IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01631
`Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01631
`Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.......................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’952 Patent .....................................................................................2
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“Phase Change Material”............................................................7
`
`“The Bridge is Formed by Interconnecting Two Mating
`Sections Formed from the Phase Change Material”...................9
`
`III. GROUNDS 1-5 FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE ’952 PATENT CLAIMS WILL BE
`PROVED UNPATENTABLE.......................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1 Challenging Claims 10 and 14 as Anticipated by
`Calsonic is Deficient ...........................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Calsonic does not Disclose the Claimed “Bridge” ...................12
`
`Paragraph 44 of Calsonic at Best Discloses a “Hinge,”
`not a “Bridge Formed by … Two Mating Sections” ................17
`
`Ground 2 Fails to Sufficiently Articulate why a Skilled Artisan
`would have Used the Plate Member of Matsushita with the
`Calsonic Stator Configuration.............................................................19
`
`Matsushita in Combination with Calsonic does not Cure Any of
`the Deficiencies of Calsonic in Ground 2 ...........................................21
`
`DENSO Fails to Cure Any of the Deficiencies of Calsonic in
`Ground 3..............................................................................................22
`
`Grounds 4 and 5 against Dependent Claims 3, 5 and 11 Fail for
`at Least the Same Reasons as Grounds 1 and 3 ..................................23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`IV.
`
`IF ANY GROUNDS ARE INSTITUTED, THE BOARD SHOULD
`DENY REDUNDANT GROUNDS..............................................................24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Congress Empowered the Board with Discretion to Manage
`Duplicative Proceedings......................................................................25
`
`The Board’s Practice of Rejecting Redundant Grounds Supports
`Exercising its Discretion .....................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Redundancy Exists when Petitioners Assert Multiple
`Alternative Grounds without Differentiating Them .................27
`
`Petitioners’ Assertions Against the ’952 Patent Claims
`are Horizontally Redundant ......................................................28
`
`Petitioners’ Assertions across Two Petitions Effectively
`Circumvent the Word Limit of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) ...............31
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION..............................................................................................33
`
`iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Jack Henry & Assocs. v. DataTreasury Corp.,
`CBM2014-00056 (PTAB Jul. 10, 2014)...............................................................6
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ....................................................passim
`
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Inside Secure,
`IPR2016-00683 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2017).........................................................6, 11
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00075 (PTAB June 13, 2013) .............................................................28
`
`In re: Smith Int’l, Inc.,
`2016-2303 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) ...................................................................6
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................12
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) ...................................................................................................28
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................28
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 .....................................................................................................1
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary 377 (1999)
`
`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)
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`submits this Preliminary Response to the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition fails to establish the required likelihood that it will prove that
`
`the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952 (“the ’952 Patent”) are
`
`unpatentable. While Petitioners indicate that the ’952 Patent claims were allowed
`
`based on having a “bridge … formed by interconnecting two mating sections
`
`formed from the phase change material” or a “flexible carrier [that] links said
`
`segments by connecting two mating sections formed in said carrier” (Pet., 12),
`
`none of the references relied upon in Grounds 1-5 actually disclose these features.
`
`The Petition relies exclusively on Calsonic to attempt to demonstrate that
`
`these claim limitations were known in the art. But ironically, Calsonic discloses a
`
`configuration that looks just like the prior art considered by the Examiner.
`
`Petitioners’ strategy to bring several redundant grounds does not better the
`
`substantive shortcomings of the Petition and should not be countenanced.
`
`Institution on redundant grounds would be a waste of time and resources.
`
`Accordingly, IPR should not be instituted.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`A.
`
`The ’952 Patent
`
`The ’952 Patent describes and claims the construction and arrangement of a
`
`stator assembly made of a plurality of arc segments. (Ex. 1001, 1:16-21.) Each
`
`segment is at least partially encased in a phase change material. (Id., 4:12-22,
`
`4:52-55, 6:6-28.) This phase change material also forms a bridge that links the
`
`adjacent segments together to be arranged to form the stator.
