trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2014-01122, Paper No. 40
`January 5, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held on Friday, October 16, 2015
`
`
`
`Before: BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD; JAMES A. TARTAL; and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, October 16,
`2015, at 2:24 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2014-01122, Paper No. 40
`January 5, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held on Friday, October 16, 2015
`
`
`
`Before: BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD; JAMES A. TARTAL; and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, October 16,
`2015, at 2:24 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`STEVEN F. MEYER, ESQ.
`
`
`Locke Lord LLP
`
`
`3 World Financial Center
`
`
`New York, New York 10281
`
`
`212-415-8535
`
`
`
`CHARLES BAKER, ESQ.
`
`Locke Lord LLP
`
`
`2800 JPMorgan Chase Tower
`
`
`600 Travis
`
`
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`
`713-226-1200
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`SCOTT BROWN, ESQ.
`
`
`Hovey Williams LLP
`
`
`10801 Mastin Boulevard, Suite 1000
`
`
`84 Corporate Woods
`
`
`Overland Park, Kansas 66210
`
`
`913-647-9050
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(2:24 p.m.)
`JUDGE WOOD: Good afternoon. Welcome to the
`Board. Glad to see everyone made it back safely from our
`little excursion.
`This is the hearing for IPR2014- 01122, concerning
`U.S. Patent 7,208,895. Let's begin by having counsel
`introduce themselves, starting with Petitioner's counsel.
`MR. MEYER: Steve Meyer, lead counsel for
`Petitioner.
`MR. BAKER: I'm Charles Baker, backup counsel
`for the Petitioner.
`JUDGE WOOD: All right. Thank you. For the
`Patent Owner?
`MR. BROWN: Good afternoon. Scott Brown for
`Patent Owner Nidec Motor Company.
`JUDGE WOOD: Thank you. All right. As set
`forth in the trial hearing order, each side has up to 30 minutes
`to present its argument.
`Petitioner will go first and present its case and
`may reserve rebuttal time. Patent Owner will then respond
`with their opposition to Petitioner's case. And Petitioner will
`conclude with any time reserved.
`Who will be presenting for Petitioner?
`MR. MEYER: I will, Steve Meyer, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`JUDGE WOOD: All right. Thank you. And do
`you intend to reserve rebuttal time?
`MR. MEYER: Yes. I would like to reserve five
`
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE WOOD: Five minutes rebuttal time.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: And I would just like to ask
`the parties when you are giving your presentation, if you could
`please make sure to refer to the slide number that you are on
`because I'm following along on a computer screen and it is
`easier for me to make reference to what you are discussing at
`that time if you make sure to do that, please.
`MR. MEYER: Yes, I will do that. Thank you.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Thank you.
`JUDGE WOOD: Mr. Meyer, you may begin.
`MR. MEYER: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am
`Steve Meyer, lead counsel for Petitioner.
`Turning to the first ground, the record establishes
`by at least a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 of the
`'895 patent is anticipated by the Chen patent.
`Would you please put up DX 1. We're on DX 1.
`The parties' dispute is centered on the last limitation of claim
`1, namely "calculating a scaled torque demand from the
`received torque demand."
`In its Decision to Institute -- can you put up DX 6,
`please -- the Board adopted the construction of scaled torque
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`demand proposed by Patent Owner in its preliminary response.
`As we can see, the Board construed scaled torque demand to
`mean "torque calculated from the received torque demand
`based on machine-specific parameters."
`The dispute centers on what is meant by
`machine-specific parameters. And in instituting trial on
`ground 1, the Board found it reasonably likely that Chen
`discloses this limitation as construed by the Board. Can you
`please put up DX 7.
`This is Chen figure 1. Now, included within figure
`1 of Chen is an expression for motor input voltage as a
`function of commanded torque, Tcmd, which correlates with
`the recited received torque demand, and omega, the speed of
`the motor.
`Chen discloses that this expression for voltage
`provides for maintaining a torque equal to the commanded
`torque with varying speed for a fixed angle delta.
`And more specifically, Chen at column 5, lines 47
`through 54, explains that the position and speed signals, theta,
`omega and torque command signal, Tcmd, is indicative of the
`desired motor torque.
