Gatekeeper Systems, Inc.v.Dane Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2013

12125138 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2013)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Entered: December 4, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

GATEKEEPER SYSTEMS, INC.,
Petitioner

v.

DANE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Patent Owner

Case IPR2013-00338
Patent 7,493,979

Before JAMESON LEE, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
2

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Gatekeeper Systems, Inc. (“Gatekeeper”), filed a petition
(“Pet.”) for inter partes review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,493,979
(Ex. 1007, “the ’979 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. Paper 1.
Patent Owner, Dane Technologies, Inc. (“Dane”), has filed a preliminary
response (“Prelim. Resp.”) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b). Paper 8. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311
and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.

Upon consideration of the Petition and Dane’s Preliminary Response,
we determine that Gatekeeper has not established a reasonable likelihood
that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1-21 of
the ’979 patent. Accordingly, we do not authorize an institution of an inter
partes review of claims 1-21 of the ’979 patent. The petition is denied for
the reasons set forth below.

A. Related Proceedings
Gatekeeper indicates that the ’979 patent is involved in co-pending
litigation captioned Dane Technologies, Inc. v. Gatekeeper Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-02730-ADM-AJB (D. Minn.). Pet. 1. Gatekeeper has also
indicated that it has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
3

7,389,836 (IPR2013-00305), that the ’979 patent is a continuation of the
’836 patent, and that the two patents share a common specification. Id.

B. The ’979 Patent
The subject matter of the ’979 patent relates to a motorized shopping
cart retriever for pulling or pushing a column of shopping carts in a train-like
fashion. Ex. 1007, 1:34-39. Figure 2 of the ’979 patent is reproduced below
and illustrates a side elevation of the shopping cart retriever (Ex. 1007, 4:9-
11):
Fig. 2
Figure 2 is a side elevational view of the shopping cart retriever.
Shopping cart 2, shown in Figure 2, includes seat 4, steering wheel 6,
wheels 16, and electric motor 8. Ex. 1007, 4:27-30. The motorized
shopping cart retriever also includes an electronic controller that attenuates
the power output of the drive system to provide load control and to reduce
the risk of overload. Ex.1007, 2:28-34.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
4

The shopping cart motor includes a first power limit, a second power
limit, and a burst mode. Ex. 1007, 2:49-54. The first power limit refers to
that level at which the controller self-limits the maximum power output
through a current or temperature sensing feature of the controller, which
exists to prevent damage to the controller. Ex. 1007, 2:55-59. The second
power limit is user selectable and refers to a level at which the controller
limits its maximum power output to a value less than that of the first power
limit. Ex. 1007, 2:59-61. The burst mode allows the maximum power
output to exceed the second power limit for a limited time before again
becoming subject to the second power limit. Ex. 1007, 2:61-64.
Figure 3 illustrates the performance characteristics of the electric
motor when caused to operate in various modes by the controller, and is
reproduced below:
Fig. 3
Figure 3 illustrates the performance characteristics of the electric motor
when caused to operate in various modes by the controller.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
5

As shown in Figure 3, the controller has an internal limit (uppermost
horizontal line 20), a burst mode (shown by line segments 28a-28d), and a
second selectable limit (horizontal line 24). Ex. 1007, 4:48-63; 5:33-40.

C. Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent claims and are directed to a
shopping cart retriever or a method of operating a shopping cart retriever.
Claims 2-13 each directly depend from claim 1; claims 15-17 each directly
depend from claim 14; and claims 19-21 each directly depend from claim
18. Claims 1 and 18 are reproduced below:
1. A shopping cart retriever comprising:
an electric motor;
a drive system powered by the electric motor;
a controller adapted to provide power to the electric motor and
including a first power limit, a second power limit, and a burst mode;
and
a throttle control in communication with the controller,
wherein the first power limit is the controller’s normal
power limit that results when the controller self-limits its maximum
power output through a sensing feature of the controller that exists to
prevent damage to the controller,
wherein the second power limit is selectable and limits
the controller’s maximum power output to a level that is less than that
of the first power limit, and
wherein the burst mode allows the control[ler]’s
maximum power output to exceed the second power limit for a limited
time before again becoming subject to the second power limit.

