UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MICHIGAN MOTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2023-01234
`U.S. Patent No. 6,588,260
`Issue Date: July 8, 2003
`Title: “Electronic Throttle Disable Control Test System”
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`1
`II. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................ 1
`C.
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................ 2
`D.
`Service Information – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ...................................... 4
`III. Certification of Standing – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`4
`IV.
`Payment of Fees – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`4
`V.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’260 PATENT
`4
`A.
`Brief Description .................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Alleged Problem in the Prior Art ......................................................... 8
`C.
`Alleged Invention of the ’260 Patent ................................................... 8
`D.
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 9
`E.
`Prosecution History of ’260 Patent ....................................................10
`F.
`Prior IPR Proceedings ........................................................................11
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`12
`§ 42.104(b)
`A.
`Prior Art ..............................................................................................12
`B.
`Challenges ..........................................................................................13
`VII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`14
`VIII. Claim Construction
`14
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`15
`ii
`
`VI.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`

`

`A.
`B.
`
`X.
`
`27
`
`IPR2023-01234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Technology Overview ........................................................................15
`Overview of references ......................................................................20
`1.
`McQueen ..................................................................................20
`C.
`Terazawa.............................................................................................22
`D.
`Husselbee ............................................................................................26
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are Obvious over mcqueen in view of
`terazawa, and husselbee.
`A.
`Rationale for Combining McQueen, Terazawa, and the
`Knowledge of a POSITA Demonstrated by Husselbee .....................27
`B. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious independent claim
`1. .........................................................................................................42
`1.
`[1.P] “An electronic throttle control apparatus for testing
`integrity of a motor drive electronics disable feature
`comprising” ..............................................................................42
`[1.A] “a PCM having drive electronics for controlling a
`motor coupled to an electronic throttle plate” .........................43
`[1.B] “said PCM having control logic to disable said
`drive electronics and return said electronic throttle plate
`to a default position” ................................................................45
`[1.C] “determine a default throttle position sensor (TPS)
`output voltage corresponding to said default position” ...........48
`[1.D] “command a full closing motor voltage” .......................51
`[1.E] “compare a full closing TPS output voltage to said
`default TPS output voltage” .....................................................57
`[1.F] “engage failure mode management when said full
`closing TPS output voltage and said default TPS output
`voltage are significantly different from each other” ................58
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`C. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 2. .........................61
`D. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 3. .........................62
`E. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 4. .........................63
`F. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 5. .........................65
`G. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious independent claim
`8. .........................................................................................................66
`1.
`[8.P] “An electronic throttle control test system for an
`automobile having an internal combustion engine, said
`system comprising” ..................................................................66
`[8.A] “a motorized throttle located on the internal
`combustion engine, said motorized throttle having a
`throttle plate coupled to a motor for controlling an
`amount of airflow entering the internal combustion
`engine” .....................................................................................67
`[8.B] “a PCM having drive electronics for controlling
`said motor coupled to said throttle plate” ................................68
`[8.C] “said PCM having control, logic to disable said
`drive electronics such that said throttle plate returns to or
`remains at a default position” ..................................................68
`[8.D] “determine a default throttle position sensor (TPS)
`output voltage corresponding to said default position” ...........69
`[8.E] “command a full closing motor voltage” ........................69
`[8.F] “compare said full closing TPS output voltage to
`said default TPS output voltage” .............................................70
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`iv
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`

`

`8.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`IPR2023-01234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`[8.G] “engage failure mode management when said full
`closing TPS output voltage and said predetermined
`default TPS output voltage are significantly different” ...........71
`XI. Ground 2: The combination of McQueen and Terazawa renders
`71
`obvious claims 11-13.
`A. McQueen and Terazawa render obvious independent claim 11. .......72
`1.
`[11.P] “A method for testing integrity of an electronic
`throttle plate driver disable function controlled by a
`powertrain control module (PCM) comprising the steps
`of” .............................................................................................72
`[11.A] “disabling said driver” ..................................................72
`[11.B] “determining a first throttle position value with
`said driver disabled”.................................................................73
`[11.C] “commanding full closing voltage” ..............................73
`[11.D] “determining a second throttle position value at
`said full closing voltage” .........................................................74
`[11.E] “comparing said first and second throttle position
`values” ......................................................................................74
`[11.F] “engaging failure mode management when said
`first and second throttle position values are significantly
`different” ..................................................................................74
`B. McQueen and Terazawa render obvious claim 12. ............................75
`C. McQueen and Terazawa render obvious claim 13. ............................75
`XII. Ground 3: The combination of McQueen, Terazawa, and the
`knowledge of a POSITA demonstrated by Husselbee renders obvious
`claims 14 and 15.