`The controller 18 determines a voltage amplitude
`at line 30 by using the position of speed and torque commands,
`theta, omega, TCM, and other fixed parameter values in the
`control equation. And as we --
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Can I interrupt you there for a
`moment, please?
`MR. MEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So I think the Patent Owner
`has made an argument that the Petitioner is relying on an
`inherency argument.
`Is the Petitioner relying on an inherency argument
`or is Petitioner's argument that the scaled torque demand is
`disclosed explicitly by Chen?
`MR. MEYER: As we stated in our reply, we are
`not relying upon an inherency argument. We are relying upon
`the explicit disclosure of Chen, this expression that appears in
`figure 1. We believe that this is -- I'm sorry.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So in that expression, what
`specifically is the scaled torque demand?
`MR. MEYER: It is the factor R squared plus
`omega times Ls squared divided by 3 Ke. Omega is speed, so
`it is a function of speed. It is also a function of
`motor-specific parameters, which would be R, L and Ke, where
`R is the winding resistance, Ls is the motor inductance and Ke
`is the EMF constant. And these are --
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay.
`MR. MEYER: I'm sorry.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So I just want to clarify,
`because I think when you were speaking you referred to that
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`coefficient of Tcmd as the scaled torque demand, but I would
`understand basically that it is the coefficient times Tcmd that
`is, in fact, the scaled torque demand. Is that correct?
`MR. MEYER: Correct, yes. I'm sorry that I
`misspoke. Yes, the torque demand is Tcmd and the product of
`that is the scaled torque demand.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. MEYER: Now, Patent Owner seeks to
`distinguish Chen from claim 1 by narrowly defining the phrase
`machine-specific parameters which appears in Patent Owner's
`originally-proposed construction which was adopted by the
`Board, but not in claim 1 itself.
`According to the Patent Owner, there are at least
`two types of machine-specific parameters: Theoretical values
`associated with a motor design and machine-specific
`parameters that can only be obtained by characterizing
`individual machines as they are manufactured.
`Patent Owner made no mention of this distinction
`in its preliminary response.
`And limiting the claim term scaled torque demand
`to torque calculated from the received torque demand, based
`on machine-specific parameters that can only be obtained by
`characterizing individual machines as they are manufactured,
`would be contrary to the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard.
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`There are no words in claim 1 itself supporting
`such a narrow construction. Claim 1 makes no mention of
`measuring or characterizing the machine-specific parameters.
`Second, there is no express mention of
`characterizing motor parameters during the manufacturing
`process in the '895 patent specification. Can you please go
`back to DX 5?
`And here is the paragraph from the specification
`that Patent Owner and Patent Owner's expert points to. But
`this merely describes a preferred embodiment and does not
`limit how or when motor-specific parameters are to be
`determined or characterized.
`In accordance with the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard, a machine-specific parameter is a
`parameter whose value depends on the structure of the motor
`regardless of the methodology used to quantify that value.
`Now, can you put up DX 8, please.
`Here are Chen's listing of motor-specific
`parameters. In fact, Chen itself calls it motor parameters. The
`winding resistance R is stated to be 55 milliohms. The Patent
`Owner's expert, Dr. Blank, testified that this stated value is
`within the expected range of 45 to 60 milliohms.
`That the winding resistance may vary from
`individual motor to individual motor is of no consequence
`here. Claim 1 does not recite any particular machine- specific
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`parameter, much less a value or a value range for any
`machine-specific parameter.
`Claim 1 of the '895 patent recites a method of
`controlling permanent magnet rotating machine, not a
`permanent magnet rotating machine in a line of such machines,
`each having the same machine-specific parameters.
`Chen discloses the value for machine-specific
`parameters that are used to scale the torque demand for a
`given exemplary motor. That's all that claim 1 of the '895
`patent requires.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So let me just ask a
`hypothetical question then. Suppose Chen's equation gives
`these results, and I have a specifically-manufactured motor but
`its phase resistance turns out to be 60 milliohms instead of 55
`milliohms.
`Isn't it true then that that motor using the
`parameters predicted by the Chen equation are not going to
`give me that constant torque that I want?
`MR. MEYER: Well, the claim, as I mentioned, is
`not directed to a series of motors. It is directed to one motor.
`And you have, according to Chen, you have the phase
`resistance, the resistance for that exemplary motor. That is all
`that claim 1 requires.
