throbber

`
`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 No. IPR2017-01497
`
`Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GERALD JOHN MICKLOW, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,067,952
`
`PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT 1024
`
`PAGE 1 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Summary of Opinions ................................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. Background and Qualifications .................................................................... 2
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 7
`IV. Materials Reviewed ....................................................................................... 8
`V.
`Background of My Analysis .......................................................................... 8
`A.
`Legal Standards ..................................................................................... 8
`1.
`The Hypothetical “Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art” ............ 9
`2.
`Anticipation ............................................................................... 10
`3.
`Obviousness .............................................................................. 10
`Background of the ’952 Patent and the Challenged Claims ............... 14
`B.
`C. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 17
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 18
`1.
`“phase change material” (Claim 10) ......................................... 19
`2.
`“a bridge between adjacent segments to link adjacent
`segments into a continuous strip” ............................................. 20
`“the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating
`sections formed from the phase change material” .................... 23
`VI. Analysis of the Priority Date of the ’952 Patent ....................................... 23
`VII. Prior-Art Analysis ....................................................................................... 25
`A.
`Claims 10-12 would have been obvious to a POSITA based on
`the combined teachings of Nakahara, Ishihara, and/or Lieu ............... 25
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`
`PAGE 2 OF 80
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 10: Obvious based on Nakahara and Ishihara ................ 26
`Claim 11: Obvious based on Nakahara in view of
`Ishihara and Lieu ....................................................................... 37
`Claim 12: Obvious based on Nakahara and Ishihara ................ 42
`3.
`Claims 10-12 would have been obvious to a POSITA based on
`the combined teachings of Iikuma, Nakahara, Lieu, and/or
`Stridsberg ............................................................................................. 44
`1.
`Claim 10: Obvious based on Iikuma and Nakahara ................. 45
`2.
`Claim 11: Obvious based on Iikuma in view of Nakahara
`and Lieu ..................................................................................... 52
`Claim 12: Obvious based on Iikuma in view of Nakahara
`and Stridsberg ........................................................................... 57
`Claims 10-12 would have been obvious to a POSITA based on
`the combined teachings of Sheeran, Nakahara, and/or Lieu ............... 63
`1.
`Claim 10: Obvious based on Sheeran in view of
`Nakahara ................................................................................... 64
`Claim 11: Obvious based on Sheeran in view of
`Nakahara and Lieu .................................................................... 71
`Claim 12: Obvious over Sheeran and Nakahara ....................... 73
`Prior-Art Date of Sheeran ......................................................... 74
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`PAGE 3 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Gerald John Micklow, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked to submit this declaration on behalf of Toyota
`
`Motor Corporation and Denso Corporation in connection with a petition for inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952 (“the ’952 patent”),1 which I
`
`understand is being submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, I have been retained as a technical expert to study and
`
`provide my opinions on the technology claimed in claims 10-12 of the ’952 patent
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”), including whether a POSITA would have found the
`
`claimed technology to be obvious. For purposes of this declaration, I was not asked
`
`to provide any opinions that are not expressed herein.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`As set forth in this Declaration, it is my opinion that a person of
`3.
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have found it obvious to combine the
`
`teachings of JP7-245895 (Ex. 1006, “Nakahara”) with JP11-89128 (Ex. 1007,
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’952 patent is Exhibit 1001 to the petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’952 patent.
`
`1
`
`
`PAGE 4 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`“Ishihara”) and WO 01/45233 (Ex. 1008, “Lieu”) to arrive at the invention recited
`
`in claims 10-12 of the ’952 patent.
`
`4.
`
`It is also my opinion that a POSITA would have found those claims
`
`obvious over the combined teachings of JP1997-308163 (Ex. 1009, “Iikuma”) with
`
`Nakahara and Lieu.
`
`5.
`
`It is also my opinion that a POSITA would have found those claims
`
`obvious over the combined teachings of U.S. Patent No. 7,471,025 (Ex. 1010,
`
`“Sheeran”) in view of Nakahara and Lieu.
`
`III. Background and Qualifications
`A. Background
` I am currently employed as a full Professor of Mechanical and
`6.
