`Entered: October 30, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MOTIVEPOWER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUTSFORTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before TRENTON A. WARD, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`MotivePower, Inc., Petitioner, filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`review of all the claims (113) (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`7,417,354 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’354 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 31119.
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Board granted the Petition and instituted trial for all asserted
`claims. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Although Petitioner proposed five grounds of
`unpatentability, the panel instituted trial on the following grounds: 1
`(1) Claims 1–13 as anticipated by Kartman;
`(2) Claims 1–7 and 11–13 as anticipated by Baylis;
`(3) Claims 1–13 as obvious over Bissett and Kartman; and
`(4) Claims 8–10 as obvious over Baylis and Kartman.
`During trial, Patent Owner, Cutsforth, Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response
`relying on Declarations of Dr. Thomas A. Keim (Ex. 2001) and Mr. Dustin
`Cutsforth (Ex. 2050). Paper 15 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Response. Paper 26 (“Pet. Reply”).
`We granted Patent Owner’s motion requesting cancellation of claim 3 of the
`’354 patent. Paper 17, Order on Mot. to Amend. Additionally, an oral hearing was
`held on August 6, 2014, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record.
`Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written decision is
`issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,043,619 (Ex. 1003) (“Kartman”); U.S. Patent No. 3,432,708
`(Ex. 1004) (“Bissett”); and U.S. Patent No. 629,418 (Ex. 1005) (“Baylis”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden
`to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12 and 413 of the
`’354 patent are unpatentable.
`A. The ’354 Patent (Exhibit 1001)
`The ’354 patent generally relates to a brush holder assembly for use in
`electrical devices and slip ring assemblies. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 1719. In
`particular, the patent describes that a brush is used in an electrical device to pass
`electrical current from a stationary contact to a moving contact surface, and vice
`versa. Id. at col. 1, ll. 2325. Because the brush typically is in contact with a
`moving surface, the surface of the brush wears down, thus reducing the quality of
`the electrical contact. Id. at col. 1, ll. 3655. The ’354 patent describes that when
`the brush is so worn that it requires replacement, the moving contact surface may
`need to be halted, which may be difficult or expensive. Id. at col. 1, l. 66 – col. 2,
`l. 4. Alternatively, the ’354 patent describes that maintaining the relative motion
`during replacement of the brush may be unsafe because of the risk of arcing and an
`accidental short circuit in the electrical components. Id. at col. 2, ll. 59. The
`patent thus describes that it would be an advantage to remove or replace a worn
`brush without stopping the moving parts involved. Id. at col. 2, ll. 913.
`One embodiment of the ’354 patent describes a brush holder assembly with
`a mounting bracket in an “engaged” configuration, relative to a lower mount block.
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 6164. For example, Figure 1 of the ’354 patent, reproduced
`below, illustrates an “engaged” configuration where brush 12, surrounded by brush
`box 10, is put in contact with a conducting surface because brush spring 24 pushes
`the brush toward the bottom edge of box 10. Id. at Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 2228; col. 6,
`ll. 15–29.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`
`
`According to Figure 1 above, brush box 10 is affixed to beam 14, which is
`attached, via a hinge, to lower mount block 16. Id. at col. 4, ll. 2836. In the
`“engaged” position, a conductive path is formed from brush 12 through brush
`conductor 26, terminal 28, and conductor strap 34 (shown in Figure 2, reproduced
`infra). Id. at col. 7, ll. 111.
`The ’354 patent further describes a “disengaged” configuration, shown in
`particular with respect to Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2 above, a hinging action takes place at certain pivot
`lines, such as pivot line “X,” about which beam 14 moves with respect to lower
`mounting block 16. Id. at col. 6, ll. 4451. In the disengaged position, conductor
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`strap 34 breaks contact with terminal 28, thus interrupting the current flow before
`the brush breaks contact with the conductive surface. Id. at col. 10, ll. 4354.
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ’354 patent are the only independent claims at issue.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1. A brush holder assembly for holding an electrical brush in
`contact with a conductive surface, the brush holder assembly
`comprising:
`a mounting block including first and second outer side surfaces; and
`a brush holder component for coupling to the mounting block, the
`brush holder component defining a channel for receiving a
`portion of the mounting block, the channel including first and
`second inner side surfaces;
`wherein when the brush holder component is coupled to the
`mounting block, at least a portion of the mounting block is
`disposed within the channel such that at least a portion of the
`first and second outer side surfaces of the mounting block are
`disposed between the first and second inner side surfaces of
`the channel; wherein the mounting block includes a mounting
`aperture extending there through, and wherein when the brush
`holder component is coupled to the mounting block, at least a
`portion of the mounting aperture is disposed within the
`channel.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`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); Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms also are
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to
`read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if
`the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from
`the specification”).
