`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. AND
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-015371
`
`Patent No. 7,154,200
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2018-00442 has been joined with the current proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 2
`
`a.
`b.
`
`IV improperly construes “body” ................................................. 2
`IV improperly construes the CLTE limitation ............................ 3
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are Unpatentable over Koizumi ............................. 6
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`d.
`
`
`Koizumi discloses a “body of thermoplastic material” .............. 6
`Koizumi’s stator is substantially encapsulated ........................... 8
`Koizumi discloses CLTE matching ............................................ 9
`Koizumi discloses CLTE matching
`“throughout the expected operating temperature
`of the motor” ............................................................................. 14
`Koizumi renders claim 4 unpatentable ..................................... 16
`
`e.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are Unpatentable over Takagi ............................. 17
`
`I.
`
`II. CLAIMS 1-2 AND 4-7 OF THE ‘200 PATENT
`
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Takagi discloses a “body of thermoplastic material” ............... 17
`Takagi’s stator is substantially encapsulated ........................... 19
`Takagi discloses CLTE matching “throughout the
`expected operating temperature of the motor” ......................... 21
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are Unpatentable over Trago and Koizumi ......... 23
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`Trago discloses a “body of thermoplastic material” ................. 23
`Trago’s stator is substantially encapsulated.............................. 24
`Trago and Koizumi teach the CLTE limitation ........................ 25
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are Unpatentable Over Trago .............................. 26
`
`Trago renders obvious the claimed CLTE values ..................... 26
`
`a.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Trago discloses CLTE matching “throughout the
`expected operating temperature of the motor” ......................... 27
`
`b.
`
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are Unpatentable over
`Takagi in view of Koizumi .................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`IV’s Flawed CLTE Directionality Argument ..................................... 28
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Excela PharmSci, Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 2, 3
`Epistar Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 5-6
`In re Trans Tex. Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 2
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 5
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm't Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 5
`Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC,
`748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 2
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 3, 6
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`The Board correctly instituted inter partes review of claims 1-2 and 4-7 on
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`I.
`
`three independent grounds of unpatentability. The claims describe nothing new.
`
`None of IV’s responses calls into question Petitioners’ original reasons for
`
`unpatentability or the Board’s reasons for institution.
`
`In its Patent Owner Response (“POR”), IV improperly seeks to inject,
`
`through claim construction, extraneous limitations into independent claim 1 to
`
`avoid Petitioners’ grounds of unpatentability. Paper 16 (“Response”). IV also
`
`improperly applies the legal standards for obviousness and ignores evidence
`
`presented in the Petition. IV repeats its errors in its Supplemental Patent Owner
`
`Response for the two additional grounds of unpatentability added to the proceeding
`
`pursuant to SAS. Paper 25 (“SPOR”); Papers 18, 19, 21. The Board should thus
`
`find claims 1-2 and 4-7 unpatentable based on every ground.
`
`II. CLAIMS 1-2 AND 4-7 OF THE ‘200 PATENT ARE
`
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`IV asks the Board to adopt two new claim constructions, each of which
`
`improperly limits the scope of the claims in a manner that is wholly unsupported
`
`by the intrinsic evidence.
`
`IV’s claims to a motor having a stator encapsulated in a thermoplastic with a
`
`CLTE that approximately matches a solid part in the motor offer nothing new.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Such motors were explicitly taught, and at the very least clearly suggested, by each
`
`of Koizumi, Takagi, and Trago. As a result, IV’s arguments fail, and the Board
`
`should cancel each challenged claim.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Construction
`a.
`IV asks the Board to impermissibly narrow the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`IV improperly construes “body”
`
`of “body” to mean “the ‘supporting structure’ of the stator assembly.” Response,
`
`24-27. Nowhere in the language of claim 1 or the specification did the Applicant
`
`provide a clear requirement or definition that “body” means “the ‘supporting
`
`structure’ of the stator assembly.” Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC, 748
`
`F.3d 1159, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`IV contends that the construction is “consistent with” how “body” is used in
`
`the [] specification. Response, 24. But being “consistent with [how a term] is used
`
`in the specification,” is not a sufficient basis for importing a limitation from the
`
`specification into the claims. In re Trans Tex. Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290,
`
`1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor is relying on the purported benefits of the invention,
`
`Response, 25-26. See Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Excela PharmSci, Inc., 780 F.3d
`
`1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Board recognized, even the dictionary
`
`definition originally offered by IV “does not substantiate that ‘body’ requires the
`
`thermoplastic material to act as a support structure for the motor.” Paper 10
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`(“Decision”), 17. To the contrary, IV’s definition equally supports the notion that
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`the body can be a “main mass” that is not a structural support. See id.