18. A shopping cart retriever comprising:
an electric motor;
a drive system powered by the electric motor; and
a controlling means for controlling power to the electric motor
including
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
6

a first power-limiting means for limiting power to the electric
motor;
a second power limiting means for limiting power to the
electric motor;
a burst means for overriding the second power-limiting means.

It is noted that claim 1 explicitly requires a second power limit that is
less than a first power limit.

D. Prior Art Relied Upon
Gatekeeper relies upon the following prior art references:
Schugt U.S. 6,220,379 B1 Apr. 24, 2001 Ex. 1015
Dykstra U.S. 5,388,176 Feb. 7, 1995 Ex. 1032

Manual for Curtis PMC Model 1223/33, 1225/35, 1227/37, p/n 16879,
Rev. B, September 2000 (“the Curtis 1237 Manual”) (Ex. 1016).

Manual for Curtis PMC Model 1297, p/n 36411, Rev. A,
February 2001 (“the Curtis 1297 Manual”) (Ex. 1017).

Engelmann and Middendorf, Handbook of Electric Motors, Marcel
Dekker, Inc. (1995) (“the Electric Motors Handbook”) (Ex. 1018).

Allen-Bradley SMC Controllers Bulletin 150, Publication 150-
AT001B-EN-P, April 2002 (“the Allen-Bradley Manual”) (Ex. 1019).

Manual for Curtis PMC Model 1288, p/n 36866, Rev. A,
January 2002 (“the Curtis 1288 Manual”) (Ex. 1025).

Applicant admitted prior art appearing in the ’979 Patent at column 6,
lines 33-41 (“AAPA”). Pet. 41.

E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentabilty
Gatekeeper alleges that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
on the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the table below.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
7

Reference(s) Basis
Claims
Challenged
Schugt and the Curtis 1297
Manual
§ 103(a)
1-5, 7, 8, and
14-21
Schugt, the Curtis 1297
Manual, and AAPA
§ 103(a) 6
Schugt, the Curtis 1297
Manual, and the Electric
Motors Handbook
§ 103(a) 9-13
Schugt, the Curtis 1297
Manual, and Dykstra
§ 103(a) 14-17
Schugt, the Curtis 1297
Manual, and the Curtis 1288
Manual
§ 103(a) 4 and 21
Schugt, the Curtis 1237
Manual, and the Allen-
Bradley Manual
§ 103(a)
1-5, 7, 8, and
14-21
Schugt, the Curtis 1237
Manual, the Allen-Bradley
Manual, and AAPA
§ 103(a) 6
Schugt, the Curtis 1237
Manual, the Allen-Bradley
Manual, and the Electric
Motors Handbook
§ 103(a) 9-13

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14,
2012). Also, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
8

entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Neither Gatekeeper nor Dane contends that the inventors of the ’979
patent acted as their own lexicographer and coined special meanings for any
term. We have no reason to conclude otherwise. Accordingly, all terms of
the involved claims of the ’979 patent take on their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. We
also determine that, at this stage of the proceeding, in the absence of any
dispute between the parties on claim construction, no particular term needs
to be construed expressly, except for the first and second means-plus-
function elements recited in claim 18.
Claim 18 recites a first power-limiting means and a second power-
limiting means. Both Gatekeeper and Dane regard each recitation as setting
forth a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
(Section (f)). Pet. 15-18, Prelim. Resp. 6-8. We agree.
Gatekeeper identifies controller 12 as the disclosed structure
corresponding to the first power-limiting means, citing to certain parts of the
specification (Ex. 1007, 2:55-59; 4:52-58; fig. 3). Pet. 17. That disclosure
discusses the controller as being programmed to provide a first power limit
through a sensing feature. Ex. 1007, 2:55-59; 4:43-45. Gatekeeper also
identifies controller 12 as the disclosed structure corresponding to the
second power-limiting means, citing to certain parts of the specification (Ex.
1007, 2:59-61; 4:59-63; fig. 3). Pet. 17-18. That disclosure discusses the
controller as being programmed to provide a selectable second power limit
that is less than that of the first power limit. Ex. 1007, 2:59-66. We agree
that controller 12, so programmed, is the corresponding structure for the first
power-limiting means and the second power-limiting means.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
9

