Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 25, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD-OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 25, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD-OCEAN MOTOR CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`Petitioner, Zhongshan Broad-Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–7 and 16–18 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,049,459 B2 (“the ’459 patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner,
`Nidec Motor Corporation, filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that
`an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.”
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`conclude the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of some of the
`challenged claims. Accordingly, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted as to claims 1–3, 7, and 18 of the ’459 patent. Our factual findings
`and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary
`record developed thus far (prior to Patent Owner’s Response). This is not a
`final decision as to patentability of claims for which inter partes review is
`instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record, as fully developed
`during trial.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’459 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’459 patent, titled “Blower Motor for HVAC Systems” issued
`November 1, 2011, from U.S. Application No. 12/206,062, filed September
`8, 2008. Ex. 1001. The ’459 patent describes a “blower motor assembly
`having a variable speed motor that is suitable for direct, drop-in replacement
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`in a residential HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system
`that employs a [permanent split capacitor] PSC motor.” Id. at Abstract.
`According to the ’459 patent, “HVAC systems traditionally use fixed speed
`or multiple speed permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors. These motors
`generally have two independent power connections to accommodate heating
`or cooling modes of operation.” Id. at 2:5–9. The ’459 patent explains that,
`when in circulation mode, the blower motor operates continuously, typically
`at the speed used for cooling, which is usually well in excess of the speed
`necessary to achieve air circulation, magnifying blower mode inefficiencies.
`Id. at 1:43–2:3. Due to inefficiencies with PSC motors, “many newer
`HVAC systems use variable speed motors such as brushless permanent
`magnet (BPM) motors and corresponding electronic variable speed motor
`controllers. The speed of a BPM can be electronically controlled and set
`specifically to match the airflow requirements for each application, thus
`permitting more efficient operation.” Id. at 2:66–3:5. According to the ’459
`patent, replacing an existing PSC motor with a variable speed motor has
`required “costly, time-consuming, and complex changes in the mechanical,
`wiring, or control configuration of the system.” Id. at 3:14–18. With the
`intention of resolving such issues, the ’459 patent describes “a blower motor
`assembly broadly comprising a rectifier, a novel sensing circuit, a variable
`speed motor, and the motor’s associated motor controller and power
`converter.” Id. at 3:58–64.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 16, and 18 of the ’459 patent are independent. Claims 2–7
`depend from claim 1 and claim 17 depends from claim 16. Claim 1 of the
`’459 patent is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`1. A blower motor assembly comprising:
`a variable speed motor and motor controller;
`a power input coupled with the motor controller and
`comprising at least first, second, and third inputs for
`receiving AC power from an AC power source;
`at least two sensing circuits, each of said at least two
`sensing circuits operable for sensing which of at least
`one of the first, second, and third inputs power is
`applied to and for delivering a corresponding signal to
`the motor controller for selecting a corresponding
`operating parameter for the motor;
`wherein a first one of the sensing circuits senses power
`applied to the first and second inputs, a second one of
`the sensing circuits senses power applied to the
`second and third inputs, and wherein the motor
`controller is operable for determining that power is
`applied to the first input when the first sensing circuit
`senses power.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:37–53.
`
`C.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner states that the ’459 patent is a subject of the following civil
`actions: (1) Nidec Motor Corp. v. SNTech, Inc., Civ. Action No. 4:12-cv-
`00115-AGF (E.D. Mo.); and, (2) Nidec Motor Corp. v. Broad Ocean Motor
`LLC, Civ. Action No. 2:15-cv-00443-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tx.). Pet. 1; Paper 9,
`2.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–7 and 16–18 are unpatentable based
`on the following grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`Pant1
`Pant and Nordby2
`Mullin3
`Mullin and Nordby
`Rowlette4
`
`
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 102
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–3, 7, and 18
`4–6
`1–3, 7, and 18
`4–6, 16, and 17
`18
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`
`A.
`
`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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress
`implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA.”).
`
`“inputs for receiving AC power from an AC power source”
`1.
`Petitioner contends that “inputs for receiving AC power from an AC
`power source,” as recited in claims 1, 16, and 18, means “connections that
`
`
`1 U.S. Application No. 2007/0069683 A1 (Ex. 1003, “Pant”), published
`March 29, 2007.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,818,194 (Ex. 1004, “Nordby”), issued October 6, 1998.
`3 U.S. Application No. 2008/0180048 A1 (Ex. 1006, “Mullin”), published
`July 31, 2008.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,397,970 (Ex. 1005, “Rowlette”), issued March 14, 1995.
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`enable alternating current (AC) to be supplied from a power source.” Pet. 6.
`Petitioner notes that the ’459 patent discloses that “[p]ower to the blower
`motor 10 is provided via the same set of power input connections provided
`to the PSC motors M1 … i.e., L1C, L1H, and neutral N.” Id. quoting
`Ex. 1001, 6:49–52. From this, Petitioner asserts that one input for receiving
`AC power is the neutral line N. Pet. 6.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed construction to include
`neutral lines is unreasonably broad, and “would result in an interpretation of
`the claims that would eliminate the purpose of the invention described
`throughout the specification.” Prelim. Resp. 13. According to Patent
`Owner, not just any power input will satisfy “inputs for receiving AC
`power,” as claimed, because “it must be a power input utilized by the system
`to set a motor parameter being demanded by the system.” Id. at 14. Patent
`Owner argues that because a neutral line completes a circuit, if power is
`supplied to any of the identified power inputs for heat demand, cool demand,
`or continuous fan demand, there will also be power at the neutral line. Id.
`Although Patent Owner notes that there is a disclosed embodiment where
`sensing which of two neutral terminals received power would provide a
`parameter for operating the motor, Patent Owner maintains that such inputs
`are referred to as “neutral” inputs rather than “power” inputs. Id. at 16. The
`’459 patent states that the blower assembly may be equipped with “several
`sensing circuits for sensing current or voltage in the hot inputs and/or the
`neutral lines for controlling various aspects of the variable speed motor.”
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The ’459 patent further states that “[a] sensing circuit is
`configured for sensing current in one of the neutral inputs and for providing
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`a corresponding signal to the motor controller for controlling an operational
`parameter of the motor such as the motor’s rotation direction.” Id. at 4:26–
`34. The specification thus discloses neutral inputs that are used exactly the
`way the claim recites the operability of the sensing circuits, i.e., “for
`delivering a corresponding signal to the motor controller for selecting a
`corresponding operating parameter for the motor.” We are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s assertion, at this stage of the proceeding, that an input for
`receiving AC power includes a neutral input, which is consistent with the
`specification’s express identification of “neutral N” as a power input
`connection. See Ex. 1001, 6:49–52. Whether other elements of the claim
`language are satisfied when one of the inputs “for receiving AC power” is
`neutral N is an issue separate from the meaning of “inputs for receiving AC
`power from an AC power source,” which we construe for purposes of this
`Decision to mean “connections that enable alternating current (AC) to be
`supplied from a power source.”
`
`2.
`
`“sense no power”
`
`Petitioner contends that “sense no power” means “not detecting
`power,” rather than an affirmative detection of the absence of power. Pet. 7.
`Petitioner notes that were the term construed to require an affirmative
`detection of the absence of power, an embodiment of the ’459 patent would
`be excluded from the scope of the claims, a result “rarely, if ever, correct.”
`Id. quoting Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318,
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk
`Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner does
`not explain why an affirmative detection of the absence of power should be
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`excluded from the meaning of “sense no power.” Patent Owner does not
`provide an alternative meaning for the term.
`The ’459 patent describes a sensing scheme used “only to detect the
`presence or absence of voltage or current.” Ex. 1001, 7:25–26. In light of
`the specification, we construe “sense no power,” for purposes of this
`Decision, to mean “not detecting power or detecting the absence of power.”
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Anticipation by Pant
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 7, and 18 are anticipated by Pant. Pet.
