or Suggests
`the Claimed Bridge .............................................................................. 30
`Petitioners Failed to Prove Nakahara Cures Sheeran’s “phase
`change material” Deficiencies ............................................................. 34
`The Iikuma Grounds: Petitioners Did Not Prove Claim 10-12 Are
`Obvious Over Iikuma in View Of Nakahara, Lieu, and/or Stridsberg. ......... 35
`
`Petitioners Failed to Prove Nakahara Cures Iikuma’s “phase
`change material” Deficiencies ............................................................. 35
`Iikuma Does Not Disclose “a bridge between adjacent segments
`to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip” .............................. 36
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 37
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple, Inc. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-00161 (PTAB May 8, 2015)................................................................ 29
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 11
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 11
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 11
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 11
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2001 Webster’s II New College Dictionary 377 (1999)
`
`2002
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011)
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01631, Paper 1 (PTAB
`June 16, 2017)
`
`Declaration of Patrick T. Driscoll in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`2005
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Gerald Micklow
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`For the following reasons, Petitioners Toyota Motor Corporation and Denso
`
`Corporation failed to prove that claims 10-12 (“the challenged claims”) of Patent
`
`Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC’s (“IV”) U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952 (the “’952
`
`Patent”) are invalid.
`
`The Nakahara Ground: Petitioners rely on Nakahara as disclosing all the
`
`elements of claim 10 except the claimed bridge, for which they rely on Ishihara.
`
`But Petitioners do not even attempt to prove that this proposed combination
`
`discloses or suggests the following required claim elements:
`
`• a plurality of discrete stator segments; and
`
`• a bridge formed between adjacent segments to link adjacent segments
`into a continuous strip.
`
`Petitioners also tried, but failed, to prove that Nakahara discloses each of the
`
`“phase change material” limitations, relying on conclusory opinions of their expert
`
`rather than any supporting evidence.
`
`The Sheeran Grounds: In each Sheeran ground, Petitioners rely on
`
`Sheeran as disclosing the claimed bridge, and on Nakahara as disclosing the
`
`claimed “phase change material” limitations. But Sheeran does not disclose the
`
`claimed bridge, but instead teaches a unitary link, similar to that in the Hsu art
`
`overcome during prosecution, which Petitioners concede does not meet the
`
`“bridge” limitations. And Petitioners have not proven that a POSITA would have
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`been motivated to combine Nakahara with Sheeran as they propose or that
`
`Nakahara even discloses the “phase change material” limitations admittedly
`
`missing from Sheeran.
`
`The Iikuma Grounds: In each Iikuma ground, Petitioners rely on Iikuma
`
`as disclosing the claimed bridge, and on Nakahara as disclosing the claimed “phase
`
`change material” limitations. But Iikuma does not disclose “a bridge between
`
`adjacent segments” as claimed; rather, as shown by Petitioners’ own annotated
`
`figures, the purported bridge is beside, not between, the purported stator segments.
`
`And Petitioners have not proven that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine Nakahara with Iikuma as they propose or that Nakahara even discloses
`
`the “phase change material” limitations admittedly missing from Iikuma.
`
`I.
`
`The ’952 Patent
`The ʼ952 Patent Discloses and Claims an Improved Stator
`Assembly
`
`1.
`Conventional Stator Assemblies
`The ’952 Patent generally relates to a stator assembly used in motors, and,
`
`more specifically, concerns “a stator assembly made of a plurality of arc
`
`segments.” Ex. 1001 at 1:16-21.
`
`Stators historically were made by stacking circular pieces of stamped steel
`
`and laminating them together. Id. at 1:29-36. These circular layers have poles
`
`extending inwardly or outwardly, and are laminated together and then coated with
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`insulation. Id. at 1:31-32. Wire is then wound around the poles to form stator
`
`windings. Id. at 1:36-37.
`
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Figure 1 depicts a conventional stator 4 as used in
`
`conventional motor 1. Id. at 1:38-59, Fig. 1. In operation, the stator windings are
`
`selectively energized and interact with the permanent magnet 3 to cause the hub 8
`
`to rotate around the shaft 6 and stator 4. Id. at 1:54-58.