B. Discussion
Gatekeeper alleges eight grounds of unpatentability with respect to
claims 1-21 of the ’979 patent. All of those grounds are based, at least in
part, on Schugt, and one of the Curtis 1297 Manual and the Curtis 1237
manual. Like the ’979 patent, Schugt is directed to a shopping cart retriever
that includes an electric motor, drive system, and controller. Ex. 1015, 4:44-
49; 5:21-22; 9:15-23.
Schugt, however, provides little detail on the operation of the
controller. Gatekeeper does not rely on Schugt in connection with the claim
requirements relating to the claimed “first power limit” and “second power
limit.” Gatekeeper asserts that the “first power limit” and the “second power
limit” are shown by either the Curtis 1297 Manual or the Curtis 1237
Manual. Pet. 30-31, 47-48, 52-53, 55.
1. Alleged Unpatentability based on
Schugt and the Curtis 1297 Manual
Gatekeeper does not rely on Schugt, but on the Curtis 1297 Manual,
for meeting the claimed “first power limit” and “second power limit.” Pet.
30-31.
The Curtis 1297 Manual describes controllers designed for use in
applications including stackers and other small industrial vehicles. Ex.
1017, 1. Those controllers are equipped with an “Overtemperature”
protection feature. Id. at A-7. The nature of the “Overtemperature”
protection feature is explained as follows:
Overtemperature
Because of their efficiency and thermal design, Curtis PMC
controllers should barely get warm in normal operation.
Overheating can occur, however, if the controller is undersized
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
10

for its application or otherwise overloaded. The 1297 controller
constantly monitors its internal heatsink temperature. Starting
at 85°C, the armature current is linearly decreased from full set
current down to zero at 95°C. NOTE: Braking current limits are
not reduced in overtemperature; this ensures that full vehicle
braking is available under all thermal conditions.
Full current and performance return automatically after
the controller cools down. Although occasional
overtemperature operation is usually not damaging to the
controller, it does suggest a mismatch. If thermal cutback
occurs often in normal operation, the controller is probably
undersized for the application and a higher current model
should be used. Continuous operation in overtemperature will
overstress the power components and reduce the lifetime and
reliability of the controller.
Id. at A-7. Thus, the Curtis 1297 Manual describes a current limit that is
triggered based on specific temperature conditions of the controller and
operates to prevent “overheating” and “overtemperature.” Gatekeeper
asserts that the thermal protection aspect of the Curtis 1297 Manual meets
the “first power limit” feature of claim 1. Pet. 26. Gatekeeper also points to
the declaration testimony of its expert witness, Dr. Kevin Craig, who
testifies that the particular “first power limit” feature is met by the above
noted “overtemperature” protection feature of the Curtis 1297 Manual.
Ex. 1002, 53-58.
To account for the “second power limit” of claim 1, Gatekeeper relies
on the portion of the Curtis 1297 Manual setting forth a “drive current
limit.” Pet. 30-31. The Curtis 1297 Manual describes the “drive current
limit” as “allow[ing] adjustment of the maximum current the controller will
supply to the traction motor during drive operation” and which is “adjustable
from 50 amps to the controller’s full rated drive current.” Ex. 1017, 24. In
connection with the “drive current limit,” Dr. Craig testifies:
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
11

