Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: October 30, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MOTIVEPOWER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CUTSFORTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`MotivePower, Inc., Petitioner, filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`review of all the claims (116) (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 8,179,014
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’014 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 31119. Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). The Board granted the Petition and instituted trial for all asserted claims.
`Paper 7 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Although Petitioner proposed seven grounds of
`unpatentability, the panel instituted trial on the following grounds:1
`(1) Claims 1–16 anticipated by Kartman;
`(2) Claims 1–5 and 7–15 anticipated by Baylis;
`(3) Claims 6 and 16 obvious over Baylis and Kartman;
`(4) Claims 1, 3–5, and 7–9 anticipated by Bissett; and
`(5) Claims 1–16 as obvious over Bissett and Kartman.
`During trial, Patent Owner, Cutsforth Inc., filed a Patent Owner Response
`relying on Declarations of Dr. Thomas A. Keim (Ex. 2024) and Mr. Dustin
`Cutsforth (Ex. 2050). Paper 12 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Response. Paper 22 (“Pet. Reply”).
`We granted Patent Owner’s motion requesting cancellation of claims 6 and
`16 of the ’014 patent. Paper 13, 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 32 (“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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden
`to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15 and 715 of the
`’014 patent are unpatentable.
`A. The ’014 Patent (Exhibit 1001)
`The ’014 patent generally relates to a brush holder assembly for use in
`electrical devices and slip ring assemblies. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 2628. 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. 4247. 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. 4763. The ’014 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. 2, ll. 912.
`Alternatively, the ’014 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. 1317. 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. 1620.
`One embodiment of the ’014 patent describes a brush holder assembly with
`a mounting bracket in an “engaged” configuration, relative to a lower mount block.
`Id. at col. 2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 2. For example, Figure 1 of the ’014 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 the box 10. Id. at Fig.
`1; col. 4, ll. 2734; col. 6, ll. 2629.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`
`
`According to Figure 1 above, brush box 10 is affixed to beam 14, which is
`affixed, via a hinged attachment, to the lower mount block 16. Id. at col. 4, ll.
`3441. 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. 1014.
`The ’014 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
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`mounting block 16. Id. at col. 6, ll. 4653. In the disengaged position, conductor
`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. 5562.
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 10 of the ’014 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 a brush in contact with a
`conductive surface, the brush holder assembly comprising:
`an elongate mounting block having an upper end and a lower end,
`and a front side and rear side opposite the front side; the rear
`side configured to face a stationary base of an electrical
`device;
`a fastener extending from the rear side to secure the mounting block
`to the stationary base such that the entire mounting block is
`positioned on a single side of the stationary base; and
`a brush holder component for removably mounting to the mounting
`block, the brush holder component comprising a brush box
`and a channel for receiving a portion of the mounting block
`therein.
`
`
`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
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`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 three claim terms of the
`’014 patent as follows:
`Table 1
`Term
`“mounting block”
`
`Interpretation
`a base for affixing to another
`structure
`mounting in a manner that is not
`permanent
`
`the rear side of the mounting
`block is pressed facing the front
`side of the stationary base
`
`“removably mounting”
`
`“the rear side of the mounting
`block is pressed against a font
`side of the stationary base”
`
`
`Dec. on Inst. 813. Patent Owner challenges our construction of the three terms
`identified above. PO Resp. 617. We turn to the analysis of each term in light of
`Patent Owner’s arguments.
`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. 78. 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20 (arguing that Kartman’s
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`detachable connection means 42 is inherently moveable, and, therefore it is not a
`“fixed block”).
`In support of this argument, Patent Owner relies on Figure 15B of the
`’014 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 7. 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 8. 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 in Figure
`15B, leaving us to speculate concerning the shape of mount holes 96 in that
`embodiment, 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, and 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 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.
`2831 (bolts and washers “secure the lower mount block 16 to a mount base”
`(emphasis added)); col. 14, ll. 6264 (“mount holes 96 may include threading or
`other elements that allow for attachment to a mount base”); col. 16, ll. 3234 (“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
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`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. 4447 (“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. 810. 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. 1921. 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. 4647, col. 15,
`ll. 1823 (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
`
`
`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.”).
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`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 claims 1 and 10 recite that the “mounting
`block” has a “rear side configured to face a stationary base,” and that “a
`fastener . . . secure[s] the mounting block to the 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 89. Patent Owner, however, objects to the word “base” as defining the
`“mounting block” because the claims recite another base, the “stationary base.”
`PO Resp. 1012. Accordingly, to avoid confusion, Patent Owner proffers that the
`construction of “mounting block” should refer to a block, not a base. Id. at 11.
