`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: July 20, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC, and
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`On February 20, 2015, Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd.,
`
`Broad Ocean Motor LLC, and Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC
`
`(“Petitioners”) filed a Petition (Paper 3) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to
`
`institute an inter partes review of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,208,895 B2
`
`(“the ’895 patent”). Concurrent with their Petition, Petitioners filed a
`
`motion to join this proceeding with IPR2014-01122 (“the related
`
`proceeding”), which was instituted on January 21, 2015. Paper 4. Nidec
`
`Motor Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper
`
`12, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition on April 21, 2015. Pursuant to our
`
`authorization, Petitioners filed a Reply (Paper 13) on April 28, 2015, limited
`
`to addressing the joinder issues.
`
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the Petition and do not
`
`institute an inter partes review. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot
`
`Petitioners’ motion to join.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’895 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’895 patent relates to torque control of permanent magnet rotating
`
`machines. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15–17. Figure 1 of the ’895 patent is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a rotating permanent magnet machine system.
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 4–6. Rotating permanent magnet electric machine 101
`
`includes rotor 104 and stator 102, around which energizable phase windings
`
`106A, 106B, and 106C are wound. Id. at col. 2, ll. 14–22. Drive 102
`
`receives control inputs from controller 110, which receives rotor position
`
`and speed data 112 from sensors coupled to the machine. Id. at col. 2, ll.
`
`24–30.
`
`When operated in a torque control mode, input torque demand 114 is
`
`provided to a torque scalar that produces a scaled torque demand. Id. at col.
`
`2, ll. 63–67. The ’895 patent illustrates calculation of the scaled torque
`
`demand as the sum of three components: (1) the torque offset, which is the
`
`minimum torque required to run the motor without a load; (2) the product of
`
`the torque demand and a torque multiplier; and (3) a speed offset, which
`
`may be determined from a look-up table containing speed-torque table
`
`values for the particular motor being controlled. Id. at col. 4, ll. 15–35.
`
`“The torque multiplier and the torque offset value are preferably motor-
`
`specific parameters which compensate for individual motor characteristics.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at col. 4, ll. 20–22. A constant motor torque output with increasing
`
`motor speed may be achieved by increasing the value of the demanded
`
`torque by the control system as the motor operating speed increases, thereby
`
`making the torque lines flatter with speed. Id. at col. 4, ll. 39–43.
`
`The scaled torque demand is used to calculate an “IQr demand” using
`
`motor-specific torque-to-IQr map data. Id. at col. 2, l. 67 – col. 3, l. 3. The
`
`IQr demand is concatenated with an “Idr demand” (also referred to as a “dr-
`
`axis injection current”) from an Idr injection block into a vector quantity,
`
`“IQdr demand.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 3–6. The resulting IQdr demand takes into
`
`account the torque contribution, if any, of the dr-axis current. Id. at col. 3, ll.
`
`10–12.
`
`Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Mark Ehsani, explains that “vector control”
`
`provides one method of controlling permanent-magnet synchronous motors,
`
`and that “[t]he concept of vector control, which typically uses d and [Q]
`
`current components, arises from [a] principle [in which] torque arrives from
`
`the interaction of two magnetic fields, one originating from the stator and
`
`one originating from the rotor.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 13.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`The drawing from page 7 of Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`The drawing from Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration illustrates a rotor, which
`
`has a permanent magnet having north and south poles Nr and Sr,
`
`respectively, and illustrates a stator, which includes electromagnets that
`
`result in a virtual stator magnet having north and south poles Ns and Ss,
`
`respectively. Id. at ¶ 15. The d axis is aligned with the rotor and the q axis
`
`is offset 90° from the d axis. The motor commutates the winding currents to
`
`maintain orthogonality of the d and q axes as the rotor turns. Id. at ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`B. Challenged Claim
`
`The challenged claim, and the independent claim from which the
`
`challenged claim depends, are as follows.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`9. A permanent magnet rotating machine and controller
`assembly configured to perform the method of claim 1.
`
`1. A method of controlling a permanent magnet rotating
`machine, the machine including a stator and a rotor situated to
`rotate relative to the stator, the stator having a plurality of
`energizable phase windings situated therein, the method
`comprising:
`receiving a rotor torque demand; and
`calculating a scaled torque demand from the received
`torque demand as a function of a speed of the machine to obtain
`a substantially constant rotor torque over a range of rotor
`speeds.