`With all due respect, I don't think that your
`hypothetical is covered by claim 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thanks.
`MR. MEYER: Okay. Turning now to ground 2,
`the record establishes by at least a preponderance of the
`evidence that claim 21 of the '895 patent is anticipated by the
`Kusaka patent. Can you please put up DX 12.
`The parties' dispute is centered on the last
`limitation of claim 12, namely combining the IQr demand and
`the dr-axis injection current demand to produce an IQdr
`demand that is compensated for any torque contribution of the
`dr-axis current.
`Can you please put up DX 16. In Dr. Ehsani's
`declaration submitted with the petition, Dr. Ehsani testified
`that the IQdr command is a command that includes Q and
`d-axis current commands.
`In its preliminary response, Patent Owner neither
`opposed Petitioner's proposed construction nor offered its own
`construction. In its decision instituting trial, the Board
`adopted Petitioner's proposed construction.
`Now, the Patent Owner's response mentions the
`word vectorize several times, but the word vectorize appears
`nowhere in claim 12. Now, the '895 --
`JUDGE BOUCHER: If I could interrupt you there
`again, because there are these various claim construction
`positions, but my recollection is that the Petitioner has not
`offered any claim construction of the word "combining" in
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`claim 12. And it seems to me that some of the dispute
`between the parties on this issue hinges on what combining
`actually means.
`So I want to give you an opportunity to indicate
`whether or not the Petitioner has a position on what combining
`means, because I think that bears on your discussion of
`vectorizing also.
`MR. MEYER: Yes, I will get to our proposed
`definition of combining, but, in essence, what it is, is if you
`have the two signals, the Iq and the Id and you are sending
`them to one location and they are being used together for some
`function, that is a combination, and we will get to that. First,
`if you could put up DX 14.
`First, as the '895 patent specification explains, the
`Iqr demand 208 is concatenated with the Idr demand from the
`Idr injection block 210 into a vector quantity IQdr demand 214
`by the vectorized block 212.
`Now, also the Patent Owner filed, on the same day,
`the Patent Owner filed applications issuing as the '895 patent
`and U.S. Patent No. 7,342,379, which is Exhibit 1016, on the
`same day, December 2nd, 2005. And each incorporated the
`other in its entirety by reference.
`And with respect to the '895 patent, they
`incorporated the '379 patent at column 2, lines 34 through 36.
`Now, if we could put up DX 15.
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`This is figure 9 from the '379 patent and, as
`illustrated in figure 9 and described in the '379 patent, the Iqr
`demand from block 904 and the Idr demand are multiplexed to
`produce a multiplexed IQdr demand signal 908, which is all of
`the way over on the right -hand side of this figure.
`Now, despite there being a combining of the Q and
`d-axis current demands to produce an IQdr demand signal,
`there is no vectorized block shown in this figure. Claim 12
`does not require a combined IQdr demand. Rather, the Iqr/dr
`is just a shorthand for the presence of both current demands.
`And as we pointed out in our reply at pages 14 to
`15, Petitioner's expert -- I'm sorry, Patent Owner's expert
`agreed with this characterization.
`Now, this construction is borne out by what
`happens next to the vectorized IQdr demand 214 and figure 2
`of the '895 patent. Can you please put up DX 14.
`Now, the vectorized IQdr demand 214 is input to
`the Iqr current controller 218 and the Idr current controller
`220. These controllers separately convert the current in the
`rotating frame of reference into the voltages in the rotating
`frame of reference.
`And as you can see, the VQr signal and the Vdr
`signals are on separate lines going to block 222 to be further
`converted, but figure 2 of the '895 patent collectively refers to
`them as Qdr voltages. So this nomenclature of variable
`
`
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`current or voltage, Qdr, should equally apply as well to
`currents in the rotating frame of reference.
`Now, can you please put up DX 17. The prior art,
`Kusaka, shows a similar arrangement for the Iqr and the Idr
`signals on separate lines going into a single block to be
`converted to a current. The only requirement of the Iqr
`demand recited in claim 12 is that it be compensated for any
`torque contribution of the dr-axis current.
`Kusaka discloses that. Kusaka discloses a method
`and apparatus for driving and controlling a permanent magnet
`motor, including execution of field weakening by including a
`d-axis current in addition to the X -- at the q-axis current
`when the motor turns at high speeds.
