`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ERNIE BROOKINS,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: June 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Before JILL D. HILL, BEVERLY M. BUNTING (via videoconference), and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON (via phone), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROLAND McANDREWS, ESQUIRE
`Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC
`\2020 K Street NW
`Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ERNIE BROOKINS, PRO SE
`GAIL BROOKINS
`643 East Main Avenue
`Suite C
`West Fargo, North Dakota 58078
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June 5,
`
`2018, commencing at 1:19 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE HILL: Good afternoon, please be seated. This
`is the final hearing in IPR2017-01020 involving US Patent No.
`7824290. The Petitioner is Caterpillar Incorporated, and the
`Patent Owner is Ernie Brookins, the sole inventor of the 290
`patent.
` I'm Judge Hill and I'll be presiding today from the
`Alexandria office. Judge Bunting is via video from the
`Midwest regional office, and Judge Goodson is participating
`via audio. May I have the appearances of each party please.
`Approach the microphone and state your name.
` MR. McANDREWS: Roland McAndrews for Caterpillar.
` (Inaudible whispering.)
` MR. BROOKINS: Ernie Brookins.
` JUDGE HILL: Okay.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Excuse me, Mr. Brookins, unless you
`step up to the microphone, we can't hear you.
` JUDGE HILL: So let's use the center microphone.
` MR. BROOKINS: Oh, okay. Ernie Brookins.
` JUDGE HILL: Thank you.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Thank you.
` JUDGE HILL: Okay, I'd like to go over how we're
`going to proceed today. Each party will have 30 minutes to
`present its arguments. Petitioner has the burden, so the
`Petitioner will go first and can save time for rebuttal.
`
`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
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`Following the Petitioner, the Patent Owner will also have 30
`minutes. The Patent Owner, because they're going second,
`does not reserve rebuttal time.
` Okay, so, as I informed you earlier, Judge Bunting
`and Judge Goodson are participating via video and audio
`respectively, and they can't see any demonstratives that
`you're putting up on the screen. So if you are presenting
`your demonstratives, give a description of where you are so
`that they can follow along. They each have printed out
`copies of your demonstratives so that they can follow along
`from where they are.
` The parties are reminded that during this oral
`argument, they can rely only on evidence that was previously
`submitted in this proceeding and may only present arguments
`relied upon in previously submitted papers. Demonstrative exhibits are not
`themselves evidence and are
`intended only to assist the parties in presenting
`their oral argument to the panel.
` As you go through your arguments, I will try to give
`you a reminder or let you know when you have five minutes
`left and three minutes left so that you can time yourselves
`properly.
` This hearing is open to the public, and a full
`transcript of the proceeding, of the hearing, will be made
`part of the record.
` Does anyone have questions? Okay. Petitioner, are
`
`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
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`you -- would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
` MR. McANDREWS: I would. May I reserve ten minutes?
` JUDGE HILL: Ten minutes. Okay, thank you. Okay,
`you can proceed.
` ORAL ARGUMENT OF ROLAND McANDREWS
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, CATERPILLAR INC.
` MR. McANDREWS: Thank you. Your Honors, may it
`please the Court.
` Inventions can be found basically with an
`inventive story, sort of a problem and a solution. It's
`unfortunate here for the Patent Owner that there's simply --
`the prior art is very, very compelling. There simply is not
`this problem and new solution. The 290 patent simply does
`not provide a new solution or improvement over the prior art,
`as I will show.
` The prosecution history is clear that the 290 patent was allowed based
`on a mere byproduct of the
`type of pump that was used in the system. Both the 290
`patent and the prior art expressly agree that the particulars
`of the pump are not important and that any pump can be used
`in this system.
` Going to slide 2, Instituted Grounds, there are three
`instituted grounds or three sets of instituted
`grounds. The first one is anticipation, based on Keiser.
`The second one is obvious, in view of Keiser. And the third
`one takes the position that all the claims are invalid
`
`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
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`as obvious, based on Keiser and other references, including
`Rush.
` Just a quick overview of claim one, moving to slide
`3, this claim recites a rotational power distribution and
`control system comprising of gear set, a hydrostatic pump, a
`fluid circuit, and a valve to control those, and there's some
`particulars under each one of those, but those are the four
`components of this system.