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of the
`’354 patent as follows:
`Table 1
`Term
`“mounting block”
`
`Interpretation
`a base for affixing to another
`structure
`coupling in a selective manner
`
`“selective coupling”
`
`“comparative widths”/
`“comparative sizes”
`
`“higher brush density”
`
`“higher amperage capacity”
`
`“stationary base”
`
`an assessment based on the
`comparison of the thicknesses of
`a structure, relative to the
`thickness of another structure
`allowing for brushes to be closer
`in proximity with each other
`allowing for an amount of
`electric current to be carried by
`brushes in close proximity to
`each other
`“stationary base” is associated
`with the electrical device
`
`
`Dec. on Inst. 7–14. The parties challenge only our construction for the terms
`“mounting block” and “selective coupling.” Consequently, we adopt the
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`constructions for the remaining terms as stated in Table 1 in accordance with the
`analysis stated in our Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 714.
`As for the challenged claim constructions, we analyze each in turn.
`1. “mounting block”
`Patent Owner argues that the construction for “mounting block” must reflect
`the “specification’s requirement that the mounting block must be fixed to a
`location.” PO Resp. 6. The sought-after construction is relevant to Patent Owner’s
`arguments regarding how the prior art does not teach a “mounting block” that is
`“fixed,” i.e., non-moveable. See id. at 18 (arguing that Baylis’s clamping member
`J is inherently moveable, and, therefore it is not a “fixed block”).
`In support of this argument, Patent Owner relies on Figure 15B of the
`’354 patent as depicting that lower mounting block 16, i.e., the “mounting block,”
`is fixed in place to mount base 41 via bolts 43. Id. at 78. Patent Owner further
`points to descriptions of various embodiments of the attachment of the “mounting
`block” to a base or to a location. Id. at 810. Neither Figure 15B nor the
`statements in the specification identified by Patent Owner require the non-
`moveable, or “fixed,” aspect. Figure 15B does not show that the attachment
`excludes any ability to adjust the block. Indeed, the bottom surface of the mount is
`not depicted, leaving us to speculate concerning the shape of mount holes 96,
`because a round hole would suggest there is no adjustability, while a slotted or
`elongated hole would suggest adjustability. But see Ex. 1001, Fig. 9 (not cited by
`Petitioner, but confirming that elongated holes 96 are contemplated). The lack of
`description and depiction of the shape of the holes compels us to reject Patent
`Owner’s characterization of Figure 15B as supporting a “fixed” or non-moveable
`attachment. Furthermore, as for the descriptions of how the mount is attached, the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`specification uses the word “secure” and describes various embodiments of the
`attachment, none of which requires non-movability of the mount after the brush
`holder component is installed. See Ex. 1001, col. 16, ll. 1821 (bolts and washers
`“secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount base” (emphasis added)); col. 14, ll.
`5658 (“mount holes 96 may include threading or other elements that allow for
`attachment to a mount base”); col. 16, ll. 2124 (“in other embodiments, a welded,
`keyed, pinned or other attachment scheme may be used to secure the lower mount
`block 16 to a mount base” (emphasis added)). In fact, the specification makes a
`point of not limiting the attachment of the mount to any particular method, fixed or
`not fixed. See id. at col. 12, ll. 3437 (“or other attachment scheme may be used to
`secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount base near a moving conductive surface
`or in position to move relative to a conductive surface”). Nor does the language of
`the claim recite any method of attachment that limits the mounting block to
`something that cannot be adjusted, shifted, re-positioned, or otherwise moved, after
`attachment to the base.
`Patent Owner further proposes that the written description teaches that all
`embodiments include a “fixed” mounting block, and, therefore, the “mounting
`block” should be so construed. PO Resp. 810. The specification states: “with
`the lower mount block 16 being the only portion that must be ‘fixed’ to a location,
`attachment steps are simplified . . . .” Ex. 1001, col. 15, ll. 1415. We are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Although the specification uses the word
`“fixed” with respect to lower mount block 16, that portion of the specification is
`focused on describing “the present embodiment” of a lower mount block shown in
`Figure 14, which illustrates a lower mount block “for use in several embodiments,”
`not all embodiments, as Patent Owner argues. Ex. 1001, col. 14, ll. 4041; col. 15,
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`ll. 1217 (emphasis added). Moreover, that portion of the specification does not
`describe the invention as a fixed lower mount block. Indeed, Patent Owner’s
`characterization of the “fixed” lower mount block may stretch the specification too
`far, as it may be inferred by the use of the word “fixed,” shrouded in quotation
`marks, that its use in that passage is not to be taken literally.2
`In our Decision on Institution, we noted that the specification does not
`define the term “mounting block,” and that nothing in the claim language indicates
`that the term is used other than in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning.