`
`
`C. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 9 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`by JP 11-155202, published June 8, 1999 (Ex. 1003, “Hiroyuki”). Pet. 4–5.
`
`Petitioners provide an attested English translation of the reference as Exhibit
`
`1005.
`
`
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`
`In addition to IPR2014-01122, the ’895 patent is a subject of Nidec
`
`Motor Corporation v. Broad Ocean Motor LLC et al., Civil Action No.
`
`4:13-CV-01895-JCH (E.D. Mo.). Pet. 2–3.
`
`
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`778 F.3d 1271, 1279–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress
`
`implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`In the related proceeding, the Board construed “scaled torque
`
`demand,” which is recited in claim 1, as “torque calculated from the
`
`received torque demand based on machine-specific parameters,” noting that
`
`scaling is “machine-specific” if it is “based upon parameters of the motor
`
`involved.” Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. Nidec Motor
`
`Corporation, Case No. IPR2014-01122, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2015)
`
`(Paper 20). The Board also construed “substantially constant rotor torque
`
`over a range of rotor speeds,” which is also recited in claim 1, as “requiring
`
`that the rotor torque not vary substantially over a range of rotor speeds.” Id.
`
`at 9–10. Neither party contests these constructions, which we adopt for
`
`purposes of this decision.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Hiroyuki describes a motor control system that may be used with a
`
`permanent magnet motor in an electric vehicle. Ex. 1005 ¶ 2. Hiroyuki
`
`expresses an objective of “obtaining a braking force of certain value” under
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`conditions of varying speed. Id. at ¶ 4. Figure 4 of Hiroyuki is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a control block diagram illustrating an electric vehicle control
`
`device. Id. at ¶ 18. Torque command calculating device 18 determines
`
`torque command 21 based on inputs of accelerating signal 15, brake signal
`
`16, and gear shifting signal 17. Id. at ¶ 17. The resulting torque command is
`
`received by torque component current generator 22 and magnetic field
`
`component current generator 23, both of which also receive signal 20
`
`specifying input motor revolutions. Id. Torque component current
`
`generator 22 uses these inputs to output torque component current command
`
`24, and magnetic field component current generator 23 uses the same inputs
`
`to output magnetic field component current command 25.
`
`Petitioners draw a correspondence between torque command 21 and
`
`the “received torque demand” recited in claim 1, and draw a correspondence
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`between output torque component current command 24 and the calculated
`
`“scaled torque demand” recited in claim 1. Pet. 13–19. Petitioners contend
`
`that Hiroyuki’s torque component current command 24 is, thus, a “scaled
`
`torque demand that is a function of speed.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 55).
`
`Petitioners reason that input signal 20 “is ‘machine-specific’ because it is
`
`based upon a parameter of the motor involved (i.e., the motor’s rotational
`
`speed).” Id. at 17. Although Petitioners cite to Dr. Ehsani’s testimony for
`
`support, Dr. Ehsani’s expressed opinions are limited. Dr. Ehsani testifies
`
`that “[t]he calculated motor revolutions 20 is a representation of the speed of
`
`the motor,” but Petitioners have not identified testimony by Dr. Ehsani that
`
`motor speed is a machine-specific parameter. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 54.
`
`Patent Owner contends that “motor speed is not a ‘machine specific
`
`parameter’” because “knowing the instantaneous speed does not characterize
`
`the machine.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner further contends that
`
`Petitioners’ treatment of motor speed as a machine-specific parameter
`
`renders the phrase “calculating a scaled torque demand” (emphasis added) in
`
`claim 1 superfluous because the claim already expressly requires that the
`
`scaled torque demand be calculated as a function of machine speed. Id. at
`
`21.
`
`Patent Owner’s contentions are persuasive. That is, Petitioners’
`
`analysis effectively reads “scaled” out of the claim. “The Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when
`
`determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” In re Lowry, 32
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioners have not established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenge of claim 9. Because
`
`we so conclude, we do not reach the joinder issue.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
`
`instituted; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder (Paper 4)
`
`is dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00763
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Steven Meyer
`Seth Atlas
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`smeyer@lockelord.com
`ptopatentcommunications@lockelord.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Scott Brown
`Matthew Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com
`mwalters@hooveywilliams.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11