`
`b.
`As the Board properly recognized, claim 1’s CLTE phrase does not require
`
`IV improperly construes the CLTE limitation
`
`
`
`claim construction. Decision, 10. IV now asks the Board to impermissibly add the
`
`italicized limitations to the claim language, requiring the thermoplastic material “to
`
`have a [CLTE] such that the thermoplastic material contracts and expands at
`
`approximately the same rate as the one or more solid parts throughout the expected
`
`operating temperature of the motor.” Response, 17 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`IV admits that the language of claim 1 does not justify its construction,
`
`stating “[claim 1] does not expressly state that this element applies to the operating
`
`temperatures of the claimed motor.” Response, 17. Instead, IV cites to various
`
`portions of the specification as “clearly disavow[ing] and disparag[ing] motors
`
`lacking this particular feature.” Response, 17-18 (citing Ex. 1001). But nothing in
`
`the identified portions rises to the level of a disavowal or disclaimer. Cadence
`
`Pharms. Inc., 780 F.3d at 1364; Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d
`
`1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`Moreover, the facts do not support IV’s arguments. IV contends that the
`
`specification’s use of the “present invention” supports its claim construction.
`
`Response, 20-21, 23. Yet, IV’s first quotes simply refer to the “present invention”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`being directed to a method of developing a high-speed motor. Response, 21 (citing
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:23-24). They say nothing about the expected operating temperature of
`
`the motor. The second reference to the “present invention” refers to the CLTE “as
`
`described above … defin[ing] another aspect of the present invention.” Response,
`
`21 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:51-55). However, the CLTE examples “above” in col. 17,
`
`lines 14-44, simply illustrate CLTE values at two different temperatures. There is
`
`nothing indicating that these examples require applying the claimed CLTE
`
`limitation throughout the expected operating temperature of any motor.
`
`
`
`There is also no support in the patent’s statement that “the CLTE’s of the
`
`body and solid should match throughout the temperature range of the motor during
`
`its operation.” Response 20-21 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:41-43) (emphasis added). This
`
`sentence does not say that the CLTEs “shall” or “must” match. See id. To be sure,
`
`the preceding sentence in the ‘200 specification also states that “the phase change
`
`material should have a CLTE that is intermediate the maximum and minimum
`
`CLTE of the solid parts.” Ex. 1001, 16:39-42 (emphasis added). But IV does not
`
`argue that this intermediate CLTE concept—which is reflected in dependent claim
`
`6—must also be reflected in the construction of claim 1.
`
`
`
`Moreover, this distinction shows that the Applicant knew how to claim an
`
`example from the specification when it wanted to. In fact, it also knew how to
`
`claim a temperature range. See, e.g., ‘200 patent family members including US
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`6,362,554, US 6,753,628 (claims 29, 30, and 31), and US 7,049,715 (claim 19),
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`each reciting “throughout the range of 0-250° F.” Exs. 1023, 1024, 1025. If the
`
`Applicant had intended “throughout the expected operating temperature of the
`
`motor,” to be a limitation, it could have easily included it in the claim—but did
`
`not.
`
`IV also cites to col. 16, lines 60-66, of the patent, which states, “[a]
`
`preferred embodiment … will have a CLTE …, throughout the expected operating
`
`temperature …” Response, 21-22 (emphasis added). But “it is improper to read
`
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification … into the
`
`claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the
`
`claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Finally, IV selects several quotes from the ’200 specification discussing
`
`specific hard disc drive motors where “optimal” interference fits were difficult to
`
`achieve and where it was “difficult” to maintain dimensional consistency.
`
`Response, 20 (citing Ex. 1001). But as the Board recognized, the claims are not
`
`limited to hard disc drive motors. Decision, 6. And general criticisms of one
`
`particular type of prior art motor should not be imputed to a far more broadly
`
`drafted claim. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012), (citing Epistar Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`(Fed. Cir. 2009)). Moreover, even if the ’200 claims were directed to a hard disc
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`drive motor (which they are not), the criticisms do not rise to the level of “clear
`
`and unmistakable” disavowal because they do not include any “words or
`
`expression of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Unwired Planet, 829 F.3d at 1358.
