throbber
Paper 41
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket