Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd.v.Nidec Motor Corporation

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2015

11293743 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14
571-272-7822 Entered: July 20, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,
BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC, and
BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Petitioners,

v.

NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2
____________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

2
On February 20, 2015, Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd.,
Broad Ocean Motor LLC, and Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC
(“Petitioners”) filed a Petition (Paper 3) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to
institute an inter partes review of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,208,895 B2
(“the ’895 patent”). Concurrent with their Petition, Petitioners filed a
motion to join this proceeding with IPR2014-01122 (“the related
proceeding”), which was instituted on January 21, 2015. Paper 4. Nidec
Motor Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper
12, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition on April 21, 2015. Pursuant to our
authorization, Petitioners filed a Reply (Paper 13) on April 28, 2015, limited
to addressing the joinder issues.
Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail with
respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the Petition and do not
institute an inter partes review. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot
Petitioners’ motion to join.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The ’895 patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’895 patent relates to torque control of permanent magnet rotating
machines. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 15–17. Figure 1 of the ’895 patent is
reproduced below.
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

3

Figure 1 is a block diagram of a rotating permanent magnet machine system.
Id. at col. 2, ll. 4–6. Rotating permanent magnet electric machine 101
includes rotor 104 and stator 102, around which energizable phase windings
106A, 106B, and 106C are wound. Id. at col. 2, ll. 14–22. Drive 102
receives control inputs from controller 110, which receives rotor position
and speed data 112 from sensors coupled to the machine. Id. at col. 2, ll.
24–30.
When operated in a torque control mode, input torque demand 114 is
provided to a torque scalar that produces a scaled torque demand. Id. at col.
2, ll. 63–67. The ’895 patent illustrates calculation of the scaled torque
demand as the sum of three components: (1) the torque offset, which is the
minimum torque required to run the motor without a load; (2) the product of
the torque demand and a torque multiplier; and (3) a speed offset, which
may be determined from a look-up table containing speed-torque table
values for the particular motor being controlled. Id. at col. 4, ll. 15–35.
“The torque multiplier and the torque offset value are preferably motor-
specific parameters which compensate for individual motor characteristics.”
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

4
Id. at col. 4, ll. 20–22. A constant motor torque output with increasing
motor speed may be achieved by increasing the value of the demanded
torque by the control system as the motor operating speed increases, thereby
making the torque lines flatter with speed. Id. at col. 4, ll. 39–43.
The scaled torque demand is used to calculate an “IQr demand” using
motor-specific torque-to-IQr map data. Id. at col. 2, l. 67 – col. 3, l. 3. The
IQr demand is concatenated with an “Idr demand” (also referred to as a “dr-
axis injection current”) from an Idr injection block into a vector quantity,
“IQdr demand.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 3–6. The resulting IQdr demand takes into
account the torque contribution, if any, of the dr-axis current. Id. at col. 3, ll.
10–12.
Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Mark Ehsani, explains that “vector control”
provides one method of controlling permanent-magnet synchronous motors,
and that “[t]he concept of vector control, which typically uses d and [Q]
current components, arises from [a] principle [in which] torque arrives from
the interaction of two magnetic fields, one originating from the stator and
one originating from the rotor.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 13.

IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

5
The drawing from page 7 of Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration is reproduced
below.

The drawing from Dr. Ehsani’s Declaration illustrates a rotor, which
has a permanent magnet having north and south poles Nr and Sr,
respectively, and illustrates a stator, which includes electromagnets that
result in a virtual stator magnet having north and south poles Ns and Ss,
respectively. Id. at ¶ 15. The d axis is aligned with the rotor and the q axis
is offset 90° from the d axis. The motor commutates the winding currents to
maintain orthogonality of the d and q axes as the rotor turns. Id. at ¶ 16.

B. Challenged Claim
The challenged claim, and the independent claim from which the
challenged claim depends, are as follows.
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

6
9. A permanent magnet rotating machine and controller
assembly configured to perform the method of claim 1.

1. A method of controlling a permanent magnet rotating
machine, the machine including a stator and a rotor situated to
rotate relative to the stator, the stator having a plurality of
energizable phase windings situated therein, the method
comprising:
receiving a rotor torque demand; and
calculating a scaled torque demand from the received
torque demand as a function of a speed of the machine to obtain
a substantially constant rotor torque over a range of rotor
speeds.

C. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
Petitioners challenge claim 9 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
by JP 11-155202, published June 8, 1999 (Ex. 1003, “Hiroyuki”). Pet. 4–5.
Petitioners provide an attested English translation of the reference as Exhibit
1005.

D. Related Proceedings
In addition to IPR2014-01122, the ’895 patent is a subject of Nidec
Motor Corporation v. Broad Ocean Motor LLC et al., Civil Action No.
4:13-CV-01895-JCH (E.D. Mo.). Pet. 2–3.

E. Claim Construction
The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

7
they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
778 F.3d 1271, 1279–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress
implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
enacting the AIA”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
In the related proceeding, the Board construed “scaled torque
demand,” which is recited in claim 1, as “torque calculated from the
received torque demand based on machine-specific parameters,” noting that
scaling is “machine-specific” if it is “based upon parameters of the motor
involved.” Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. Nidec Motor
Corporation, Case No. IPR2014-01122, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2015)
(Paper 20). The Board also construed “substantially constant rotor torque
over a range of rotor speeds,” which is also recited in claim 1, as “requiring
that the rotor torque not vary substantially over a range of rotor speeds.” Id.
at 9–10. Neither party contests these constructions, which we adopt for
purposes of this decision.

II. ANALYSIS
Hiroyuki describes a motor control system that may be used with a
permanent magnet motor in an electric vehicle. Ex. 1005 ¶ 2. Hiroyuki
expresses an objective of “obtaining a braking force of certain value” under
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

8
conditions of varying speed. Id. at ¶ 4. Figure 4 of Hiroyuki is reproduced
below.

Figure 4 is a control block diagram illustrating an electric vehicle control
device. Id. at ¶ 18. Torque command calculating device 18 determines
torque command 21 based on inputs of accelerating signal 15, brake signal
16, and gear shifting signal 17. Id. at ¶ 17. The resulting torque command is
received by torque component current generator 22 and magnetic field
component current generator 23, both of which also receive signal 20
specifying input motor revolutions. Id. Torque component current
generator 22 uses these inputs to output torque component current command
24, and magnetic field component current generator 23 uses the same inputs
to output magnetic field component current command 25.
Petitioners draw a correspondence between torque command 21 and
the “received torque demand” recited in claim 1, and draw a correspondence
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

9
between output torque component current command 24 and the calculated
“scaled torque demand” recited in claim 1. Pet. 13–19. Petitioners contend
that Hiroyuki’s torque component current command 24 is, thus, a “scaled
torque demand that is a function of speed.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 55).
Petitioners reason that input signal 20 “is ‘machine-specific’ because it is
based upon a parameter of the motor involved (i.e., the motor’s rotational
speed).” Id. at 17. Although Petitioners cite to Dr. Ehsani’s testimony for
support, Dr. Ehsani’s expressed opinions are limited. Dr. Ehsani testifies
that “[t]he calculated motor revolutions 20 is a representation of the speed of
the motor,” but Petitioners have not identified testimony by Dr. Ehsani that
motor speed is a machine-specific parameter. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 54.
Patent Owner contends that “motor speed is not a ‘machine specific
parameter’” because “knowing the instantaneous speed does not characterize
the machine.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner further contends that
Petitioners’ treatment of motor speed as a machine-specific parameter
renders the phrase “calculating a scaled torque demand” (emphasis added) in
claim 1 superfluous because the claim already expressly requires that the
scaled torque demand be calculated as a function of machine speed. Id. at
21.
Patent Owner’s contentions are persuasive. That is, Petitioners’
analysis effectively reads “scaled” out of the claim. “The Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when
determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” In re Lowry, 32
IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

10
F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
(Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioners have not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenge of claim 9. Because
we so conclude, we do not reach the joinder issue.

III. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
instituted; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder (Paper 4)
is dismissed.

IPR2015-00763
Patent 7,208,895 B2

11
PETITIONER

Steven Meyer
Seth Atlas
LOCKE LORD LLP
smeyer@lockelord.com
ptopatentcommunications@lockelord.com

PATENT OWNER

Scott Brown
Matthew Walters
HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com
mwalters@hooveywilliams.com