`Entered: January 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC, and
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., Broad Ocean Motor LLC,
`
`and Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC (“Petitioners”) filed a corrected
`
`Petition (Paper 7, “Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 9 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,208,895 B2 (“the
`
`’895 patent”). After consideration of a Preliminary Response (Paper 14,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”) filed by Nidec Motor Corporation (“Patent Owner”), the
`
`Board instituted trial with respect to claims 9 and 21 on January 21, 2015.
`
`Paper 20 (“Dec.”). A Request for Rehearing filed by Petitioners with
`
`respect to certain denied grounds was denied on February 24, 2015.
`
`Paper 25.
`
`During the trial, Patent Owner timely filed a Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 29, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioners timely filed a Reply to the Patent
`
`Owner Response (Paper 32, “Reply”). An oral hearing was held on
`
`October 16, 2015. Paper 40 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Decision is a Final
`
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`
`claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us,
`
`Petitioners have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 9
`
`and 21 of the ’895 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`B. The ’895 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’895 patent relates to torque control of permanent magnet rotating
`
`machines. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15–17. Figure 1 of the ’895 patent is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a rotating permanent magnet machine system.
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 4–6. Rotating permanent magnet electric machine 101
`
`includes rotor 104 and stator 102, around which energizable phase windings
`
`106A, 106B, and 106C are wound. Id. at col. 2, ll. 14–22. Drive 102
`
`receives control inputs from controller 110, which receives rotor position
`
`and speed data 112 from sensors coupled to the machine. Id. at col. 2, ll.
`
`24–30.
`
`When operated in a torque control mode, input torque demand 114 is
`
`provided to a torque scalar that produces a scaled torque demand. Id. at col.
`
`2, ll. 63–67. In one embodiment, calculation of the scaled torque demand is
`
`the sum of three components: (1) the torque offset, which is the minimum
`
`torque required to run the motor without a load; (2) the product of the torque
`
`demand and a torque multiplier; and (3) a speed offset, which may be
`
`determined from a look-up table containing speed-torque table values for the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`particular motor being controlled. Id. at col. 4, ll. 15–35, Fig. 3. The torque
`
`multiplier and the torque offset value “are preferably motor-specific
`
`parameters which compensate for individual motor characteristics.” Id. at
`
`col. 4, ll. 20–22. A constant motor torque output with increasing motor
`
`speed may be achieved by increasing the value of the demanded torque by
`
`the control system as the motor operating speed increases, thereby making
`
`the torque lines flatter with speed. Id. at col. 4, ll. 39–43.
`
`The scaled torque demand is used to calculate an “IQr demand” using
`
`motor-specific torque-to-IQr map data. Id. at col. 2, l. 67–col. 3, l. 3. The
`
`IQr demand is concatenated with an “Idr demand” (also referred to as a “dr-
`
`axis injection current”) from an Idr injection block into a vector quantity,
`
`“IQdr demand.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 3–6. The resulting IQdr demand takes into
`
`account the torque contribution, if any, of the dr-axis current. Id. at col. 3, ll.
`
`10–12.
`
`These parameters, “IQr demand” and “Idr demand,” are not defined
`
`expressly in the specification of the ’895 patent. Petitioners’ witness, Dr.
`
`Mark Ehsani, explains that “vector control” provides one method of
`
`controlling permanent-magnet synchronous motors, and that “[t]he concept
`
`of vector control, which typically uses d and [Q] current components, arises
`
`from [a] principle [in which] torque arrives from the interaction of two
`
`magnetic fields, one originating from the stator and one originating from the
`
`rotor.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 13. The drawing from page 7 of Dr. Ehsani’s
`
`Declaration is reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`The drawing from Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration illustrates a rotor, which
`
`has a permanent magnet having north and south poles Nr and Sr,
`
`respectively, and illustrates a stator, which includes electromagnets that
`
`result in a virtual stator magnet having north and south poles Ns and Ss,
`respectively. Id. ¶ 15. The d axis is aligned with the rotor and the Q axis1 is
`
`offset 90° from the d axis. The motor commutates the winding currents to
`
`maintain orthogonality of the d and Q axes as the rotor turns. Id. ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`The challenged claims are as follows.
`
`C. Claims
`
`9. A permanent magnet rotating machine and controller
`assembly configured to perform the method of claim 1.