`
`One drawback of using circular steel pieces to create the stator is that the
`
`spaces between the poles are cramped, making it difficult to wind the wire around
`
`the poles tightly and with a high packing density, which negatively affects the
`
`power and the efficiency of the motor. Id. at 2:19-28.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`The ʼ952 Patent explains that one manufacturing method developed to
`
`counter this problem is to first make individual stator segments that are separately
`
`manufactured and wound with wire to form individual poles, “and these segments
`
`are then assembled to form the complete stator.” Id. at 3:34-44. This approach
`
`eliminated the cramped spaces between the stator poles in the conventional
`
`approach, thereby allowing for “higher packing density.” Id. at 34:37.
`
`But this approach suffers from other drawbacks, including the need to
`
`assemble and hold in place the individual stator segments, in order to form the
`
`completed stator assembly:
`
`While this process allows for higher packing density, it has several
`drawbacks. Somehow the individual segments have to be assembled
`and held into place to form the stator. In addition, the individual
`wires of the different poles have to be connected together for the poles
`that are of the same phase. These numerous wires tend to get in the
`way during the assembly process, slowing down the manufacturing
`process.
`
`Id. at 3:38-45.
`
`To address these problems, the ʼ952 Patent describes an improved stator
`
`assembly, and improved methods for assembling individual stator segments to
`
`make such a stator assembly. E.g., id. at 4:13-23.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`2.
`
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Improved Stator Assembly Features
`Bridges Linking Together Stator Segments to Form a
`Continuous Strip
`The ʼ952 Patent describes using injection molding to individually create a
`
`plurality of stator segments that are then assembled into an injection molded stator
`
`assembly. E.g., id. at 1:19-21, 4:12-22, 5:43-50, 7:6-36.
`
`Figures 3 and 4 depict an illustrative individual stator segment 20. The
`
`stator segment is constructed using stacked steel laminations 11, which are shaped
`
`as an arc that includes a pole 2 extending inwardly or outwardly. Id. at 5:13-16,
`
`5:60-66. The stacked pieces are then coated with an encapsulating material 22,
`
`which provides electrical insulation and laminates the pieces together to form the
`
`stator segment 20. Id. at 6:1-5. The ʼ952 Patent describes that this material 22 is
`
`preferably a “phase change material,” which can be changed from a liquid state to
`
`a solid state using, for example, temperature or chemical activation. Id. at 6:6-28.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`The ʼ952 Patent describes that the phase change material is also used to
`
`make webbing 23 extend from the stator segment, as shown in Figures 3-4 above.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 4:11-22, 6:1-5, 6:29-50. After molding, a stator segment’s discrete
`
`webbing 23 can be interconnected to another stator segment’s discrete webbing 23
`
`to form a bridge linking the two segments. See, e.g., id. at 4:11-22, 6:1-5, 6:29-50.
`
`In one embodiment, one stator segment is linked to another using a “mechanical[]
`
`lock.” Id. at 6:41-45. In another, two stator segments’ webbings 23 are melted
`
`together to link the stator segments and form a continuous strip. Id. at 6:41-45.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`This process is repeated to create a continuous strip connecting a series of linked
`
`stator segments, as illustrated in Figure 5:
`
`Id. at 5:17-19, 6:41-47, Fig. 5.
`
`This arrangement allows wire to be tightly wrapped around each stator pole,
`
`without needing to overcome the cramped spaces caused if the poles were already
`
`arranged in a circle: “Having only arc segments, rather than a full toroidal core,
`
`and spreading the spacing between the adjoining segments for needle 35 to wind
`
`wire 15 around poles 21, allows a wire packing density of more than 80 percent to
`
`be achieved.” Id. at 6:61-7:5.
`
`To then create the circular stator, a series of linked and wired stator
`
`segments are then arranged into a toroidal shape. Id. at 7:6-22. In one
`
`embodiment, this toroidal strip of stator segments is held in place by an
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`encapsulating phase change material to form the stator assembly. Id. at 7:23-56.
`
`In another, the discrete stator segments are held in place by a steel collar to form
`
`the stator assembly. Id. at 10:40-56.