`A. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 14. .......................76
`
`75
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`v
`
`

`

`77
`
`IPR2023-01234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`B. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 15. .......................76
`XIII. Ground 4: The combination of McQueen, Terazawa, MAUSER, and
`the knowledge of a POSITA demonstrated by Husselbee renders
`obvious claims 6-7, 9-10, AND 16-17.
`A.
`Rationale for Combining McQueen, Terazawa, Mauser, and the
`knowledge of a POSITA demonstrated by Husselbee. ......................77
`B. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 6. .........................78
`C. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 7. .........................80
`D. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 9. .........................81
`E. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 10. .......................82
`F. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 16. .......................82
`G. McQueen, Terazawa, and the knowledge of a POSITA
`demonstrated by Husselbee render obvious claim 17. .......................83
`XIV. THIS PETITION IS PROPER UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) AND
`83
`325(d)
`A.
`Institution Should Not Be Denied Under Fintiv ................................83
`B.
`Institution Should not Be Denied Under § 325(d) .............................85
`XV. Conclusion
`86
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`vi
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`EX1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,588,260 (Pursifull)
`EX1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,588,260 Prosecution History
`EX1003 Declaration of Gerald Micklow, Ph.D.
`EX1004 Curriculum Vitae of Gerald R. Micklow, Ph.D.
`EX1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,303,581 (McQueen)
`EX1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,048,485 (Terazawa)
`EX1007
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Michigan Motor
`Technologies LLC, IPR2020-00451, Paper 18 (Aug. 28, 2020)
`EX1008 William L. Husselbee, “Automotive Computer Control Systems”
`EX1009 Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,558,260
`EX1010 Curriculum Vitae of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`EX1011 Hans Mauser, “Electronic Throttle Control –A Dependability Case
`Study” (1999)
`EX1012 Hans-Martin Streib, “Electronic Throttle Control (ETC): A Cost
`Effective System for Improved Emissions, Fuel Economy, and
`Driveability,”SAE: Electronic Engine Controls (1996)
`EX1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,332,965 A to Wolf et al., titled “Contactless
`Linear Angular Position Sensor Having an Adjustable Flux
`Concentrator for Sensitivity Adjustment and Temperature
`Compensation,” issued July 26, 1994 (“Wolf”)
`EX1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,047,679 A to Matsumoto et al., titled “Control
`Apparatus for an Internal Combustion Engine,” issued April 11,
`2000 (“Matsumoto”)
`
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2023-01234
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EX1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,415,144 A to Hardin et al., titled “Throttle
`Position Validation Method and Apparatus,” issued May 16, 1995
`(“Hardin”)
`EX1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,146,892 to Krampe et al., titled “Method and
`Arrangement for the Open-loop and/or Closed-loop Control of the
`Engine Power of an Internal Combustion Engine of a Motor
`Vehicle,” issued September 15, 1992 (“Krampe”)
`EX1017 Ronald K. Jurgen, “Automotive Electronics Handbook,” McGraw-
`Hill, Inc., ISBN0-07-033189-8, c.1994 (“Jurgen”)
`EX1018 U.S. Patent No. 5,673,668 A to Pallett et al., titled “Method and
`Apparatus for Electronic Throttle Monitoring,” issued October 7,
`1997 (“Pallett”)
`EX1019 U.K. Patent Application No. 2227076 to Berger et al. titled
`“Monitoring the Integrity of a Safety Shut-off Device,” published
`July 18, 1990 (“Berger”)
`
`EX1020
`
`Federal Court Management Statistics, March 31, 2023, accessed at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_di
`stprofile0331.2023.pdf
`
`EX1021
`
`49 C.F.R. § 571.124 (1973)
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`BMW of North America, LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) request inter partes review of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,588,260 (the “’260 patent”) (EX1001), owned by Michigan Motor Technologies,
`
`LLC (“PO”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100.