Claim 1 of the ’979 patent recites that the second power
limit “limits the controller’s maximum power output to a level
that is less than that of the first power limit.” As discussed
above, the second power-limiting means of Claim 18 has been
interpreted similarly. Claim 14 of the ’979 patent recites
“setting the controller at a first power limit that is less than a
second power limit[.”] The Curtis 1297 motor controller’s
drive current limit can be adjusted “from 50 amps to the
controller’s full rated drive current.” Ex. 1017 at 24.
Therefore, when adjusted to be less than the full rated drive
current (e.g., from 50 amps up to 99% of the full rated drive
current), the drive current limit of the Curtis 1297 controller
provides the functionality of the selectable power limit
disclosed and claimed in the ’979 patent.
Ex. 1002, 61-62. We are unpersuaded that Gatekeeper or Dr. Craig has
accounted properly for the first and second power limits, and their
interrelationship, as required by the claims. For reasons explained below,
Gatekeeper’s arguments are misplaced.
Dr. Craig states that the “drive current limit” of the Curtis 1297
Manual provides the functionality of the selectable power limit, i.e., the
second power limit in claim 1, when it is adjusted to be less than the full
rated drive current. Ex. 1002, 62. However, claim 1 requires the second
power limit to be less than the first power limit, and, as discussed above,
Gatekeeper already regards the “Overtemperature” limit as the first power
limit. Neither Gatekeeper nor Dr. Craig has shown why the
“Overtemperature” limit is the same as the “full rated drive current.” Also,
the “full rated drive current” has not been shown to be based on any sensed
condition, such as temperature. The citation to the Curtis 1297 Manual at
page 21 also does not show that the “full rated drive current” is the same as
the “Overtemperature” limit.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
12

To the extent Gatekeeper’s position actually is that the drive current
limit, itself, serves as both first and second power limits (i.e., when initially
it is set to the full rated drive current, it serves as the first power limit, and
when it is later reduced to less than the full rated drive current, it serves as
the second power limit), the contention is misplaced because such a scenario
does not meet the requirements of the claims.
When the drive current limit is set to the full rated current, it is not a
sensed or temperature based limit, because it already is set to a value
regardless of the temperature. Thus, the drive current limit, set to the full
rated drive current, cannot satisfy the claimed first power limit. It does not
result from any sensed condition, such as temperature.
Claim 1 also requires the first and second power limits be two limits,
coexisting, which are distinct from each another. Furthermore, the second
power limit must limit the power output to a level less than that limited by
the first power limit. In devices described in the Curtis 1297 Manual, while
the drive current limit is adjustable to various different levels, it does not,
itself, constitute two distinct and coexisting power limits. It is simply one
adjustable power limit.
Dane explains how thermal protection is described in the Curtis 1297
Manual. Prelim. Resp. 17-21. Specifically, Dane explains how the thermal
protection operates such that, below temperatures of -25ºC, the drive current
limit is cut back 50% and, above 85ºC, the drive current limit decreases
steadily until it is reduced to zero at 95ºC. At page 18 of the Preliminary
Response, Dane provides a graphical representation of the disclosure of the
Curtis 1297 Manual, in connection with its thermal protection and its drive
current limit, which is reproduced below:
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
13

Figure from page 18 of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
The graph depicts the relationship between the drive current limit and the
overtemperature/undertemperature limit.
As illustrated in the graphical depiction by Dane above, and in
accordance with the disclosure of the Curtis 1297 Manual, a drive current
limit may be selected as desired between 50% and 100% of the maximum
rated current (arbitrarily selected as 100 Amps in the depiction above).
Once selected, the thermal protection aspect of the Curtis 1297 Manual
functions such that the drive current limit maintains its set level between
-25 ºC and 85ºC. When the controller temperature drops below -25ºC, the
drive current limit drops in half (50 Amps in the graphical depiction above).
Above 85ºC, the main current limit steadily decreases from its selected level
to zero. Dane submits that the drive current limit, i.e., the alleged second
power limit, does not serve to limit a maximum power output to a level that
is less than any limit provided by thermal protection, i.e., the alleged first
power limit. Prelim. Resp. 19.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
14

We are persuaded by Dane’s analysis. It reflects those points, already
discussed above, as to why Gatekeeper’s Petition is deficient.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that
Gatekeeper has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in its
assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Schugt and the Curtis 1297
Manual.
In claim 14, the reference to the first power limit and the second
power limit is the reverse of that of claim 1 in terminology. However, the
substance is essentially the same, with one power limit being less than the
other, and the greater power limit being based on a sensing feature.
Gatekeeper asserts the same arguments and relies on the same evidence.
Gatekeeper’s arguments and analysis are unpersuasive, as discussed above
in connection with claim 1.
Gatekeeper’s argument and analysis with regard to claim 18 are the
same as asserted for claim 1. As noted above, claim 18 requires a controller
that is programmed to establish a first power limit based on a sensing
feature, as well as a controller that is programmed to provide a second power
limit less than the first power limit. For reasons discussed above, in the
context of claim 1, Gatekeeper’s arguments and analysis are unpersuasive.
Gatekeeper also asserts, based on Schugt and the Curtis 1297 Manual,
the unpatentability of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 15-17, and 19-21, each of
which depends from one of independent claims 1, 14, and 18. We are
similarly not persuaded that Gatekeeper has shown a reasonable likelihood
that it will prevail with respect to those dependent claims.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
15

