PTAB

IPR2016-00502

Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Rotational Speed Adaptive Absorber
  • Brief Description: The ’740 patent discloses a force transmission device, such as a torque converter, with a rotational speed adaptive vibration absorber. The core inventive concept is purportedly overtuning a centrifugal pendulum vibration absorber to account for the influence of operating in oil, thereby improving damping properties over a wide range of rotational speeds.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-13 are obvious over Eckel, Sudau, and Speckhart.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Eckel (Patent 6,450,065), Sudau (Patent 6,026,940), and Speckhart (Patent 5,295,411).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Eckel teaches a speed-adaptive dynamic-vibration absorber for a vehicle powertrain that is intentionally overtuned to compensate for non-ideal conditions, including the "hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects resulting from a lubricant" such as oil. Petitioner asserted that Eckel's tuning formula, which uses a detuning factor k, is mathematically equivalent to the ’740 patent’s "order shift value" qF. For example, Eckel’s exemplary k value of 0.8 for a four-cylinder engine (q=2) results in an order shift qF of 0.236, which falls squarely within the 0.05 to 0.5 range disclosed and claimed in the ’740 patent. Sudau was cited for teaching a conventional torque converter with a hydrodynamic component and a vibration damper, providing the environment of the ’740 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Eckel's overtuned absorber with Sudau's torque converter to achieve the predictable result of improved vibration damping in that specific application. This combination was argued to be further motivated by Speckhart, which explicitly teaches that centrifugal pendulum absorbers are suitable for various rotating shafts, including both crankshafts (as in Eckel) and torque converters (as in Sudau).
    • Expectation of Success: The benefits of Eckel's overtuned absorber were known to be applicable to rotating machinery with order excitation. Therefore, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying it to Sudau's torque converter to predictably damp rotational vibrations.

Ground 2: Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are obvious over Nester, Sudau, and Speckhart.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nester (SAE Paper 2003-01-1484), Sudau (Patent 6,026,940), and Speckhart (Patent 5,295,411).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground substituted Nester for Eckel as the primary reference. Petitioner asserted that Nester teaches overtuning crankshaft-mounted pendulum absorbers that operate in oil to reduce vibrations in a variable displacement engine. Specifically, for a second-order vibration (q=2), Nester teaches tuning the absorbers to an effective order of 2.15, resulting in an explicit order shift of 0.15. This value is within the ’740 patent's disclosed range of 0.05 to 0.5 and is nearly identical to the preferred order shift of "approximately 0.14" described in the ’740 patent’s specification. The roles of Sudau and Speckhart as the environmental and motivational references, respectively, remain the same as in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Nester's proven method of overtuning a pendulum absorber to Sudau's torque converter to achieve the known benefits of extended operational range and improved damping. Speckhart again provides the explicit suggestion to use such absorbers in torque converters.
    • Expectation of Success: As Nester's technique was a known method for reducing torsional vibrations, a POSITA would reasonably expect it to function as intended when incorporated into the torque converter taught by Sudau.

Ground 3: Claim 5 is obvious over Nester, Sudau, and Speckhart in view of Eckel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nester (SAE Paper 2003-01-1484), Sudau (Patent 6,026,940), Speckhart (Patent 5,295,411), and Eckel (Patent 6,450,065).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 5 adds the limitation that the order shift value qF changes proportionally to a change in the excitation order q. While the primary combination of Nester, Sudau, and Speckhart renders claim 1 obvious, Nester only provides a specific order shift value for a single vibration order (q=2) and does not explicitly teach this proportional relationship. Eckel, however, discloses a tuning formula where the resulting order shift is, by mathematical definition, proportional to the excitation order q.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to apply the Nester/Sudau system to engines with different numbers of cylinders (e.g., a 6-cylinder engine), would have been motivated to consult Eckel. Eckel’s formulas provide a known method for adapting the tuning for different engine orders, thus making it obvious to modify the Nester absorber to incorporate this proportional relationship for improved performance across a wider range of applications.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Tuned as a Function of an Oil Influence" (Claims 1-13):
    • Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "overtuned by an order shift value within the range that compensates for the influence of oil on the absorber," specifically the range of 0.05 to 0.5 disclosed in the specification.
    • Petitioner contended this construction is necessary because the ’740 patent provides no other guidance, formula, or method for a POSITA to determine how to tune the absorber "as a function of" oil influence, other than by providing this specific numerical range. This construction was central to the argument, as it defined the claim limitation as a numerical range that was met by the prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 8,161,740 as unpatentable.