`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STIHL INCORPORATED and ANDREAS STIHL AG & CO. LG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTROJET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: January 24, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT C. HILTON, ESQ.
`GEORGE DAVIS, ESQ.
`DAVID FINKELSTEIN, ESQ.
`McGuire Woods LLP
`2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MICHAEL MACCALLUM, ESQ.
`JOHN RONDINI, ESQ.
`MARK JOTANOVIC, ESQ.
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, January
`
`24, 2019, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE SAINDON: Good morning. Please be seated.
`This is an oral hearing for IPR2018-00018. I am Judge Saindon.
`We have here Judge Fischetti and Judge Petravick. We have allotted one
`hour for each party. You don't have to use all your time if you don't want to.
`Petitioner, I believe we have you going first. Any time you want
`to reserve for your rebuttal, let us know when you come up, and you can get
`started whenever you want. I will keep time on my computer here. I will try
`to give you warnings.
`MR. HILTON: Thank you. Good morning. I would like to
`reserve probably 20 minutes, if you could give me a warning.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Sure.
`MR. HILTON: So, good morning, I am Robert Hilton from
`McGuire Woods for Petitioner. With me today are my colleagues, David
`Finkelstein and George Davis.
`I would like to start today by turning to slide 3 of the slide deck.
`Slide 3 summarizes the issues that remain in dispute in this IPR. The issues
`are fairly concise, and they generally revolve around the combinability of
`the references that Petitioner has presented. I want to first discuss Abe and
`Kupske and the motivation to combine, and then turn to the Patent Owner's
`arguments regarding inoperability of the combination.
`So Abe and Kupske are combinable because there's a specific
`motivation in the references themselves to combine the references.
`Let's turn now to slide 16, please. So this slide illustrates a figure
`from Abe that shows an internal combustion engine that has an intake
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`manifold pressure sensor that's shown here in red, and a crank angle sensor,
`which is shown in green. Abe discloses that the pressure sensor is capable
`of measuring the intake manifold pressure to determine the amount of air
`that is admitted into the piston cylinder.
`Abe needs to determine engine speed in order to operate and it
`describes using the crank angle sensor to make that engine speed
`determination. So that's actually in Abe, it says, you know, that we need to
`be able to determine this engine speed.
`Kupske, just like Abe, discloses an internal combustion engine, but
`it describes using intake pressure signals to determine the engine speed as a
`backup to a traditional crank angle sensor in the event that there's a failure of
`those sensors. Briefly, the way this is done is discussed in paragraph 16 of
`Kupske, which describes finding the cycle time of the engine. The cycle
`time is the time that it takes for a piston to complete -- to make a complete
`engine cycle.
`So in a two-stroke engine, a complete engine cycle would be
`characterized by one revolution of the engine. In a four-stroke engine, a
`complete engine cycle would be characterized by two revolutions of the
`engine.
`
`If we go to slide 17. So this is a graph from Kupske, it's Figure 4,
`and this figure helps show the relationship between the KW signal, it's
`shown up there in green. That's usually the signal that is supplied by a crank
`angle sensor, and this graph shows the relationship between that signal and
`the intake air pressure, which is on the bottom shown in red.
`This graph demonstrates that the intake air pressure sensor can be a
`proxy for the crank angle sensor in determining the cycle time. So just to
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`step back a second and look at that graph, the cycle time here is illustrated as
`the time that occurs between the dips in the pressure graph. These dips
`represent pressure drops during the intake stroke of the piston. So when the
`piston moves to intake air, there's an actual pressure drop in the intake
`manifold, and that's why you have these dips in the graph.
`So based on this determination of engine cycle by the pressure
`sensor, in other words, we know when that intake -- that intake stroke occurs
`when it repeats, based on this determination of the engine cycle, the engine
`speed can actually be calculated because the speed is actually just the
`number of revolutions of the engine per that unit time, which here is the
`cycle time.
`The parties have actually not disputed that Kupske teaches
`determining engine speed in this way. Both of the experts in the case,
`Petitioner's expert, and Dr. Davis, have confirmed that Kupske determines
`engine speed based on intake pressure.
`So I want to circle back to the motivation to combine here. There's
`a powerful motivation here, which is expressly discussed in Kupske.