`
`For all of these reasons, the Board should reject IV’s attempt to import a
`
`temperature range into claim 1’s CLTE limitation.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are Unpatentable over Koizumi
`a. Koizumi discloses a “body of thermoplastic
`material”
`
`
`
`Contrary to IV’s assertions, Petitioners have shown that Koizumi’s molding
`
`material 23 corresponds to the claimed “body of thermoplastic material.”
`
`Response, 30. As explained in the Petition and Dr. Micklow’s declaration, and as
`
`shown below in annotated Fig. 6, Koizumi’s molding material (green) has a
`
`substantial cross section that constitutes a “body.” Petition 11-12, 17-18 (citing Ex.
`
`1005, 4, 6, 9; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 71-72). The Board agreed. Decision 17.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use it is nobody becaung materiaal is not a b
`
`
`
`
`
`t a
`
`
`
`
`
`mi’s moldihat KoizumIVV argues th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“supporrting structture” of thee stator asssembly. Reesponse, 300. As discuussed abovve,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV’s connstruction of “body” is incorrecct. Decisioon 17. Morreover, eveen if the claaim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`were coonstrued to include IVV’s “suppoorting struccture” requuirement, KKoizumi woould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`still discclose the claimed boddy. Koizummi, for exaample, disccloses that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the coil 100 “is
`
`
`
`mold[edd]-encapsuulated as ann integral ppiece with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`said circuiit board 166,” and thatt
`
`
`
`“the coiil mountingg seat 18 mmay also bee simultaneeously mo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material to fill thee gap betweeen said cooil 10 and tthe circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(citing EEx. 1005, 99).
`
`
`
`
`
`lded of saiid moldingg
`
`
`
`
`
`board 16.”” Petition 119
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAccordinglyy, Koizummi’s moldinng materiall 23 providdes a structture that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“aligns”” and “coupples” (Response, 11)) the core 66 and coil 110 of the sttator and oother
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“compoonents of [tthe] motor”” (Responsse, 26) succh as the ci
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rcuit boardd 16, coil
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mountinng seat 18, as well ass ball bearinngs 4, slid
`
`
`
`
`
`ing bearingg 5, and sccrews 12
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`“relative to one another” (Response, 25). Petition 11-12, 17-20 (citing Exs. 1004,
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`1005).
`
`
`
`IV finally contends that because an adhesive can be substituted for
`
`Koizumi’s molding material the material must not act as a supporting body.
`
`Response, 31-32. But Petitioners do not rely on Koizumi’s adhesive embodiment
`
`(Petition, 11-12, 17-18), and the adhesive embodiment does not negate the fact that
`
`Koizumi’s molding material can encapsulate a body of thermoplastic that acts as a
`
`supporting structure.
`
`b. Koizumi’s stator is substantially encapsulated
`The Board correctly found that Koizumi’s stator is substantially
`
`
`
`encapsulated. Decision, 16-17. IV’s contention that Koizumi’s thermoplastic
`
`molding material does not encapsulate the stator because “Petitioners’ evidence
`
`and specific assertions concern only whether the coil 10 is substantially
`
`encapsulated, not the entire stator,” is unavailing. Response, 33.
`
`
`
`As explained in the Petition and shown below in annotated Fig. 6, Koizumi’s
`
`molding material substantially encapsulates the stator core 6 and coil 10. Petition,
`
`11-12, 17-18 (citing Ex. 1005, 4-6, 9-10). Moreover, as Dr. Micklow explained, a
`
`POSITA “would understand that the molding material (green) and stator were
`
`rigidly fixed together and behaved as a single component with respect to harmonic
`
`oscillation vibration.” Petition 18 (citing Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1004, ¶ 73). See also id.,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`embodimeent of Koizzumi wher
`
`
`
`e
`
`(Ex.