` As I said before, the prior art is very compelling
`here. As you can see on slide 4, the top view is the 290
`patent, the bottom image is the system of the Keiser prior
`art. As you can see here, there's an input shaft shown in
`yellow in both of these systems. There is a pump, a
`hydrostatic pump, shown in brown, both a lighter brown and a
`darker brown. And then you can see a planetary gear set that
`is coupled to that.
` And how this works, while I use my cursor here, what
`I'm pointing to is the yellow, we have an input shaft where
`power comes in, it goes to the planetary system, and we have
`a pump here that is coupled to one of the elements of the
`planetary gear system.
` We've got a planetary gear system and we've got a
`pump, and that pump is coupled through a hollow shaft. And
`that hollow shaft -- here is the pump here, in Keiser, is
`brown -- hollow shaft, and then yellow, it mates -- actually,
`that is -- that turns into a sun gear at this point here,
`
`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
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`which then mates with the planetary gears, yellow,
`shown in yellow.
` And what happens is, in both of these systems, as you
`control flow -- in a free-flow situation, you have input and
`you have the gears working together, and what's rotating is
`the pump -- pump shaft is rotating. And when that's in that
`free-flow condition, you're basically pumping
`hydraulic fluid.
` But if you use a control valve at the outlet and you
`start restricting that flow of pump fluid, you're going to
`start locking up that pump. And what's going to happen is
`you're going to convert power from the yellow to the green,
`from the input to the output. And so based on how you
`control that pump flow is how much -- what the ratio of power
`you're going to get out of the output shaft.
` So, as you can see here, all the systems are here.
`The only difference in these two systems is the type of pump
`that is used. We've got a gear pump down here, and we've got
`an axial piston pump up here. They both have a hollow shaft
`connected to a planetary gear set.
` As I said before, both -- so really the
`distinction here, when you take a look at it, we're looking
`at -- and to tie it back to the claims, as I said before, we
`have a gear set, we have a pump, we have a circuit, we have a
`valve. And so those four system -- those four components are
`all here. As I said before, the distinction comes in --
`
`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
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
` JUDGE BUNTING: Counselor, excuse me.
` MR. McANDREWS: Yes.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Counselor, excuse me. I just want to
`clarify.
` MR. McANDREWS: Sure.
` JUDGE BUNTING: What type of pump is required by the
`290 patent?
` MR. McANDREWS: The 290 patent says it can be any
`type of pump and refers to either a radial piston pump or an
`axial piston pump as examples.
` JUDGE BUNTING: All right. And then in figure 1 of
`Keiser, what kind of pump is shown?
` MR. McANDREWS: That is a -- in figure 1, is a gear
`pump, which is a gear within another gear. And it's sort of
`-- they're sort of --
` JUDGE BUNTING: All right.
` MR. McANDREWS: -- eccentric a bit.
` JUDGE BUNTING: And does -- does that gear pump have
`a cylinder block?
` MR. McANDREWS: It does not. So the next step
`is that the -- this is figure 1 of Keiser. Figure 9 of
`Keiser does teach a cylinder block. So this is the cylinder
`block casing here and this is your example of the radio
`piston pump. So we've got pistons that reciprocate in and
`out, and they -- this is referred to as an alternative
`arrangement of this pump here.
`
`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
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
` So our position in the petition is that we think that
`this embodiment, that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`recognize that this embodiment is in fact combined with this
`and thus anticipatory.
` However, we also took the position in the petition
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine, if these
`were considered separate teachings, via separate embodiments
`as that would be separate teachings, one of ordinary skill in
`the art would be motivated to combine these two such that
`this is either anticipated or rendered obvious with respect
`to the cylinder block aspects.
` So moving back to page 5 --
` JUDGE GOODSON: Counsel, before you move on from that
`point --
` MR. McANDREWS: Sure.
` JUDGE GOODSON: -- where -- where is it in Keiser
`that discloses the combination of figures 1 and 9?
`It sounds like you're explaining that there's two different
`embodiments.
` MR. McANDREWS: Keiser says that they -- basically
`refers to them as -- the language, if I can find it ...
` (Pause to review documents.)
` MR. McANDREWS: I can't -- I cannot find right now,
`the exact reference to how they are described. And I can
`find that and get back to you on -- in my ten minutes after
`this, but it's -- it's described as a sep- -- another
`
`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
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`embodiment that you could use in this system, in the figure 1
`system, and I can get the exact quote. I just can't find it
`at this point.
` And that's why we took the position --
` JUDGE GOODSON: Okay.
` MR. McANDREWS: -- that this is either one of
`ordinary skill in the art would view these as a teaching of
`those basically interchangeable, and thus disclosure is
`interchangeable, or as, if you want, a separate teaching, in
`which case they are obvious modifications, it's an obvious
`modification.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Is there any claim construction
`surrounding the term "cylinder block"?
` MR. McANDREWS: Our petition had a -- attempted the -
`- and I can get to that.
` Our claim construction was that cylinder
`block, the plain and ordinary mean- -- the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the phrase "cylinder block" is a metal casing in
`which the cylinders of an internal combustion engine are
`bored, and that's based on the plain and ordinary meaning.
`It wasn't defined in the specification of the 290 patent,
`and, in our petition, I think we had reference to a
`dictionary definition.
` A cylinder block, as you can see here, the pump -- so
`I'm looking at slide 8. A radial piston pump has
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`cylinder bores. It has pistons that are cylinders and such that they
`reciprocate within a bore and that
`would be considered a cylinder block or a casing.
` JUDGE BUNTING: So let me ask you, would a cylinder
`block just be a housing?
` MR. McANDREWS: I think it would have to have a
`cylinder associated with it.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Okay.
` MR. McANDREWS: In which case, this one does because
`it has a cylindrical piston reciprocating within it, as in a
`radial piston pump.
` JUDGE BUNTING: But it doesn't have to be an internal
`combustion engine?
` MR. McANDREWS: This here is just a -- we're --
`right now, we're just talking about a pump. And so this aspect of the system
`-- the internal combustion
`engine actually isn't shown. This is just a pump that when
`this is in a freewheeling situation, you're actually pumping
`in a closed circuit hydraulic fluid.
` And you control that hydraulic fluid through -- via
`this valve. And I'm looking at figure 8, there's a purple --
`I'm sorry, blue valve, pump flow control valve. Again, I'm
`looking at slide 8. That controls what -- how much the pump
`is sort of free-flowing or allowing to pump or you're
`blocking it from pumping.
` In which case when you block it from pumping, you
`
`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
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`start engaging the ratio such that the input and output, the
`yellow to the green, starts changing so that you're actually
`giving power -- so yellow is, for example, attached
`to the engine and if your -- if your valve -- if your blue
`valve is open, you're just going to be pumping fluid, you're
`not going to have any output.
` But as you close this valve, you're going to get more
`output to green. And eventually, if you close it all, you're
`going to get the gear ratio to green. So you'll have,
`basically, input: yellow, output: green, when that valve is
`completely closed.
` So mov- -- going back to slide 5, the -- during
`prosecution history, the examiner allowed the case based on a
`dependent claim, that was particulars of this --
`the type of pump used, this axial piston pump.
` In slide 6, we see here original claim nine, which is
`a rotational power distribution control system of claim
`eight, wherein -- wherein a cylinder block of the hydrostatic
`pump is coupled to the third rotational interface, basically
`coupled to the gear set.
` So, what that's saying is that there is a
`cylinder block -- going back to slide 4, there's a cylinder
`block of the pump, the pump has a cylinder block, and it's
`coupled to the gear set.
` And so, what we're saying here, in slide 8, is we
`have a similar situation. We have a cylinder block and it's
`
`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
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`coupled to a gear set.
` The -- as I said before, the -- both the 290 patent
`and the prior art say the type of pump that you use simply is
`not important. Looking to Keiser, and again I'm on slide 6
`and the reference to Keiser there, the pump 14 is coaxially
`mounted to the input shaft and may be any type of positive
`displacement pump known to those with skill in the art, such
`as for example a rotary valve pump, a piston pump.
` And then we look to the 290 patent, the hydraulic
`pump illustrated in figure 1 is an axial piston pump. Other
`hydraulic pump designs known to those skilled in the arts,
`such as radial piston pumps, may be utilized in place or in
`addition to the illustrated axial piston pump.