`
`Stators were historically made by stacking circular pieces of stamped steel
`
`and laminating them together. (Id., 1:29-30.) The conventional method of forming
`
`stators using circular steel pieces has a number of drawbacks. This is especially
`
`true for stators with inward facing poles, as the cramped space to work inside of
`
`the laminated stator core poses difficulties in winding the wire windings tightly
`
`and with a high packing density and creates a lower limit on the size of the stator
`
`and thus the motor. The packing density of wire coiled around the poles affects the
`
`amount of power generated by the motor. Increasing packing density increases the
`
`power and thus the efficiency of the spindle motor. (Id., 2:19-28.)
`
`The ’952 Patent explains that, at the time of the invention, motor
`
`manufacturers addressed the problem of limited working space and low packing
`
`density by using individual stator arc segments wound with wire to form poles.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`(Id., 3:34-37.) Segmented stator constructions made it easier to wind each pole
`
`with conductive wire (Id., 4:56-62, 2:19:-28) and also reduced material waste
`
`because the outlines of an individual stator pole could be more efficiently and
`
`densely cut out from a sheet of electrical steel than stamped steel circles. (Id. at
`
`5:54-60.)
`
`Conventional segmented stator designs, however, were not without
`
`drawbacks. The individual segments had to be assembled and held in place to
`
`form the stator and the individual wires on each individual pole had to be
`
`connected to other individual wires on other individual poles of the same phase,
`
`leading to manufacturing complexity and inefficiency. (Id., 3:38-45.)
`
`The ’952 Patent discloses a method (and structures produced thereby) of
`
`encasing the stator segments in a phase change material to assist with the assembly
`
`of the segments into a completed stator, by claiming the at least partial encasement
`
`of each stator segment 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.” (Id., 14:4-9.) With
`
`the unique linked-but-discrete segment assemblies, wire can be wound around the
`
`poles with a high packing density, yet at the same time the segments can be
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`maintained in their proper order so that one continuous piece of wire can be used to
`
`wind all poles in the same series or phase, making it unnecessary to later connect
`
`wires from individual windings to one another. (Id., 4:56-62.) The ’952 Patent
`
`also uses arc segments to ensure that, when the stator is assembled from the
`
`segments, the wiring is aligned with the proper phase relationships and it results in
`
`a toroidal shape. (Id., 14:12-17.)
`
`Independent claims 1, 10 and 14 at issue here recite embodiments of the
`
`’952 Patent invention. Independent claim 1 claims a stator assembly as follows:
`
`1.
`
`A stator assembly, comprising:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`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; and
`
`the linked stator segments being arranged and
`secured together to form the stator assembly,
`wherein the stator segments are held in a toroidal
`shape by a retaining member which comprises a
`metal band.
`
`Independent claim 10 also claims a stator assembly embodiment, as follows:
`
`10. A stator assembly, comprising:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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.
`
`Independent claim 14 recites a combination of stator arc segments and a flexible
`
`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)
`
`b)
`
`a plurality of stator arc segments; and
`
`a phase change material constituting said flexible
`carrier adhered to the stator arc 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`B.
`Claim Construction
`Claims of an unexpired patent in an inter partes review are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in which they
`
`appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017). The broadest reasonable interpretation is
`
`the one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention
`
`in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
`
`specification.’” In re: Smith Int’l, Inc., 2016-2303 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017).
`
`Under this standard terms are given their ordinary meaning as would have been
`
`understood by a skilled artisan at the time of the invention in the context of the
`
`entire intrinsic record. Jack Henry & Assocs. v. DataTreasury Corp., CBM2014-
`
`00056, at 8-9 (PTAB Jul. 10, 2014) (Paper 17). A term may be construed
`
`differently from its ordinary meaning when the patentee, as lexicographer,
`
`provides a special definition for the term or otherwise disclaims the full scope of
`
`the term in the specification and/or during prosecution. NXP USA, Inc. v. Inside
`
`Secure, IPR2016-00683, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2017) (Paper 27).
`
`The Petition construes “phase change material” and “the bridge is formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections formed from the phase change material” as
`
`recited in the ’952 Patent claims and accords all other terms their ordinary
`
`meaning. (Pet., 15-17.) Both constructions offered by Petitioners contradict the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`plain language of the claims and the ’952 Patent written description, as explained
`
`below. Patent Owner otherwise agrees with Petitioners that the claim terms of the
`
`’952 Patent assume their ordinary and customary meaning.1
`
`1.