`
`
`
`Petitionn, 11-12 (“[[Fig. 6 of KKoizumi] sshows one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the molding materrial 23 (greeen) encap
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sulates thee core 6 (grrey) and thhe coil 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`1005, p
`. 9).”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kooizumi disscloses CLLTE matchhing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAccording tto IV, Koizzumi’s thermoplasticc molding mmaterial dooes not havve a
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLTE that is apprroximately the same aas the one
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or more soolid parts bbecause “a
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITAA followinng the teachhings of Kooizumi woould insteadd be focusiing on wheether
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘moold material [had] a thhermal exppansion coeefficient appproximateely midwayy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`betweenn that of thhe iron servving as corre material
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the coopper serviing as coil
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material.’” Responnse, 36 (citting Ex. 10001 [sic., 11005], 4).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IVV’s argumment is mispplaced. Koizumi’s exxpress CLTTE-matchinng teachinggs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are exacctly why a POSITA wwould und
`
`
`
`erstand Kooizumi’s thhermoplasttic moldingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material to have aa CLTE thaat is approxximately thhe same as the one orr more soliid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`parts. See Petition, 18-24 (citing Ex. 1005, 5, 9-10, Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 83, 59, Exs. 1012-
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`1014).
`
`
`
`As supported—and unrebutted—by Dr. Micklow, Koizumi inherently
`
`discloses the claimed CLTE matching. See, id. In addition to an iron core,
`
`Koizumi’s core may also be formed “by laminating [a] silicon steel plate.” See id.,
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 5). As shown in the table from Dr. Micklow’s declaration, at
`
`respective temperatures of 67.7°F and 260°F, the CLTE of silicon steel is 0.60 and
`
`0.66 x 10-5/°F, and the CLTE of copper is 0.92 and 0.98 x 10-5/°F. Petition, 22-23
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 83- 84, further citing Ex. 1013, 28, 68). The CLTE of
`
`Koizumi’s molding material “approximately midway between” Koizumi’s core
`
`material (silicon steel) and the coil 10 material (copper) is thus 0.76 x 10-5/°F (i.e.,
`
`0.60 + 0.92)/2) at 67.7°F and 0.82 x 10-5/°F (i.e., 0.66 + 0.98)/2) at 260°F. Petition,
`
`21-23 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 83-84). Koizumi’s midpoint mold material CLTE
`
`teaching (brown) for silicon steel (red) and copper (gold) is shown graphically
`
`below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`°F is ial at 67.7°ding materierred moldumi’s prefeE of Koizuy, the CLTEImmportantly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`necessaarily about 120% abovve the CLTTE of silic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on steel, annd thus, “eexpands annd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contractts at approximately thhe same ass” the silicoon steel CLLTE, for att least the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reason tthat 120% fits squareely within tthe preferr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ed range taaught by thhe ’200 pattent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10001, 16:36-338 (emphassis added) ((“the prefeerred phasee change mmaterial shoould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have a CCLTE of bbetween 70% and 1300% of the ccore of the stator”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAdditionally, as showwn in the firrst graphicc below, at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Koizummi’s preferrred moldinng material CLTE (brrown line)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a higher teemperaturee,
`
`
`
`
`
`is also witthin 130%
`
`of
`
`
`
`the siliccon steel CLTE (red lline) (the ssalmon shaaded area reepresentin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g 70% to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`130% oof the silicoon steel CLLTE). And
`
`as shown
`
`
`
`in the secoond graphicc below,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Koizummi’s preferrred moldinng material CLTE is aalso withinn 70% to 1330% of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`copper’s CLTE (ggold line) thhroughout the tempeerature rangge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CCombining the graphss below deemonstratess that Koizzumi’s prefferred mollding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material CLTE (brown line) is thus wiithin both tthe silicon
`
`
`
`
`
`steel and ccopper CL
`
`TE
`
`CLTE val
`lues) (oran
`
`ge shaded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bands (ii.e. ± 30% of the coppper and sillicon steel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`area).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KKoizumi’s iiron core eembodimennt discusseed in the Peetition (andd relied onn by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV in itss Responsee) also satisfies the cllaimed CLLTE matchiing limitat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ion. Respoonse,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34 (citinng Ex. 10005, 4). Ironn has CLTEE values off 0.66 and 00.74 at 67..7°F and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`260°F, rrespectivelly (blue linne). Petition, 21-23 (cciting Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1004, ¶¶833-84, furtheer
`
`
`
`
`
`citing EEx. 1013, 43). As sho
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wn in the ggraph beloow, the middpoint CLTTEs betweeen
`
`
`
`
`
`iron andd copper (ggold line) aare 0.79 annd 0.86, resspectively
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at the two
`
`
`
`temperatuures,
`
`
`
`within 70%% to
`
`
`
`and thus Koizumi’s preferreed moldingg material CCLTE (greeen line) is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`130% oof both the iron and coopper CLTTE values ((green shadded area).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d. Kooizumi disscloses CLLTE matchhing “throoughout
`
`
`
`
`
`the expectedd operatinng temperaature of thhe
`
`mootor”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`he claimed disclose thon fails to dthe Petitiontends that IVV next con
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relationnship betweeen the theermoplasticc material aand the on
`
`
`
`CLTE
`
`e or more
`
`
`
`solid partss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`throughhout the exppected opeerating temmperature oof the motoor. Responnse, 36-37.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As
`
`
`
`discusseed above, IIV’s imporrtation of thhe above iitalicized laanguage iss improper..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreovver, even iff the claim
`
`
`
`
`
`were consstrued to innclude this
`
`
`
`language,
`
`Koizumi
`
`the claim
`would sstill render
`
`
`
`
`unpatentabble.