`Kupske describes the problems with crank angle sensor failure in engines
`just like Abe, and then it proposes a solution to that problem, which is to
`replace the functionality of the crank angle sensor with the functionality of
`the intake pressure sensor.
`The Board agreed with this motivation to combine the references
`in its institution decision. The record has been more fully developed
`post-institution, and it only further supports that decision that was made
`initially by the Board.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`I do now -- I would like to pivot and turn to the Patent Owner's
`argument on inoperability. They have raised this argument, and basically
`say that the combined references, Kupske and Abe, would be inoperable
`because eliminating the crank angle sensor from Abe would make the engine
`fail, because the crank angle sensor is used for other functions, too.
`So specifically, they say that the crank angle sensor has to be used
`to determine the timing of when to detect the pressure with the intake
`pressure sensor. This is not correct. To understand this argument and
`understand better why it fails, we need to discuss what the role of the crank
`angle sensor is in Abe.
`Abe actually discloses the crank angle sensor as having two
`possible functions. The first function, just for simplicity, I'm going to refer
`to as function A. The first function in Abe for this crank angle sensor is to
`determine engine speed. We've already talked about that. So function A of
`the crank angle sensor would be replaced in the combination by the pressure
`sensor of Kupske, like we had discussed with reference to this slide.
`Kupske, this is an alternative source for determining the engine speed when
`a crank sensor fails. It's the entire point of the combination, which is to
`replace the engine speed determination.
`But, notably, there's another function that's disclosed in Abe that
`the crank angle sensor can perform, and that I'm going to refer to as function
`B. That second function is to determine the timing for when the intake
`pressure in Abe is sampled so that the controller can then determine the
`intake air amount. The controller has to determine the intake air amount at a
`certain point in time, based on that pressure reading, and to determine 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`timing, Abe discloses that you can look to the information provided by the
`crank angle sensor.
`The Patent Owner says if you remove the crank angle sensor that's
`performing function A, the engine speed, they say you can't do this. The
`combination would be inoperable because you still need the crank angle
`sensor to perform that second function, function B. But Abe on its face
`makes clear that there's two ways to perform function B, and one of them
`does not include the crank angle sensor. In other words, the crank angle
`sensor is not needed in Abe for that reason.
`Let's turn now, if we will, to slide 9. So Abe addresses the timing
`associated with detecting the intake air pressure in this passage here on slide
`9. Again, this is the function B that I was referring to. Abe says, and I'm
`quoting here, that "timing may be provided by a predetermined crank angle
`at or after the bottom dead center in the intake stroke." This was the basis
`for their argument that the crank angle sensor is necessary for the proper
`operation of Abe; however, this isn't the only method that's disclosed for
`determining the timing.
`Abe says, and it's here in this passage, Abe says that this timing
`can be determined on the basis of an output of a flow rate sensor arranged in
`the intake manifold. So that's important because it shows that the
`combination of Abe and Kupske would be operable even in the absence of
`the crank angle sensor.
`I'd like to turn to slide 10, and slide 11 is similar to this. These are
`slides that show quotations from Dr. Davis' deposition. Dr. Davis is Patent
`Owner's expert. When he was asked whether Abe's only disclosed method
`of determining the timing was based on the crank angle sensor, he confirmed
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`that Abe also disclosed timing determination based on the output of the flow
`rate sensor. So he confirmed what we're stating to you today.
`Let's go to slide 12, please. Abe's abstract, you know, which really
`summarizes what's going on in Abe, also references, and I quote here, "the
`zero rate of intake air flow to determine the timing at which intake air
`pressure is detected."
`Let's go to slide 13. And again, we have a quote from Dr. Davis
`commenting on that, and he agreed, again, with this assessment by Abe.
`JUDGE SAINDON: So, counsel, what is your response to Patent
`Owner's argument that this sensor is disclosed in Abe, but it's not a great
`sensor to use? It's slow, it's not going to give you a good timing. It’s maybe
`a bad paraphrase of their argument, but essentially: it's disclosed but it's not
`really going to work here.
`MR. HILTON: Even -- it doesn't matter whether or not it works
`well or it just works part of the time, it is a disclosure in Abe, and it refutes
`their inoperability argument.