`
`
`
`1 Dr. Ehsani uses a lower-case letter q in referring to this axis. We use an
`upper-case letter Q for consistency with the claims that are before us.
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`21. A permanent magnet rotating machine and controller
`assembly configured to perform the method of claim 12.
`
`
`Claims 9 and 21 incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively,
`
`which are as follows.
`
`
`
`1. A method of controlling a permanent magnet rotating
`machine, the machine including a stator and a rotor situated to
`rotate relative to the stator, the stator having a plurality of
`energizable phase windings situated therein, the method
`comprising:
`receiving a rotor torque demand; and
`calculating a scaled torque demand from the received
`torque demand as a function of a speed of the machine to obtain
`a substantially constant rotor torque over a range of rotor
`speeds.
`
`12. A method of controlling a permanent magnet rotating
`machine, the machine including a stator and a rotor situated to
`rotate relative to the stator, the stator having a plurality of
`energizable phase windings situated therein, the method
`comprising:
`calculating an IQr demand from a speed or torque
`demand;
`calculating a dr-axis injection current demand as a
`function of a speed of the rotor; 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioners rely on the following references.
`
`Chen
`Kusaka
`Walters
`
`
`US 6,498,449 B1
`US 5,569,995
`US 6,407,531 B1
`
`Dec. 24, 2002
`Oct. 29, 1996
`June 18, 2002
`
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`
`We instituted trial based on the following grounds. Dec. 21–22.
`
`Reference
`Chen
`Kusaka
`Walters
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`§ 102(b)
`§ 102(b)
`
`Claim Challenged
`9
`21
`21
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`793 F.3d 1268, at 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`In the Institution Decision, we adopted the following constructions.
`
`Dec. 7–10. We see no reason to modify those constructions in light of
`
`development of the parties’ positions during the trial, and adopt them for this
`
`Final Written Decision.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`“scaled torque demand”
`
`Construction
`torque calculated from the received
`torque demand based on machine-
`specific parameters
`requires that the rotor torque not vary
`“substantially constant rotor
`substantially over a range of rotor
`torque over a range of rotor
`speeds
`speeds”
`Q-axis demand current
`“IQr demand”
`“dr-axis injection current demand” d-axis injection current
`“IQdr demand”
`a current demand that includes Q- and
`d-axis current demands
`
`
`
`B. Anticipation of Claim 9 over Chen
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 9 as anticipated by Chen under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). Pet. 4. Chen discloses a method and apparatus for controlling the
`
`torque of a permanent magnet motor without using current sensors. Ex.
`
`1006, abst. Figure 1 of Chen is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a system for controlling the torque of a
`
`sinusoidally excited permanent magnet motor. Id. at col. 2, ll. 43–45.
`
`Included within Figure 1 is an expression for motor input voltage V as a
`
`function of commanded torque Tcmd :
`𝑅2 + (𝜔𝐿𝑠)2
`3𝐾𝑒
`
`𝑉 =
`
`1
`𝑅 cos 𝛿 + (𝜔𝐿𝑠) sin 𝛿
`
`(
`
`𝑇𝑐𝑚𝑑 + 𝐾𝑒𝜔𝑚𝑅).
`
`Of relevance to our analysis, the commanded torque Tcmd is modified
`by (𝑅2 + (𝜔𝐿𝑠)2)/3𝐾𝑒, where R is the winding resistance, ω is the
`
`excitation frequency, Ls is the motor inductance, and Ke is the EMF constant.
`
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 17–19, 60. Petitioners identify calculation of the product of
`
`Tcmd with this coefficient as corresponding to “calculating a scaled torque
`
`demand from the received torque demand as a function of a speed of the
`
`machine to obtain a substantially constant rotor torque over a range of
`
`speeds.” Pet. 28–30; see Tr. 6:14–7:7.