`Dec. on Inst. 8. We further noted that claim 11 recites that the “mounting block
`extend[s] from a stationary base.” Id. Guided by evidence of the plain and
`ordinary meaning consistent with the specification, we determined that the word
`“block” means “a base, platform or supporting frame.”3 Id. at 89. Patent Owner,
`however, objects to the word “base” as defining the “mounting block” because the
`claims recite another base, the “stationary base.” PO Resp. 1112. Accordingly,
`to avoid confusion, Patent Owner proffers that the construction of “mounting
`block” should refer to a block, not a base. Id.
`Petitioner argues that the proposal to define “block” to mean a block does
`not clarify any issues and that Patent Owner has not argued that the prior art does
`not disclose a “block.” Pet. Reply 4. Consequently, the clarification is
`unnecessary. Id. We agree with Petitioner. Although the claims recite a “base”
`and a “block” distinctly, the claims, however, may recite these two terms in a
`
`2 See e.g., Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, Section 7.58 (“When a word or
`term is not used functionally but is referred to as the word or term itself, it is either
`italicized or enclosed in quotation marks.”).
`3 Block Definition (4), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY,
`UNABRIDGED (1993) (Ex. 3001).
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`synonymous ordinary meaning, to indicate that the two distinct structures have
`similar functions, as bases.
`Therefore, we construe the term “mounting block” according to the ordinary
`meaning of the term to mean “a base for affixing to another structure.”
`2. “selective coupling”
`Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, requires that “the brush holder
`component is configured for selective coupling to the mounting block.” Ex. 1001,
`col. 18, ll. 79. Patent Owner seeks to construe the word “selective.” PO Resp.
`1213. For example, Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition of the word
`“selective” to argue that there is a “specific, predetermined way in which the brush
`holder component is coupled to the mounting block.” Id. at 14 (citing the New
`Oxford American Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary, Exs. 201718).
`The selective manner of the recited “selectively coupling,” Patent Owner
`emphasizes, is dictated by the precision of the brush holder’s position when it is
`engaged, “with no need for adjustment or other manipulation by the installer.” Id.
`at 15. Petitioner characterizes Patent Owner’s claim construction position as an
`attempt to include, as a claim limitation, the unrecited over-center locking
`embodiment. Pet. Reply 45.
`We note that the claim is silent concerning any specific position of the brush
`holder component with respect to the mounting block. That is, the claim, broadly,
`but reasonably, encompasses the selection of coupling stages without restriction of
`what those stages are and what positions those stages include. Therefore, we do
`not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the meaning of the word “selective,”
`when viewed in context of the surrounding claim language and the specification,
`requires a predetermined position of the brush holder where there is no need for
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`adjustment or other manipulation.
`Guided by the specification, we conclude that the word “selective” refers to
`the selection between coupling states, e.g., a selection between engaged or
`disengaged configurations. Several embodiments describe coupling stages
`between the beam and the mounting block. The engaged configuration is
`described in one embodiment in which beam 14 is fully extended onto lower
`mount block 16 (an embodiment of the “mounting block”). Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll.
`2231. An intermediate coupling stage, where at least a portion of beam 14 is
`coupled to lower mount block 16, between an “engaged” position and a
`“disengaged” position is also described. See id. at col. 13, l. 56 – col. 14, l. 14
`(describing disengaged configuration and the intermediate stage from the
`disengaged configuration); Figs. 13A13C (illustrating disengaged, intermediate,
`and engaged stages and the relative interactions between beam 132 and lower
`mount 130); Fig. 2 (depicting a disengaged position where lower mount 16 is
`coupled to the beam 14); col. 6, ll. 4151 (describing hinging action in the
`transition from engaged to disengaged configurations). All of these descriptions
`convey that the beam of the removable component interacts with the mounting
`block in a range of positions, between engaged and disengaged, and that, at a
`minimum, the selection of the coupling extends between the two states of engaged
`and disengaged.