`In certain motors the d- axis current used for field
`weakening may generate a reluctance torque, in which case the
`IQ is decreased in order to compensate for that reluctance
`torque.
`
`Now, here the Id star and the Iq star are current
`demands. These values are combined in the current control
`section 18 to produce the appropriate U, V and W currents that
`are then used to determine the current that is provided to each
`of the three windings of the PM motor.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So do I understand your
`position correctly that Iu, v and w are the IQdr demand that is
`recited in the claim?
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`MR. MEYER: The Iqr demand is the use of the Id
`and the Iq within the current control section 18 to produce the
`Iu, Iv and Iw.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So is the IQdr demand recited
`in the claim shown in this drawing, in figure 1 of Kusaka?
`MR. MEYER: Well, it is shown in that the two
`separate Id and Iq are shown to be going into the same block
`and then it is being operated on.
`That is the same as what is -- it is equivalent to
`what is shown in figure 9 of the '379 patent with the
`multiplexing. It is that the two are present and they are being
`operated on together at the same location. And that is what is
`happening at block 18.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So it sounds as though you
`are saying that the IQdr demand is not shown explicitly in
`figure 1. There is nothing at figure 1 that you can point to
`that discloses it.
`So is the Patent Owner's argument correct that you
`are relying on an inherency argument, because the other factor
`here is that when I read Dr. Ehsani's deposition transcript, he
`seems to suggest that there are many ways in which this result
`could be obtained from these inputs?
`MR. MEYER: Yes, he did testify that there are
`many ways that this result can be obtained with this input.
`And he testified as such with respect to the Walters patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`And I can show you what he was talking about. I think that
`the phrase that there is many ways to skin the cat was used in
`their brief.
`Now, if -- they cited just one or two lines from Dr.
`Ehsani's testimony about Walters, and really the entire
`testimony about Walters should be looked at. And it runs from
`page 134, line 8, to page 139, line 10. And in that testimony,
`Dr. Ehsani compared figure 2 of the '895 patent to figure 3 of
`Walters.
`
`And if we can put up DX 14 again, which is figure
`2, as you can see from figure 2, the IQdr demand 214 is input
`to the Iqr controller 218 and the Idr controller 220. These
`controllers separately convert the current into the rotating
`frame of reference into voltages in the rotating frame of
`reference, VQr and Vd.
`So now if we put up Walters figure 3, which is DX
`21, this same result is what occurs. In figure 3 the currents of
`the rotating frame of reference, Iq and Id, are input to PI
`regulators 130 and 132, producing voltages in the rotating
`frame of reference Vq and Vd.
`In both the '895 patent and the prior art Walters, Iq
`and Id are combined to ultimately produce the same Vq and
`Vd. The results are the same. They are trying to read some
`significance into the IQdr nomenclature. All that it means is
`
`
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`that the Iq and the Id are both present and both contribute to
`some calculation of some other variable.
`And here Walters and the '895 patent use those,
`those variables, Iq and Id, to ultimately produce the Vq and
`Vd.
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: If I go back to a figure from
`the patent at issue, which is your DX 14, in that drawing the
`IQdr demand is shown explicitly as element 214.
`MR. MEYER: Yes.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: And it seems to me in neither
`Kusaka nor Chen can you point to something that shows an
`IQdr demand in the drawings themselves.
`And my concern is that the only grounds we have
`before us are anticipation grounds. And if Dr. Ehsani is
`saying that it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to
`produce the end result, which may be the same, from the input
`which may be the same, in this way, that that is insufficient to
`support the anticipation ground.
`So I wanted to give you a chance to respond to
`
`that.
`
`MR. MEYER: Okay. Now, that assumes that the
`IQdr is taken to be a vectorized quantity. It does not have to
`be a vectorized quantity, as we can see from figure 9 of the
`'379 patent which is incorporated by reference.
`
`
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`That is merely it's multiplexed in there so there are
`still separate Iq and Id, yet it is characterized as being IQdr,
`but it hasn't been vectorized. There is just one right after the
`other.
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: What do you mean by one
`right after the other? I would have thought the multiplexed --
`I would have thought if it were multiplexed it would be similar
`to being vectorized in that you would have something that has
`all three of those components or both of those components that
`are somehow uniquely identifiable.
`MR. MEYER: I think that what you have is the
`intermixing of the signals from two different lines, or in this
`case three different lines. I think one was taken to be zero.
`One was Iq, Iqd, and one was Ir, and then they just went onto
`the same line, so it went right after the other, or they were
`multiplexed together. They were not vectorized.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. I'm still having trouble
`understanding what the meaningful distinction is between
`vectorizing and multiplexing.
`If, in figure 2, if it had said multiplexer instead of
`vectorizer, it would still show an IQdr demand coming out,
`and I don't see where in Kusaka or Walters that there is that
`same IQdr demand.
`(Pause)
`
`
`
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`MR. MEYER: In the deposition of Petitioner -- of
`Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Blank, the question was asked:
`"Question: When you multiplex you are not
`vectorizing, correct?
`"Answer: Correct."
`So there is a difference between vectorizing and
`multiplexing as even acknowledged by their expert. The two
`are not the same.
`So the fact that they are not the same, the claim
`cannot cover or be limited to just vectorizing, especially since
`vectorizing appears nowhere in claim 12 and there are at least
`two ways of producing the IQdr, one of which is not limited to
`vectorizing, it is multiplexing, which by their expert's own
`admission is something different than vectorizing.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
`JUDGE WOOD: Mr. Meyer, you have five minutes
`rebuttal time.
`Mr. Brown.
`MR. BROWN: I'm also going to be using the
`demonstratives that we e-mailed but I have a hard copy if
`either of you would like to have a hard copy to refer to.
`JUDGE WOOD: That's fine. Thank you. Begin
`when you are ready, Mr. Brown.
`MR. BROWN: May it please the Board. I'm Scott
`Brown appearing on behalf of Nidec Motor Company.
`
`
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`I would like to address first claim 21, the claim 21
`issue with respect to Kusaka and Walters, and then I will
`address the claim 9 issue with respect to Chen.
`With respect to claim 21, of course it depends from
`claim 12 and it is claim 12 that we say is not anticipated by
`either of Kusaka or Walters.
`We have to start with looking at the claim language
`that's pertinent here, and we have set that out in DX 9 in our
`presentation, and we've italicized the important part of the
`language.
`
`So claim 12 requires: "Calculating an IQr demand
`from a speed or torque demand; calculating a dr-axis injection
`current demand, and combining the IQr demand and the dr-axis
`injection current demand to produce an IQdr demand that is
`compensated for any torque contribution of dr-axis current."
`Now, we believe that the position urged by
`Petitioners is reading word "combining" completely out of the
`claim. They really truly ascribe no meaning to the word
`combining. We say that this claim language has its plain,
`ordinary English language meaning as further described by the
`Board in its construction of what an IQdr demand would be.
`So you have to first calculate IQr. You have to
`calculate dr- axis injection current. You combine those two
`signals and you produce an IQdr demand that the Board in the
`institution order says is a current demand, a current demand,
`
`
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`that includes Q and d- axis current demands. That's the plain
`meaning of the language and this is not what is shown in
`Kusaka or Walters.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: So what does combining mean
`then? Is multiplexing an example of combining?
`MR. BROWN: I believe multiplexing can be an
`example of combining. We are not arguing that vectorizing is
`the only form of combination. Vectorizing is the preferred
`embodiment in the '895 but it is not limited to that.
`You have to have some form of combining of these
`signals so that you have a signal that contains both of those
`elements within it. And that is what is not found in either
`Kusaka or Walters.
`Now, this language is supported by the
`specification of the '895 patent in its description. So we have
`set before, at DX 11, figure 2 from the '895 patent.
`And just briefly, we're going to be focusing on the
`left-hand side of this figure, on the "torque to IQdr map" 206,
`the Idr injection block 210, and then the vectorize block 212.
`And I'm just going to read -- we also have the language I'm
`going to read from at DX 10, but you might want to stay on
`DX 11 to follow what this is describing.
`So here is what the specification of the '895 patent
`says. It says: "The scaled torque demand is provided to a
`Torque to IQdr map block 206 that calculates an IQr demand
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`using motor-specific torque-to- IQr map data. The IQr demand
`is then concatenated with an Idr demand from an Idr injection
`block 210 (described further below) into a vector quantity
`IQdr demand 214 by the vectorize block 212."