`
`The ’260 patent and challenged claims relate generally to methods and
`
`systems for testing the integrity of a feature for disabling motor drive electronics.
`
`As explained below, all elements of the challenged claims were well-known in the
`
`prior art discussed herein.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(1)-(4)
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, as well
`
`as Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Intellectual Property GmbH & Co.
`
`KG, Mercedes-Benz AG, and Mercedes-Benz Group AG, are the real parties-in-
`
`interest.
`
`Related Matters – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`PO has asserted the ’260 patent in the following litigation against
`
`Petitioners: Michigan Motor Technologies, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
`
`et al., C.A. No. 22-3804 (N.D. Ill.); Michigan Motor Technologies, LLC v.
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, C.A. No. 22-03957 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Lead And Back-Up Counsel – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Petitioners designate the following counsel. Powers of attorney pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Edward H. Sikorski
`Reg. No. 39,478
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
`San Diego, California 92121-2133
`Phone: 619.699.2645
`Fax: 858.677.1401
`ed.sikorski@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Brian Biggs (pro hac vice application
`forthcoming)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
`Wilmington, Delaware
`19801-1147
`Phone: 302.468.5661
`Fax: 302.778.7935
`brian.biggs@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Matthew Middleton
`Reg. No. 77,117
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801-1147
`Phone: 302.468.5675
`Fax: 302.778.7935
`matthew.middleton@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Jeff S. Gerchick (pro hac vice
`application forthcoming)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I St NW #900,
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel:
`(202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`jeffgerchick@quinnemanuel.com
`
`James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46729)
`QUINN EMANUEL
`URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Service Information – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioners also consent to electronic service by email at: MMT-BMWNA-
`
`IPR@us.dlapiper.com and qe-mmt-mbusa@quinnemanuel.com.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Petitioners certify that the Challenged Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and any additional fees that might be due in connection with
`
`this Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-3266.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’260 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description
`The ’260 patent does not purport to have invented a novel throttle control
`
`system. Indeed, three years before the ’260 patent was even filed, Pallett disclosed
`
`the identical throttle control system—complete with the same figure and
`
`accompanying description. See EX1003, Micklow Decl., ¶¶37-38 (comparing
`
`EX1001, ʼ260 patent, 2:41-3:26 with EX1018, Pallett, 2:65-3:39). Surprisingly,
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Pallett, which was also originally assigned to Visteon Global Technologies, Inc.,
`
`was not disclosed during prosecution of the ’260 patent.
`
`EX1018 (Pallett), FIG. 1
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1
`
`The Board considered the patentability of the ’260 patent once before in
`
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Michigan Motor Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00451 (the
`
`“VW Petition”). The Board instituted review because it found “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that claims 1-17 of the ’260 patent are unpatentable.” EX1007, Id.,
`
`Paper 18 at 33. The Board also found it “notabl[e]” that “the system as shown in
`
`the ’260 patent’s Figure 1 is identical (or nearly so) to an electronic throttle
`
`monitoring system as shown in Figure 1 of prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,673,668,” as
`
`seen in the side-by-side comparison of the two figures above. EX1007 (VW
`
`Petition), IPR2020-00451, Paper 18, at 5.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`The ’260 patent also does not purport to have invented a disable function for
`
`a throttle control system. EX1001, 1:37-42. Indeed, the ’260 patent admits:
`
`One previously known type of protection to avoid unintended actuation of
`
`excessive throttle is to use a disable function of the electronic throttle drive
`
`electronics. The disable function allows the PCM to shut down the electronic
`
`throttle drive electronics in the event that the PCM senses a throttle position
`
`differing from expected throttle position.
`
`EX1001, 1:37-42 (emphases added). The ’260 patent instead is directed to the
`
`basic idea of testing whether this known disable function of a known throttle
`
`control system is working. Id., 1:44-45.