`Based on the foregoing, we construe the “selectively coupling” terms
`according to the ordinary meaning to mean “coupling by selecting between
`coupling states.”
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`B. Patentability of Claims
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of claims, the Petitioner must
`establish facts supporting its challenges by a preponderance of the evidence. 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is anticipated, and, thus,
`unpatentable, if a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of the
`claimed invention. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377
`(Fed. Cir. 2003).
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with the
`above-stated principles.
`C. Anticipation by Kartman
`With respect to the alleged ground of unpatentability based on anticipation
`by Kartman, we have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner Response, and
`Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in each of those
`papers. We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12
`and 413 are anticipated by Kartman under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`1. Overview of Kartman (Ex. 1003)
`Kartman discloses a brush holder assembly for use in a dynamoelectric
`machine, such as a motor or generator. Ex. 1003, Abstract, col. 3, ll. 34. The
`assembly is mounted on a frame of the machine such that the brushes engage with
`the machine’s rotatable commutator. Id. at col. 3, ll. 35–36. The components of
`the brush holder assembly are concentrated in a central location and in closely
`spaced relation to each other to allow for fast and safe service, such as adjustment
`or removal of the brush or brush holder. Id. at col. 3, ll. 37–41; col. 4, ll. 25–31;
`col. 5, ll. 46–51. Furthermore, the brush holders are attached, side-by-side, to the
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`assembly, each by a detachable connection that permits their individual
`replacement. Id. at Abstract.
`One embodiment of the Kartman brush holder assembly 1 mounted on
`frame 2 of a machine is depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, brush holder assembly 1 comprises casting 8 with
`mounting surface 14, “to which a plurality of individual brush holders are
`detachably connected.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 42–52. Each individual brush holder 31 is
`connected—detachably, mechanically, and electrically—to mounting surface 14.
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 62–64. Brush holder 31 slideably receives brush 3, which is held in
`the operative position against the curved surface of commutator 4 by constant
`brush force applying means 54 that includes force spring 64. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`3236, 4548.
`An exploded view of brush holder assembly 1, illustrating details of brush
`holder 31, brush 3, and constant brush force applying means 54, is shown in Figure
`3, reproduced below.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 77,417,354 BB2
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`
`
`
`
`
`42 for ng means 4e connectinFFigure 3, abbove, furthher depicts detachable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`connectting brush holder 31 tto mountinng surface
`
`col. 3, ll. 66266.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Means 442 comprisses quick-rrelease clammp bar 46,, having a ppair of threeaded
`
`
`
`
`aperturees 51 that aalign with tthe pair off vertically
`
`
`44 on spaced-appart holes 4
`
`
`mountinng surface 14. Id. at col. 4, ll. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`into rear channel 448 of brushh holder 311 and tighttening cap
`screws 47
`through
`that secur
`
`
`
`
`
`
`threadedd aperturess 51 resultss in a comppressive foorce on clammp bar 46
`es
`
`
`brush hoolder 31 too casting 8 of brush hholder asseembly 1. Idd. at col. 4
`
`
`
`
`, ll. 1926
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Unscrewwing slighttly cap screews 47 to aan unclampped positioon releasess clamp barr 46
`rush
`
`
`from thee compresssive force,
`
`
`
`
` thus permmitting the aadjustmentt or removval of the br
`
`box. Idd. at col. 4,
`
`ll. 2631.
`
`6 amp bar 46-release cla914. Slidding quick-
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`
`1. Comparison of Kartman and Claims 1 and 11
`Concerning independent claims 1 and 11, Petitioner has shown that Kartman
`discloses a detachable connecting means 42 (corresponding to the “mounting
`block”), the brush holder 31 (corresponding to the “brush holder component”), the
`rear channel 48 (corresponding to the “channel”), and threaded apertures 51
`(corresponding to the “mounting aperture”). Pet. 1013, 1720. Petitioner has
`shown that Kartman further discloses the coupling between brush holder 31 and
`detachable connecting means 42 (and its component, the quick-release clamp bar
`46), and the arrangement of the channel surfaces with respect to the surfaces and
`apertures of detachable means 42. Id.
`As for structural limitations recited only in claim 11, Petitioner has shown
`that Kartman’s stationary mounting surface 14 discloses the recited “stationary
`base” and that Kartman’s brush 3 discloses the recited “brush.” Pet. 18–19. Claim
`11 further recites a size limitation, i.e., “the brush holder is sized larger than the
`mounting block such that the comparative sizes of the brush holder and the
`mounting block allows for higher brush density on the industrial electrical device.”
`Petitioner points to Figure 3 of Kartman as depicting that brush holder 31 is larger
`than detachable means 42, which, in fact, fits completely within brush holder 31.
`Pet. 19. Kartman further depicts in Figure 2 the side-by-side placement of the
`brush holders, thus allowing for extremely close brush placement. Id. at 20. This
`showing of an assessment of the structure sizes and the brushes in close proximity
`is consistent with our construction of the terms “comparative sizes” and “higher
`brush density.”
`Patent Owner challenges the evidence of anticipation of claims 1 and 11 by
`Kartman by arguing that Kartman fails to describe a “mounting block.” PO Resp.
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`2528. Particularly, Patent Owner argues that because Kartman employs a
`clamping mechanism, clamp bar 46 is inherently moveable. Id. at 27. But we have
`determined that “mounting block,” based on the plain and the ordinary meaning of
`the term, does not mean that the block must be fixed or non-moveable. See Section
`II.C.1, supra. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
`Instead, we find that Kartman discloses a “mounting block” because clamp
`bar 46 is a base for affixing brush holder 31 to mounting surface 14. See Ex. 1003,
`col. 3, l. 62 – col. 4, l. 2; Fig. 3. We also find that clamp bar 46 is designed to fit
`inside channel 48 such that when the detachable means are securing brush holder
`31, the “first and second outer surfaces of the mounting block are disposed
`between the first and second inner side surfaces of the channel,” as recited in claim
`1. See Ex. 1003, Fig. 2 (illustrating Kartman’s clamp bar 42 disposed within
`channel 48 of the brush box); col. 4, ll. 1719. Kartman further discloses that
`clamp bar 42 includes a pair of internally threaded apertures 51 alignable with
`holes 44, thus disclosing the recited “mounting block includ[ing] a mounting
`aperture extending there through.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 1317. Finally, we find that
`Kartman discloses that when the cap screws are tightened, a compressive force
`engages rear channel 48 so that it is “locked” into position against mounting
`surface 14. Id. at col. 5, ll. 1619. That is, when “locked” into position,
`Kartman’s brush holder is secured in place and coupled to the clamp bar (which
`has the apertures disposed within channel 48), and, therefore, Kartman discloses
`that “when the brush holder component is coupled to the mounting block, at least a
`portion of the mounting aperture is disposed within the channel,” as recited in
`claim 1.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`As for the remaining elements recited in claims 1 and 11, which were not
`disputed by Patent Owner, we also find that Kartman discloses those elements
`according to the comparisons between the Kartman disclosures presented in the
`Petition and the claim limitations.
`2. Comparison of Kartman and Dependent Claims 2 and 4
`Petitioner has shown evidence, as to the requirement in claim 2 that the
`brush holder component is configured for selective coupling to the mounting
`block, that Kartman discloses coupling between brush holder 31 and detachable
`means 42, thereby meeting the recited “selective coupling” limitation. Pet. 13. As
`to the recitation in claim 4 of a fastener member disposed within the mounting
`aperture, Petitioner has shown that cap screws 47 secure quick-release clamp bar
`46 to base 14, meeting the recited “fastener member” limitation. Id. at 1415.
`Patent Owner challenges these showings by arguing that Kartman does not teach
`both “selective coupling,” and the “fastener member.” PO Resp. 2831. The
`argument regarding the alleged failure of Kartman to disclose “selective coupling”
`relies on Patent Owner’s proffered construction of that term, which we did not
`adopt. Id. at 2829. As for the argument regarding the “fastener member,” the
`argument is unpersuasive because it is based on a narrow reading of the claim—to
`require attaching the mounting block firmly so it cannot be moved—which is not
`commensurate with the scope of the claim. See id. at 31. We address each of these
`arguments in turn.
`With regard to “selective coupling,” Patent Owner argues that because
`Kartman utilizes a clamp there is no coupling at “only one, predetermined
`location.” Id. at 29. Patent Owner admits that it is possible in Kartman to couple
`the brush holder at any number of positions. Id. That coupling, however, Patent
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`Owner proffers, involves “arbitrary” positions and requires a worker to use two
`hands. Id. We are not persuaded by these arguments for they rely on an
`interpretation of “selective coupling” that does not comport with the plain and
`ordinary meaning as we have determined above. See Section II.C.2, supra. The
`claim term requires that there be a selection of a coupling state. We determined
`above that the claim term does not require that there be a predetermined position
`for a selected coupling state to be covered by the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`claim language, “selective coupling.”