`So the first time that there is a discussion of IQdr
`within the specification, it is referring to 214, which is the
`output of the vectorize block. This is after there has been a
`combination of IQr and Idr within that block.
`So that disclosure tracks directly with the plain
`meaning of the claim language. You get two signals, you
`combine them, and you output a single signal that reflects both
`of the signals that were combined. Vectorizing is the example
`but not the only way combining could be done.
`Now, we point out in our brief --
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Actually before you go on, I
`just want to make sure I understand this correctly, because
`subsequent to that in this drawing there are lines that go to the
`IQr Current Controller 218 and the Idr Current Controller 220.
`So is it correct that the individual IQr demand and
`Idr demands in the IQdr demand are independently
`recognizable?
`MR. BROWN: Well, I think in the case of the '895
`embodiment we're talking about a vector. So if it is a vector it
`is going to have a direction and a quantity. And then the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`blocks 218 and 220 can take that vector quantity and
`determine the components of it that would be Iq and Id.
`Those are, in the rotating frame of reference, those
`are orthogonal signals, so you can decompose that vector
`within those two separate blocks to determine how much of it
`is Iq and how much of it is Id.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Right. So if they are
`independently recognizable, say, as two components of a
`vector, then why wouldn't two lines coming out of vectorize
`block 212 going directly into the IQr current controller and the
`Idr current controller, why wouldn't those two elements
`together be considered an IQdr demand?
`MR. BROWN: If it is a vector coming out of the
`vectorize block and you are feeding them in parallel to 218
`and 220, you could rearrange the lines that way if you wanted
`to, but having vectorized Iq and Id within the block 212, you
`have made the combination.
`So each of these blocks 218 and 220 can see that
`vector and can determine the various component of the vector
`that it needs to be concerned with, but the patent expressly
`discloses that you are going to combine Iq and Idr and, in fact,
`expressly claims that you are going to combine those to arrive
`at an IQdr demand signal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`It is a difference from what is disclosed in Kusaka
`and Walters. And when it comes to novelty, that is all that is
`required is a difference.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: I'm sorry to belabor it, but I
`think it is an important point.
`If I have two elements going into a box, and then I
`have two elements coming out of the box that are the same as
`the two elements that went into the box, have I not combined
`those two elements in the box even if they come out separately
`later?
`
`MR. BROWN: No, I don't believe so. I believe
`that that reads combined completely out of the claim language.
`If there is no action taken on those signals and you were just
`passing those signals from one end of the box to the other, you
`have not made a combination.
`The verb combining has to have some meaning
`here, and the disclosure in the preferred embodiment in the
`'895 is that a vectorizing occurs, so that's a combination. It is
`a single signal that comes out that has components that can be
`determined from it, but they have been combined by the
`vectorizing step.
`JUDGE BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BROWN: At DX 12 we set forth some of Dr.
`Ehsani's testimony where he agreed with this understanding.
`So he is asked:
`
`
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`"Question: And out of block 212 comes a signal
`214 that says IQdr demand. Do you see that?
`"Answer: I do.
`"Question: So would it be your understanding in
`what you just said that that IQdr demand appears in this
`architecture at that point?
`"Answer: Evidently. The -- the symbols line up
`and I -- I would agree with you if you characterized it that
`way."
`
`Petitioner in its reply has asserted that Dr. Blank
`has testified inconsistently with this position. And we would
`like to point out that he hasn't.
`In the portions of his testimony that are block
`quoted in their reply, he is not being asked about the claim
`language. And every time in his deposition when he was asked
`about the claim language and how the claim language interacts
`with this term, he was very consistent in rejecting Petitioner's
`position.
`
`At DX 14 we have testimony from Dr. Blank:
`"Question: And earlier we talked about IQdr, so
`when you see an IQdr in the past that generally refers to the
`IQ and the Idr current, is that correct?
`"Answer: There are two separate currents that can
`be combined, IQ and Id can be combined to form one current
`that you call Qd.
`
`
`
`24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01122 (Patent 7,208,895)
`
`
`
`"Question: So if I see this Iabc and we agree that
`refers to the three phases of motor current, A phase, B phase,
`and C phase, does the same sort of designation apply for IQdr,
`meaning that when you see IQdr it refers to the q component
`and the dr component of the current?
`"Answer: They have been combined."
`Then we have a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