`
`We agree with Petitioners’ analysis. Pet. 26–30. In particular, the
`intermediate calculation of [(𝑅2 + (𝜔𝐿𝑠)2)/3𝐾𝑒]𝑇𝑐𝑚𝑑 is a “scaled torque
`
`demand,” as we have construed the term, because it is calculated from the
`
`received torque demand Tcmd based on at least the machine-specific
`
`parameters for winding resistance R and motor inductance Ls. As Petitioners
`
`observe, Chen itself makes clear that these are motor specific parameters by
`
`specifying the value of the parameters for an “exemplary motor.” Reply 11–
`
`12 (citing Ex. 1006, col. 4, ll. 26–49). The result of the intermediate
`
`calculation is also a “function of a speed of the machine” ω, as required by
`
`claim 9 through reference to claim 1.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s responses. First, we
`
`disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that “one of ordinary skill would
`
`understand [the winding resistance R, motor inductance LS, and EMF
`
`constant Ke] to be theoretical values associated with a motor design.” PO
`
`Resp. 12 (emphasis added). Notably, Patent Owner’s witness, Gary Blank,
`
`Ph.D., does not draw an unambiguous distinction between machine-specific
`
`parameters and “theoretical values associated with a motor design.” Instead,
`
`Dr. Blank asserts that “the Chen reference (Ex. 1006) does not disclose
`
`relying on the same type of machine specific parameters in the disclosed
`
`control equation that Petitioners point to as disclosing the claim limitation.”
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 14 (emphasis added). Dr. Blank asserts that the winding
`
`resistance R, motor inductance Ls, and EMF constant Ke “are not the type of
`
`machine specific parameters that can only be obtained by characterizing
`
`individual machines as they are manufactured,” and “are not specific to each
`
`individual motor that is placed into a system.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner and its witness draw so
`
`overly fine a distinction among types of machine-specific parameters that the
`
`argument loses sight of the original claim language. See Reply 2–3. As
`
`Petitioners assert, “[t]here is nothing in the ordinary meaning of the word
`
`‘scaled’ that would distinguish between ‘theoretical values associated with a
`
`motor design’ and ‘machine specific parameters that can only be obtained by
`
`characterizing the individual machines as they are manufactured.’” Id.
`
`Patent Owner thus provides no persuasive reasoning to explain why one of
`
`skill in the art would not understand that Chen’s equations apply to
`
`individual motors, even if they are presented in broader theoretical fashion.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`Indeed, during the oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that it does not
`
`take a position that the equations in Chen do not apply to real motors and
`
`that “[t]he Chen equation could work for some motors.” Tr. 37:20–25.
`
`Second, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that
`
`“[e]ven if Chen were found to use motor specific parameters, it still fails to
`
`anticipate” because “the control equation . . . specifically uses Tcmd, the
`
`original demanded torque as the operand in the equation without having
`
`calculated a compensated or scaled torque demand.” PO Resp. 14–15. This
`
`reasoning insufficiently accounts for Chen’s intermediate calculation of a
`
`modified torque demand based on machine-specific parameters. Patent
`
`Owner focuses too narrowly on the raw inputs to the calculation without
`
`accounting for the calculation of intermediate results.
`
`We conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence, that claim 9 is anticipated by Chen.
`
`
`
`C. Anticipation of Claim 21 by Kusaka
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 21 as anticipated by Kusaka under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4. 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 a Q-axis
`
`current when the motor turns at high speeds. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 9–17, col.
`
`12, l. 51–col. 14, l. 17. In some motors, the d-axis current used for field
`
`weakening may produce a torque, in which case compensation is made for
`
`that contribution on the Q-axis current. Id. at col. 16, ll. 45–58.
`
`Figure 1 of Kusaka is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an electrical vehicle drive system and its controller. Id.
`
`at col. 11, ll. 47–50. Power conversion in inverter 12 is vector-controlled by
`
`current condition computing section 16 and current control section 18, with
`
`the current condition computing section determining d- and Q-axis field
`
`reference currents in accordance with a reference torque. Id. at col. 11, ll.
`
`53–62.
`
`Petitioners contend that such determinations of d- and Q-axis field
`
`reference currents disclose the limitations of underlying claim 12 requiring
`
`calculations of an “IQr demand” and a “dr-axis injection current demand,”
`
`noting that Kusaka discloses calculation of the d-axis reference current as a
`
`function of rotor speed. Pet. 33–35 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 13, ll. 37–49). In
`
`addition, Petitioners contend that Kusaka discloses combining the IQr
`
`demand and the dr-axis injection current demand, noting Kusaka’s
`
`disclosure of compensating for torque contributions by the d-axis current.