`JUDGE SAINDON: And I have another question while I have you
`interrupted. Going back to what the actual combination is, you have the K
`reference, and I seem to recall from your petition saying that when you have
`this K reference's teachings, you are going to emulate arithmetically the KW
`signal.
`
`MR. HILTON: This is the Kupske?
`JUDGE SAINDON: Kupske, yeah. And so I'm wondering how
`exactly is the -- are you taking the teachings from Kupske and putting them
`into Abe? What exactly is being taken? What signal is being emulated and
`how does that look? How does Abe react to it?
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`MR. HILTON: Well, the emulation part, or disclosure of Kupske,
`is really just an illustration of how you could -- you could emulate a crank
`angle sensor signal based on that pressure measurement. If you want to go
`back to the slide 17. So that's an emulated signal that they're showing in
`Figure 4 of Kupske, and they're just showing how -- and again, Kupske --
`Kupske describes two scenarios. Kupske describes the scenario where the
`pressure sensor would be used as a backup to a crank angle sensor. So you
`have an engine with a crank angle sensor, the crank angle sensor fails, the
`pressure sensor data would come in at that point.
`It also describes the scenario where you wouldn't even have a
`crank angle sensor and you would actually just have normal operation of the
`engine occur based on that pressure sensor. This would be the scenario
`where -- this emulation would be the scenario -- and it could be either, but
`what was meant, what Kupske was trying to show here was that you could --
`you could emulate both the position of the crank angle based on this pressure
`measurement. And, you know, it's showing gaps that would signify the
`situation where you had a crank shaft with teeth that had a gap in it, which is
`often how a crank angle sensor works. It will actually detect the gap.
`JUDGE SAINDON: So --
`MR. HILTON: I'm not sure if I answered your question there.
`JUDGE SAINDON: So on the bottom there of slide 17's graph,
`Figure 4 of Kupske, we have the pressure sensor which is the one that dips
`twice. You have it outlined in red there, right? So that's what the pressure
`sensor is actually sensing.
`MR. HILTON: That's right.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: And is what Kupske is doing is creating that
`KW signal?
`MR. HILTON: It is.
`JUDGE SAINDON: And then feeding it to the engine?
`MR. HILTON: In connection with this particular figure, that's
`what it's saying.
`JUDGE SAINDON: That's the emulation?
`MR. HILTON: That's right.
`JUDGE FISCHETTI: Isn't the degree of granularity between KW
`and the pressure sensor different in that you have a more -- so there's
`greater -- per unit, you have a greater number of signals in the KW versus
`the --
`
`MR. HILTON: Maybe the accuracy kind of or the -- is that what
`you're --
`JUDGE FISCHETTI: Exactly.
`MR. HILTON: I mean, certainly as it's shown in this graph, it
`would appear that way, but again, you know, part of the teaching of Kupske
`is to say, you know, you have this repeatability that occurs in this -- in this
`pressure sensor, in this pressure reading, and it occurs right near the intake
`stroke. And that's -- and that's the dip. And if -- you know, for example,
`even short of there being teeth, you know, in a gap. I mean, if you know that
`an engine, you know, revolves and has 360 degrees, you could divide that
`into the amount -- into that cycle time. And, you know, and really determine
`not just engine speed, but engine position as well.
`JUDGE FISCHETTI: Thank 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: So, counsel, I guess going back to the
`combination, then, if Kupske is emulating this KW signal when otherwise,
`say the sensor is broken, and it's sending this KW signal with this finer
`grained signal, with respect to the -- this -- I forget, you said A and B, option
`A and B.
`MR. HILTON: Yes.
`JUDGE SAINDON: But with option B, where the timing -- I
`mean, would it just use the same KW signal, that emulated signal? Do we
`need to go into this flow rate thing?
`MR. HILTON: I don't think we even need to go there, because,
`you know, again, the point of highlighting and illustrating function A,
`function B, is really to just address their inoperability argument. The actual
`motivation to combine is based on a failure of the crank angle sensor, which,
`you know, Abe says crank angle sensor fails, engine stops working. Kupske
`says, crank angle sensor fails, you can move over to the pressure sensor.
