`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`~
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.0.Box‘145Q _
`_
`Alexandnn. Vll’glflm 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`10/984,416
`
`11/08/2004
`
`Darin G. Schaeffer
`
`12730-25 (PA-5447-RF5)
`
`3477
`
`BGL/Cook - Chicago.
`PO BOX 10395 -
`CHICAGO, IL 60610
`
`LOUIS, RICHARD G
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3734
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/21/2014
`
`_
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte DARIN G. SCHAEFFER '
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`Technology Center 3700
`
`Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`This is an appeal] under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a stent
`
`graft system. The Examiner rejected the claims for obviousness. We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm—in—part.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Background
`
`The Specification “relates to a branch vessel stent for use in
`
`connection with a fenestrated stent graft device for placement in a vessel of a
`
`body” (Spec. 11 16). The Specification describes the use of “[p]ositional
`
`indicators 43, such as radiopaque markers, [that] may be attached to or
`
`1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Cook Incorporated (see
`App. Br. 1).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`
`integral with the stent and/or graft material, and may be placed at positions
`
`on the branch vessel prosthesis 11 to indicate the proximal end 30, the
`
`flaring portion 36 and/or the distal end 32” (id, 11 75). “Preferably, a
`
`positional marker 43 is placed So as to indicate that portion of the branch
`
`vessel prosthesis 11 that generally aligns with the fenestration 7” (id).
`
`The Claims
`
`Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15—21, 24, and 25 are under appeal.
`
`'Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
`
`,
`
`1. A stent graft system for intraluminal deployment in an
`aorta and a branch vessel comprising:
`an aorta stent graft with a fenestration configured to
`be aligned with a branch vessel;
`a branch vessel prosthesis having proximal and distal
`ends, and further having a flaring portion and a tubular
`portion, wherein, when deployed, the flaring portion is
`retained within the aorta stent graft, and the tubular portion
`is configured to extend through the fenestration and into the
`branch vessel; and
`'
`a first positional indicator positioned between the
`tubular portion and the flaring portion of the branch vessel
`prosthesis that aligns with the fenestration during
`deployment,
`'
`wherein the branch vessel prosthesis comprises an
`undeployed state prior to flaring of the flaring portion, and
`further comprises a deployed state in which the flaring
`portion is flared outward relative to the tubular portion,
`wherein the first positional indicator indicates a
`bending portion of the branch vessel prosthesis that
`comprises one of a "V" shaped-segment, a "W" shaped-
`segment, and an "S" shaped-segment in at least the
`undeployed state.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`
`The Issues
`
`The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1] 1 for failing to comply with
`
`the written description requirement.
`
`II.
`
`Claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1] 1 for failing to comply with
`
`the enablement requirement.
`
`III.
`
`Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Vardi ’429,2 Thompson,3
`
`and Frantzen.4
`Claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`IV.
`
`unpatentable-over the combination of Vardi ’429, Thompson,
`
`Frantzen, and Burney.5
`
`Claims 13 and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Vardi ’429, Thompson,
`
`Frantzen, and Vardi ’483.6
`
`Appellant does not present any arguments for the rejections of claim
`
`25 under § 112, ‘fl 1. We therefore summarily affirm those rejections and.
`
`will not discuss them further.
`
`2 Vardi et al., US 6,210,429 B1, issued Apr. 3, 2001.
`3 Thompson et al., US 2004/0254627 A1, published Dec. 16, 2004.
`4 Frantzen, US 6,293,966 B1, issued Sep. 25, 2001. The Examiner entered a
`. new ground of rejection for claim 21 based on the same combination of
`Vardi ’429, Thompson, and Frantzen (Ans. 4). In accordance with 37 CPR.
`§ 41 .39(b)(2), Appellant has chosen to maintain the appeal as to that
`rejection by addressing it in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 6).
`5 Burney et al., US 6,056,700, issued May 2, 2000.
`6 Vardi et al., US 6,692,483 B2, issued Feb. 17, 2004.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`With respect to the obviousness rejections, the Examiner finds that
`
`Vardi '429 discloses positional indicators located at a variety
`of locations including at the proximal and distal ends and
`surrounding the fenestration on the aorta stent 12, and at the
`proximal and distal ends of the tubular portion of the branch
`vessel as well as on the flaring portion 18. (See Col. 6 Line
`61-Col. 7 Line 4, Col. 7, Lines 28-38, and Col. 8, Lines 48-
`54).
`‘
`
`(Ans. 6). The Examiner also relies upon Figure 5 of Vardi ’429 as “showing ‘
`two rows of positional indicators 56 seemingly adjacentto one another,” and
`asserts that “it appears from the disclosure one of these two rows of
`
`indicators 56 is disposed-on the proximal end of the tubular member while
`
`the other is disposed on the flared portion” (id. at 7). The Examiner
`
`acknowledges that “Vardi '429 fails to disclose positional indicators
`disposed between the tubular portion and the flaring portion of the branch
`
`Vessel prosthesis that align with the fenestration during deployment,” but
`
`relies upon Thompson’s teaching of
`
`a related prosthesis comprising positional indicators 40
`disposed between a tubular portion 22 and a flaring portion
`24 of a prosthesis wherein the indicators 40 align with a
`fenestration during deployment. The flaring portion 24 is
`considered to comprise the outer portion of the cantilever
`member 32 since this is the portion that flares outwardly
`away from the stent body. Said indicators 40 allow a
`physician to precisely determine the position of the portiOn
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`
`of the prosthesis where the tubular portion 22 and the flared
`portion 24 meet.
`
`(id). Based on this teaching, the Examiner finds that it would have been
`
`obvious to modify the Vardi ’429 apparatus “by providing positional
`
`indicators at the junction of the tubular portion and the flared portion
`indicating a bending portion of the prosthesis” (id).
`4
`
`We have considered the cited teachings of the prior art and the
`
`Examiner’s position, but determine that a prima facie showing of
`
`obviousness has not been made.
`
`Appellant argues that “Thompson’s positional indicator is on the
`
`flaring/cantilevered portion itself, not positioned between the tubular portion
`
`and the flaring portion of a branch vessel prosthesis that aligns with the
`
`fenestration during deployment,” and “[t]his distinction is very clinically
`
`important” because it would not allow a physician to properly align the
`
`branch vessel (App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted». We agree. Thompson only
`
`teaches that the enlargements 40 and inserts 42 (relied upon by the Examiner
`
`as the claimed positional indicators) are located on “an end 24 adopted to be
`
`flared relative to the main body 22” (Thompson, fl 25). The Examiner
`
`provides no basis to conclude that any portion proximal to the enlargement
`
`40/insert 42 in Figure 2 of Thompson, including either the tip 24 or the
`
`portion between the cantilever strut 32 and the tip of enlargement 38
`
`identified by the Examiner (Ans. 11), would be considered by a skilled
`
`artisan to be a “flaring portion” in the manner claimed. To the contrary,
`
`Thompson identifies the entire length of end 24 as being “flared relative to~
`the main body 22” (Thompson, 1] 25). Thompson further teaches that
`
`“[p]redefined bend locations such as notches 26 are located between the
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`
`main body and the end 24” (id). In View of this disclosure, we find that the
`
`Examiner has not made a primafacie showing that Thompson teaches or
`
`suggests a first positional indicator that is positioned between the tubular
`
`portion and the flaring portion of the branch vessel prosthesis that aligns
`with the fenestration during deployment as required by the claims.
`The Examiner does not cite to any other prior art teaching to make up ‘
`
`for this deficiency. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
`
`1—4, 6, 7, 21, and 24 over the combination of Vardi ’429, Thompson, and
`
`Frantzen. We also reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 11
`
`based on the fiuther teachings of Burney and claims 13 and 15—20 based on
`
`the further teachings of Vardi ’483.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`‘ We summarily affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`11 1 f0r failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
`
`We summarily affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`11 1 for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement.
`
`We reverse the rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, 21, and 24 under 35
`
`.
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Over the combination of Vardi ’429,
`
`Thompson, and Frantzen.‘
`
`We reverse the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as being unpatentable over the combination of Vardi ’429, Thompson,
`
`Frantzen, and Burney.
`
`We reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Vardi ’429,
`
`Thompson, Frantzen, and Vardi ’483.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2012-009282
`Application 10/984,416
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 CPR. § 1.136(a).
`
`AFFIRMED-IN—PART
`
`tC
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: November 20, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYANK. DESI-IPANDE, and
`
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`.
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, filed a Petition reciuesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,455,134 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’ 134 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet”). Patent
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`Owner, Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., filed a Preliminary
`
`Response in both unredacted and redacted form. Papers 7 and 8 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.” ).1 Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Seal. Paper 9 (“Mot to
`
`Seal.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that
`
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless .
`
`.
`
`. the information
`
`presented 'in the petition .
`
`.
`
`. shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`
`conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in‘challenging any of claims 1—3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 as
`unpatentable. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we do not
`
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted.
`
`A._ Related Proceedings
`
`The ’134 patent is involved in Paice, LLC v. Ford Motor Company,
`
`No. 1—14-cv-00492, filed on February 19, 2014, in the United States District
`
`Court'for the District of Maryland. Pet. 1. Petitioner filed an earlier Petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’ 134 patent, but we did not institute trial. Ford
`
`Motor Company v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundatibn, Inc., Case IPR2014-
`
`00568 (PTAB Sept. 8, 2014) (Paper 12).
`
`1 Citations are to the redacted version of the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp”). Patent Owner marked Paper 8 for
`“Parties and Board Only.” The paper will be made publicly available in due
`course.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`B. The ’I 34 Patent (Ex. 1101)
`
`The ’134 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`
`combustion engine, a traction motor, a starter motor, and a battery bank, all
`
`controlled by a microprocessor. Ex. 1101, Abs. Figure 4, reproduced
`
`below, shows a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle. Id. at Fig. 4.
`
`1
`
`NC
`
`
`1 vert‘rert/
`
`
`anmEtL _-
`“REE“
`is
`
`
`
`
`
` \NVERTER/ —
`
`
`
` ENC-“NE $PEED
`
`Rafi-1211mm:
`MOTOR $?EED
`OPERKVOK
`BtRECUON
`
`DELELERNHOH
`COMMANDS
`BkTTERY VOLTNEE
`9&1“ “‘9‘“
`amuse MODE:
`BATTERY CHARGE
`KMBlENT TWP.
`
`Figure 4 illustrates a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle.
`
`The hybrid vehicle includes two wheels 34 operable to propel the
`
`vehic1e, traction motor 25, starting motor 21, and engine 40 coupled to
`starting motor 21. Id. Inverter/charger 27 is coupled to traction motor 25 I
`
`and inverter/charger 23 is coupled to starting motor 21. Id. 2 Battery bank 22
`
`is coupled to inverter/charger 23, as well as inverter/charger 27.
`
`Controller 48 controls the operation of engine 40 and motors 21 and 25. Id.
`
`The components of the vehicle “are to be sized so that the ratio between
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`battery voltage under load to peak current is at least about 2.5, and
`
`preferably is at least 3.5 to 4:1.” Id. at 50:5—9.
`
`C. Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3,
`
`5, 6, 19, 27, and 40, which depend directly from claim 1. Petitioner also
`challenges independent claim 58. Claim 1 reads:
`
`A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`1.
`at least two wheels, operable to receive power'to propel
`said hybrid vehicle;
`a first alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to
`provide power to said at least two wheels to propel said hybrid
`vehicle;
`
`a second AC electric motor;
`an engine coupled to said second electric motor, operable
`to provide power to said at
`least two wheels to propel the
`hybrid vehicle, and/or to said second electric motor to drive the
`second electric motor to generate electric power;
`(AC-DC)
`a
`first
`alternating current-direct
`current
`converter having an AC side coupled to said first electric motor,
`operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to
`DC or AC current respectively;
`a second AC-DC converter coupled to said second
`electric motor, at
`least operable to accept AC current and
`convert the current to DC;
`an electrical storage device coupled to a DC side of said
`AC-DC converters, wherein the electrical storage device is
`operable to store DC energy received from said AC-DC
`converters and provide DC energy to at least said first AC-DC
`converter for providing power to at
`least said first electric
`motor; and
`
`a controller, operable to start and stop the engine to
`minimize fuel consumption;
`wherein a ratio of maximum DC voltage on the DC side
`of at least said first AC-DC converter coupled to said first
`electric motor to current supplied from said electrical storage
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`device to at least said first AC-DC converter, when maximum
`current is so supplied, is at least 2.5.
`
`Id. at 56:43—57z7.
`
`'
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1—3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 of the
`
`’134 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the
`
`following specific grounds:
`
`
`'0
`(if: «
`ii " Basi
`
`
`
`
`
`@fiéllengéd .
` lfiiihlé
`
`Ehsani2 and Ehsani NPL3
`
`§ 103
`
`—3, 5 and 6
`,
`
`1
`
`
`Reféiétié’élsl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`
`we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes Of this decision. In an
`
`2 US. Patent No. 5,586,613, issued Dec. 24, 1996 (Ex. 1103) (“Ehsani”).
`3 Yimin Gao et al., The Energy Flow Management and Battery Energy
`Capacity Determination for the Drive Train and Electrically Peaking Hybrid
`Vehicle, SAE 972647 (1997) (Ex. 1106) (“Ehsani NFL”).
`4 Oreste Vittone et al., Fiat Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Car Design,
`12th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (1994) (Ex. 1107)
`'
`(“Vittone”).
`5 US. Patent No. 4,335,429, issued June 15, 1982 (Ex. 1104)
`(“Kawakatsu”).
`.
`6 US. Patent No. 5,865,263, filed Feb. 23, 1996, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex.
`1105) (“Yamaguchi”).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired patent
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`
`presumed to have their ordinary and’customary meaning, as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. ; Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). For purposes of this decision, we only need to construe the term
`
`“maximum DC voltage.”
`
`“maximum DC voltage”
`Patent Owner argues that the “maximum DC voltage” recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 58 refers to a voltage. under load, and not a
`
`nominal voltage (Le, a voltage not under load), citing to examples in the
`
`’134 patent. Prelim. Resp. 18—19. Although Petitioner does not construe the
`
`“maximum DC voltage” limitation, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jeffrey L.
`
`Stein, agrees with this construction. In particular, Dr. Stein opines that “[a]s
`
`it is used in the claims and the specification of the ’ 134 patent, the maximum
`
`DC voltage refers to a maximum DC voltage under load” and that the
`maximum DC voltage “when maximum current is so supplied” refers to the
`
`maximum DC voltage under peak‘electrical load. Ex. 1102 1] 181. We agree
`that the plain language of the claims of a “maximum DC voltage‘. .
`. when
`
`maximum current is so supplied” means a voltage under load and excludes a
`
`nominal voltage (a voltage not under load).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`B. All Grounds OfObviousness Based in Part on Ehsani
`
`Petitioner contends that all challenged claims 1—3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40,
`
`and 58 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various
`combinations of prior art. In each ofthe proposedichallenges,‘Petitioner
`
`relies on Ehsani to teach the “wherein” limitation of independent claims 1
`
`and 58. Pet. 24—25, 41, 48—49, 56. In particular, claim 1 recites “wherein a
`
`ratio of maximum DC voltage .
`
`.
`
`. to current supplied from said electrical
`
`storage device to at least said first AC-DC converter, when maximum
`
`current is so supplied, is at least 2.5.” Claim 58 recites nearly an identical
`
`limitation. Ex. 1101, 64:12—16. The limitation in all of the challenged
`
`claims requires a maximum DC voltage to current supplied to be at least 2.5.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not made’a sufficient
`showing that Ehsani teaches a maximum DC voltage to current supplied to
`
`be at least 2.5, or that that ratio would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`1. Ehsani _
`
`Ehsani describes an electrically peaking hybrid system and method of
`
`generating hybrid electric-combustion power. Ex. 1103, 1:13—16. Figure 5,
`reproduced below, shows a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle. Id. at Fig. 5.
`
`I
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5 illustrates a block diagram of a hybrid vehicle.
`
`The hybrid vehicle includes two wheels 20, operable to propel the
`
`vehicle, electric motor 51, generator 50, engine 16 coupled to generator 50.
`
`Id. AC/DC converter 54 is coupled to electric motor 51 and AC/DC
`
`converter 52 is. coupled to generator 50. Id. Battery 24 is coupled to AC/DC
`
`converter 52, as well as AC/DC converter 54. Controller 14 controls the
`
`operation of engine 16, converter 22, and battery 24. Id. at 7:1—2.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that Ehsani describes an embodiment within the
`
`scope of the “at least 2.5” ratio range recited in claims 1 and 58. Although
`
`Petitioner asserts that Ehsani describes, in general, operating the AC electric
`
`machines at a high voltage and relatively low current, citing to column six,
`
`lines 57—67 (Pet. 17), Petitibner acknowledges that Ehsani does not describe
`
`any specific numeric ratio of a maximum DC voltage to current supplied.
`Id. at 25. Nonetheless, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Stein to
`
`demonstrate that Ehsani describes parameters that a person of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`in the art would have recognized would lead to two different ratios of DC
`
`voltage to current supplied. Id. at 24—26; Ex. 1102 1111 182, 197.
`
`The first ratio of 10:1 is calculated by Dr. Stein using parameters
`found in Ehsani of a nominal voltage of 700V divided by a maximum
`
`current of 70A. Ex. 1102 11 182. As discussed in the claim construction
`
`section, a “maximum DC voltage .
`
`.
`
`. when maximum current is so supplied”
`
`means a voltage under load and excludes a nominal voltage (a voltage not
`
`under lead). Accordingly, the first ratio has not been shown to be an
`
`embodiment within the scope of the at least 2.5 ratio range.7
`
`The second ratio of 8.82:1 is calculated by Dr. Stein using parameters
`found in the ’134 patent. Pet. 25; Ex. 1102 1111 183—197. Ehsani describes
`that battery 24 is a lead-acid battery. Ex. 1103, 5:16—17. Dr. Stein testifies
`that the maximum voltage drop of the Ehsani‘700 volt lead-acid battery bank
`
`. under peak load conditions would be approximately 70 volts, resulting in a
`DC bus voltage under load no less than approximately 630 volts when a '
`
`1
`
`maximum current of about 70 amperes is being supplied. Ex. 1102 11 184.
`
`To determine the internal resistance of the Ehsani battery, and, thus, the
`
`voltage drop, Dr. Stein looks to the Vehicle parameters uSed in the
`’ 134 patent. Id. 1111 185—197. Dr. Stein concludes that under the maximum
`
`current condition, the ratio of the maximum DC voltage to current is 8.82: 1.
`
`Id. 11 199.
`
`7 Dr. Stein opines that “[a] case can be made that the DC bus voltage refers
`to a voltage under load” but does not explain how that case can be made. Ex.
`1102 11 182. Petitioner has not shown that the DC bus voltage described in
`Ehsani refers to a voltage under load.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Stein’s calculation of DC maximum
`
`voltage to current supplied of 8.82:1, based on parameters found in the
`
`disclosure of the’ 134 patent, as opposed to parameters found in Ehsani, is
`
`improper. Prelim. Resp. 20—32. We agree with Patent Owner that the
`
`information contained in the ’ 134 patent has not been shown by Petitioner to
`
`be information that. would have been known by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, as opposed to information known only to the inventors of the ’ 134
`
`patent. Even Petitioner recognizes that the design parameters described in
`
`the ’ 134 patent, used by Dr. Stein to arrive at the 8.82:1 ratio, dictate the
`
`claimed ratio, which is described as the “further improvements” of the ’134
`
`patent. Pet. 25; Ex. 1101, 49:10—57. As such, Petitioner has not shown that
`the information Dr. Stein relies on from the ’134 patent to arrive at an
`
`embodiment within the scope of the claim was known to anyone other than
`
`the inventors of the ’ 134 patent. Petitioner, therefore, has failed to establish
`
`that Ehsani discloses the claimed ratio. Petitioner does not provide a
`
`rationale as to whythe claimed'ratio would have otherwise been obvious.
`
`For these reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging any of claims 1—3, 5,
`
`6, 19, 27, 40, and 58 as unpatentable.
`
`C. Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`Patent Owner moves to seal the unredacted Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 7) and Exhibit 2101. Paper 9. In rendering our decision
`
`not to institute trial, we found it unnecessary to rely on the information
`
`Patent Owner seeks to maintain as sealed. For these reasons, we expunge
`
`the unredacted version of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response and
`
`Exhibit 2101. Patent Owner’s motion to seal is dismissed as moot.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2 _
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we'conclude that there'is not a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would preyail in challenging claims 1—3, 5, 6, 19,
`27, 40, and 58 ofthe ’ 134 patent as unpatentable. In rendering our decision,
`
`.we found it unnecessary to rely on documents Patent Owner seeks to
`
`maintain as sealed, and, therefore, we expunge from the record the sealed
`
`documents and dismiss Patent Owner’s motion to seal.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Upon consideration of the record before us, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to seal is
`
`dismissed; and
`
`.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s unredacted preliminary
`
`response (Paper 7) and Exhibit 2101 be expunged from the record.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00852
`
`Patent 7,455,134 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`.
`Frank Angileri
`FPGP0106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Sangeeta Shah
`FPGPO106IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`riffe@fr.com
`
`Kevin E. Greene
`
`IPR36351-00121P1@fr.com
`
`12
`
`
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