` So, again, we go back to this -- we're
`searching for where -- where are we -- where is the story?
`Where is the invention here? This was allowed based on a
`subset, basically the cylinder block of a pump. And both the
`issued patent and the prior art say the pump is not important
`here. And so, we found a pri- -- a piece of prior art that
`had a different pump, that had a cylinder block, and we found
`another pump that had an axial piston pump connected to a
`gear set.
` And so, they're just -- there's a struggle here to
`find where this -- inventions should be about a problem and a
`solution. It -- the system here is all disclosed. All we're
`talking about is a difference in a pump and how it's
`
`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
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`connected.
` We have a hollow shaft connected to a pump with a
`drive shaft in between, again referring to figure 4 -- or
`slide 4, that is. We've got a yellow input shaft in both of
`them that goes through a hollow pump shaft that's connected
`to a gear set. That's the focus of what was missing when the
`examiner examined it.
` And so, that is in the prior art, it's clear in the
`prior art. Now we're just talking about what type of pump
`are we using.
` So, now I'll go to Patent Owner's arguments. This
`is slide 10. There are four basic arguments that we've seen
`in this -- in the reply to the institution.
` The first one is the Patent Owner believes that the
`claim should be restricted to a fluid-controlled
`resistance brake.
` The second one is Patent Owner does not believe a
`hollow shaft is in the prior art.
` The second -- the third argument is that the patent -
`- the prior art should not be applied because none of them
`worked.
` And the fourth one is that there were secondary
`considerations that should've been taken.
` JUDGE HILL: Mr. McAndrews, you have five minutes.
` MR. McANDREWS: Thank you. So to the first argument,
`Patent Owner says, "First, one or more of the limitations
`
`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
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`required by the challenged claimed would not" -- now I'm on
`slide 11 -- "would not have been taught or suggested by the
`prior art to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For
`example, the asserted prior art would not have taught a
`fluid-controlled resistance brake. That is a clutch that
`does not affect the gear ratio change."
` So what we have here is the Patent Owner
`taking the position that his claim now requires a fluid-
`controlled resistance brake, which is not in the claim at
`all, and then interpreting that to mean a clutch that does
`not affect a gear ratio change. And that simply is
`going way too far outside of the plain and ordinary meaning
`of these claims.
` Our response to this is that it's not in the claims.
`It's -- there was an election of species here and we can get
`it -- we'll get into that a little bit, but the fact that
`there was a re- -- an election of species on a particular
`embodiment, which was fig- -- which included figure 1, which
`includes the same structural aspects and there's very similar
`prior art, the Patent Owner is now trying to say that there
`is some sort of hidden limitation in there that basically
`there is a fluid-controlled resistance
`brake and that there's a clutch that does not affect the gear
`ratio change.
` And so, basically, our position with respect to that,
`is that case law doesn't provide for that, the claims simply
`
`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
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`don't recite that, and the structural similarities, as
`we pointed out, again referring to slide 4, the structural
`similarities here -- the Patent Owner is trying to say that
`these operate differently, and they're not providing any
`different structure here to provide for this
`difference that is being highlighted.
` They both disclose a gear pump -- or, I'm sorry, they
`both disclose a pump, the planet -- the gear set, the valve,
`and the fluid circuit.
` In addition, the Patent
`Owner, during a response to the restriction, said that the
`species identified by the examiner are not separate and
`distinct inventions. So, even if there is some sort of
`restriction-based distinction, the exam- -- the Patent Owner
`has said that they're all the same so that there
`really isn't a patentable distinction between what he's
`saying is in a different species and this species.
` And then finally, even if you were to say --
` JUDGE GOODSON: I have a question about that --
` MR. McANDREWS: Sure.
` JUDGE GOODSON: -- point.
` MR. McANDREWS: Yeah.
` JUDGE GOODSON: Are you aware of any authority, apart
`from the federal circuit case that was cited in our
`institution decision, that addresses the effect of a
`restriction requirement on the main scopes?
`
`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
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
` MR. McANDREWS: No, especially in the context of
`plain and ordinary meaning.
` JUDGE GOODSON: Okay, thanks.