`And it's the same pressure sensor that's in Abe.
`So that is the motivation to combine. I mean, there's a problem
`associated with Kupske, you know, potential failure of the engine when the
`crank angle sensor fails, and it's a -- I'm sorry, in Abe, and then in Kupske,
`there's a solution to that problem.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. So if we were to say, for example,
`Kupske is replacing the KW signal and generating it, its accuracy may be up
`for question, but it's replacing that signal, it's effectively replacing the crank
`angle sensor, it's emulating that functionality?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`MR. HILTON: Right. And that's how I would describe it. It's
`replacing the functionality. I mean, it doesn't have to be necessarily that it
`comes in and emulates the signal, it's replacing the functionality.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Well, I could see a difference between --
`because if it's replacing the signal and just -- then the engine doesn't know
`any better, it's giving the little --
`MR. HILTON: Right. I mean, I think it could do that, you know,
`based on the disclosure of Kupske.
`JUDGE SAINDON: And I guess, what is your combination that's
`set forth in the petition?
`MR. HILTON: I mean, as set forth in the petition, our
`combination is that you have an internal combustion engine in Abe that
`relies on a sensor that can fail, and that will cause failure of the engine. And
`then you have Kupske that addresses those kinds of failures in internal
`combustion engines, and it says, you know, here's what happens if that fails,
`and here is a way to deal with that issue, which is to take a pressure reading
`and do this based on pressure.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Just because the details can matter if
`we replace one signal, we've got to make sure that whatever was there before
`is still going to work.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: So I'm looking at your petition and
`particularly page 26. And it says the motivation to use a -- Abe's intake
`manifold pressure sensor is for the failure reason, or to replace the sensor
`entirely during normal operation.
`MR. HILTON: You said you're on page 27?
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Twenty-six.
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`
`MR. HILTON: Twenty-six?
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Twenty-six.
`MR. HILTON: Okay.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: So you seem to have given two
`motivations or two ways to make the combination. Are you relying on the
`first way now as opposed to the second way?
`MR. HILTON: Can you point me again to the language that
`you're -- I'm sorry.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: Sure. Page 26, it starts in the second line.
`MR. HILTON: Okay, I see.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: It says, I'll read it just for the record. "A
`POSITA would have been motivated to use Abe's intake manifold pressure
`sensor 14 for a similar purpose in the event that the crank angle sensor
`failed; or to replace the sensor entirely during normal operation." Are you
`no longer saying -- is it your position that you are no longer saying that it
`would be obvious to replace the sensor entirely during the operation and
`you're relying on the failure motivation, or are we still --
`MR. HILTON: I mean, we're not going back on that. We would
`still say that as well. I think the strongest motivation to combine is to
`replace it in terms of the failure.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: So the first motivation that's put out there?
`MR. HILTON: That's right, but, you know, Kupske -- I mean, part
`of this comes from Kupske, and that is, you know, the -- it talks not just
`about using pressure sensors where the crank angle sensor fails, but also the
`situation where you may just choose to get rid of the crank angle sensor, and
`you may just use the pressure sensor in its place. And that, you know, I
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`think also is a valid motivation, because again, it's been pointed out in Abe
`what some of the issues are with crank angle sensors. And, you know, and
`how those fail.
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, but for the first motivation, then
`it doesn't really matter if you're just having it sort of extra there in case of
`failure, then it doesn't -- this inoperable argument about function B doesn't
`matter because those sensors are still there, correct? But if we're using the
`second motivation, replace it entirely, then don't we have a problem?
`MR. HILTON: I think you could say that. I think you could say
`that, that the inoperability argument goes away if you're using the first one,
`but I -- you know, but I think also that Abe on its face discloses these other
`ways of determining -- these other ways of determining that "function B," if
`you will, that forms the basis for this inoperability argument.
`Does that answer your question?
`JUDGE PETRAVICK: It does.
`JUDGE SAINDON: You have been speaking for not quite 25
`minutes.
`MR. HILTON: Okay, thank you.
`So just to conclude, because of the presence of the air flow sensor,
`there's really no issue as to the inoperability. Abe works, whether it's --
`whether it's alone or in combination with Kupske.