2. Alleged Unpatentability based on Schugt,
the Curtis 1237 Manual, and the Allen-Bradley Manual
Gatekeeper does not rely on Schugt or the Allen-Bradley Manual, but
on the Curtis 1237 Manual for meeting the claimed “first power limit” and
“second power limit.” Pet. 46-47. The Curtis 1237 Manual is, in effect, an
older version of the Curtis 1297 Manual. Elements similar to those
disclosed in the Curtis 1297 Manual also are disclosed in the Curtis 1237
Manual.
The Curtis 1237 Manual provides programmable motor speed
controllers designed for use in small electric vehicles. Ex. 1016, 1. In the
Curtis 1237 Manual, the controllers are equipped with a “Thermal
protection” feature that reduces the current limit to the controller if
temperatures exceed a certain range. Id. at A-12. The Curtis 1237 Manual
controller also includes a “main current limit” parameter that allows
adjustment of the maximum current the controller will supply to the motor to
protect the motor from excessive torque to the drive system. Id. at 40.
For claim 1, Gatekeeper asserts that the “first power limit” is shown in
the Curtis 1237 Manual at page A-12, based on the disclosed “Thermal
protection” feature. Pet. 47. Like the Curtis 1297 Manual states for its
“Overtemperature” feature, the Curtis 1237 Manual states that, when the
internal temperature reaches a certain level, the current limit is decreased.
Ex. 1016, A-12. In contrast to the Curtis 1297 Manual, the Curtis 1237
Manual shows a different temperature range for operations. However, the
Curtis 1297 Manual’s “Overtemperature” feature and the Curtis 1237
Manual’s “Thermal protection” feature operate essentially in the same
manner.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
16

Gatekeeper asserts that for claim 1 the “second power limit” is shown
by the “main current limit” described at pages 27 and 40 of the Curtis 1237
Manual. Pet. 47-48. Like the Curtis 1297 Manual, the Curtis 1237 Manual
states that the maximum current applied to the motor is adjustable. Ex.
1016, 40. Compared to the Curtis 1297 Manual, the Curtis 1237 Manual
uses the term “main current limit” instead of “drive current” and uses a
percentage scale, rather than absolute scale in ampere levels, for reflecting
the amount of adjustment. Ex. 1016, 40; Ex. 1017, 24. As described in the
Curtis 1237 Manual, the “main current limit” can be adjusted from 50% to
100% of the “rated maximum controller current.” Ex. 1016, 40. Other than
that, the controller’s adjustable current features disclosed by the two
manuals carry out essentially the same functions in essentially the same
manner.
Claim 1 requires the second power limit to be less than the first power
limit, and, as discussed above, Gatekeeper regards the “thermal protection”
limit as the first power limit. Neither Gatekeeper nor Dr. Craig has shown
why in the Curtis 1237 Manual the “thermal protection” limit is the same as
the “rated maximum controller current.” Here, the “thermal protection”
limit and “rated maximum controller current” are independent of each other,
and there is no showing that the temperature-based “thermal protection”
limit is the same as the “rated maximum controller current.” The “rated
maximum controller current” disclosed at page 40 of the Curtis 1237 Manual
also has not been shown to be based on any sensed condition, such as one
based on temperature. Gatekeeper does not cite to any portion of the Curtis
1237 Manual that describes that the “rated maximum controller current” is
based on any sensed condition, such as temperature.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
17

When the main current limit is set to the rated maximum controller
current, it is not a sensed or temperature-based limit, because it already is set
to a value regardless of the temperature. Thus, the main current limit, set to
the rated maximum controller current, cannot satisfy the claimed first power
limit. It does not result from any sensed condition, such as temperature.
Claim 1 also requires that the first and second power limits be two
limits, coexisting, which are distinct from each other. Furthermore, the
second power limit must limit the power output to a level less than that
limited by the first power limit. In devices according to the Curtis 1237
Manual, while the main current limit is adjustable to various different levels,
it does not, itself, constitute two distinct and coexisting power limits. It is
simply one adjustable power limit.
Dane explains how the thermal protection operates, such that at
temperatures below -25ºC, the main current limit is cutback 50%, and at
temperatures above 90ºC, the main current limit decreases steadily until it is
reduced to zero at 105ºC. Prelim. Resp. 33-34. At page 34 of its
Preliminary Response, Dane provides a graphical representation of the
disclosure of the Curtis 1237 Manual in connection with its thermal
protection and its main current limit, which is similar to the graph discussed
above in relation to the Curtis 1297 Manual. Prelim. Resp. 34. We agree
with Dane’s assessment of the operation of the Curtis 1237 Manual
discussed in relation to that graph. Dane argues that the “thermal
protection” feature and “rated maximum controller current” are not the same
in the Curtis 1237 Manual. Prelim. Resp. 36. We are persuaded by Dane’s
analysis. It reflects those points, already discussed above, as to why
Gatekeeper’s petition is deficient.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
18

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that
Gatekeeper has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing
that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Schugt, the
Curtis 1237 Manual, and the Allen-Bradley Manual.
In claim 14, the limitation for the first power limit is the same as the
limitation in claim 1 for the second power limit, and the limitation for the
second power limit is the same as the limitation in claim 1 for the first power
limit. However, the overall substance is essentially the same, with one
power limit being less than the other, and the greater power limit being
based on a sensing feature. For claim 14, and with regard to the Curtis 1237
Manual, Gatekeeper asserts the same arguments it has asserted in connection
with claim 1. The arguments and analysis are unpersuasive, as discussed
above in the context of claim 1.
Gatekeeper’s argument and analysis with regard to claim 18 are
essentially the same as those asserted for claim 1. As noted above, claim 18
requires a controller that is programmed to establish a first power limit based
on a sensing feature, as well as a controller that is programmed to provide a
second power limit less than the first power limit. For the same reasons
discussed above, in the context of claim 1, Gatekeeper’s arguments and
analysis are unpersuasive.
Gatekeeper also asserts the unpatentability based on Schugt, the Curtis
1237 Manual, and the Allen-Bradley Manual of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8,
15-17, and 19-21, each of which depends from one of independent claims 1,
14, and 18. We similarly are not persuaded that Gatekeeper has shown a
reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that these dependent
claims are unpatentable on that alleged ground. As applied by Gatekeeper,
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
19

the Allen-Bradley Manual does not make up for any of the above-noted
deficiencies of the Curtis 1237 Manual.

3. Alleged Unpatentability Based on Additional References
Gatekeeper alleges grounds of unpatentability of claims 4, 6, 9-17, and
21, that rely on at least an additional reference other than Schugt, the Curtis
1297 Manual, the Curtis 1237 Manual, and the Allen-Bradley Manual.
However, none of those additional references, i.e., AAPA, the Electric
Motors Handbook, Dykstra, and the Curtis 1288 Manual, cures the above
discussed deficiencies of the Curtis 1297 Manual and the Curtis 1237
Manual with respect to the first and second power limits required by the
claims. Accordingly, we also are not persuaded that Gatekeeper has
demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in such other
assertions of unpatentability.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Gatekeeper has not
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
unpatentability of any one of claims 1-21 of the ’979 patent.

IV. ORDER
After due consideration of the record before us, it is:
ORDERED that Gatekeeper’s petition is denied as to all of claims
1-21 of the ’979 patent, on all alleged grounds of unpatentability;
FURTHER ORDERED that no trial is instituted with respect to the
’979 patent.
Case IPR 2013-00338
Patent US 7,493,979
20

For PETITIONER:

Brenton R. Babcok, Esq.
Nicholas M. Zovko, Esq.
Steven P. Ruden, Esq.
BoxGatekeeper@knobbe.com

For PATENT OWNER

Brett A. Klein, Esq.
patent@winthrop.com
bklein@winthrop.com