`
`
`
`KKoizumi exxpressly disscloses thaat “a moldiing materiaal such as pplastic withh a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thermall expansionn coefficiennt approximmately middway betwween that off the core 66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material [] and thee coil 10 mmaterial coppper” shouuld be seleccted as mo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lding mateerial
`
`
`
`23 to keeep “thermmal deformaation causeed by heat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generated
`
`
`
`when drivving the mootor
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`or by environmental temperature differences” to a minimum and to improve motor
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`durability. Petition 21 (citing Ex. 1005, p. 10; Ex. 1004, ¶ 82). Tellingly, IV does
`
`not address this portion of Koizumi’s disclosure in its Response, although the
`
`Petition repeatedly emphasized it. See Petition, 21, 27, 70, 71. Moreover, the
`
`CLTE values from the Petition identified in the graphs above extend from 67.7°F
`
`to 260°F and are thus similar to exemplary low and high temperatures taught by the
`
`’200 patent (Ex. 1001, col. 17, table identifying low 23°C (or 73.4°F) and high
`
`temperatures (260°F).). See also Ex. 1004, ¶¶37-38.
`
`IV’s attempt to contest the exemplary plastic materials identified in the
`
`Petition also fails. Response, 37-38. As recognized by the Board, (Decision, 18-
`
`19), Koizumi provides motivation to use the types of materials the Petition
`
`identifies by teaching engineering plastics having the claimed CLTE type. Ex
`
`1005, 6. The Petition also sufficiently demonstrates that a POSITA would have had
`
`a reasonable expectation of success when selecting these materials, contrary to
`
`IV’s assertions (Response 38), as Koizumi explicitly discloses that suitable known
`
`thermoplastics and other engineering plastics “can be used as the molding
`
`material.” Ex. 1005, 6 (explaining that any plastic insulating material with
`
`outstanding moldability, such as “polyamide (nylon) plastics or polycarbonate, or
`
`PBT, AS-ABS, or other engineering plastics” can be used as the molding
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`material.”). Moreover, the evidence shows that thermoplastic materials suitable for
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`and dictated by Koizumi’s’ disclosure—e.g., Torlon Poly(amide-imide) and
`
`Celanex (respective “polyamide (nylon) plastics” and “PBT” thermoplastics)—
`
`have a reasonable expectation of success in Koizumi’s motor. Ex. 1005, 6. See also
`
`Ex. 1012, 13 (explaining that Celanex has “[a]utomotive, [and] electrical”
`
`applications).
`
`
`
`IV finally devotes several pages to bearings and screws. Response, 39-42.
`
`IV’s only apparent argument is that the Petition only relies on bearings, screws and
`
`circuit boards as solid parts. Response 39. But this is plainly incorrect because the
`
`Petition also identified Koizumi’s coil mounting seat 18, silicon steel or iron core 6
`
`and copper coil 10 as solid parts. Petition, 18-24.
`
`
`
`For at least the above reasons, Koizumi renders unpatentable claim 1’s
`
`CLTE limitation.
`
`e.