`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5. Consequently, the clarification is
`unnecessary. We agree with Petitioner. Although the claims recite a “base” and
`a “block” distinctly, the claims, however, may recite these two terms in a
`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. “removably mounting”
`Claims 1 and 10 recite the term “removably mounting.” Patent Owner
`
`
`3 Block Definition (4), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY,
`UNABRIDGED (1993) (Ex. 3001).
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`argues that our construction does not reflect the meaning the phrase would have to
`one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 12. Specifically,
`Patent Owner proffers the Keim Declaration, various references, and the stated
`problems in the Background of the Invention to argue that the term “removable”
`means without requiring removal of attachment hardware like nuts and bolts. Id. at
`1213 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 8185; Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 926; and Exs. 20045,
`2010, 2020). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and evidence.
`First, the specification of the ’014 patent does not support Patent Owner’s
`contention that not removing hardware attachments results from the desire to
`provide safe, easy removal and replacement of the brush assembly while the
`machine is running. The embodiments in the ’014 patent describing the removal of
`the brush relate to the safety aspects of discontinuing the current when the device
`is in the disengaged position. See Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 5167, col. 11, ll. 58.
`These embodiments do not describe, or even imply, in any way, that the
`“removably mounting” is accomplished because one can avoid the removal of nuts
`and bolts when disengaging the brush. Although the Summary section of the
`specification describes “readily” removing from service a brush “without removing
`attachment hardware such as nuts or bolts,” that description applies to “some
`example embodiments.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 2326. That Summary also describes
`other reasons for ease of removal of the brush, for example, because the device is a
`“contained system” that is “easier to deal with and control during removal.” Id. at
`col. 2, ll. 2937. Also instructive is the description of it “being useful to easily or
`reversibly disengage a brush from a commutator to determine the extent of wear
`and perform repairs.” Id. at col. 17, ll. 4547.
`Accordingly, the specification of the ’014 patent describes various ways to
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`accomplish safety and ease of removal, but does not require that such removal be
`accomplished without removal of attachment hardware. Patent Owner’s arguments
`focus on examplary embodiments, which we are careful not to incorporate into the
`claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (warning
`“against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Furthermore, we note that
`the specification describes attachment of a “removal tool” for “disengagement
`manipulation.” See Ex. 1001, Fig. 9, col. 11, ll. 5458, col. 12, ll. 1826
`(emphasis added). The removal tool engages a retractable catch pin into a pin seat
`in the beam of the device and by pulling a release tab with the thumb, the catch pin
`disengages, thereby attaching and removing a catch pin into the device in order to
`remove the brush holder. See id. at col. 11, ll. 5458. The embodiments of the
`removal tool further confirm that the ’014 patent does not contemplate the
`exclusion of all hardware attachments from the removal process and that by
`describing how the insertion and release of a pin is used in removing the brush
`holder, the specification does not exclude using similarly functioning structures,
`such as nuts.
`Second, with regard to the extrinsic evidence allegedly showing evidence
`that the term “removably mounting” would have the meaning proffered by Patent
`Owner, we are not persuaded by that evidence. First, the Keim Declaration, in the
`passages cited, attempts to support Patent Owner’s construction by referring to the
`benefit of using one versus two hands when removing a brush. Ex. 2024 ¶ 83. The
`specification, however, does not mention, or even imply, that the objective of the
`safe removal is to avoid using two hands. Second, the remaining passages of the
`Keim Declaration do not persuade us that the term “removable” had the meaning
`Patent Owner argues. For example, the argument that in 1976 an article referred to
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`a brush holder as “removable with an insulated handle” does not support the
`contention that the word “removable” means without having to remove attachment
`hardware such as nuts and bolts. See Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 8385 (relying on references that
`use the word “removable” in connection with brush holders). Patent Owner has
`not shown that the articles relied on address the claim term “removably mounting,”
`much less that the word “removable” somehow is unique to the situation where a
`brush holder is mounted in such a manner that it can be removed without removing
`attachment hardware. The more reasonable interpretation of those articles is that
`the word “removable” is used in the plain and ordinary sense of the word as known
`to laypersons, and not the special circumstances alleged by Patent Owner. Absent
`a special definition set forth in the specification and given the evidence of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, we are not persuaded that
`“removably mounting” has a different meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art.
`See E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corporation, 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed.
`Cir. 2003) (Where no explicit definition for the term “electronic multi-function
`card” was given in the specification, this term should be given its ordinary
`meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation; the term should not be limited to
`the industry standard definition of credit card where there is no suggestion that this
`definition applies to the electronic multi-function card as claimed, and should not
`be limited to preferred embodiments in the specification.).