`
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Challenged Claims
`Petitioners challenge independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 11 and
`
`12. Independent claim 10 is illustrative and, consistent with the ʼ952 Patent’s
`
`written description, requires:
`
`• a plurality of discrete stator segments,
`
`• adjacent stator segments being linked by a bridges;
`
`• the bridges linking the adjacent stator segments into a continuous
`
`strip;
`
`• the bridges being formed by interconnecting two mating sections; and
`
`• the linked stator segments being secured and arranged to form the
`
`stator assembly.
`
`In full, independent claim 10 reads as follows:
`
`10. A stator assembly, comprising:
`
`a) a plurality of discrete stator segments each at least partially
`encased with a phase change material, wherein the phase
`change material also comprises a bridge between adjacent
`segments to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip,
`wherein the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`sections formed from the phase change material; and
`
`b) the linked stator segments being arranged and secured
`together to form the stator assembly.
`
`Id. at 14:1-11.
`
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Relevant Prosecution History
`During the prosecution of the ʼ952 Patent, the Examiner found the
`
`challenged claims patentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,081,059 (Hsu). Ex. 1022.
`
`With reference to Hsu Figure 4 below, the Examiner stated that Hsu disclosed
`
`adjacent discrete stator segments 110 encased in a phase change material 14 that
`
`simultaneously formed a portion 144 (“bridge”) linking adjacent segments into a
`
`continuous strip. Ex. 1022 at Figs. 2-4.
`
`However, because this portion 144 was integrally made as a single piece
`
`with the encasing phase change material 14, and not by interconnecting two mating
`
`sections formed from that phase change material, the Examiner found that Hsu did
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`not disclose or suggest the claimed “bridge . . . formed by interconnecting two
`
`mating sections”:
`
`[T]he prior art does not teach or suggest that the bridge is formed by
`interconnecting two mating sections formed from the phase change
`material. In particular, Hsu’s bridges 144 do not comprise two
`mating sections interconnected.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 45 (emphasis added).
`
`II.
`
`The Material Claim Constructions
`There are four claim terms or phrases that need construction here:
`
`• “phase change material”;
`
`• “the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating sections formed
`
`from the phase change material”
`
`• “a bridge between adjacent segments to link adjacent segments into a
`
`continuous strip”; and
`
`• “a plurality of discrete stator segments.”
`
`The Board construed the first three limitations in its Institution Order, and
`
`Patent Owner IV does not challenge those constructions. The Board has not yet
`
`construed the last limitation.
`
`The Applicable Claim Construction Standard
`Because the ʼ952 Patent will not expire during the IPR trial, the Board
`
`construes the challenged claims under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`standard. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The broadest reasonable interpretation does not
`
`mean the broadest possible interpretation. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789
`
`F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Rather, this standard gives claim terms their
`
`ordinary and customary meanings, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms must be given
`
`their ordinary meaning unless 1) the applicant acted as his own lexicographer; or 2)
`
`when the applicant disavowed the full scope of a claim term in the specification or
`
`prosecution history. Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The ordinary meaning of a claim term is the meaning the term would have
`
`had to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention after reading
`
`the entire patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). The ordinary meaning may be evidenced by a variety of sources,
`
`including the words of the claims themselves, the written description, the
`
`drawings, and extrinsic sources. Id. at 1314–19. Above all, however, the ordinary
`
`meaning must be consistent with the specification. Id. at 1315–17.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Claim Terms Needing Construction
`1.
`“a phase change material”
`Claim 10 recites a stator assembly having “a plurality of discrete stator
`
`segments each at least partially encased with a phase change material.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 14:1-11 (emphasis added). As the Board recognized in its Institution Decision,
`
`the correct construction of “phase change material” is simply its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, i.e., “phase change material” means “a material that is capable of
`
`changing phases.” Paper 9 at 8. This is the construction the Board should adopt
`
`and apply in its final written decision.
`
`Neither the ’952 Patent claims nor the specification explicitly restrict the
`
`scope of this term to a particular material or configuration using a special
`
`definition or disclaimer language, and, to the extent that Petitioners propose that
`
`the Board deviate from this construction, such a proposal would be incorrect.