`13–24. Pant discloses:
`
`A method of and apparatus for controlling an electric machine.
`The method can include using a controller to detect whether
`power is present at a first node of the controller, detect whether
`power is present at a second node of the controller, generate at
`least one signal based at least in part on the detection, and
`energize the electric machine using a detected power when the
`at least one signal indicates power is present at at least one of
`the first node, the second node, and a combination of the first
`node and the second node.
`Ex. 1003, Abstract. Petitioner provides a claim chart identifying disclosures
`in Pant allegedly corresponding to each of the limitations of claims 1–3, 7,
`and 18. Pet. 17–24.
`With respect to claim 1, Petitioner identifies the electric machine 218
`of Pant as the claimed variable speed motor, and control circuit 254 as the
`motor controller. Pet. 17. Patent Owner argues that Pant does not disclose a
`variable speed motor and motor controller. Prelim. Resp. 8–13. We agree
`with Patent Owner that the ’459 patent distinguishes between variable speed
`motors and fixed or multiple speed motors. See id. at 9. However, as Patent
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`Owner recognizes, Pant states “[i]n other constructions, the electric machine
`218 can comprise other types of electric motors (e.g., other types of
`induction motors, brushless permanent magnet motors, switched reluctance
`motors, direct current motors, and the like) and/or other types of electric
`machines having a rotor and a stator.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 34. We are not
`persuaded, on the present record, that Pant fails to disclose all elements of
`the claim, arranged as in the claim, merely because it refers to “other
`constructions” in which the motor is a variable speed motor, such as a
`brushless permanent magnet motor. To the contrary, the information
`presented suggests electric machine 218 of Pant is arranged in the same
`manner whether it is a variable speed, fixed, or multiple speed motor.
`Petitioner identifies first high-speed power (“HSP”) connection 226,
`second low-speed power (“LSP”) connection 231, and third neutral or
`common power (“CP”) connection 234 of Pant as corresponding to the
`recited “first, second, and third inputs for receiving AC power.” Pet. 18;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 36. Pant further explains that detection circuit 250a includes first
`connection 270 configured to receive an input representative of HSP, second
`connection 274 configured to receive an input representative of CP, and
`third connection 278 configured to receive an input representative of LSP.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 42. Thus, to be clear, Pant refers to the CP connection as the
`“third” connection, but refers to the input to the detection circuit
`representative of the CP connection as the “second” connection.
`Patent Owner argues that the CP connection is not a power input
`within the meaning of the claim because it is a neutral line. Prelim. Resp.
`13–18. As discussed in our claim construction above, Patent Owner’s
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`argument is unpersuasive on the present record because the ’459 patent
`expressly describes a neutral line as a “power input.” See Ex. 1001, 6:49–
`52. Patent Owner’s further argument that detecting power at the CP
`connection would not provide “meaningful information to the motor
`controller to determine an operating parameter that is being demanded by the
`system” is also not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope
`of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner has not shown that the
`language of claim 1, which includes no reference to “meaningful
`information,” encompasses such a feature.
`Petitioner further identifies two sensing circuits “operable for sensing
`which of at least one of the first, second, and third inputs power is applied
`to” (emphasis added), as corresponding to Pant detection circuit 250a with
`first electrical isolation device 290 and second electrical isolation device
`294. Pet. 18. Pant discloses that when power is present at the first and
`second connections 270 and 274, first device 290 acts as a detection signal
`transmitter. See Pet. 19, quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–44. Patent Owner argues
`that Pant does not disclose the claimed sensor arrangement because terminal
`274 is neutral and “the sensors of the disclosed arrangement only detect
`power at one power input each, on a one to one ratio, and the claim language
`is not met.” Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive
`on the current record. Claim 1 requires that “the motor controller is operable
`for determining that power is applied to the first input when the first sensing
`circuit senses power.” We are not persuaded on the present record that
`claim 1 precludes detecting power at inputs on a “one to one” ratio, or
`requires the ability to differentiate between each of the three power inputs.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`Claims 2 and 3 each depend from claim 1. Petitioner identifies
`disclosures from Pant it contends correspond to the recitations of each claim.