`Koizumi renders claim 4 unpatentable2
`Contrary to IV’s assertion (Response 42-43), the Petition and Dr. Micklow
`
`
`
`clearly explain how Koizumi discloses the claimed metal insert of claim 4. As
`
`
`2 IV did not separately argue for the patentability of claim 4 in the remaining
`
`grounds and did not separately argue for the patentability of any other dependent
`
`claim for any of the five grounds.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shown bbelow in annnotated FFig. 6, the PPetition expplains thatt “the screwws 12 and tthe
`
`
`
`circuit bboard 16, sshaded in ppurple are eencapsulatted with thee molding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`material 223.
`
`
`
`Separately, POSITTA would understandd that beariings 4, 5 []] and screwws 12 [] aree
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`located
`
`
`
`
`within or nnear the mmotor body. . . Accorddingly, eac
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`metal innsert moldeed within tthe body.”)) Petition, 2
`25 (citing
`
`
`
`
`
`h of these
`
`
`
`solid partss is a
`
`Ex. 1005,
`
`
`
`5; Ex. 10004,
`
`
`
`¶88; andd claim eleements 1[bb], 1[c], andd claim 2).. As descriibed in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition, aa
`
`
`
`POSITAA would haave undersstood that iit would haave been obbvious to mmake
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Koizummi’s screwss out of steeel, the circcuit board oout of coppper, and th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e bearings
`
`out
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of steel,, thus satisfying the CCLTE matcching featuure of claimm 1. See idd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThus, as prooven in thee Petition,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tentable. Koizumi rrenders claiim 4 unpat
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Claims 11-2 and 4-77 are Unppatentable
`
`
`
`
`
`over Takkagi
`
`
`a.
`
`
`
`Taakagi disclloses a “boody of theermoplastiic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`maaterial”
`
`
`
`AAs explaineed in the Peetition andd Dr. Mickllow’s decl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aration, Taakagi disclloses
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPPR2017-011537
`
`
`Petiitioner’s RReply
`
`
`Ex. 1002,
`
`7,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“[a] resiin molded part 4 [whhich] may bbe [] a therrmoplastic resin …”
`
`
`
`that connstitutes a ““body of thhermoplasttic materiaal,” as showwn below iin annotateed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1. PPetition 299 (citing Exx. 1004, ¶999). The Booard agreedd. Decisionn, 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IVV’s assertiions focus on its purpported consstruction oof “body,” wwhich requuires
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this resiin part 4 too provide aa supportingg structuree. Even if IIV’s constrruction is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adoptedd, Takagi sttill discloses the claimmed body.. Takagi exxplains thaat the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thermopplastic resin molded ppart 4 is “fformed by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`molding thhe cylinderr 3 and thee
`
`
`
`stator 100 with a reesin” and thhat “most oof the statoor 10 is emmbedded in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the resin
`
`
`
`molded part 4.” Peetition 29 ((citing Ex. 1002, 7; EEx. 1004, ¶¶¶ 99-100)). Thus,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Takagi’
`
`
`
`
`s thermopllastic resinn mold 4 prrovides a sstructure thhat “aligns”” and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“couplees” (Responnse, 11) thhe coils 12, core 11 off the statorr as well ass other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`“components of [the] motor” (Response, 26) such as the bearing 19, conductive
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`rod 35, connector 9, holding members 91 and 92, and the terminal member 95 “to
`
`one another” “lead[ing] to greater motor efficiency and performance” (Response,
`
`10-11). Petition, 12-14, 28-33 (citing Exs. 1002, Ex. 1004).
`
`b.
`Takagi discloses that “most of the stator 10 is embedded in the resin molded
`
`Takagi’s stator is substantially encapsulated
`
`
`
`part 4.” Petition, 29 (citing Ex. 1002, 7; Ex. 1004, ¶100) (part emphasis in the
`
`original). The Board came to the same conclusion, stating that this disclosure
`
`“would have been regarded by an ordinarily skilled artisan as being commensurate
`
`with the thermoplastic surrounding all of the stator except for minor areas, which is
`
`consistent with our construction of ‘substantially encapsulated’ herein.” Decision,
`
`25. IV’s argument that “embedded” and “encapsulated” are not synonyms
`
`(Response, 48-49) simply ignores Takagi’s teaching that “most” of its stator 10 is
`
`embedded. Ex. 1002, 7 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`IV next contends that Takagi’s stator core outer surfaces are exposed.