`We find that Kartman discloses that clamp bar 46 allows the brush holder to
`be secure in place when the clamped position is selected by acting on cap screws
`47. Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 1926. And we further find that Kartman discloses
`selecting the unclamped position by unscrewing slightly cap screws 47, which
`releases clamp bar 46 from the compressive force, thus permitting the adjustment
`or removal of the brush box. Id. at col. 4, ll. 2631. Therefore, Kartman discloses
`two coupling states, clamped and unclamped, both of which are selectable by the
`mere turn of a cap screw. Accordingly, we find that Kartman discloses “a brush
`holder component [that] is configured for selective coupling to the mounting
`block,” as recited in claim 2.
`With regard to the “fastener member” limitation, recited in claim 4, Patent
`Owner argues that Kartman does not “secure the mounting block to a stationary
`base” because Kartman’s clamping mechanism does not attach firmly clamp bar 46
`to cross beam 13 and mounting surface 14. PO Resp. 3031. We are not
`persuaded because the claims are silent concerning any permanence or firmness of
`the attachment of the mounting block to the stationary base. Specifically, the claim
`recites a “fastener member . . . securing the mounting block to a stationary base.”
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`Patent 7,417,354 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 18, ll. 1516 (emphasis added). Patent Owner does not explain how
`the word “securing” involves firm attachment or any fastening that precludes the
`ability to reposition the mounting block on the stationary base. The claim
`language requires neither permanence nor any specific firmness of attachment at
`all times. Kartman’s clamping mechanism secures, as recited in claim 4, the clamp
`bar inside the channel of the brush box to “lock it into position against the
`mounting surface 14.” Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 1619. We find that Kartman discloses
`the recited “fastener member” because the cap screws, when tightened, i.e., at least
`during operation, press the clamp bar in the direction of surface 14 such that the
`clamp bar is secured to that surface.
`As for the remaining elements recited in claims 2 and 4, which were not
`disputed by Patent Owner, we also find that Kartman discloses those elements as
`shown by the comparisons between the Kartman disclosures presented in the
`Petition and the claim limitations. Pet. 1315.
`3. Remaining Dependent Claims 510 and 1213
`Petitioner has presented evidence showing how Kartman discloses the
`further limitations recited in dependent claims 510 and 1213. Pet. 1317,
`2021. Patent Owner has not challenged the evidence presented regarding
`Kartman’s anticipation of these dependent claims.
`We find that Kartman discloses the further limitations recited in these
`dependent claims. For example, regarding claim 5, Kartman discloses brush
`holder 31 comprising the rear channel 48 (corresponding to the recited “beam
`defining the channel”). Pet. 15. With regards to claims 6, 8, and 9, which recite
`“width” or “size” limitations, we find that Figure 3 of Kartman clearly shows the
`size of brush holder 31 being larger than detachable means 42. Id. Specifically,
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent 77,417,354 BB2
`
`
`IPR2013-00270
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`llustrate thhis disclosuure, regarding the “wwidth” limittations reciited in claiims
`and to i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 and 9,, Petitionerr provides an annotatted Figure
`
`
`
`2 of Kartmman, reprodduced beloow,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`depictinng the varioous widthss of the releevant Kartmman compponents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe annotatted Figure 2 of Kartmman, abovee, illustratees that the rrecited
`
`to a widthh of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“width”” limitationns are discllosed by: ((1) the bluee line correesponding
`
`
`d line showwing the wwidth
`
`
`
`
`
`brush hoolder 31 (““brush holdder component”) andd (2) the re
`
`
`42 (“mounnting blockk”). Pet. 1
`6.
`
`
`
`
`of clamp bar 46 inn detachablle connectiing means
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As to cllaims 10, 112, and 13, we find thhat Kartmaan also disccloses the llimitationss of
`
`
`
`
`the “commparative widths” orr “comparaative sizes
`. . . allow[
`ing] for hi
`
`gher brushh
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`density”” and “alloow[ing] forr higher ammperage capapacity” reaad on the aarrangemennt of
`
`brushes. SSee id. at 1
`7,
`
`
`
`
`
`the brussh holder 338, i.e., the side-by-siide placemment of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`close xtremely clows for exlders 38 allf brush-holacement ofby-side pla2021. The side-b
`
`
`
`
`brush pllacement. Id. This eevidence iss consistennt with our
`
`
`constructioon of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terms “ccomparativve widths” and “commparative siizes,” as thhe assessmeent of the
`
`
`
`respect