`Pet. 20–21. Claim 2 requires that “the motor controller is operable for
`determining that power is applied to the second input when both the first
`sensing circuit and the second sensing circuit sense power.” Claim 3
`requires that “the motor controller is operable for determining that power is
`applied to the third input when the second sensing circuit senses power.” As
`with claim 1, neither claim 2 nor claim 3 requires differentiating between
`each of the three power inputs. Claim 2 also does not require that a
`determination that power is applied to the second input occurs only when
`both the first and second sensing circuits sense power.
`Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires that “the operating
`parameter is a speed of the motor.” Petitioner contends control circuit 254
`of Pant transmits a switch control signal SCS to switch 258 by which electric
`machine 218 is energized to operate at a high-speed power, a low-speed
`power LSP, and the like. Pet. 17, citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 55.
`Independent claim 18 is similar to claim 1. Whereas claim 1 requires
`that “the motor controller is operable for determining that power is applied
`to the first input when the first sensing circuit senses power,” claim 18
`requires that “the motor controller determines to which of the first, second,
`and third inputs power is applied by determining which of the sensing
`circuits sense power and which of the sensing circuits sense no power.”
`Petitioner and Patent Owner make essentially the same arguments with
`respect to claim 18 that are addressed above with respect to claim 1. See
`Pet. 36–38; Prelim. Resp. 8–18.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`We determine, based on the information presented, that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing claims
`1–3, 7, and 18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Pant.
`
`C.
`
`Asserted Obviousness Over Pant and Nordby
`
`Petitioner contends claims 4–6 would have been obvious over Pant
`and Nordby. Pet. 24–29. Nordby describes a blower motor unit in which:
`The blower motor unit senses which of the inputs is energized
`by sensing either voltage or current on at least one of the inputs,
`selects one of at least two reference signals in accordance with
`which input is energized, and presents the control input of the
`replacement variable speed motor with the selected reference
`signal, thereby controlling the speed of the variable speed
`motor.
`Ex. 1004, Abstract.
`
`Figure 8 of Nordby is reproduced below:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`Figure 8 is a schematic block diagram of a current sensing unit described in
`Nordby. Petitioner identifies transistor Q1 of Nordby as corresponding to
`the claimed single transistor. Pet. 28. Nordby states that the “collector of
`transistor Q1 is connected to the trigger input of circuit U3, a 555 timer.”
`Ex. 1004, 7:56–57. Nordby also depicts transistor Q1 coupled to current
`transformer CT1. Ex. 1004, Fig. 8.
`Claim 4 requires “a capacitor coupled between the transistor and an
`input of the motor controller for providing one of the signals to the motor
`controller.” Petitioner contends that the collector of transistor Q1 of Nordby
`is connected to trigger input of circuit U3 (a 555 timer), and through diode
`D13 to capacitor C15. Pet. 26, 28. Patent Owner contends that capacitor
`C15 is not coupled between transistor Q1 and line 30, an input of the motor
`controller. Prelim. Resp. 22. Other than directing us to various features of
`Nordby, Petitioner does not explain how those features teach the recited
`placement of a capacitor between the transistor and an input of the motor
`controller. See Pet. 24–28. A petition must identify “specific portions of the
`evidence that support the challenge,” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), and include
`“a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. §
`42.22(a)(2). In the absence of such analysis, as here, we determine
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`in showing that claim 4, or claims 5 and 6 which depend from claim 4,
`would have been obvious over Pant and Nordby.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Anticipation by Mullin
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 7, and 18 are anticipated by Mullin.
`Pet. 29–38. Mullin discloses:
`
`A brushless direct current (BLDC) motor having a simulated
`tapped-winding input. The BLDC motor includes a stator/rotor
`assembly having a stator and a rotor. The BLDC motor has a
`common input and a plurality of power inputs. Each power
`input corresponds to an operating parameter. The BLDC motor
`receives an AC voltage across the common input and one of the
`power inputs and operates the stator/rotor assembly according
`to an operating parameter corresponding to the power input
`receiving power.