`
`Specifically, the ’260 patent claims a generic testing technique: (i)
`
`establishing an initial condition, (ii) changing a variable, and (iii) determining
`
`whether the initial condition has changed to test this known disable function. As
`
`applied to the known disable function of a known throttle control system, all this
`
`entails is disabling drive electronics for a throttle motor and determining a default
`
`position of a throttle plate (i.e., establishing an initial condition), commanding a
`
`full closing voltage (i.e., changing a variable), and determining whether the throttle
`
`plate moved from the default position (i.e., determining whether the initial
`
`condition has changed). EX1001, 4:48-59; EX1003, ¶56.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`But the ’260 patent’s testing technique is as routine as testing a light switch
`
`to confirm it can be turned off:
`
`Generic Testing
`
`’260 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Light Switch Test
`
`Protocol
`
`Protocol
`
`Establish an
`
`“disable said drive electronics;”
`
`Turn off main breaker
`
`initial condition
`
`“determine a default throttle
`
`and light switch;
`
`position sensor (TPS) output
`
`Check whether a light
`
`voltage corresponding to said
`
`connected to the light
`
`default position”
`
`switch is off
`
`“command a full closing motor
`
`Turn on main breaker
`
`voltage”
`
`Change a
`
`variable
`
`Determine
`
`“compare a full closing TPS
`
`Check whether the light
`
`whether the
`
`output voltage to said default TPS
`
`is still off;
`
`initial condition
`
`output voltage;”
`
`Determine the light
`
`has changed
`
`“engage failure mode
`
`switch has malfunctioned
`
`management when said full
`
`if the light turned on
`
`closing TPS output voltage and
`
`said default TPS output voltage
`
`are significantly different from
`
`each other”
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Id. Regardless, the problem of throttle component failures and testing for such
`
`failures (i.e., the “integrity” of the component) was known years before the ’260
`
`patent as demonstrated below. EX1003, ¶¶56-59.
`
`The Petition, supported by the expert declaration of Dr. Gerald Micklow,
`
`who has over 45 years of experience related to electronic throttle control systems,
`
`demonstrates that all claims of the ’260 patent are unpatentable. Therefore,
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board institute review and ultimately find
`
`all claims unpatentable.
`
`Alleged Problem in the Prior Art
`B.
`The ’260 patent is directed to the purported problem of detecting faults in
`
`known components of throttle control systems. EX1001, 1:45-57. As explained
`
`above, testing the “integrity” of throttle control system components to detect faults
`
`and avoid undesired engine conditions (e.g., unintended acceleration) was well-
`
`known long before the ’260 patent. See supra §V.A. The ’260 patent adds nothing
`
`to the realm of previously known testing methods. EX1003, ¶¶55-59.
`
`Alleged Invention of the ’260 Patent
`C.
`As noted above, the ’260 patent admits that the claimed throttle control
`
`system components were known, monitoring throttle control systems for failures
`
`was known, and taking remedial action in the event of a failure was known.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`EX1001, 1:12-44. While many remedial actions were known, the ’260 patent
`
`admits that one possible and “known type of protection to avoid unintended
`
`actuation of excessive throttle is to use a disable function of the electronic throttle
`
`drive electronics,” which “allows the PCM to shut down the electronic throttle
`
`drive electronics in the event that the PCM senses a throttle position differing from
`
`expected throttle position.” Id., 1:37-44 (emphasis added). But according to the
`
`’260 patent, “typical electronic throttle systems do not test the integrity of the
`
`disable function.” Id., 1:44-45. The alleged novelty of the ’260 patent is thus to
`
`simply use known, basic, and logical techniques for testing a known feature of
`
`certain throttle control systems. EX1001, 1:55-57; EX1003, ¶¶55-59.
`
`But well before the ’260 patent, testing throttle control system components,
`
`including whether they are properly enabled or disabled, was taught by the prior
`
`art. EX1006, 12:66-13:46, 14:15-30; EX1016, 1:35-40, 1:50-64, 4:31-59, Fig. 2;
`
`EX1019, Abstract, 6:5:-9:8, Fig. 1; EX1003, ¶¶37-53, 55-59. The ’260 patent
`
`claims thus recite nothing more than what was already taught in the prior art and
`
`well-known to POSITAs. Id.
`
`Priority Date
`D.
`The ’260 patent was filed on October 24, 2000, and does not claim the
`
`benefit of an earlier-filed application. Petitioners apply a priority date of October
`
`24, 2000, for the purposes of this IPR only.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Prosecution History of ’260 Patent
`E.
`The application that issued as the ’260 patent underwent multiple rounds of
`
`prosecution at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The USPTO
`
`issued a first non-final office action rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,088,461 to Ohashi et al. In response, the applicant amended the
`
`claims in view of the § 112 rejection and presented arguments in response to the
`
`obviousness rejection. The applicant specifically argued that each independent
`
`claim requires “that the powertrain control modular disable the throttle drive
`
`electronics such that the electronic throttle plate returns to a default position which
`
`the Ohashi reference does not teach.” EX1002, ’260 history, 0047-48; EX1003,
`
`¶60.
`
`The USPTO issued a final office action maintaining the obviousness
`
`rejection over Ohashi. In response, the applicant amended the claims to recite that
`
`the PCM has control logic to “determine a default throttle position sensor (TPS)
`
`output voltage corresponding to said default position” and reiterated the previously
`
`presented arguments. EX1002, 0084-88; EX1003, ¶61.
`
`The Examiner issued a second non-final office action again maintaining the
`
`obviousness rejection over Ohashi. In response, the applicant reiterated the
`
`previous arguments, specifically arguing that “the Ohashi reference does not
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`disable the throttle drive electronics as part of any test to determine whether the
`
`assumed default position of the electronic throttle plate is indeed a fully closed
`
`position.” The applicant further argued that
`
`In the present application, the default position, with the throttle plate drive
`
`electronics disabled, is measured and compared to the commanded fully
`
`closed position with the throttle drive electronics enabled. Any significant
`
`measured difference between the electronic throttle plate position with the
`
`drive electronics disabled and the electronic throttle plate position with the
`
`throttle drive electronics enabled and commanding a fully close position,
`
`indicates a potential fault with the electronic throttle system.1
`
`EX1002, 0097-99; EX1003, ¶62.
`
`The USPTO then issued a Notice of Allowance. None of the prior art
`
`discussed below was considered by the USPTO. EX1002, 0100-04; EX1003, ¶64.
`
`Prior IPR Proceedings
`F.
`One IPR petition has been filed challenging the ’260 patent, and the Board
`
`instituted trial on that petition. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VW”) filed
`
`1 The specification and claims of the ’260 patent are directed to comparing the
`
`default position to the commanded fully closed position with the throttle drive
`
`electronics disabled, not enabled. EX1001, 1:62-2:3; EX1003, ¶##.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`an IPR proceeding relying on McQueen, Terazawa, and Husselbee on similar (but
`
`not identical) grounds to those presented in this Petition. IPR2020-00451. The
`
`Board granted institution on August 28, 2020, finding:
`
` VW demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in establishing
`
`the unpatentability of claims 1-10 as obvious over the combination of
`
`McQueen, Terazawa, and Husselbee.
`
` The Board was persuaded that independent claim 11 and dependent
`
`claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
`
`McQueen and Terazawa, and dependent claims 14-17 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over the combination of McQueen and
`
`Terazawa in view of the skilled artisan’s knowledge demonstrated by
`
`Husselbee.
`
`EX1007, at 32-33. On March 22, 2021, the Board terminated the proceeding in
`
`view of VW’s settlement with PO. IPR2020-00451, Paper 35.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`Prior Art
`The challenges in this Petition are based on the following references:
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Prior Art Reference
`
`Exhibit Filing Date Pub. Date
`
`EX1005 10/27/1992 4/19/1994
`
`Prior Art
`Section(s)
`§102(a), (b), (e)
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,303,581 (“McQueen”)
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,048,485 (“Terazawa”)
`William L. Husselbee,
`“Automotive Computer
`Control Systems:
`Fundamentals and
`Service”
`Hans Mauser,
`“Electronic Throttle
`Control –A
`Dependability Case
`Study”(1999)
`B.
`Challenges
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’260 patent based on
`
`EX1006 5/29/1990
`
`9/19/1991
`
`§102(a), (b), (e)
`
`EX1008 N/A
`
`1998
`
`§102(a), (b)
`
`EX1011 N/A
`
`10/28/1999 §102(a), (b)
`
`the following grounds
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Claims
`1-5, 8
`
`11-13
`
`14-15
`
`References
`Basis
`§103 McQueen, Terazawa, Husselbee
`
`§103 McQueen, Terazawa
`
`§103 McQueen, Terazawa, Husselbee
`
`6-7, 9-10, 16-17
`
`§103 McQueen, Terazawa, Mauser,
`
`Husselbee
`
`Each prior art reference is analogous art to each other and to the Challenged Patent
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`because they describe systems and methods related to throttle control methods for
`
`internal combustion engines. The references are thus from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the Challenged Patent. EX1003 (Micklow Decl.), ¶##.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSITA at the time of the alleged invention would have had a B.S. degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering or Mechanical Engineering (or equivalent), as well as at
`
`least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field of throttle
`
`control systems. EX1003, ¶¶68-73. In the VW Petition Institution Decision, the
`
`Board found “the parties’ proposed definitions as substantially the same and
`
`consistent with the prior art.” EX1007, at 9.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claims are “construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`None of the claim terms require construction for the purposes of this
`
`Petition, and thus they should receive their plain and ordinary meaning in the
`
`context of the ’260 patent. EX1003, ¶66. In the VW Petition Institution Decision,
`
`the Board found “[b]oth Petitioner and Patent Owner submit that the claim
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`limitations in the ’260 patent should be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning.” EX1007, at 10.
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`The Challenged Patent claims priority to October 24, 2000 (before March
`
`16, 2013), so pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103 apply.
`
`Technology Overview
`A.
`The ’260 patent admits that the claimed throttle control system components
`
`were known. EX1001, 1:12-45. The ’260 patent also admits in its discussion of the
`
`prior art that the claimed functionality of its throttle control system was known.
`
`EX1003, ¶55. Indeed, Pallett disclosed the exact throttle control system shown in
`
`the ’260 patent, including a powertrain control module (PCM) 16, a throttle
`
`position sensor 24, and an actuator and interface 30 having a drive motor to change
`
`the angle of the throttle plate 34. Compare EX1018, 2:65-3:39, with EX1001, 2:49-
`
`3:26; EX1003, ¶38.
`
`McQueen and Terazawa also disclose throttle control systems having these
`
`same, well-known components—control units to control the angular position of a
`
`throttle plate via a motor and throttle position sensors to measure the position of
`
`the throttle plate. EX1005, McQueen, 3:1-57; EX1006, Terazawa, 3:50-4:19;
`
`EX1014, Matsumoto, 5:61-6:12, 7:3-19; EX1003, ¶¶39-40.
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`EX1005, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`EX1006, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`It was well-known before the ’260 patent that problems with throttle control
`
`systems can create undesired operating conditions for an engine, and thus it was
`
`important to test such systems. EX1003, ¶¶41-53. For example, Jurgen recognized
`
`the need for monitoring throttle control system components and disclosed a throttle
`
`control system with a failsafe mode of operation in the event that the
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`17
`
`

`

`microcontroller or actuator drivers failed as a basic safety feature to avoid the
`
`unexpected engine fault of runaway acceleration. See EX1017, Jurgen, 14.2; see
`
`also EX1011, Mauser, 732 (“To make sure that the system is functioning correctly
`
`also in case of faults, several checking strategies were designed. The overall goal
`
`was to discover as many faults as possible and to trigger an adequate reaction, in
`
`order to avoid critical states. Particularly the runaway case, i.e. undesired high
`
`engine performance, has to be avoided.); EX1014, Krampe, 1:35-40, 1:50-64,
`
`4:31-59, Fig. 2; EX1019, Berger, Abstract, 6:5:-9:8, Fig. 1; EX1003, ¶¶42-44.
`
`Pallett, in particular, recognized that failures can occur in the same
`
`powertrain control module (PCM) of the ’260 patent and that such failures can
`
`induce power output exceeding power demand (i.e., unintended acceleration).
`
`EX1018, 1:44-53, 2:4-9, 3:61-64. Pallett disclosed an electronic throttle monitor to
`
`monitor the power train control module to ensure that “neither a control module
`
`fault nor a system fault can result in an excessive engine operation.” EX1018,
`
`1:44-2:9. If a fault is detected, the power delivered by the powertrain can be
`
`limited. EX1018, 2:9-13, 5:35-42; EX1003, ¶¶45-46.
`
`McQueen recognized that a “common” safety requirement in throttle control
`
`systems is having two “return-to-closed” systems—(i) a return spring that
`
`constantly urges the throttle towards its closed position, and (ii) a servomotor that
`
`drives the throttle to its closed position under control of an electronic control unit
`
`05142-00083/14204675.1
`ACTIVE\1601574854.1
`
`18
`
`

`

`(ECU). EX1005,