`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`NIDEC CORPORATION AND
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00597
`
`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
`
`
`
`NIDEC and HONDA - Ex. 1024
`Nidec Corporation and American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc. - Petitioners
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`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............................................ 24 
`VII.  Prior-Art Analysis .......................................................................................... 25 
`Claims 10-12 would have been obvious to a POSITA based on the
`A. 
`combined teachings of Nakahara, Ishihara, and/or Lieu ..................... 25 
`1. 
`Claim 10: Obvious based on Nakahara and Ishihara ................ 26 
`2 
`Claim 11: Obvious based on Nakahara in view of Ishihara
`and Lieu ..................................................................................... 38 
`Claim 12: Obvious based on Nakahara and Ishihara ................ 43 
`3 
`Claims 10-12 would have been obvious to a POSITA based on the
`combined teachings of Iikuma, Nakahara, Lieu, and/or Stridsberg .... 44 
`
`B. 
`
`3 
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. 
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Claim 10: Obvious based on Iikuma and Nakahara ................. 45 
`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 
`2 
`Claim 11: Obvious based on Sheeran in view of Nakahara
`and Lieu ..................................................................................... 71 
`Claim 12: Obvious over Sheeran and Nakahara ....................... 74 
`Prior-Art Date of Sheeran ......................................................... 74 
`
`3 
`4 
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Gerald John Micklow, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked to submit this declaration on behalf of Nidec
`
`Corporation and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 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
`
`3.
`
`As set forth in this Declaration, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`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,
`
`“Ishihara”) and WO 01/45233 (Ex. 1008, “Lieu”) to arrive at the invention recited
`
`in claims 10-12 of the ’952 patent.
`
`1 I understand that the ’952 patent is Exhibit 1001 to the petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’952 patent.
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`6.
`I am currently employed as a full Professor of Mechanical and
`
`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
`
`engineering, mechanics of materials, electric motor design, fluid dynamics, and
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`for automotive applications. I was one of the key collaborating researchers to start
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`18.
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`22.
`I have been told the following legal principles apply to analysis of
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`The Hypothetical “Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art”
`
`23.
`
`I understand that claims of a patent are to be interpreted from the
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`Anticipation
`
`27.
`
`I have been told that for a claim to be “anticipated,” every limitation
`
`of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness
`
`28.
`
`I have been told that even if a claim is not “anticipated,” a claim may
`
`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:
`
`Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`available).
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`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;
`
`b.
`
`The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it
`
`seeks to counter impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the ’952 patent contains 14 claims. For the purposes
`
`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:
`
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`45.
`
`I have been told by counsel that the claims in the ’952 patent should
`
`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
`
`18
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`purposes of this Declaration, I agree that no explicit construction is needed for any
`
`claim term not addressed below.
`
`“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, . . .
`
`2 “6,6-polyamide” is a type of nylon. U.S. Patent No. 6,121,351 (“Weaver”), 30:66
`
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`19
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`polypropylene, polyethylene, . . . polystyrene, styrene copolymer, mixtures and
`
`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
`
`20
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`(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
`
`between these the lengthwise direction (“L”) and width direction (“W”) is
`
`illustrated below in annotated Figure 5 of the ’952 patent.
`
`
`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
`
`21
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`(“encapsulating material . . . links other arc segments into a continuous strip via
`
`webbing 23” (emphasis added)), 6:37 (“continuous strip of segments”), 6:41-45
`
`(joining webbing from adjacent segments “mak[es] a continuous strip as shown in
`
`FIG. 5”), 7:6-8 (“length of connected stator segments 20 . . . are cut from the
`
`continuous strip”).
`
`53. A POSITA also would recognize that every drawing of the ’952
`
`patent that depicts the links between adjacent stator segments shows the links
`
`forming a strip that is continuous in the lengthwise direction. See Ex. 1001 [’952
`
`patent], Figs. 3-6. In contrast, the webb