`Ex. 1006, Abstract. Petitioner provides a claim chart identifying disclosures
`in Mullin allegedly corresponding to each of the limitations of claims 1–3, 7,
`and 18. Pet. 33–38.
`Petitioner identifies BLDC motor 275 of Mullin as a variable speed
`motor, as claimed, as well as common input COM and power inputs P1, P2,
`and P3 as the recited “inputs for receiving AC power.” Pet. 33. Petitioner
`also identifies opto-isolators ISO1 and ISO2 with triggering phototransistors
`670a and 670b as corresponding to the claimed sensing circuits. Id. at 33–
`34; Ex. 1006, ¶ 46. Patent Owner asserts that Mullin does not anticipate the
`claims because the claims require “fewer sensors than power inputs.”
`Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate with the
`scope of the claims, as shown by claim 1, which recites “at least first,
`second, and third inputs” and “at least two sensing circuits,” the combination
`of which limitations does not require fewer sensors than power inputs.
`Patent Owner also argues again that a neutral line (referred to as COM in
`Mullin) is not a “power input.” Id. at 26. Patent Owner’s argument is not
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`persuasive with respect to alleged anticipation by Mullin for the same
`reasons it was not persuasive with respect to alleged anticipation by Pant
`discussed above.
`We have considered each of the arguments raised by Patent Owner,
`and we determine, based on the information presented, that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing claims
`1–3, 7, and 18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mullin.
`
`E.
`
`Asserted Obviousness Over Mullin and Nordby
`
`Petitioner contends claims 4–6, 16, and 17 would have been obvious
`over Mullin and Nordby. Pet. 38–44.
`
`1. Claims 4–6
`
`With respect to claims 4–6, Petitioner relies on Nordby in the same
`manner Petitioner relied on Nordby in alleging that claims 4–6 would have
`been obvious over Pant and Nordby. Pet. 38–42. For the same reasons
`discussed above with respect to alleged obviousness over Pant and Nordby
`concerning the insufficient demonstration in the Petition that Nordby
`discloses “a capacitor coupled between the transistor and an input of the
`motor controller,” as claimed, we determine, based on the information
`presented, that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing claims 4–6 would have been obvious over Mullin
`and Nordby.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`2. Claims 16 and 17
`
`Independent claim 16 requires “first, second, third, fourth, and fifth
`inputs for receiving AC power,” whereas claim 1 requires only three inputs.
`Ex. 1001, 19:2–3. Claim 16 also requires first, second, and third sensing
`circuits “operable for sensing which of at least one of the first, second, third,
`fourth, and fifth inputs power is applied to.” Id. at 19:5–7. Petitioner
`contends that although Mullin discloses only one common input COM and
`three inputs P1, P2, and P3, it also discloses that “other constructions can
`include other quantities of power inputs.” Pet. 38, quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 41.
`Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to add additional power inputs
`to accommodate additional operating parameters such as additional fan
`blower speeds. Pet. 38–39. According to Petitioner, an additional opto-
`isolator would also be necessary to detect AC power applied across the
`common input COM and the additional power input, providing for the three
`claimed sensing circuits. Pet. 39. According to Petitioner, duplicating parts
`has no patentable significance with regard to claim 16 because it provides no
`new or unexpected results. Petitioner’s argument is supported by the
`Declaration of Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 25–26.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 of Mullin is reproduced below.
`
`
`Mullin Figure 5 is a schematic illustration of an input interface for a BLDC
`motor simulating a tapped-winding. Ex. 1006 ¶ 18. According to Petitioner:
`“When AC power is applied across the common input
`COM and the second power input P2, the AC signal is also
`present across ISO1,” and during the positive half-cycle of this
`AC signal, line 582 is coupled to the controller 535. [Mullin] at
`¶ [0048]. A square-wave signal is thus present on line 582 and
`at the controller 535 in this circumstance. [Mullin] at ¶ [0048].