` MR. McANDREWS: And then finally, this fluid-
`controlled resistance brake, it was highlighted
`as even being interpreted, assuming that was in the claim, as
`being interpreted as a clutch does not affect a gear ratio
`change.
` A fluid-controlled resistance brake could be
`-- you could argue is in both of these systems. You have a -
`- a gear -- an aspect of the gear -- of the gear set that is
`being slowed down, it was freewheeling, you close the valve,
`now it's not freewheeling anymore, so it -- that's a braking
`effect. So that is a fluid-controlled, the valve is being
`affected, and thus it is changing whether that
`aspect of the gear set is rotating or not.
` So Petitioner struggles with this aspect as to where
`that limitation is in the claim and how it can be construed
`in the manner presented by Patent Owner.
` The next argument is Patent Owner says that there is
`no hollow shaft. Petitioner's obvious objections are all
`predicated on the (inaudible) assumption that a skilled
`artisan could have achieved a rotational power distribution
`and control system -- I'm sorry, I'm on slide 14. None of them claimed a
`hollow shaft and none of
`them worked. So, clearly, we have prior art in Keiser that
`
`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
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`teaches a hollow shaft, among other pieces of prior art, as
`shown in slide 15.
` Patent Owner then argues that none of the prior art
`worked, and thus they shouldn’t be prior art. We stated
`that's not a requirement. Is it prior art from a timing
`standpoint is the question. And unless there is clear
`evidence that they're non-operable, which hasn't been
`presented here, so the fact that they've all been abandoned
`is not relevant to that inquiry.
` And the final argument is that Patent Owner says
`secondary considerations warrant non-obviousness. Here,
`there just simply isn't any evidence sort of attached here to
`the secondary considerations, so that -- that's insufficient
`to sort of have a finding. There's no -- there's simply no
`nexus to the claim language, no commercial success, long
`failed unsolved needs, failure of others ... there was
`reference to a press release by the Patent Owner, but
`nothing beyond that.
` And so, basically, as I said before, it really comes
`down to this is an unfortunate situation in the sense that
`sometimes prior art is unforgiving. This prior art is very
`close, and the only distinction is based on a connection of a
`pump and those are well-known aspects, and things in
`the, both the 290 patent and in the prior art, say are not
`important aspects. Thank you.
` JUDGE HILL: Mr. Brookins, let's step up. We gave
`
`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
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`Mr. McAndrews three extra minutes, so I'll add three minutes
`to your time.
` ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERNIE BROOKINS
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER, ERNIE BROOKINS
` MR. BROOKINS: Yes. We're going to put up on the
`board my opening statement. Okay.
` The problem in the world today is air quality caused
`by motor vehicles. In fact, many states are boo- -- making
`laws on restriction of idling because of idling at a stop.
`Okay?
` Now, since 1989, or '99, I have been issued eight
`patents all on drive trains. Six of the eight of these
`patents use the clutch for launch. And the trans- -- and
`then the clutch is disconnected for high gear. Now, high
`gear is a part of a transmission, not part of a clutch. They
`operate independently, as we will show, as we go along.
` Prior to the 290 patent, high gear was one to one
`gear ratio. I was issued two patents on hydrostatic skid
`steer drives. One of -- one, I added to hydrostatic design
`to make -- to make a planetary transmission powered --
`provides one to one gear ratio. Okay?
` I took off using -- I -- you took off using the
`weight of the vehicle to create the resistance to charge
`under acceleration. Okay? So, the clutch is -- the clutch
`is uncoupled in order to shift the transmission into
`overdrive, which a -- and the two-speed planetary is 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
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`transmissions then provides a 1.7 overdrive. Okay?
` Now, we're going down here to figure -- I filed pro
`se a patent in -- what is the word?
` MS. BROOKINS: Infringement.
` MR. BROOKINS: Infringement lawsuit against
`Caterpillar in federal court in Fargo, North Dakota.
`Caterpillar knew they was -- was going to lose, so they filed
`a IPR petition, and in -- and got a stay in federal court
`case in Fargo, North Dakota. Caterpillar sent me a draft of
`the petition. Okay?
` Now, in that petition, we knew we could win because
`they're calling it a continuously variable-speed
`transmission. Okay?