`
`“Phase Change Material”
`
`Claims 1 and 10 each recite a stator assembly having “a plurality of discrete
`
`stator segments each at least partially encased with a phase change material.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 13: 2-4, 14:1-3.) Claim 14 recites “a phase change material constituting said
`
`flexible carrier.” (Id. 14:25-26.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “phase
`
`change material” is simply its plain and ordinary meaning, e.g., a material that is
`
`capable of changing phases. 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.
`
`The Petition nonetheless contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of “a phase change material” must be “a material that can be used in a liquid phase
`
`to envelop[] the stator, but which later changes to a solid phase.” (Pet., 16.)
`
`1 Patent Owner reserves the right to present additional proposed claim
`
`constructions and supporting evidence to the Board in its Response, should one be
`
`necessary.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Petitioners’ construction is based on mistaking the following excerpt in the
`
`specification for inventor lexicography:
`
`“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, 6:6-9) (emphasis added). This sentence in the ’952 Patent relates to a
`
`preferred embodiment and merely indicates that a phase change material can be
`
`used in a liquid phase to envelop a stator, but doesn’t have to be. 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.
`
`This sentence also refers to using the phase change material to “envelop[]
`
`the stator.” The ’952 Patent, however, discloses and claims a phase change
`
`material that partially encases stator segments – as opposed to enveloping2 the
`
`complete stator. (Id., 5:61-6:4, 7:6-11, 13:4-5, 14:2-3.) In other words, the
`
`disclosure relied upon by Petitioners describes one example configuration of the
`
`structure of the phase change material within the stator assembly but, again, does
`
`not limit or meaningfully define the term. Construction of “a phase change
`
`2 The ordinary meaning of “envelop” is “to enclose or enfold completely with or as
`
`if with a covering.” (Ex. 2001.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`material” to require “envelopment” of the complete stator as proposed in the
`
`Petition contradicts the very claim language in which the term appears.
`
`For at least these reasons, Petitioners’ construction of “phase change
`
`material” based on an example description in the specification – not inventor
`
`lexicography – is not the proper broadest reasonable interpretation of this term. A
`
`“phase change material” should instead be accorded its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`2.
`
`“The Bridge is Formed by Interconnecting Two
`Mating Sections Formed from the Phase Change
`Material”
`
`The Petition construes “the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating
`
`sections formed from the phase change material” recited in claims 9 and 10 of the
`
`’952 Patent as a product-by-process limitation and interprets “bridge” as
`
`“compris[ing] two mating sections, interconnected, formed form phase change
`
`material.” (Pet., 16-17.) Patent Owner does not dispute the product-by-process
`
`nature of this term, but notes that Petitioners’ construction of “bridge” is
`
`inconsistent with the claim language.
`
`Claim 10 refers to “the phase change material,” not just “phase change
`
`material”:
`
`A stator assembly comprising:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`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 ….
`(Ex. 1001, 14:1-9) (emphasis added). In other words, the phase change material
`
`forming the two mating sections is the same phase change material that partially
`
`encases the plurality of discrete stator segments. This is what the claim language
`
`explicitly states. Petitioners’ construction omitting the word “the” from before the
`
`term “phase change material” is therefore incorrect.
`
`It is also not clear what the terms “interconnected” and “formed from [the]
`
`phase change material” in Petitioners’ construction refer back to, i.e., the bridge
`
`itself or the two mating sections.
`
`Patent Owner thus proposes construing “bridge” to mean two mating
`
`sections that are interconnected and formed from the phase change material.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`III. GROUNDS 1-5 FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE ’952 PATENT CLAIMS WILL BE
`PROVED UNPATENTABLE
`
`IPR petitioners have “the burden from the onset to show with particularity
`
`why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” NXP, at 13 (Paper 27) (quoting
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “This
`
`burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner.” Id. (citing Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`The Petition itself must demonstrate the required reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail in showing that at least one claim of the challenged patent is
`
`not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2015). Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`meeting this threshold by a preponderance of the evidence, with any vagueness and
`
`ambiguity in its arguments resolved against Petitioner. Liberty Mut., at 10 (Paper
`
`8).
`
`The Petition here is deficient on all five grounds.3 Ground 1 fails because
`
`the Petition does not identify where Calsonic discloses at least a phase change
`
`material that partially encases each stator segment and “also comprises a bridge
`
`between adjacent segments to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip, wherein
`
`3 Patent Owner notes that the Petition does not apply or otherwise mention either of
`
`its claim constructions in its analyses in any of Grounds 1-5.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`the bridge is formed by interconnecting two mating sections formed from the phase
`
`change material” as recited in claim 10. Ground 3 against claims 10, 12 and 14
`
`should be denied for similar reasons, as DENSO does not remedy any of these
`
`deficiencies. With respect to Ground 2, the Petition does not provide an adequate
`
`basis for modifying the Calsonic stator design with the plate member in Matsushita.
`
`Grounds 4 and 5 concerning dependent claims 3, 5 and 11 also fail, for at least the
`
`reasons set forth in Grounds 1-3.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1 Challenging Claims 10 and 14 as Anticipated by
`Calsonic is Deficient
`
`The Petition attempts to demonstrate that Calsonic discloses each and every
`
`element as arranged and recited in claims 10 and 14. Resolving all vagueness and
`
`ambiguity in Petitioners’ arguments in favor of Patent Owner, Ground 1 fails.4
`
`1.
`
`Calsonic does not Disclose the Claimed “Bridge”
`
`The Petition asserts that Figure 4 of Calsonic teaches the “bridge between
`
`adjacent segments to link adjacent segments into a continuous strip” limitation of
`
`4 The Petition wrongly concludes that the preambles of claims 10 and 14 are not
`
`limiting. (Pet., 19, 27.) To the contrary, both preambles provide antecedent basis
`
`for terms in the claim body, namely “stator assembly” in claim 10 and “flexible
`
`carrier” in claim 14. (Ex. 1001, 14:1-26.)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`claim 10 by depicting a divided core holding member 12 with deformable portions
`
`12a. (Pet., 23.) This assertion is wrong for several reasons.
`
`The Petition contends that divided core holding member 12 with deformable
`
`portions 12a “correspond to a bridge linking mating sections of adjacent divided
`
`cores into a continuous strip.” But “a bridge linking mating sections of adjacent
`
`divided cores” as phrased and argued by Petitioners has no basis in the claim
`
`language. Claim 10 refers to the bridge as being formed by two mating sections –
`
`not “linking” two mating sections. Claim 10 also says nothing “mating sections of
`
`adjacent divided cores” or that the discrete stator segments themselves have mating
`
`sections. This statement in the Petition is also inconsistent with Petitioners’ own
`
`interpretation of “bridge,” which is: “two mating sections, interconnected, formed
`
`from phase change material.” (Pet., 17.)
`
`Figure 4 of Calsonic also does not depict “two mating sections,
`
`interconnected, formed from phase change material,” as Petitioners’ own
`
`construction of “bridge” requires5:
`
`5 As with their construction of “phase change material,” Petitioners fail to apply
`
`their “bridge” construction in the analysis of this claim term.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Calsonic Figure 4
`
`This figure instead discloses a configuration akin to the prior art Hsu reference
`
`distinguished during the ’952 Patent prosecution:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,059 (Hsu) FIG. 4
`
`(Ex. 1002, at 362; Ex. 2002, 4:8-9 (“Every two neighboring coil bobbins 14 are
`
`linked by a hinge portion 144 as shown in FIG. 4 ….”).)
`
`The Examiner explained that:
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`(Ex. 1002, at 359.)