`Similarly, “[w]hen AC power is applied across the common
`input COM and the third power input P3, the AC signal is also
`present across ISO2,” and during the positive half-cycle of this
`AC signal, line 583 is coupled to the controller 535. [Mullin] at
`¶ [0049]. A square-wave signal is therefore present on line 583
`and at the controller 535 in this other circumstance.” [Mullin]
`at ¶ [0049].
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`Pet. 32–33. Petitioner has identified how Mullin detects power across three
`inputs (COM, P2, and P3) using two sensing circuits (ISO1 and ISO2),
`providing for one sensing circuit for each of the non-neutral inputs P2 and
`P3. With five inputs and three sensors, as recited in claim 16, applying
`Petitioner’s reasoning, there is no longer one sensing circuit for each of the
`non-neutral inputs.
`Petitioner makes the conclusory assertion that the additional power
`input and sensing circuit “would operate in the same manner as the disclosed
`inputs P1, P2 and the opto-isolators ISO1, ISO2.” Pet. 39. It is not enough
`for Petitioner to simply to state that it would be obvious to add an additional
`power input and an additional sensing circuit. Petitioner offers no
`explanation of how an additional power input would operate both like P1,
`which in conjunction with COM provides no signal to the controller without
`regard to ISO1 or ISO2, and like P2, which in conjunction with COM,
`provides a signal across ISO1. See Pet. 30, quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 45 (in Mullin
`if power is applied between P1 and COM “the input interface 505 provides
`no signal to the controller 535.”). Petitioner’s claim chart does not identify
`P1 in its discussion of how Mullin corresponds to first, second, and third
`sensing circuits operable to sense which of at least one of the first, second,
`third, fourth, and fifth inputs power is applied to, as recited by claim 16. See
`Pet. 42–43. Counter to Petitioner, Patent Owner argues that in the context of
`five power inputs, Mullin teaches one of ordinary skill to use four sensors
`rather than the claimed three sensors. Prelim. Resp. 28.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`As noted above, a petition must include “a detailed explanation of the
`significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). In the absence of
`such analysis, as here, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing claim 16, or claim 17
`which depends from claim 16, would have been obvious over Mullin and
`Nordby.
`
`F.
`
`Asserted Anticipation by Rowlette
`
`Petitioner contends that Rowlette anticipates claim 18. Pet. 44–48.
`Rowlette discloses “an interface circuit for use in controlling the speed of a
`variable speed electrically commutated fan motor.” Ex. 1005, 1:11–13.
`Rowlette explains that the interface circuit is “used to control the
`energization of an electrically commutated fan motor having low, medium
`and high speed operations.” Id. at 1:51–54. Claim 18 requires a “variable
`speed motor.” While Rowlette refers to the motor as “variable speed” we
`agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that
`Rowlette discloses a “variable speed motor,” as that term is used in the ’459
`patent. As noted above, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’459 patent
`distinguishes between variable speed motors and fixed or multiple speed
`motors. Petitioner has not shown that the motor described by Rowlette is a
`“variable speed motor,” as claimed, as opposed to a multiple speed motor.
`Therefore, we determine, based on the information presented, that Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`showing claim 18 anticipated by Rowlette.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`
`G. Conclusion
`
`We conclude the information presented shows there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
`claims 1–3, 7, and 18. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we have not
`made a final determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted in IPR2015-00465
`with respect to the following grounds of unpatentability:
`(1) claims 1–3, 7, and 18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`Pant;
`
`(2) claims 1–3, 7, and 18 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Mullin;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no ground other than those specifically
`instituted above is authorized for the inter partes review;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’459 patent is hereby instituted in IPR2015-00465
`commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00465
`Patent 8,049,459 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Gang Luo
`W. Scott Strickland
`OLIFF PLC
`gluo@oliff.com
`wstrickland@oliff.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott R. Brown
`Matthew B. Walters
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`sbrown@hoveywilliams.com
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
`litigation@hoveywilliams.com
`
`21
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