`
`The Petition contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a phase
`
`change material” is “a material that can be used in a liquid phase to envelop[] the
`
`stator, but which later changes to a solid phase.” Pet. at 11. But Petitioners’
`
`construction is based on their incorrect assertion that the following passage
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`specially defines “phase change material” as one that must completely cover1 the
`
`stator:
`
`The encapsulating material 22 is preferably formed of a phase change
`material, meaning a material that can be used in a liquid phase to
`envelope [sic] the stator, but which later changes to a solid phase.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:6-9 (emphasis added). This passage describes a preferred
`
`embodiment and merely indicates that a phase change material can be used in a
`
`liquid phase to envelop a stator; it does not say that all phase change materials
`
`necessarily must envelop the stator. In other words, this disclosure describes one
`
`example of how the “phase change material” of the ’952 Patent is used and does
`
`not limit, or otherwise define, the term.
`
`The specification confirms that “phase change material” is not limited to
`
`materials that completely envelop the stator, describing embodiments in which a
`
`phase change material that partially encases stator segments, as opposed to
`
`enveloping the complete stator. Id. at 5:61-6:4, 7:6-11, 13:4-5. Indeed,
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction is inconsistent with claim 10 itself, which
`
`describes “a plurality of discrete stator segments each at least partially encased
`
`with a phase change material.” Id. at 14:1-11 (emphasis added).
`
`1 The ordinary meaning of “envelop” is “[t]o enclose or encase entirely with or as
`
`if with a covering.” Ex. 2001.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`For at least these reasons, the plain and ordinary meaning adopted by the
`
`Board in its Institution Order for “phase change material” – i.e., “a material that is
`
`capable of changing phases” –is the correct construction and should be adopted
`
`and applied in the final written decision.
`
`2.
`
`“the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating
`sections formed from the phase change material”
`In its Institution Decision, the Board construed “the bridge is formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections formed from the phase change material” to
`
`mean “the bridge comprises two sections mated to the stator segments that are
`
`interconnected and formed from the phase change material.” Paper 9 at 11, 13. As
`
`the Board explained, this construction is consistent with the claim language and the
`
`specification, and, therefore, it is the construction the Board should adopt and
`
`apply in the final written decision. Paper No. 9 at 11-13.
`
`To the extent that Petitioners still propose that the Board deviate from this
`
`construction, such a proposal would be incorrect. The Petition construes “bridge”
`
`as “compris[ing] two mating sections, interconnected, formed from phase change
`
`material.” Pet. at 16-17 (emphasis added). As the Board correctly recognized, the
`
`Petitioners’ construction ignores that the limitation in question does not concern
`
`just any phase change material as Petitioners propose; it concerns “the phase
`
`change material,” whose antecedent basis is in the limitation “a plurality of discrete
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`stator segments each at least partially encased with a phase change material.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:1-11 (emphasis added); Paper No. 9 at 11. In other words,
`
`according to the plain and explicit language of claim 10 (but contrary to
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction), the phase change material that comprises the
`
`bridge must be the same phase change material that at least partially encases the
`
`stator segments. 2 Ex. 1001 at 14:1-11; Paper No. 9 at 11.
`
`For at least these reasons, the plain and ordinary meaning adopted by the
`
`Board in its Institution Order, i.e., “the bridge comprises two sections mated to the
`
`stator segments that are interconnected3 and formed from the phase change
`
`material,” also should be adopted and applied in the final written decision.
`
`2 In the ITC Investigation concerning the ʼ952 Patent, the ALJ initially construed
`
`“the phase change material also comprises a bridge between adjacent segments” to
`
`mean “the same phase change material that partially encases the plurality of
`
`segments also comprises a bridge between adjacent stator segments.” Consistent
`
`with the Institution Order, the ALJ also construed “wherein the bridge is formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections” to be a product-by-process limitation. The
`
`ʼ952 Patent is no longer asserted or at issue in the ITC Investigation.