`As stated in our Decision on Institution, the claim language and the
`specification are evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning. In the claim
`language, the specific structures associated with the function of “removably
`mounting” include a brush holder component “for removably mounting to the
`mounting block.” Claim 1 further recites the brush holder component’s
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`relationship with the “mounting block”; it recites that the brush holder component
`comprises a “channel for receiving a portion of the mounting block therein.” The
`specification describes several embodiments describing the interaction between the
`beam (described as having a “channel-like structure”) and the mounting block,
`such as the “engaged” position, the “disengaged” position, and intermediate stages.
`See Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 2730; see also col. 14, ll. 721; Figs. 13A13C
`(illustrating a disengaged position of beam 132 having a pivot point “X” coupled
`with the lower mount 130 through the groove there shown). Furthermore, “[i]n
`several embodiments, the beam 14 may be completely removed/separated from the
`lower mount block 16.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 4145. These positions and the described
`removal of the beam 14 are consistent with the removability of the beam with
`respect to the lower mount block. That is, the beam is mounted on the mounting
`block in a manner that is not permanent so it can be removed as needed.
`Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the construction proffered by
`Petitioner is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`“removably mounting”: “mounting in a manner that is not permanent.”
`3. “pressed against”
`Claims 8 and 10 recite the phrase “the rear side of the mounting block
`pressed against a front side of the stationary base.” In our Decision on Institution,
`we stated that “pressed against,” as recited and described in the specification,
`denotes the sense of direction along which the sides are pressed for securing lower
`mount block 14 to base 41. Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner seeks clarification of
`the phrase to mean “pressed into contact with.” PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner
`supports its proposal with a different dictionary definition and argument that
`because claim 1 recites the word “facing,” it is redundant to interpret “pressed
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`against” to do the same. Id.at 1516. Additionally, Patent Owner relies on various
`uses of the word “against” from the specification to argue that direct contact is
`within the scope of the claim. Id. at 1617.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. First, that claim 1, from
`which claim 8 depends, recites “the rear side configured to face a stationary base”
`does not render superfluous the further requirement of claim 8 that the recited
`surfaces that are oriented “facing” each other, and are also pressed in the direction
`in which they face. Second, none of Patent Owner’s statements in the specification
`using language similar to “pressed against” refer to the mounting block attachment
`to the stationary base.
`Reviewing the specification to derive the appropriate plain and ordinary
`meaning, we note that the specification neither defines nor describes the precise
`scope of “pressing against.” Uses of the similar words in unrelated embodiments
`are inconclusive of requiring direct contact, contrary to what Patent Owner urges.
`For example, the embodiment of safety catch 22 being forced against ledge 30 is
`described as follows: “part of the safety catch 22 engages a ledge 30 of the upper
`beam 18 at place A.” Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 1921. That engagement is shown as a
`notch in safety catch 22. There is no requirement of direct contact at the point in
`which place A and ledge 30 engage. The specification does not describe this
`“engagement” in any more detail. Furthermore, from the operation of the pivoting
`movement described as safety catch 22 is forced against ledge 30, we interpret this
`movement as referring to the direction in which safety catch 22 will be forced, in
`relation to ledge 30. Although we recognize that the resistance to movement by
`safety catch 22 may result from some part of the notch contacting a portion of
`ledge 30, the direction of the engagement of these parts explains their operation
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`also. Therefore, we do not agree with Patent Owner that all uses of “against” refer
`to direct contact between elements. See PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 8892).
`As we stated in our Decision on Institution, Figure 15B, exemplifies the
`attachment of the mounting block to the base, e.g., a pair of bolts pass through
`mount holes 96 of lower mount block 16, and, using nuts and washers, lower
`mount block 16 is secured to a mount base. Ex. 1001, col. 16, ll. 2831. That
`attachment is not limited to either the use of bolts or the arrangement shown in
`Figure 15B because the specification describes that “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 . . . .” Id. at col. 16, ll. 3135. Such broad
`disclosure of other attachment schemes does not support a conclusion that being
`“pressed against” necessarily means direct contact between the attached things.
`Furthermore, Figure 15B does not show the underside of lower mount
`block 16. And thus we can only guess whether the depicted attachment scheme is
`one that may result in direct contact. What is clear from Figure 15B and the
`corresponding description is that, regardless of the fastener used to attach depicted
`lower mount block 16 to base 41, the attachment is predicated on each of the two
`sides being pressed in a specific direction, i.e., facing each other. The plain and
`ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language is consistent with this broad, but
`reasonable interpretation. That is, an interpretation of “pressed against” that
`comports with the manner in which lower mount block 14 and base 41 interact
`with each other does not necessarily hinge on whether there is direct contact.