` So now we're going to take here, in figure 1, that
`the clutch -- the clutch, the piston block, and everything
`that's tied together operates independent from the
`transmission -- and you can see in this figure, figure 1
`here, they're independent. One operates independent from the
`other one. So, the weight of the vehicle is charging the
`vehicle, so I guess that's -- now, moving along here, figure
`-- figure 1 shows the pump is from -- separate from the
`transmission. They operate independently of each other.
` Now, the restriction requirement on -- of the 290
`patent, was required by pri- -- the primary examiner, Dirk
`Wright, requesting me to choose a species questioning the
`rules -- quoting the rules. I chose species 1. Species 1,
`
`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
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`which figure -- is 1 through 3 -- which shows a variable
`speed --
` MS. BROOKINS: (Inaudible, whispering.)
` MR. BROOKINS: -- no, a variable valve-controlling
`resistance brake for a planetary gear set. Okay?
` I -- I withdrew all claims, all claims and so they're
`gone. The CVT is gone. I have nothing about a CVT.
` MS. BROOKINS: (Inaudible, whispering.)
` MR. BROOKINS: What?
` MS. BROOKINS: (Inaudible, whispering.)
` MR. BROOKINS: Okay. We turn to the next page -- or
`we brought it up there, the restriction.
` MS. BROOKINS: (Inaudible, whispering.)
` MR. BROOKINS: What?
` MS. BROOKINS: It's an expert report.
` MR. BROOKINS: Oh, it's an expert report, showing on
`paragraph 15, a continuously variable transmission. On
`paragraph 18, it shows a continuously variable transmission.
`It does not show a continuously variable transmission.
` MS. BROOKINS: (Inaudible, whispering.)
` MR. BROOKINS: Clutch. It is a continuously variable
`clutch, not a transmission.
` Okay, we go to -- I was issued the two patents on
`wheel mechanical drives for a hydrostatic skid steer. Okay,
`the hydrostatic skid steer, the reason it's called
`hydrostatic skid steer is because you've got to lock up one
`
`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
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
`side of the two wheels to turn it. Okay? When you do that,
`then you send power to the other side and what was happening,
`the reasons that they issued me -- the reason we got these
`two patents was because it was breaking the axles caused by
`the weight of the vehicle.
` Instead of having a 100-horsepower engine, and I was
`using racecar axels which was good for 2,000 horsepower and I
`only had 100 horsepower, so when I -- I -- they brought me
`one, and I was driving, skidding it around the shop, and when
`I come in the shop, I broke that other axel. So what that
`means is that instead of having 100 horsepower, I had 13,000
`pounds of foot pound torque. So that's what broke the axle.
` So how did I solve that? As you see in the pictures
`here, the skid steers here, the skid steers here, and they're
`all using my patented technology. Okay? So what I --
` JUDGE BUNTING: Mr. Brookins.
` MR. BROOKINS: Yes.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Excuse me, Mr. Brookins. I have a
`question for you.
` MR. BROOKINS: Yes.
` JUDGE BUNTING: In this slide, you're talking about a
`couple of patents: the 6022083 patent, the 6182780 patent --
`there's two patents. Are those patents related to the patent
`in dispute today?
` MR. BROOKINS: Yes, they are.
` JUDGE BUNTING: The 290 patent?
`
`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
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01020
`Patent 7,824,290 B1
`
` MR. BROOKINS: Yes, they are.
` JUDGE BUNTING: Okay. How are -- how are they
`related? Are they part of the same family?
` MR. BROOKINS: Okay.
` JUDGE BUNTING: In terms of ...
` MR. BROOKINS: Okay. All my patents that was issued
`is on a clutch and a separate piece, a transmission. So
`they're two separate pieces. One is a transmission that is
`not a variable speed. It's impossible to build a variable
`speed transmission. Can't be done. It's impossible.
`There's no question about it.
` Then so now we're -- what the answer is for you, I
`think, is that all of these patents become previous art.
`They're all previous art to my system, not to -- not to the
`other ones that they claim is previous art. Their previous
`art is on a planetary set that is not -- does not change gear
`ratio. They say -- we'll bring it up, we'll bring the
`planetary set up now.
` FEMALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible, whispering.)
`
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