`
`Pet. 36–38. Petitioners cite portions of Kusaka explaining that current
`
`control section 18 receives angular position θ and reference currents
`
`designated Id* and Iq* in the drawing, and outputs phase reference currents
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`designated Iu*, Iv*, and Iw* in the drawing, which are subsequently fed to
`
`inverter 12. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 12, ll. 6–21). Petitioners’
`
`analysis is supported by the declaration testimony of Dr. Ehsani. Ex. 1010
`
`¶¶ 63–71. We are persuaded by Petitioners’ analysis and find that the set of
`
`Iu*, Iv*, and Iw* is an IQdr demand as we have construed the term, and that
`
`it is produced as a result of combining the IQr demand and the dr-axis
`
`injection current demand, as required by underlying claim 12.
`
`Patent Owner responds that “[n]othing in this description discloses
`
`combining ‘IQr,’ or ‘Q-axis demand current’ with ‘dr-axis injection current
`
`demand’ into an IQdr demand or ‘a current demand that includes Q- and d-
`
`axis current demands.’” PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner further asserts that
`
`“[t]here are in fact multiple possible operations being carried out in the
`
`current control section 18 to convert the Iq and Id currents into IU, IV, and
`
`IW.” Id. at 23–24. Patent Owner points to testimony by Dr. Blank that “this
`
`control section could perform a standard form of transformation from the
`
`rotating frame of reference to the stationary frame without combining Q and
`
`d axis currents,” and that “this alternative does not require that an IQdr
`
`demand current is developed.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 27–29).
`
`Dr. Blank testifies that “a typical transform from the d-q frame of
`
`reference to the abc (uvw) frame of reference” is the following:
`
`𝐼[𝑢] = 𝐼𝑑 cos Θ − 𝐼𝑞 sin Θ
`
`𝐼[𝑣] = 𝐼𝑑 cos(Θ − 2π/3) − 𝐼𝑞 sin(Θ − 2π/3)
`
`𝐼[𝑤] = 𝐼𝑑 cos(Θ + 2π/3) − 𝐼𝑞 sin(Θ + 2π/3).
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. Dr. Blank concludes that, “[a]s can be seen in the above
`
`transformation, it is not necessary to combine the Id and Iq currents to create
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`the abc (uvw) values. Id. at ¶ 28. Both Patent Owner and Dr. Blank take the
`
`position that this transformation, which intermixes the Iq and Id currents, is
`
`not “combining the IQr demand and the dr-axis injection current demand”
`
`because operations are performed with trigonometric coefficients:
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: But in these equations, though, haven’t Iq
`and Id been combined in each of I[u, v, and w]? I mean, I
`realize there are certain factors associated with those, but there
`is an intermixing between the Iq and Id components versus the
`I[u, v, and w] components, isn’t there?
`
`MR. BROWN: I don’t agree with that, no. First off, let’s look
`at I[u]. So I[u], this is an equation for how you are going to
`develop the phase current which is in the non-rotating frame of
`reference, in the stationary frame of reference.
`
`And the terms there, Iq sine theta is not Iq. It is sine
`theta of Iq. And Id cosine theta is not Id. It is cosine theta of
`Id. And there is no disclosure in here that you are going to get
`to IQdr before you perform these calculations that are set forth
`in this paragraph.
`
`So we don’t believe that this does show combining Iq
`and Id to arrive at an IQdr.
`
`
`
`Tr. 27:23–28:13; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 28. Patent Owner’s position that
`
`“[c]ombining Iq and Id requires that they be combined before they be further
`
`operated on” applies too restrictive a meaning of “combining.” See Tr.
`
`28:17-18.
`
`Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioners
`
`are relying on an inherency argument merely because Dr. Ehsani stated in
`
`his testimony that the operation of combining the Q-axis demand current
`
`with the dr-axis injection current demand is “implied.” See PO Resp. 24
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 2002, 132:9–18). As recently reiterated by the Federal Circuit, “a
`
`reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all
`
`the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in
`
`the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed
`
`arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool
`
`Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Petering, 49 CCPA
`
`993, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (1962)). Patent Owner confirmed at the oral hearing
`
`that Dr. Blank provides no example in which Iu, Iv, and Iw involve only one
`
`of Iq and Id. Tr. 29:9–13.