`
`The ’952 Patent claims were allowed because Hsu only taught a hinge,
`
`rather than a bridge comprised of two mating sections that are interconnected and
`
`formed from the phase change material:
`
`(Id., at 362.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that, “[a]s depicted in Figure 4 of Calsonic … the
`
`deformable portions 12a interconnect the divided core blocks 10 via mating
`
`sections of the holding portions 13 formed of phase change material” is attorney
`
`argument and not a recitation of the Calsonic teachings. (Pet., 24.) Calsonic does
`
`not disclose holding portions 13 as having mating sections, nor that such
`
`(undisclosed) mating sections form deformable portions 12a. The Petition likewise
`
`does not point to any mating sections illustrated in the Calsonic figures or
`
`described anywhere in the Calsonic written description. Accordingly, Petitioners’
`
`conclusion that, “[t]hus, Calsonic discloses that the bridge comprises two mating
`
`sections, interconnected, formed from the phase change material,” is unfounded
`
`and without merit. (Pet., 25)(emphasis added)
`
`Third, while claim 10 requires the bridge to be formed by the phase change
`
`material, Calsonic is wholly silent as to what type of material the deformable
`
`portions 12a are made of. Although the Petition asserts that “[t]he deformable
`
`portions are made from a resin material,” this is actually nowhere stated in
`
`Calsonic. (Pet., 22-23.) Petitioners’ reliance on the disclosure in Calsonic that
`
`“holding portions 13 … is [sic] integrally formed by molding using an insulating
`
`thermoset resin material” is misplaced, as paragraph [0028] in Calsonic makes no
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`mention of deformable portions 12a. Calsonic also never once identifies
`
`deformable portions 12a as part of the holding portions 13.
`
`Petitioners’ analogous arguments with respect to claim 14 suffer similar
`
`deficiencies.
`
`For at least these reasons, Ground 1 should be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Paragraph 44 of Calsonic at Best Discloses a “Hinge,”
`not a “Bridge Formed by … Two Mating Sections”
`
`Petitioners assert that paragraph 44 of Calsonic “discloses that the
`
`deformable portions 12a may alternately be formed independently from the
`
`adjacent holding portion 13 and interconnecting [sic] by using [sic] rotatable
`
`member such as [sic] hinge.” (Pet., 25.) This paragraph does not teach the recited
`
`“bridge” of claim 10 for several reasons.
`
`First, paragraph 44 does not say that “deformable portions 12a may
`
`alternately be formed independently from the adjacent holding portion 13 and
`
`interconnecting [sic] by using [sic] rotatable member such as [sic] hinge” as
`
`Petitioners contend. This paragraph actually states:
`
`Alternatively, the holding portions [13] may each be
`independently molded with a corresponding one of the
`holding members [12], and may be pivotally coupled to
`each other via deformable portions including a hinge and
`the like.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`(Ex. 1004, at 7.) In other words, paragraph 44 does not teach that “deformable
`
`portions 12a may alternately be formed independently” – it states that “holding
`
`portions [13] may each be independently molded.” Paragraph 44 also does not
`
`state that “deformable portions 12a may alternately be … interconnect[ed] by using
`
`[a] rotatable member” – it states that “holding members [12], and may be pivotally
`
`coupled to each other via deformable portions including a hinge and the like.”
`
`The disclosure in paragraph 44 is also vague and ambiguous. While the
`
`excerpt indicates that “the holding portions may each be independently molded,” it
`
`qualifies this statement with the phrase “with a corresponding one of the holding
`
`members,” the meaning of which is unclear and certainly does not teach a “bridge
`
`formed by … two mating sections.” Paragraph 44 further states that “the holding
`
`portions … may be pivotally coupled to each other via deformable portions.”
`
`(Id.) (emphasis added) This also does not teach a “bridge formed by … two
`
`mating sections.” In fact, this is the exact same language that Calsonic uses to
`
`describe its main embodiment in the previous sentence: “The holding portions 13
`
`of the divided core holding member 12 are integrally formed with the thin
`
`deformable portions 12a to be coupled to each other.” (Id.) (emphasis added).
`
`Paragraph 44 further likens the deformable portions of the so-called
`
`alternative Calsonic embodiment to “a hinge and the like.” (Id.) As explained
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`above, hinges (and the like) as disclosed in the prior art Hsu reference were
`
`distinguished from the “bridge … formed by interconnecting two mating sections
`
`formed from the phase change material” recited in claim 10 of the ’952 Patent
`
`during prosecution. Accordingly, the deformable portions described in paragraph
`
`44 cannot be said to be any different from the configurations over which the ’952
`
`Patent claims were allowed by the Patent Office.