`I'd like to turn to slide 18, though, and just briefly discuss
`something that the Patent Owner raised in its surreply. They brought up the
`timing routines that are shown in Figures 4A and 4B, and basically, again,
`claim inoperability based on the fact that these timing routines require
`engine speed. But again, here I think they're -- I think Patent Owner misses
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`the point of the combination with this argument because as we've discussed,
`Kupske is clear that the engine speed can be determined based on the intake
`pressure in the absence of a crank angle sensor or in the failure of a crank
`angle sensor.
`So Petitioner has shown a motivation to combine the references
`and has also demonstrated that the combined system is operable. At no
`point after institution has the Patent Owner pointed to a specific claim
`limitation that isn't met by the combination. They did, however, make new
`arguments in their surreply that aren't fully fleshed out. They suggest that
`the air flow sensor in Abe prevents a finding that a -- and I'm quoting here,
`"a pressure sensor alone" is being used. Conspicuously, though, Patent
`Owner does not refer to a particular claim when it makes this argument, or
`any specific claim language in making the argument.
`Since it is in the surreply and we didn't get a chance to address it, I
`do want to at least mention this, this argument has no apparent bearing on
`Claims 6, 11 and 15. Those are the other independent claims. And none of
`these mention a pressure sensor alone or a single pressure sensor. The only
`claim that includes language that's remotely similar to this is Claim 1, and it
`references a single sensory means in the preamble. But again, we're not sure
`if this is what they're referring to, because they didn't mention a claim, they
`didn't mention the preamble, they didn't mention specific language.
`To the extent that they are making an argument that single sensory
`means in the preamble as a limitation, I'm happy to address that on rebuttal,
`but I think first they need to clarify for this Board and for us whether or not
`that's the case before I do that and turn to that. But I did want to bring that
`up, because I think it's important to note that at least three of the independent
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`claims have no relationship to a pressure sensor alone, which is in their
`argument in the surreply.
`I now intend to turn to Ostdiek and the Vernier combination, but if
`the Board has any other questions on Abe and Kupske, I'll address those.
`(No response.)
`MR. HILTON: So grounds 3 and 4 were the ones that relate to the
`Ostdiek/Vernier combination. The Board did not institute on these grounds
`initially and found that the motivation to combine was not strong enough.
`Since the institution decision, though, the record has been more fully
`developed, and that's why I want to discuss in relation to the motivation to
`combine.
`So let's go to slide 24, please. Slide 24 has a passage from
`Vernier's background section. Vernier identifies a problem. Specifically the
`problem was that prior art systems using intake pressure measurements were
`only using pressure sensors to determine average pressures. It was those
`average pressures that they were then using to calculate operating
`characteristics of the engine.
`Vernier says this is a drawback because it permits only a limited
`amount of information to be obtained about the engine. Dr. Davis, Patent
`Owner's own expert, testified and acknowledged that this was a problem that
`Vernier was trying to solve. This is exactly the problem of Ostdiek. Ostdiek
`is an example of the prior art problem that Vernier is improving upon.
`That's why --
`Let's go to slide 23. That's why Vernier actually cites Ostdiek.
`This is the front page of the Vernier patent. He cites Ostdiek because it's
`indicative of the art, and there is Federal Circuit case law that when 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
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`reference cites to another, that can be an indicia of motivation to combine.
`And there's good reason for that.
`I don't think we have the projector, so let's go -- I'd like to show
`the -- I'd like to show the abstract of Ostdiek, which I think is 22. It is in the
`left-hand column of slide 22. Ostdiek's abstract shows that this problem
`described in Vernier is actually in Ostdiek. The microprocessor determines
`the average pressure in Ostdiek, and it's this average pressure that's then
`used to determine the fuel requirements of the engine. Not just the fuel
`requirements, there's other things as well that are also determined, based on
`this average pressure in Ostdiek.
`Again, Dr. Davis acknowledged in his deposition that this was a
`characteristic and a limitation of Ostdiek. Vernier goes on to suggest a
`solution to the problem by using continuous pressure measurements instead
`of average readings like what's described in Ostdiek. It cites several
`advantages such as obtaining information -- I'm sorry, such as obtaining
`more information about the engine and enhancing the engine operation.
`Specific examples that it gives are determining instantaneous
`speed. It also talks about detection of pressure inflection points, which we
`highlighted in our petition, that can be used to determine or indicate valve
`opening.
`As KSR teaches, one of the recognized rationales for combining is
`a teaching, a suggestion or a motivation in the prior art that would have led
`one of ordinary skill to modify a prior art reference. In the present case, it's
`not just that Ostdiek and Vernier are in the same field of art, it's not just that
`they have similar disclosures about how the processes or the products
`operate. Both of these things are true, but it's that you have one reference
`
`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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`that is specifically identifying the drawbacks of the other, and it's trying to
`improve upon it. This is the quintessential example of why you would
`combine two references.
`So I want to turn to slide 25. The Patent Owner has kind of a
`last-ditch effort to attack the motivation. And I will note, the Patent
`Owner -- well, the Patent Owner has said that Vernier is a diagnostic tool,
`you know, and that's one of their reasons for saying that it's really different
`from Ostdiek, but this is not the case.
`The disclosure of Vernier itself refutes this, as shown in 23 here.
`There are several examples that are in Vernier that provide for controlling
`the operating characteristics of an engine. Not just diagnosing them or
`determining them. It certainly discloses those things, determining, but it
`also discloses controlling. And this language, the controlling language, is
`almost identical to the language from Ostdiek which also talks about
`controlling operating characteristics of the engine.
`So grounds 3 and 4 in the combination of Ostdiek and Vernier, this
`is an example post-SAS where we've presented the Board with the fuller and
`more complete record to allow the Board to evaluate the ground anew.
`Here, that evaluation should reasonably lead to the conclusion that there's a
`motivation to combine. The full record strongly supports that there's a
`motivation to combine these two references, and even Patent Owner's own
`expert has testified that one reference is trying to solve the problems
`presented by the other.
`There have been instances affirmed by the Federal Circuit, even
`recently, in January, where the Board has found invalidity on grounds 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`were not originally instituted, and that's what the Board should do in this
`case as to grounds 3 and 4.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, I have a few questions. You have
`about seven minutes of your original 40-minute time. So Ostdiek is a digital
`fuel control system, okay? So that's the primary reference, and we're
`bringing in some teaching from Vernier to modify that. So I'm wondering,
`can you walk me through real quick what's being modified in Ostdiek and
`why? Well, I guess you've hit the why, but let's just go with what
`specifically is being modified in Ostdiek?
`MR. HILTON: So that's being modified in Ostdiek is the pressure
`sensor -- it's that combination of the pressure sensor and the controller,
`okay? It's the pressure sensor in Ostdiek is reading pressure, and then the
`controller is averaging the pressures, okay? And it's that average pressure
`that it is then basing the determination of other operating characteristics of
`the engine on. That's how it's -- that's how it's determining that. There's
`multiple places throughout Ostdiek that actually discuss that average
`pressure.
`You know, it talks about it being a -- you know, the average
`pressure being based on the minimum and the maximum pressure. And, you
`know, and one of the main operating characteristics that it's trying to
`determine is an engine's fuel requirements, but it does talk about other
`operating characteristics as well, including engine speed.
`So it's that pressure controller functionality that's being modified
`by Vernier because Vernier actually describes, you know, the problems with
`using average pressures. It references Ostdiek, and then it says, you know,
`the solution to this is not to use average pressures. You should use 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 IPR2018-00018
`Patent 6,955,081 B2
`
`you know, you should take continuous pressure measurements and you
`should use those instantaneous exact pressures in order to calculate these
`operating characteristics.
`So that's the motivation -- or the combination that we would --
`JUDGE SAINDON: So, as of maybe a particular example in
`Ostdiek, is it using the pressure sensor to determine engine speed?
`MR. HILTON: I'll have to refer to the --
`JUDGE SAINDON: Or cycle? Cycle time, engine speed,
`something like that?
`MR. HILTON: I'll have to refer -- you're talking about in Ostdiek?
`JUDGE SAINDON: Yes.
`MR. HILTON: It does --
`JUDGE SAINDON: What's something that it uses that for?
`MR. HILTON: It does determine engine speed. So Ost
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