`Rather, the interpretation of “pressed against” is more consistent with the
`sense of direction along which the sides are pressed for securing lower mount
`block 14 to base 41. Evidence of that interpretation is a definition of “against” that
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`denotes direction: “directly opposite: in front of: facing.” See Against Definition
`(prep, 1a), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED
`(1993) (Ex. 3002). Figure 15B is in accord with this definition. For example, the
`underside of lower mount block 16 is pressed (via the screws 43 being tightened
`with nuts 45) in a direction facing front side of base 41. To put it another way,
`when attaching the underside of lower mount block 16, it is pressed with the
`underside directly opposite to the front side of base 41. Moreover, claim 10 also is
`in accord because it requires a rear side of the mounting block “configured to face
`a stationary base of an electrical device.”
`Accordingly, we conclude that the plain and ordinary meaning of “the rear
`side of the mounting block is pressed against a front side of the stationary base” is
`that “the rear side of the mounting block is pressed facing the front side of the
`stationary base.”
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`papers. We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 15
`and 715 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. 33–34. 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
`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.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent 88,179,014 BB2
`
`
`IPR2013-00272
`
`
`
`
`
`AAs shown inn Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`, the brushh holder asssembly 1 ccomprises aa casting 88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with a mmounting ssurface 14, “to whichh a pluralityy of individdual brushh holders arre
`
`
`detachaably conneccted.” Id. aat col. 3, ll
`
`
`
`
`h holder 3vidual brushl. 4252. EEach indiv
`1 is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connectted—detacchably, mecchanically,, and electrrically—too the mounnting
`
`
`surface 14. Id. at col. 3, ll. 6
`sh 3, ceives brusideably recolder 31 sli6264. Thhe brush ho
`
`
`
`
`
`which i
`
`
`
`
`s held in thhe operativve position against thhe curved s
`
`
`urface of ccommutatoor 4
`
`
`by consstant brush force appllying meanns 54 that iincludes foorce springg 64. Id. att col.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. 4, ll. 3236, 454
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAn explodeed view of the brush hholder asseembly 1, illlustrating
`details of
`
`
`brush hoolder 31, bbrush 3, an
`
`
`
`
`
`d constant brush forcce applyingg means 544, is shownn in
`
`
`
`Figure 33, reproducced below..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFigure 3 furrther depiccts in detaill detachablle connectiing means
`42 for
`14. Id. at
`
`col. 3, l. 622 – col. 4,
`
`
`
`
`connectting brush holder 31 tto mountinng surface
`
`l. 2.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`The means 42 comprises quick-release clamp bar 46, having a pair of threaded
`apertures 51 that align with the pair of vertically spaced-apart holes 44 on
`mounting surface 14. Id. at col. 4, ll. 916 Sliding quick-release clamp bar 46 into
`rear channel 48 of brush holder 31 and tightening cap screws 47 through threaded
`apertures 51 results in a compressive force on clamp bar 46 that secures brush
`holder 31 to casting 8 of brush holder assembly 1. Id. at col. 4, ll. 1926.
`Unscrewing slightly cap screws 47 to an unclamped position releases clamp bar 46
`from the compressive force, thus permitting the adjustment or removal of the brush
`box. Id. at col. 4, ll. 2631.
`
`2. Comparison of Kartman and Claims 1 and 10
`
`Petitioner alleges that claims 1–16 are anticipated by Kartman. Pet. 8–20.
`As an alternative ground, Petitioner further alleges that claims 8 and 10–16 would
`have been obvious over Kartman and Bissett. Id. at 20–23.
`a. Independent Claim 1
`Concerning independent claim 1, Petitioner has shown that Kartman
`discloses a stationary mounting surface 14 (corresponding to the recited “stationary
`base”), a detachable connecting means 42 (corresponding to the “elongate
`mounting block”), the brush holder 31 (corresponding to the “brush holder
`component”), the rear channel 48 (corresponding to the “channel”), the cap screws
`47 (corresponding to the “fastener”); and brush holder 38 (corresponding to the
`“brush box”). Pet. 911. Petitioner has further shown that Kartman’s brush
`holder 31 is “detachably connected mechanically and electrically to the mounting
`surface 14 of the support cross beam 13,” and that rear channel 48 at the rear end
`of the brush box slideably receives clamp bar 46. Id. at 10. Clamp screws 47 pass
`into threaded apertures 51 in clamp bar 46. Id. Therefore, Kartman discloses a
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00272
`Patent 8,179,014 B2
`
`brush holder 31 (“brush holder component”) for removably mounting to clamp bar
`46 of detachable connecting means 42 (“mounting block”) because the brush
`holder attaches to clamp bar 46 of detachable connecting means 42 i