`
`Response, 49. This is incorrect. Takagi discloses “a metal cylinder 3 that is fitted
`
`into the outer periphery of [a] stator 10.” Petition, 29 (citing Ex. 1002, 7; Ex. 1004,
`
`¶100). Takagi further explains that, when the mold temperature is increased at the
`
`time of resin molding, a gap is provided between the cylinder 3 and the outer stator
`
`core 10 and that molten thermoplastic resin will enter this gap thus covering the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`outer surface of the stator. Petition 29-30 (citing Ex. 1002, 7-8, 17; Ex. 1004,
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`¶101). Moreover, Takagi’s motor includes a “tolerance between the inner diameter
`
`of the case and the outer diameter of the stator,” where “the gap that forms
`
`between them is filled with a resin” (emphasis added). Petition, 29-30 (citing Ex.
`
`1002, 17); see also Ex. 2007, 35:21-24 (emphasis added) (Dr. Micklow confirming
`
`although “[Takagi’s] figure is such that it’s not large enough to be able to show.
`
`But when the resin mold is being induced into the motor, there is a gap between the
`
`cylinder and the core.”); 36:24-37:5.
`
`
`
`Yet in IV’s view, because a gap opens between the outer cylinder 3 and the
`
`stator 10 (Ex. 1002, 17), it would not be obvious to use a thermoplastic material
`
`having the CLTE limitation of claim 1. Response, 49-51. IV’s circular argument is
`
`flawed. Claim 1 only requires that the thermoplastic material has a CLTE such that
`
`it contracts and expands at approximately the same rate—not exactly the same
`
`rate—as a solid part. Consistent with Takagi’s disclosure, using aluminum for the
`
`cylinder and silicon steel for the core creates a gap between the two metals (as the
`
`two metals expand at different rates) and molten thermoplastic resin will enter this
`
`gap. This is consistent with the claims.
`
`c.
`
`Takagi discloses CLTE matching “throughout
`the expected operating temperature of the
`motor”
`
`According to IV, Takagi does not disclose or suggest the claimed CLTE
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`relationship between the thermoplastic material and the one or more solid parts
`
`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`throughout the expected operating temperature of the motor. Response, 52. As
`
`discussed above, IV’s importation of the above italicized language is incorrect.
`
`Moreover, even if the claim were construed to include this language, Takagi would
`
`still render the claims unpatentable.
`
`As discussed in the Petition, Takagi discloses using “thermoplastic resins”
`
`that “preferably have a linear coefficient of expansion lower than that of the metal
`
`configuring the cylinder 3, or as close as possible to that of the metal constituting a
`
`core 11, and should have excellent absorption of vibration and noise, excellent
`
`molding properties, and satisfactory strength and durability.” Petition, 35-36
`
`(emphases removed) (citing Ex. 1002, 7). Takagi’s disclosure further refers to the
`
`“[h]eat generated by the driving of the motor” of an “electric vehicle, or the like.”
`
`Ex. 1002, 3 (emphasis added); Petition 12. Takagi thus recognized and appreciated
`
`the thermal conditions of the motor when being driven; accounting for these
`
`conditions when referring to matching thermoplastic and solid part CLTEs.
`
`Otherwise, the entire purpose of Takagi’s motor would be undermined—
`
`particularly one designed for an “electric vehicle,” which has high operating
`
`temperatures. See id. See also Ex. 1004, ¶¶37-38. Moreover, the CLTE of the
`
`thermoplastic materials suitable for and dictated by Takagi’s disclosure are
`
`“approximately the same” as the CLTE of solid parts at both room and elevated
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01537
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`operating temperatures, consistent with the low and high temperatures identified in
`
`the ’200 specification. See Petition, 35-40 (citing Ex. 1002, 7, 16; Ex. 1006; Ex.
`
`1004, ¶¶110-116; Exs. 1012-1014).
`
` IV’s attempt to contest the exemplary plastics identified in the Petition also
`
`fails. Response, 53-54. Contrary to IV’s assertions, Petitioners did not “ignore[] the
`
`teachings of Takagi and instead [pick] plastics based solely on whether t