`
`We conclude that Petitioners have demonstrated, by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence, that claim 21 is anticipated by Kusaka.
`
`
`
`D. Anticipation of Claim 21 by Walters
`
`Petitioners challenge claim 21 as anticipated by Walters under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4. Similar to Kusaka, Walters discloses controlling a
`
`permanent magnet motor over a range of speeds to improve efficiency,
`
`including a recognition that a current demand in the d-axis due to field
`
`weakening contributes to the output torque. Ex. 1008, col. 2, l. 66–col. 3, l.
`
`27, col. 6, ll. 26–31. In such instances, the Q-axis current demand is
`
`adjusted to compensate for that torque contribution. Id. Figure 3 of Walters
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram illustrating a field vector control system with an
`
`adaptive control module. Id. at col. 4, ll. 39–42.
`
`
`
`* and Q-axis current
`Walters teaches that d-axis current reference Ids
`reference Iqs* may be adjusted as a function of commanded torque Te
`
`
`
`* and
`
`rotor speed ωr using analytically and/or experimentally derived flux-
`
`adjusting values. Id. at col. 6, ll. 52–58. Petitioners contend that such
`
`determinations of d- and Q-axis currents disclose the limitations of claim 12
`
`requiring calculations of an “IQr demand” and a “dr-axis injection current
`
`demand,” noting that Walters discloses calculation of the d-axis current as a
`
`function of rotor speed. Pet. 41–43 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 6, ll. 52–62). In
`
`addition, Petitioners contend that Walters discloses combining the IQr
`
`demand and the dr-axis injection current demand, noting Walters’s
`
`disclosure of compensating for torque contributions by the d-axis current.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`Pet. 43–45. Petitioners’ analysis is supported by the declaration testimony
`
`of Dr. Ehsani. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 72–76.
`
`Patent Owner responds that “Walters does not disclose that a
`
`combined IQdr current demand, a demand that includes both Q and d axis
`
`current demands[,] is created.” PO Resp. 24–25. We agree with Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`As Patent Owner observes, “Walters shows in its block diagrams that
`
`Iq and Id are generated, then individually transformed to respective Vq and
`
`Vd demanded voltage, then those voltages are back transformed from the
`
`rotating frame of reference to three phase voltages.” Id. at 25. As evident
`
`from the drawing reproduced above, Iq* and Id* are developed by a look-up
`
`table in block 102, based on a demanded torque and speed. These are then
`
`combined individually at blocks 122 and 124 with calculated actual Iq and
`
`Id, fed individually to plus-integral (“PI”) current regulators 130 and 132 to
`
`obtain voltages Vq* and Vd* that are then back-transformed. See id. at 26–
`
`27 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 7, l. 60–col. 8, l. 25).
`
`In light of this, Patent Owner challenged the conclusions of
`
`Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Ehsani, who responded at his deposition that “the
`
`combination is done in a -- in a different way to the same end effect.” Ex.
`
`2002, 134:8–16. In evaluating whether claim 21 is anticipated by Walters, it
`
`is not merely the end effect that is relevant, but whether that end effect is
`
`achieved in the manner recited in the claim. Upon further questioning, Dr.
`
`Ehsani also testified more explicitly that Walters does not perform the
`
`recited “combining”:
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`Q. (BY MR. BROWN) Where does Walters show that they
`combine the IQr demand and the dr-axis injection current
`demand to [produce] an IQdr demand?
`
`A. You know, it doesn’t show that; but there’s a mathematical
`equivalence to this. You can derive that from these. The fact
`of the matter is that this process produces Vd and Vq. And the
`'895 process starts with Id and Iq and produces Vd and Vq.
`That is what’s needed to happen. So there’s an equivalence
`between these.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2002, 138:14–22. We determine that Dr. Ehsani’s testimony does not
`
`support the anticipation ground advanced by Petitioners.
`
`We conclude that Petitioners have not demonstrated, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claim 21 is anticipated by Walters.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, claims 9
`
`and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,208,895 B2 are unpatentable; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
`
`parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01122
`Patent 7,208,895 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Meyer
`Charles Baker
`Locke Lord LLP
`ptopatentcommunication@lockelord.com
`cbaker@lockelord.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott Brown
`Matthew Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
`
`19
`
`