`
`Aerospace Engineering at Florida Institute of Technology (“FIT”) in Melbourne,
`
`FL. I have been a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina
`
`since December of 2004 and active in the mechanical engineering field for
`
`decades, including through my membership in the American Society of
`
`Mechanical Engineers (ASME) since 1988. My mechanical engineering experience
`
`was developed through a variety of academic and industrial projects directed to
`
`automotive components, including electric motors. I have been involved in the
`
`design and evaluation of advanced power producing systems, such as electric
`
`motors, for over 40 years. I have worked within the areas of automotive
`
`2
`
`
`PAGE 5 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`engineering, mechanics of materials, electric motor design, fluid dynamics, and
`
`manufacturing methods, and have authored, co-authored, or edited several books
`
`and numerous peer-reviewed technical papers in these areas.
`
`7. My work on power production systems has resulted in a number of
`
`engineering awards. For example, I was awarded the American Society of
`
`Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Professor of the Year award for the 2015-2016
`
`term. I am also included in AcademicKeys Who’s Who in Engineering in Higher
`
`Education. Additionally, I provide review and editing services for a wide variety of
`
`mechanical engineering publications, including the American Society of
`
`Engineering Education (ASEE) Southeast Conference (2005-present), the Journal
`
`of Mechanical, Aerospace and Industrial Engineering (2007-present), and the
`
`Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2007-present), among
`
`others.
`
`8.
`
`I received my Bachelors of Science in Aerospace Engineering from
`
`the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) in 1975. I obtained my Masters of
`
`Science in Aerospace Engineering from Penn State in 1981. I obtained my Ph.D. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
`
`(Virginia Tech) in 1989. I attach my current curriculum vitae (CV) as Appendix A
`
`to this Declaration.
`
`3
`
`
`PAGE 6 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`I joined Pratt & Whitney in 1976 as a Senior Analytical Design
`
`Engineer. I worked on a wide variety of engineering projects directed to various
`
`aspects of power producing systems and components. For example, I worked on
`
`advanced fan and compressor design, including analysis of flow dynamics related
`
`to rotor and stator blades. Following my time at Pratt & Whitney, I continued
`
`working on advanced design and evaluation of power producing components at
`
`Tracor Aerospace and then Allison Gas Turbines until 1982. While at Allison Gas
`
`Turbines, I received funding to research aspects of power production systems
`
`related to rotors and stators.
`
`10.
`
`I joined the Mechanical Engineering Department at Virginia Tech in
`
`1982 as a full-time faculty member and instructor in the thermal and fluid sciences
`
`area. I worked at Virginia Tech for six years before becoming an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Florida,
`
`Gainesville. At the University of Florida, I taught classes in power production
`
`systems for automotive applications, including computational fluid dynamics, fluid
`
`dynamics, combustion, jet and rocket propulsion, gas turbine engines, advanced
`
`fan and compressor design, compressible gas dynamics, turbomachinery, hydraulic
`
`systems, and internal combustion engines.
`
`11.
`
`In 1996, I also joined the mechanical engineering department at the
`
`University of Alabama where I focused my research on power production systems
`
`4
`
`
`PAGE 7 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`for automotive applications. I was one of the key collaborating researchers to start
`
`the Center for Advanced Vehicle Technology (CAVT), which is directed to the
`
`research of electric vehicle components, such as electric motors.
`
`12.
`
`I joined the Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Science
`
`Department at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte in 2001 as an Associate
`
`Professor. While at the University of North Carolina, I became a licensed
`
`Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina in 2004. I worked in this
`
`position until 2005, when I joined the Department of Engineering at East Carolina
`
`University as a Professor and Program Director with a Mechanical Engineering
`
`Concentration. During my time at these positions, I taught classes in the design and
`
`evaluation of automotive engineering components, including various components
`
`and aspects of power production systems, such as gas turbine engines, electric
`
`motors, advanced fan and compressor design, combustion, hydraulic systems,
`
`turbomachinery, internal combustion engines, external aerodynamics, dynamics,
`
`mechanics of materials, and non-destructive testing. I also developed numerous
`
`graduate level courses, including one course titled, “Automotive Powertrains,”
`
`which included sections on electric components in hybrid electric vehicles. At the
`
`undergraduate level, I developed a course in Materials and Processes, which
`
`included a significant section on polymers, thermoplastics, and injection molding
`
`manufacturing techniques.