`
`For at least these reasons, Calsonic fails to teach a “bridge [] formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections formed from the phase change material” as
`
`recited in ’952 Patent claim 10.
`
`Petitioners’ analogous arguments with respect to “the flexible carrier [that]
`
`links said segments by connecting two mating sections” recited in claim 14 suffer
`
`similar deficiencies.6
`
`For at least these reasons, Ground 1 should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 Fails to Sufficiently Articulate why a Skilled
`Artisan would have Used the Plate Member of Matsushita
`with the Calsonic Stator Configuration
`
`The Petition contends that a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would
`
`have been motivated to add the flat plate member 19A disclosed in Matsushita with
`
`6 Other than “phase change material,” the Petition offers no constructions for any
`
`terms in claim 14, including “flexible carrier.”
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`the stator configuration of Calsonic to arrive at each and every claim element of
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 13 of the ’952 Patent. (Pet., 40-42.) Petitioners’
`
`contentions are flawed for at least the following reasons, and Ground 2 should be
`
`denied.
`
`Neither reference provides any reason or motivation for incorporating plate
`
`member 19A of DENSO into Calsonic. While the Matsushita stator design relies
`
`on flat plate member 19A for holding the stator segments together and in position
`
`adjacent to one another, the Calsonic design already achieves this configuration
`
`using upper and lower holding members 12. A skilled artisan thus would have had
`
`no reason to add an additional component, e.g., the flat plate member 19A of
`
`Matsushita, to accomplish a configuration already provided for in Calsonic.
`
`Calsonic also explains that “[h]ow both end portions of the divided core
`
`holding members 12 are joined is not particularly limited, and fixing using an
`
`adhesive 14 (see Fig. 2) may be employed for example.” (Ex. 1004, ¶ [0032])
`
`(annotated)
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`Calsonic further states that “the pair of divided core holding members 12 have their
`
`both end portions joined and fixed to each other to be integrated, whereby the
`
`stator 3 is formed.” (Id., ¶ [0033].) Calsonic therefore teaches holding the stator
`
`segments together, such that a skilled artisan would have had no reason to add an
`
`additional component such as a “retaining member,” which a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have also understood to add manufacturing time and cost.
`
`Accordingly, Ground 2 should be denied.
`
`C.
`
`Matsushita in Combination with Calsonic does not Cure
`Any of the Deficiencies of Calsonic in Ground 2
`
`Petitioners contend that Calsonic in view of Matsushita would have rendered
`
`obvious claim 9 (ground 2). But Matsushita, like Calsonic, also fails to disclose at
`
`least the “two mating sections” and “phase change material” limitations recited in
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`claim 9. Nor do Petitioners claim that Matsushita discloses these elements. (Pet.,
`
`33-53.)
`
`D.
`
`DENSO Fails to Cure Any of the Deficiencies of Calsonic in
`Ground 3
`
`The Petition asserts in Ground 3 that a skilled artisan at the time of the
`
`invention would have found it obvious to modify the DENSO armature to
`
`incorporate the insulating thermoset resin material and “bridge being formed by
`
`interconnecting two mating sections formed from the phase change material”
`
`allegedly disclosed in Calsonic. (Pet., 57-60.) Patent Owner disagrees.
`
`First, as explained above, Calsonic does not disclose the “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” limitation recited claim 10 of the ’952 Patent. See supra III.A.
`
`For this reason alone, Ground 3 fails.
`
`In addition, the Petition does not sufficiently articulate why a skilled artisan
`
`at the time of the invention would have incorporated aspects of the Calsonic design
`
`into the DENSO armature. For example, Petitioners allege that DENSO calls for a
`
`stator covered in an insulating material and that Calsonic discloses resins suitable
`
`for use in coating stators. (Pet., 58.) In truth, neither reference says anything
`
`about covering or coating the stator. In fact, the magnetic pole cores in DENSO
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01631
`U.S. Patent No. 7,067,952
`
`are themselves made of resin. (Ex. 1006, at 3 (“[T]he magnetic pole cores 2,
`
`which are separated from the outer circumference core 1, are formed of an
`
`insulation material (e.g., a nylon resin).”).) Accordingly, the c
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