`
`3 In the ITC Investigation concerning the ʼ952 Patent, the ALJ initially construed
`
`“interconnected” to mean “joining together to resist separation.”
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`3.
`
`“a bridge between adjacent segments to link adjacent
`segments into a continuous strip”
`In addition to each claimed bridge being formed from two mating sections, it
`
`must also be “a bridge between adjacent segments to link adjacent segments into a
`
`continuous strip.” Ex. 1001 at 14:4-6. In the Board’s Institution Decision, the
`
`Board rejected Petitioners’ proposed construction as wrongly reading in additional
`
`limitations concerning direction of the continuous strip. Paper No. 9, at 8-10. The
`
`Board should adopt and maintain this construction in the final written decision.
`
`“a plurality of discrete stator segments”
`4.
`Claim 10 and all of its dependent claims require “a plurality of discrete
`
`stator segments.” Ex. 1001 at 14:2. The ordinary meaning and correct
`
`construction of this limitation in the context of the ʼ952 Patent’s specification and
`
`claims is “more than one discrete stator segment that, when arranged and secured
`
`together, form the stator assembly.”
`
`This meaning is explicitly required by the claims themselves. For example,
`
`claim 10 specifies that when the plurality of discrete stator segments are arranged
`
`and secured together, they form the claimed stator assembly: “the linked stator
`
`segments [are] arranged and secured together to form the stator assembly.”
`
`Id. at 14:10-11 (emphasis added).
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`That the discrete stator segments together form a complete stator assembly,
`
`rather than just part of a stator assembly, is also consistent with the ʼ952 Patent’s
`
`written description. For example, like the claims, the specification describes “the
`
`linked stator segments being arranged and secured together to form the stator
`
`assembly.” Id. at 4:20-22. The specification further describes that the patent
`
`concerns “a stator assembly made from the plurality of arc segments” and the
`
`stator assembly “is formed by injection molding plurality of stator arc segments 20
`
`(FIG. 2) aligned to form a toroidal core 17 (FIG. 7).” Id. at 1:19-21, 5:47-51. As
`
`repeatedly described in the ʼ952 Patent, once the plurality of individual stator
`
`segments are arranged into a toroidal shape and then secured by a body of phase
`
`change material, the stator assembly is complete: “As shown in FIG. 7, the
`
`toroidal core 17 is then encapsulated in a body 42. Together the toroidal core 17
`
`and the body 42 make up the injection molded stator assembly 40.” E.g., id. at 7:6-
`
`26.
`
`Accordingly, “a plurality of discrete stator segments” should be construed as
`
`“more than one discrete stator segment that, when arranged and secured together,
`
`form the stator assembly.” Petitioners did not propose or apply any construction
`
`for this term.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`III. The Nakahara Ground: Petitioners Failed to Prove that Claim 10
`Is Obvious Over Nakahara in View of Ishihara
`The Board instituted only one ground asserting Nakahara as the primary
`
`reference: “claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakahara and
`
`Ishihara.” Paper No. 9 at 46. Petitioners rely on Nakahara as disclosing all the
`
`elements of claim 10 except the claimed bridge, for which they rely on Ishihara:
`
`As detailed below, Nakahara taught all of the features of claims 10
`and 12, expect for the “bridge [that] is formed by interconnecting two
`mating sections.” Ishihara specifically taught to modify Nakahara’s
`design to join adjacent stator segment with a “connecting member”
`that corresponds to the claimed “bridge.”
`
`Pet. at 23.
`
`But Petitioners do not even attempt to prove that this proposed combination
`
`of Nakahara and Ishihara discloses or suggests the following required claim
`
`elements:
`
`• a plurality of discrete stator segments; and
`
`• a bridge formed between adjacent segments to link adjacent segments
`into a continuous strip.
`
`Petitioners also tried, but failed, to prove that Nakahara discloses each of the
`
`“phase change material” limitations.
`
`Each of these failures of proof provides a separate, independent reason why
`
`Petitioners’ Nakahara ground fails.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that Nakahara Discloses or
`Suggests “a plurality of discrete stator segments”
`Claim 10 requires “a plurality of discrete stator segments.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`14:2. Petitioners rely solely on Nakahara (not Ishihara) for this limitation, but they
`
`have not proven their conclusory assertion that “Nakahara discloses this feature.”