`
`5
`
`
`PAGE 8 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`13. My current position is at FIT, which I joined in 2012 as a Professor.
`
`During my tenure at FIT, I have acted as the Head of Automotive Engineering and
`
`the Director of the Florida Center for Automotive Research. At FIT I have taught
`
`classes in automotive engineering, thermodynamics, computational fluid dynamics,
`
`fluid dynamics, gas turbine engines, advanced fan and compressor design,
`
`compressible gas dynamics, jet and rocket propulsion, acoustic emissions,
`
`combustion, hydraulic systems, turbomachinery, internal combustion engines,
`
`external aerodynamics, dynamics, mechanics of materials, non-destructive testing,
`
`and alternative fuels.
`
`14.
`
`I have been the Director of several laboratories related to the design of
`
`power production systems while at these universities. For example, I am the
`
`Director of the Florida Center for Automotive Research at FIT through which I
`
`supervise the development and design of power generation systems for automotive
`
`applications. I was also the Director of the Materials and Welding Lab at East
`
`Carolina University, the Computational Fluid Dynamics Lab at several
`
`universities, and the Internal Combustion Engine Lab at several universities.
`
`Through this work, over the last 40 years, I personally have disassembled, rebuilt,
`
`and reassembled hundreds of electric starter motors, generators, and other electric
`
`automotive motor components.
`
`6
`
`
`PAGE 9 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`15. Throughout my career, I have served on numerous engineering
`
`committees. For example, at FIT, I was the chair of the Faculty Search Committee
`
`for mechanical engineering. While at East Carolina University, I chaired the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Concentration Development Committee and the
`
`Promotion and Tenure Committee for engineering.
`
`16. Early in my career, I received several NASA/ASEE Summer Faculty
`
`Fellowships and was inducted into the U.S. Space Foundation Technology Hall of
`
`Fame in 2000. I was also listed in the Who’s Who for the International Gas
`
`Turbine Institute, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers from 1993-
`
`2006. In addition to several other awards and recognitions, most recently, I was
`
`named the 2015-2016 ASME Outstanding Professor of the Year.
`
`17. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are included in my curriculum vitae (attached as Appendix A).
`
`B. Compensation
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`18.
`
`usual and customary rate of $550.00 per hour plus travel expenses. My
`
`compensation is not conditioned on the conclusions I reach as a result of my
`
`analysis or on the outcome of this matter, and in no way affects the substance of
`
`my statements in this declaration.
`
`7
`
`
`PAGE 10 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`19.
`
`I have no financial interest in either of the Petitioners, or any of their
`
`subsidiaries. I also have no financial interest in Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures
`
`II LLC. I do not have any financial interest in the ’944 patent and have not had any
`
`contact with the named inventor of the ’944 patent, Griffith D. Neal.
`
`IV. Materials Reviewed
`
`20.
`
`In forming my opinions, I reviewed and considered the ’952 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) and exhibits 1003-1021 listed in the Exhibit List filed with the petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’952 patent, as well as any other material referenced
`
`herein.
`
`21.
`
`I have been asked to assume that each of Exhibits 1003-1015 and
`
`1017-1020 qualifies as prior art to the Challenged Claims of the ’952 patent.
`
`V. Background of My Analysis
`
`A. Legal Standards
`I have been told the following legal principles apply to analysis of
`22.
`
`patentability based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. I also have been told that, in an
`
`inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim may be deemed unpatentable if it is
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was anticipated by a prior
`
`art patent or publication under § 102 and/or rendered obvious by one or more prior
`
`art patents or publications under § 103.
`
`8
`
`
`PAGE 11 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`The Hypothetical “Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art”
`1.
`I understand that claims of a patent are to be interpreted from the
`
`23.
`
`perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`24.
`
`I understand a person of ordinary skill in the art is determined by
`
`looking at (A) type of problems encountered in the art; (B) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are made; (D) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (E) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`25. The level of skill in the art relevant to the ’952 patent is apparent from
`
`the cited art. Based on my review of the cited art, as well as my experience in this
`
`art in the 1990s and early 2000s, and accounting for the foregoing factors, I believe
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’952 patent would have had a bachelors
`
`degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and at least
`
`two years of experience in the design of electric motors. In particular, a POSITA
`
`would be familiar with the fundamentals of electric motor design and operation,
`
`the concept of encapsulating various components in an electric motor, the types of
`
`materials that could be used for encapsulation and their thermal and dimensional
`
`properties, and thermofluid concepts. A POSITA would further be aware of
`
`various techniques for manufacturing encapsulated motors, including by the use of
`
`injection molding.
`
`9
`
`
`PAGE 12 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`26.
`
`I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art as of March 5, 2003.
`
`I also was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art on March 2, 2001, which I
`
`have been informed is the earliest date to which claims of the ’952 patent may be
`
`entitled.
`
`Anticipation
`2.
`I have been told that for a claim to be “anticipated,” every limitation
`
`27.
`
`of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference.
`
`3. Obviousness
`I have been told that even if a claim is not “anticipated,” a claim may
`
`28.
`
`nonetheless be considered “obvious” if the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented 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 having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`29. When considering the issues of obviousness, I have been told that I
`
`am to do the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`c.
`
`Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`10
`
`
`PAGE 13 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`d.
`
`Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`30.
`
`I have been told that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`alleged invention. I have been instructed by counsel to assume that the relevant
`
`timeframe to analyze the obviousness of the Challenged Claims of the ’952 patent
`
`is March 5, 2003.
`
`31.
`
`I have been told that a reference may be modified or combined with
`
`other references or with the person of ordinary skill’s own knowledge if the person
`
`would have found the modification or combination obvious. I have also been told
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the relevant prior
`
`art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`32.
`
`In determining whether a prior-art reference could have been
`
`combined with another prior-art reference or other information known to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, I have been told that the following principles may
`
`be considered:
`
`a. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`11
`
`
`PAGE 14 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`b. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`c. The use of a known technique to improve similar items or methods in
`
`the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`d. The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement is likely obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`e. Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed;
`
`f. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle; and
`
`g. The proper analysis of obviousness requires a determination of
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “reasonable
`
`expectation of success”—not “absolute predictability” of success—in
`
`achieving the claimed invention by combining prior art references.
`
`33.
`
`I have been told that whether a prior art reference renders a patent
`
`claim obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I have also been told that, while there is no requirement that the prior art
`
`contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, a suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed
`
`12
`
`
`PAGE 15 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`invention may come from the prior art as a whole or individually, as filtered
`
`through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. In addition, I have been told that
`
`the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ
`
`are also relevant to the determination of obviousness.
`
`34.
`
`I have been told that, when a work is available in one field, design
`
`alternatives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or in another. I have also been told that if a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`can implement a predictable variation and would see the benefit of doing so, that
`
`variation is likely to be obvious. I have been told that in many fields, there may be
`
`little discussion of obvious combinations, and in these fields market demand—not
`
`scientific literature—may drive design trends. I have been told that, when there is a
`
`design need or market pressure and there are a finite number of predictable
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue those
`
`known options.
`
`35.
`
`I have been told that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But I also have been told that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. I have been told that this test poses the question as to
`
`whether there is an express or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`13
`
`
`PAGE 16 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it
`
`seeks to counter impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`Background of the ’952 Patent and the Challenged Claims
`B.
`36. The ’952 patent is titled “Stator Assembly Made from a Molded Web
`
`of Core Segments and Motor Using Same.” According to the ’952 patent, it
`
`“relates generally to a stator assembly used in a dynamoelectric machine such as a
`
`motor or a generator,” and particularly to “a spindle motor such as used in a hard
`
`disc drive, and to the construction and arrangement of a stator assembly made from
`
`a plurality of arc segments.” Ex. 1001 [’952 patent], 1:16-21.
`
`37. The ’952 patent describes a stator core made up of stamp-formed
`
`laminated steel arc segments 20 (highlighted in blue below). Id., 5:61-66. Those
`
`segments are “coated with encapsulating material 22 [highlighted in orange below]
`
`which provides electrical insulation and laminates the pieces together to form a
`
`stator arc segment 20, and links other arc segments into a continuous strip via
`
`webbing 23.” Id., 6:1-5.
`
`14
`
`
`PAGE 17 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`’952 Patent, Figs. 3 and 5 (highlighted and annotated)
`38. According to the ’952 patent, a “multi-cavity mold 28” can be used to
`
`
`
`coat the steel arc segments with encapsulating material. Id., 6:29-30. In the
`
`“preferred” molding operation, “a continuous strip of segments is formed by
`
`linking the webbing from successive molding operation[s]”:
`
`This is done by designing the tool to insert a section of
`the plastic webbing of the outermost segment molded in
`the prior cycle with the new laminations to be molded.
`When the plastic encapsulates the new segments it can
`mechanically lock with or, depending on design, re-melt,
`the webbing from the prior cycle, thus making a
`continuous strip, as shown in FIG. 5
`Id., 6:36-47.
`
`39. The ’952 patent describes two ways of holding a strip of stator
`
`segments into a toroidal stator shape. In the first, “the toroidal core [may be]
`
`encapsulated in a body 42” (highlighted in green, below at left) by injection
`
`15
`
`
`PAGE 18 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`molding. Id., 7:23-25. In the second, the stator segments may be held in place by
`
`“the use of a steel collar 200 [highlighted in purple, below at right] to fixture the
`
`discrete stator segments 220.” Id., 10:43-47.
`
`’952 Patent, Figs. 7 and 10 (highlighted)
`I understand that the ’952 patent contains 14 claims. For the purposes
`
`40.
`
`
`
`of this Declaration, I was asked to analyze independent claim 10 and its dependent
`
`claims 11 and 12. In this Declaration, I will refer collectively to claims 10-12 as
`
`the “Challenged Claims.”
`
`41.
`
`Independent claim 10, reproduced below, recites a segmented stator
`
`including some of the features from the specification described above.
`
`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
`16
`
`
`PAGE 19 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`between adjacent segments to link adjacent segments into
`a continuous strip, wherein the bridge is formed by
`interconnecting two mating sections formed from the
`phase change material; and
`b) the linked stator segments being arranged and secured
`together to form the stator assembly.
`I note that claim 10 uses different terminology from the ’952 patent’s written
`
`description. Whereas the written description describes the links between stator
`
`segments as “webbing 23” (Ex. 1001 [’952 patent], 6:48-50), claim 10 refers to the
`
`links as a “bridge.”
`
`42. Claims 11 and 12 “depend” from claim 10, meaning that they
`
`incorporate all of the features of claim 10 and tack on one or more additional
`
`features. In particular, claims 11 adds that the stator segments of claim 10 are held
`
`in a toroidal shape by “an overmolded thermoplastic material.” Claim 12 adds that
`
`the stator segments of claim 10 are held in shape by “a retaining member.”
`
`C. Overview of the Prior Art
`43. The ’952 patent describes a number of features that had already been
`
`provided in prior-art electric motor stators. Ex. 1001 [’952 patent], 1:25-4:7. For
`
`example, the patent states that: (a) stators had been provided as “discrete stator
`
`segments”; (b) stators had been at least partially encased; (c) stator segments had
`
`been provided in a continuous strip before winding; and (d) stators had already
`
`been overmolded with thermoplastic materials. See id., 3:12-4:1. I agree that those
`
`features—and more—were well known in the art before 2003.
`17
`
`
`PAGE 20 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`44. The use of thermoplastic materials, in particular, was well known
`
`since at least as early as 1994. For example, I am aware of a 1994 article authored
`
`by Hassink, which details the known advantages of using thermoplastic materials
`
`in motor stators and other components (e.g., rotors). See Ex. 1020 (“Hassink”).
`
`According to Hassink, by 1994, motor manufacturers were “employ[ing] insert
`
`molding to encapsulate the stator, while simultaneously building in assembly
`
`functions” as one path “to reduce costs and improve reliability with engineering
`
`plastics,” as well as to achieve other advantages. Id. at 4-5. Hassink specifically
`
`discussed several commercial motor designs using thermoplastics, including
`
`“nylon,” “polyethylene terephthalate (PET),” and “[p]olyester resins based on
`
`PET” thermoplastic materials.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`I have been told by counsel that the claims in the ’952 patent should
`45.
`
`be understood based on their broadest reasonable construction in light of the patent
`
`specification for purposes of this inter partes review proceeding. Unless otherwise
`
`noted, my opinions in this declaration are consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the claims to a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2003. For the
`
`purposes of this Declaration, I agree that no explicit construction is needed for any
`
`claim term not addressed below.
`
`18
`
`
`PAGE 21 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`“phase change material” (Claim 10)
`1.
`46. Claim 10 recites a “phase change material.” In my experience, a
`
`“phase change” material typically refers to something that is capable of changing
`
`from one phase (gas, solid, liquid) to another and back during operation. The ’952
`
`patent defines a “phase change material” differently.
`
`47. According to the ’952 patent, a “phase change material” means “a
`
`material that can be used in a liquid phase to envelop[] the stator, but which later
`
`changes to a solid phase.” Ex. 1001 [’952 patent], 6:6-9. As described in the ’952
`
`patent, the “phase change material” then remains in solid form during normal
`
`operation of the motor. See id., 6:20-24 (describing “preferred” thermoplastic
`
`“phase change materials” that “will become molten at a temperature at which it is
`
`injection-moldable, and then will be solid at normal operating temperatures for the
`
`motor”). The ’952 patent also lists a number of thermoplastic resin materials that it
`
`considers to be “suitable,” including plastics such as “6,6-polyamide,[2] . . .
`
`polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate, . . . aromatic polyesters, . . .
`
`polypropylene, polyethylene, . . . polystyrene, styrene copolymer, mixtures and
`
`
`2 “6,6-polyamide” is a type of nylon. U.S. Patent No. 6,121,351 (“Weaver”), 30:66
`
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`19
`
`
`PAGE 22 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`graft copolymers of styrene and rubber,” and several other examples. Ex. 1001
`
`[’952 patent], 9:2-19.
`
`48. Notably, the ’952 patent’s definition of “phase change materials” is
`
`not limited to “thermoplastics.” According to the patent, “epoxy” qualifies as a
`
`chemically activated phase change material, and “[o]ther suitable phase change
`
`materials may be classified as thermosetting materials.” Id., 6:24-28.
`
`49. Because the ’952 patent specifically defines “phase change material,”
`
`it is my opinion that a POSITA would understand that term to mean “a material
`
`that can be used in a liquid phase to envelop[] the stator, but which later changes to
`
`a solid phase.” A POSITA further would understand that a “phase change
`
`material,” in the context of the ’952 patent, specifically includes at least
`
`thermosetting materials, epoxies, thermoplastics, polypropylene, polybutylene
`
`terephthalate, and polyethylene terephthalate.
`
`2.
`
`“a bridge between adjacent segments to link adjacent
`segments into a continuous strip”
`50. Claim 10 recites that “a bridge between adjacent segments to link
`
`adjacent segments into a continuous strip.” In my opinion, a POSITA would
`
`understand this claim term to encompass a configuration in which a bridge links
`
`two adjacent stator segments into a strip that is continuous in a lengthwise direction
`
`(i.e., peripherally around the stator in the direction of the stator segments), in
`
`contrast to a width direction (i.e., in the direction of the motor axis). The difference
`20
`
`
`PAGE 23 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`between these the lengthwise direction (“L”) and width direction (“W”) is
`
`illustrated below in annotated Figure 5 of the ’952 patent.
`
`’952 patent, Fig. 5 (annotated)
`51. A POSITA would understand from the claim language itself that the
`
`
`
`claimed strip may be “continuous” in the same direction as the line of stator
`
`segments, i.e., in direction “L.” After all, claim 10 states that “adjacent segments”
`
`of the stator are “link[ed] . . . into [the] continuous strip.”
`
`52. A POSITA’s understanding of the “continuous strip” also would be
`
`confirmed based on a review of the specification and drawings of the ’952 patent.
`
`The patent consistently describes a strip that is continuous in the lengthwise
`
`direction. According to the patent, a “preferred embodiment” is illustrated in
`
`Figures 2-7 and 9. Ex. 1001 [’952 patent], 5:43-45. As shown in those figures,
`
`“[t]he stator arc segments 20 are preferably molded into a continuous strip where
`
`the webbing acts as a carrier to link the segments together.” Id., 6:48-50 (emphases
`
`added). Similar terminology is used throughout the patent. See id., 6:1-5
`
`21
`
`
`PAGE 24 OF 80
`
`

`

`
`
`(“encapsulating material . . . links other arc segments into a continuo

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket