UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`DENSO CORPORATION, DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC.,
`ASMO CO. LTD., AND TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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 ......................................................................... 4
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Challenged Claims ................................................... 7
`The ʼ952 Patent’s Relevant Prosecution History .................................. 8
`The Material Claim Constructions ................................................................ 10
`The Applicable Claim Construction Standard .................................... 10
`Claim Terms Needing Construction .................................................... 11
`1.
`“a phase change material” ......................................................... 11
`2.
`“the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating
`sections formed from the phase change material” .................... 13
`“a plurality of discrete stator segments” ................................... 15
`3.
`The Calsonic Grounds: Petitioners Failed To Prove That Calsonic
`Discloses The Claimed “bridge” ................................................................... 17
`Petitioners did not prove that the Calsonic “deformable portions
`12a” are a bridge “formed by interconnecting two mating
`sections” .............................................................................................. 17
`Petitioners do not assert that Calsonic’s “hinge” discloses a
`bridge “to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip” ................. 19
`The DENSO Ground: Petitioners Failed to Prove that Claims 10, 12,
`and 14 Are Unpatentable Over DENSO and Calsonic .................................. 20
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that DENSO or Calsonic Disclose
`the Claimed “bridge” ........................................................................... 21
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that DENSO Discloses “a plurality
`of discrete stator segments” ................................................................. 21
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`US. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`IPR2017-01631
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`ii
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 10
`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) .................................................................... 10-11
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2001 Webster’s II New College Dictionary 377 (1999)
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,059
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2017-01497, Paper 1 (PTAB
`June 9, 2017)
`
`Declaration of Patrick Driscoll in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Petitioners DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc.,
`
`AMSO Co. LTD., and Toyota Motor Corporation (“Petitioners”) failed to prove
`
`that claims 1-6 and 8-14 (“the challenged claims”) of Patent Owner Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC’s (“IV”) U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952 (the “’952 Patent”) are invalid
`
`under any of the following instituted grounds:
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Ground No. 1 10 and 14
`Ground No. 2 11
`Ground No. 3 10, 12, and 14
`Ground No. 4 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9,
`12, and 13
`Ground No. 5 3 and 5
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Calsonic
`Calsonic and Dunfield
`DENSO and Calsonic
`Calsonic and Matsushita
`
`Calsonic, Matsushita, and
`knowledge of POSITA
`First, each of these Grounds relies on Calsonic as supposedly teaching the
`
`§ 103
`
`claimed “bridge” or the equivalent thereof. But Petitioners have not shown that
`
`Calsonic teaches the claimed bridge because:
`
`• one purported Calsonic bridge is not “formed by interconnecting two
`
`mating sections;” and
`
`• the alternate purported Calsonic bridge is not “formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections” and does not “link adjacent
`
`segments into a continuous strip.”
`
`Second, Ground 3 asserts that DENSO discloses the plurality of stator
`
`segments required by all of the challenged claims. But Petitioners provided no
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`analysis to support this conclusory assertion, which is in fact contrary to the correct
`
`claim construction and the DENSO reference itself.
`
`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 1:19-21.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`One drawback of using circular steel pieces to create the stator is that the
`
`spaces between the poles are cramped, making it difficult 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.
`
`The ʼ952 Patent describes 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 3:37; 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 3:34-
`
`37.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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.
`
`The ʼ952 Patent describes that the phase change material is also used to
`
`make webbing 23 extending 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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. 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`wire 15 around poles 21, allows a wire packing density of more than 80 percent to
`
`be achieved.” Id. at 7:1-5; 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
`
`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 claims 1-6 and 8-14. Independent claim 10 is
`
`illustrative and 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
`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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Independent claim 14 is similar to claim 10 in that, similar to claim 10’s
`
`claimed bridge, claim 14 requires a “flexible carrier” linking the stator arc
`
`segments connecting two mating sections formed in said carrier:
`
`14. A combination of stator arc segments and a flexible carrier used
`to link said stator arc segments during a winding operation
`comprising:
`
`a) a plurality of stator arc segments; and
`
`b) a phase change material constituting a flexible carrier
`adhered to the stator segments which links said segments in
`a uniform and predetermined position with respect to one
`another; wherein the flexible carrier links said segments
`by connecting two mating sections formed in said
`carrier.
`
`Id. at 14:21-31. As the Board noted, the Petitioners’ arguments and the Board’s
`
`analysis of the carrier element of claim 14 is the same as and is analogous to that
`
`for claim 10’s bridge limitations, and this Response accordingly addresses the
`
`elements together. See, e.g., Paper No. 11 at 19-20; Pet. at 33 (element 14.d citing
`
`to analysis for elements 10.c and d).
`
`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. 2002.
`
`With reference to Hsu Figure 4 below, the Examiner stated that Hsu disclosed
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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. Id. at Figs. 2-4; Ex. 1002 at 41-42.
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`II.
`
`The Material Claim Constructions
`There are three 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”; and
`
`• “a plurality of discrete stator segments.”
`
`The Board construed the first two limitations in its Institution Order, and
`
`Patent Owner IV does not challenge those constructions. The Board has not yet
`
`construed the last limitation in this IPR.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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). 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.
`
`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 11 at 8-9. 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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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 15, 16. But Petitioners’
`
`construction is based on their incorrect assertion that the following passage
`
`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.
`
`1 The ordinary meaning of “envelop” is “[t]o enclose or encase entirely with or as
`
`if with a covering.” Ex. 2001.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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 14:2-3 (emphasis added).
`
`For at least these reasons, the plain and ordinary meaning adopted for “phase
`
`change material” – i.e., “a material that is capable of changing phases” – by the
`
`Board in its Institution Order 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 11 at 9-12. 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. Id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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.” Id. 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
`
`stator segments each at least partially encased with a phase change material.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:2-3 (emphasis added); Paper No. 11 at 9-10. 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. 11 at 9-10.
`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`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, 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.
`
`“a plurality of discrete stator segments”
`3.
`Claim 10 and all of its dependent claims require “a plurality of discrete
`
`stator segments.” Ex. 1001 at 14:1-11. 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).
`
`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 IPR2017-01631
`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. 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.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`III. The Calsonic Grounds: Petitioners Failed To Prove That
`Calsonic Discloses The Claimed “bridge”
`Instituted Grounds 1, 2, 4, and 5 assert Calsonic as the primary reference.
`
`See, e.g., Paper No. 11 at 39. In each of these Grounds, Petitioners rely on
`
`Calsonic as disclosing claim 10’s claimed bridge (or its equivalent limitations in
`
`claims 1 and 14). E.g., Pet. at 22-25, 33, 37, 71, 74. But Petitioners have not
`
`shown that Calsonic teaches the claimed bridge because:
`
`• one purported Calsonic bridge is not “formed by interconnecting two
`
`mating sections;” and
`
`• the alternate purported Calsonic bridge is not “formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections” and does not “link adjacent
`
`segments into a continuous strip.”
`
`Petitioners did not prove that the Calsonic “deformable portions
`12a” are a bridge “formed by interconnecting two mating
`sections”
`Petitioners primarily rely on their assertion that Calsonic’s deformable
`
`portions 12a are the claimed “bridge” between each stator segment. These
`
`deformable portions 12a are illustrated below in annotated Calsonic Figure 4.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`As discussed above, the Board correctly construed “bridge” as “compris[ing]
`
`two mating sections, interconnected, formed from phase change material.” But
`
`deformable potions 12a are not formed from two interconnected mating sections,
`
`rather they are “integrally-formed by molding” as single unitary piece with holding
`
`portions 13. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0042],
`
`FIG. 5, Claim 1.
`
`Calsonic’s deformable portions 12a thus are, in relevant part, identical to the
`
`Hsu portion 144 cited in the ʼ952 Patent’s prosecution history. Ex. 1022 at Figs. 2-
`
`4.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Because this Hsu 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 not
`
`disclose or suggest the claimed “bridge . . . formed by interconnecting two
`
`mating sections.” Ex. 1002 at 45 (emphasis added). The same is true for
`
`Calsonic’s deformable portions 12a and, therefore, it too does not disclose the
`
`claimed bridge.
`
`Petitioners do not assert that Calsonic’s “hinge” discloses a bridge
`“to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip”
`Acknowledging the foregoing deficiency in Calsonic, Petitioners
`
`alternatively argue that Calsonic alternately discloses a “hinge” that satisfies the
`
`“bridge” limitations. Pet. 25. The Petition devotes just a single sentence to this
`
`conclusory argument and provides no explanation or analysis as to why and how
`
`this “hinge” satisfies the “bridge” limitations. Id.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`For example, Petitioners do not quote or explain any passage describing that
`
`the Calsonic “hinge” actually is formed from two mating sections as opposed to
`
`being integrally made as a single piece like the deformable portions 12a or Hsu’s
`
`“hinge.” To the contrary, Calsonic describes the hinge as a “deformable portion,”
`
`and Hsu itself describes its integrally-made, single piece –which the Examiner
`
`determined is not the claimed bridge—as a “hinge.” Ex. 1004 ¶44; Ex. 1022 at
`
`4:9.
`
`Petitioners also failed to address other requirements for the bridge. For
`
`example, according to claim 10, the bridge must not only be “formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections,” the bridge must also form a continuous strip:
`
`“the phase change material also comprises a bridge between adjacent segments to
`
`link adjacent segments into a continuous strip.” Ex. 1001 at 14:1-11 (emphasis
`
`added). Petitioners do not assert, much less prove, that the Calsonic “hinge”
`
`results in a continuous strip. Pet. at 25. Instead, Petitioners only assert that the
`
`alternative deformable portions 12a meet this requirement. Id. at 23.
`
`IV. The DENSO Ground: Petitioners Failed to Prove that Claims
`10, 12, and 14 Are Unpatentable Over DENSO and Calsonic
`The Board instituted one ground asserting DENSO as the primary reference:
`
`“claims 10, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over DENSO and
`
`Calsonic.” Paper No. 11 at 39. Petitioners rely on DENSO or Calsonic as
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`disclosing the claimed bridge, and DENSO as disclosing the remaining claim
`
`elements.
`
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that DENSO or Calsonic Disclose the
`Claimed “bridge”
`As discussed above, the Board correctly construed “bridge” as “compris[ing]
`
`two mating sections, interconnected, formed from phase change material.”4
`
`Petitioners concede that DENSO “does not explicitly disclose interconnecting two
`
`mating sections.” Pet. at 60.
`
`And Petitioners’ reliance on Calsonic cannot cure this deficiency because, as
`
`shown above, Petitioners did not prove that Calsonic discloses the claimed bridge.
`
`Petitioners Failed to Prove that DENSO Discloses “a plurality of
`discrete stator segments”
`Claim 10 requires “a plurality of discrete stator segments,” and claim 14
`
`similarly requires “a plurality of stator arc segments.” Ex. 1001 at 14:2-3, 14:25.
`
`Petitioners rely solely on DENSO (not Calsonic) for this limitation, but they have
`
`not have not proven their conclusory assertion that “DENSO discloses a plurality
`
`of discrete stator segments.” E.g., Pet. at 55.
`
`4 Claim 14 similarly claims “wherein the flexible carrier links said segments by
`
`connecting two mating sections formed in said carrier.” Ex. 1001 at 14:25.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`The Petition does not explicitly identify these supposed stator segments, but
`
`does repeatedly identify a “plurality of magnetic cores.” Id. But the Petition
`
`provides no analysis or evidence that the magnetic cores are the claimed “plurality
`
`of discrete stator segments” under any construction, much less the correct one
`
`proposed by IV. Instead, the Petition simply assumes, without explanation or
`
`reason, that the “plurality of discrete stator segments” is met. Petitioners’ entire
`
`argument on this issue addresses only magnetic pole cores are at least partially
`
`encased with a phase change material, not whether they are the stator segments.
`
`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
`
`that, when arranged and secured together, form the stator assembly.” The
`
`“plurality of magnetic cores” 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 55. And to do so now would be both untimely
`
`and contrary to the teachings of DENSO.
`
`As DENSO 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 through an easy (iron) path
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`rather than through a hard (air) path. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 3-4. DENSO reflects
`
`this understanding of stator design because it discloses that its stator assembly
`
`(“armature”) is not complete until the “magnetic pole cores 2” are mated to a
`
`separate annular core piece (“ring-shaped outer circumference core 1”). Id. For
`
`example, DENSO describes that “[a]fter the winding, the wedge-shaped
`
`projections 2b of the magnetic pole cores 2, which have been made continuous, are
`