`
`Pet. at 25.
`
`According to the Petition, Nakahara’s “magnetic pole teeth 2” are the
`
`claimed stator segments. Id. But the Petition provides no analysis or evidence that
`
`the magnetic pole teeth 2 are the claimed “plurality of discrete stator segments”
`
`under any construction, much less the correct one proposed by IV. Instead, the
`
`Petition simply assumes in a parenthetical, without explanation or reason, that
`
`magnetic pole teeth 2 are the claimed “plurality of discrete stator segments”: “In
`
`Nakahara, ‘magnetic pole teeth 2’ (i.e., stator segments) are encased using
`
`insulating ‘bobbins 5.’” Pet. at 25 (emphasis added). Petitioners’ entire argument
`
`on this issue addresses only whether the magnetic pole teeth are at least partially
`
`encased with a phase change material, not whether they are the stator segments
`
`required by claim 10. Having wholly failed to substantively address this issue,
`
`Petitioners have not met their burden.
`
`Moreover, as discussed above, the correct construction of the claimed
`
`“plurality of discrete stator segments” is “more than one discrete stator segment
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`that, when arranged and secured together, form the stator assembly.” The
`
`“magnetic pole teeth 2” relied on by Petitioners do not on their own form the stator
`
`assembly when arranged and secured together, and the Petitioners have not
`
`asserted otherwise. See, e.g., Pet. at 25-26, 33-34.
`
`And to do so now would be both untimely and contrary to the teachings of
`
`Nakahara (and Ishihara).
`
`1.
`
`Nakahara does not disclose “a plurality of discrete stator
`segments”
`As Nakahara reflects, a functional stator requires salient magnetic poles to
`
`drive the rotor of an electric motor, as well as an annular portion (i.e., a “back-
`
`iron”) to ensure a return of the generated magnetic flux so that magnetic flux
`
`through an easy (iron) path rather than through a hard (air) path. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1006 at Abstract. The Nakahara reference reflects this understanding of stator
`
`design because it discloses that its stator is not complete until the “magnetic pole
`
`teeth 2” are fastened to a separate annular yoke piece (“outer yoke 3”): “[a] stator
`
`core 1 is divided into a ring-shaped outer yoke 3 and a plurality of magnetic pole
`
`teeth 2 that are fastened to the inner-diameter side.” Id.
`
`Nakahara’s Figure 2, reproduced below, is a front view illustrating the stator
`
`assembly. The magnetic pole teeth 2 and the outer yoke 3 are both structured from
`
`laminated iron cores. Ex. 1006 ¶ 33. The stator teeth 2 are separate from the yoke
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`3. Id. That is “[t]he stator core 1 is divided into magnetic pole teeth 2 (magnetic
`
`pole teeth) that are independently separated into the same number as the number of
`
`slot parts 14 (in this example 6 = 3 phases x 2-fold) and a ring-shaped outer yoke 3
`
`that is situated on the outer-diameter side.” Id.
`
`Thus, Nakahara discloses that its recited stator is not complete until the
`
`“magnetic pole teeth 2” are mated to a separate annular yoke piece. Id. ¶ 41.
`
`Indeed, Petitioners admit in the Petition that the pole teeth must be combined with
`
`the outer yoke in order to form the stator assembly: “In Nakahara, the coil bobbin
`
`connector 15 is ‘rounded to the normal state, and each of the magnetic pole teeth 2
`
`is mated and fixed to the outer yoke 3 to complete the structure of stator 8.’”
`
`Pet. at 33 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 41).
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Because the “magnetic pole teeth 2” when arranged and secured together
`
`without the inclusion of additional components would not result in a functional
`
`stator assembly, the “magnetic pole teeth 2” are not “stator segments” as claimed
`
`in the ’952 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Ishihara does not disclose “a plurality of discrete stator
`segments”
`Petitioners do not argue that Ishihara cures this deficiency in Nakahara, but
`
`instead rely on Ishihara only for the “bridge” limitations of claim 10: