`
`
`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
`
`