UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00568
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58 AND 62 OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`7,455,134)
`
`
`
`1
`
`FMC 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... ..5
`
`A.
`A.
`
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 5
`Engagement ......................................................................................... ..5
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 5
`Background and Qualifications ........................................................... ..5
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ...................................................... 8
`Compensation and Prior Testimony .................................................... ..8
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered .................................................. 8
`D. Materials and Information Considered ................................................ ..8
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .......................................... 9
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ........................................ ..9
`
`A. General .................................................................................................. 9
`General ................................................................................................ ..9
`
`B.
`B
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter..........................................10
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter........................................ .. 10
`
`Claim Construction Standard ..............................................................11
`Claim Construction Standard ............................................................ .. 11
`
`D. Anticipation .........................................................................................12
`D
`Anticipation ....................................................................................... .. 12
`
`E.
`E.
`
`Obviousness .........................................................................................13
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... .. 13
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`III.
`THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ..................................................17
`AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ................................................ .. 17
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART AS OF 2001 ..............................................................19
`IV.
`STATE OF THE ART AS OF 2001 ............................................................ ..19
`
`A. HEV Architecture ................................................................................19
`A.
`HEV Architecture .............................................................................. .. 19
`
`1.
`1.
`
`2.
`2.
`
`3.
`3.
`
`Series HEVs ..............................................................................20
`Series HEVs ............................................................................ ..2O
`
`Parallel HEVs ............................................................................21
`Parallel HEVs .......................................................................... ..21
`
`Series-Parallel HEVs ................................................................22
`Series—Parallel HEVs .............................................................. ..22
`
`Controls ...............................................................................................24
`Controls ............................................................................................. ..24
`
`Electrical Characteristics .....................................................................26
`Electrical Characteristics ................................................................... ..26
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’134 PATENT .......................................................................................27
`THE ’l34 PATENT ..................................................................................... ..27
`
`2
`2
`
`FMC 1002
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background of the ’134 Patent ............................................................27
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’134 Patent ...............................................33
`
`Construction of Terms in the Challenged Claims ...............................34
`
`D.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the Challenged Claims .................................35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The ’134 Patent’s Priority Claim ..............................................35
`
`Introduction of New Subject Matter on April 2, 2001
`Under “Further
`Improvements According
`to
`the
`Continuation-in-Part” ................................................................37
`
`is
`The Max Voltage-to-Current Ratio Limitation
`Unsupported Prior to April 2, 2001 ..........................................40
`
`No Ratios Are Disclosed in Applications Preceding CIP .........43
`
`No Voltage Values Under Load Are Described in
`Applications Preceding CIP ......................................................44
`
`Even A Deduced Ratio From Pre-CIP Applications Does
`Not Support “at least 2.5” .........................................................46
`
`April 2, 2001: The Effective Filing Date of All
`Challenged Claims ....................................................................50
`
`VI. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........51
`
`A. Overview of the Prior Art ....................................................................51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`PCT Publication No. WO00/015455 ........................................51
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613 (“Ehsani”) ......................................54
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1A: The ‘455 PCT publication Teaches All the
`Limitations in Claims 1-3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58 and 62 of
`the ’134 Patent .....................................................................................55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................58
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................70
`
`3
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................71
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................72
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................72
`
`Claim 20 ....................................................................................76
`
`Claim 26 ....................................................................................78
`
`Claim 27 ....................................................................................79
`
`Claim 40 ....................................................................................80
`
`10. Claim 58 ....................................................................................82
`
`11. Claim 62 ....................................................................................90
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1B: Claims 1-3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58 and 62 Are
`Obvious Over the ’455 PCT Publication ............................................91
`
`D. Ground 2: The Combination of the ’455 PCT Publication and
`Ehsani Teaches the Limitations in Claim 6 .........................................91
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis .....................................................................................91
`
`Rationale to Combine The ’455 PCT Publication and
`Ehsani ........................................................................................94
`
`3.
`
`Non-obviousness factors ...........................................................95
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................97
`
`APPENDICES TO DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN .....................98
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Engagement
`
`1. My name is Jeffrey L. Stein. I have been retained by counsel for Ford
`
`Motor Company (“Ford”) as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`I have been asked to provide analysis and my opinion about the state of the art of
`
`the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 (“the ’134 patent,” FMC
`
`1001) and on the patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 26, 27, 40, 58 and 62
`
`(“the challenged claims”) of the ’134 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
`
`University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Campus, and the former Associate Director of
`
`the Automotive Research Center at the University of Michigan. I have studied,
`
`taught and/or practiced in the relevant hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) control
`
`technology for over 20 years.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I received my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. I received a Masters of Science
`
`degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Bachelors of Science degree in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976.
`
`4.
`
`In my capacity as a Professor, I teach undergraduate and graduate
`
`courses in mechanical design, dynamics, systems and control engineering. In my
`
`capacity as a Professor, I also do research in the area of automotive system design
`
`5
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`and control as well as machine design and control. In several of my research
`
`projects, my students and I discovered unique ways to model, design and control
`
`automotive powertrains including hybrid powertrains.
`
`5.
`
` In addition to being the former Associate Director of the Automotive
`
`Research Center at the University of Michigan, I am also the former Principle
`
`Investigator (PI) of the project “A Multi-Scale Design and Control Framework for
`
`Dynamically Coupled Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructures, with Application
`
`to Vehicle-to-Grid Integration.” I am currently the PI of a project “Sustainable
`
`Transportation for a 3rd Century: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Addressing the
`
`Last Mile Problem for Enhanced Accessibility.” In my work at the Automotive
`
`Research Center, and on these projects, I have developed computer–based methods
`
`for facilitating the design evaluation of automotive powertrains including hybrid
`
`powertrains.
`
`6.
`
` From 1983 through 1987 and 1991 through the present, I have also
`
`worked as an Independent Consultant concentrating in the area of design and risk
`
`analysis of mechanical systems and manufacturing machines. Much of this work is
`
`particularly germane to the area of automotive powertrains. Some examples
`
`include: hybrid electric vehicles, automated mechanical transmissions and transfer
`
`cases for on-demand four-wheel drive.
`
`6
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`From 1988 through 1991, I was also employed as an Independent
`
`Consultant for Failure Analysis Associates in San Francisco, California, focusing
`
`on the design and risk analysis of mechanical systems and manufacturing
`
`machines.
`
`8.
`
`I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan, and
`
`am a member of several professional engineering organizations including the
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers, National Society of Professional Engineers, the
`
`American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Society of Manufacturing
`
`Engineers, and the American Society for Engineering Education.
`
`9.
`
`In my work, I have had a number of opportunities to deal with U.S.
`
`Patents. This work has included infringement and validity analysis in the areas of
`
`hybrid electric vehicle powertrain design, CNC machine tool control, automotive
`
`transfer case design and control, automotive interior lighted mirror design,
`
`automated mechanical transmissions, agricultural seed meters, automotive shipping
`
`containers, medical beds and automated chemical immunoassay machines.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored over 65 journal articles, including at least 13 articles
`
`that are related to hybrid electric vehicles. I have also contributed to over 115
`
`refereed conference papers, including at least 18 papers that are related to hybrid
`
`electric vehicles.
`
`7
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`11. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Appendix A, and
`
`provides a listing of all publications on which I am a named author.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $425 per hour to provide analysis
`
`and testimony in this inter partes review proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of any matter or the specifics of my testimony. I have
`
`no financial interest in the Petition.
`
`13.
`
`I have previously provided expert testimony in over 15 patent-related
`
`matters. My Curriculum Vitae, provided in Appendix A, identifies some of the
`
`areas in which I have previously provided expert testimony.
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered
`
`14. My findings, as explained below, are based on my years of education,
`
`research, experience, and background in the fields discussed above, as well as my
`
`investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`considered the materials I identify in this declaration and those listed in Appendix
`
`B.
`
`15. Additionally, I am aware of information generally available to, and
`
`relied upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including
`
`technical dictionaries and technical reference materials (including textbooks,
`
`8
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`manuals, technical papers and articles); some of my statements below are expressly
`
`based on such awareness.
`
`16. Due to procedural limitations for inter partes reviews, the grounds of
`
`unpatentability discussed herein are based solely on prior patents and other printed
`
`publications. I understand that Petitioner reserves all rights to assert other grounds
`
`for unpatentability or invalidity, not addressed herein, at a later time. Thus, the
`
`absence of discussion of such matters here should not be taken as indicating that
`
`there are no such additional grounds for unpatentability and invalidity of the ’134
`
`patent.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`A. General
`
`17.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’134 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal
`
`principles that have been provided to me.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Ford has the burden of proving
`
`that the challenged claims of the ’134 patent are unpatentable by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence. I understand that under “a preponderance of the evidence”
`
`standard, Ford must show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`9
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`19.
`
` I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`20.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether a
`
`claimed invention is patentable is generally referred to as “prior art” and includes
`
`patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles on
`
`websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in order to be considered “prior art,” patents or
`
`printed publications must predate the pertinent priority dates for the subject matter
`
`claimed in the ’134 patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a patent is only entitled to a priority date
`
`based on an earlier filed application if the earlier filed application meets the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112. Specifically, I have been informed that 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification of a patent or patent application must
`
`10
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`“contain a written description of the invention, and the manner and process of
`
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`
`person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`
`connected, to make and use the [invention] . . . .” I understand that the
`
`requirements of this provision are commonly called the written description
`
`requirement and the enablement requirement.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that compliance with both the written
`
`description requirement and enablement requirement must be determined as of the
`
`effective filing date of the application for which priority is sought.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that to satisfy the written description
`
`requirement a patent’s specification should reasonably convey to a person of skill
`
`in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the
`
`effective filing date of the application.
`
`C. Claim Construction Standard
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art, which for this proceeding is limited to patents and printed
`
`publications. I also understand that, at the same time, absent some reason to the
`
`11
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`contrary, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in other forums, such as in federal courts, different
`
`standards of proof and claim interpretation control, which are not applied by the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review. Accordingly, any
`
`interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in this proceeding, either
`
`implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as constituting, in whole or in part,
`
`Petitioner’s own interpretation or construction, except as regards the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the claims presented.
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, for a patent to be “anticipated” by the prior art, each
`
`and every limitation of the claim must be found, expressly, implicitly or inherently,
`
`in a single prior art reference. I further understand that the requirement of strict
`
`identity between the claim and the reference is not met if a single element or
`
`limitation required by the claim is missing from the applied reference.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly described in
`
`a prior art reference may still be there if they are implicit or inherent to the thing or
`
`process being described in the prior art. I have been informed that to establish
`
`12
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive
`
`matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it
`
`would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I have been
`
`informed that inherency cannot be established just because a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`32.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render obvious a claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art must
`
`have been able to arrive at the claimed invention by altering or combining the
`
`applied references.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter taught to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question involves a consideration
`
`of:
`
` the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`13
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
` the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
` the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case – referred to as “secondary
`
`considerations.”
`
`34. Such secondary considerations include: (a) commercial success of a
`
`product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unmet need
`
`for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the claimed
`
`invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art;
`
`(g) the taking of licenses under the patent by others and (h) the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. Secondary considerations are
`
`relevant where there is a connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rationale for combining cited references as proposed.
`
`14
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`37.
`
` Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by establishing that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior
`
`art or with other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be
`
`considered:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
` (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
` (E) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (i.e., choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`15
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
` (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. I also
`
`understand that this suggestion or motivation may come from such sources
`
`as explicit statements in the prior art, or from the knowledge or common
`
`sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statement saying the combination should not be made).
`
`
`
`16
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`39.
`
` Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant
`
`field for purposes of the ’134 patent is system, methods and apparatuses for
`
`controlling and operating a hybrid electric vehicle (“HEV”) and methods for
`
`improving fuel economy and reducing emissions. (See ’134 patent, FMC 1001, col.
`
`1:21-29 (“Field of the Invention”).)
`
`40.
`
` As described in Section I(B) above, I have extensive experience in
`
`the relevant field, including experience relating to hybrid powertrain control
`
`strategies and the related architecture. Based on my experience, I have an
`
`established understanding of the relevant field.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill in the art” is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art as of the relevant timeframe, thinks along
`
`conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. I understand
`
`that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references. It is my
`
`understanding that the ’134 patent is to be interpreted based on how it would be
`
`read by a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is my understanding that factors such
`
`as the education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish
`
`the level of skill in the art. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`17
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`not a specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the
`
`qualities reflected by the factors above.
`
`42.
`
`I understand the relevant timeframe for evaluating a claim is at the
`
`time of the invention, which is based on the effective filing date of each claim, or
`
`the date at which the subject matter of the claim was first disclosed in an
`
`application in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable the person
`
`skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention. For the reasons stated
`
`below, the effective filing date of the claims of the ’134 patent is April 2, 2001. In
`
`my opinion, given the relevant field and relevant timeframe of the ’134 patent, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have: 1) a graduate degree in mechanical,
`
`electrical or automotive engineering with at least some experience in the design
`
`and control of combustion engines, electric or hybrid electric vehicle propulsion
`
`systems, or design and control of automotive transmissions, or 2) a bachelor's
`
`degree in mechanical, electrical or automotive engineering and at least five years
`
`of experience in the design and control of combustion engines, electric vehicle
`
`propulsion systems, or automotive transmissions.
`
`43. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field as of April 2001. I have
`
`supervised and directed many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`
`
`18
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART AS OF 2001
`
`44. HEVs were conceived in an attempt to combine and utilize the power
`
`capabilities of electric motors and internal combustion engines to satisfy all the
`
`torque required or demanded for propelling the vehicle, in a fuel efficient manner.
`
`A. HEV Architecture
`
`45. HEVs are not new and in fact date back to the early 1900s. Indeed, I
`
`am aware of U.S. Patent No. 913,846 (“the ’846 patent”) granted to H. Pieper that
`
`issued in March 1909 entitled “Mixed Drive Auto Vehicles.” (Pieper, FMC 1018.)
`
`The ’846 patent discloses a vehicle having an internal combustion engine, a
`
`dynamo motor directly connected to the engine and a storage battery connected to
`
`the motor. (Pieper, FMC 1018, col. 1:20-35.)
`
`46. World events such as the Clean Air Act and other regulatory events
`
`during the 1960s and 1970s spurred a renewed interest in both electric vehicle and
`
`HEV development. (Duoba1, FMC 1011, p. 3.) This renewed interest spurred a 30
`
`year span of HEV research and development (R&D). Id.
`
`47. Based upon the level of HEV R&D during this period, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as early as September 1998 knew multiple HEV topologies
`
`and control strategies which had been used and developed. Indeed, it was also
`
`1 Michael Duoba, Ctr. for Transp. Research, Argonne Nat’l Lab., Challenges for
`
`the Vehicle Tester in Characterizing Hybrid Electric Vehicles, 7th CRC on Road
`
`Vehicle Emissions Workshop (April 1997)
`
`19
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`known that HEV control strategies generally used the motor(s) to ensure the engine
`
`operated at its “sweet spot” or optimum efficiency range to minimize emissions
`
`and energy consumption. (SAE SP-13312, FMC 1019, Preface, p. 4; Anderson3,
`
`FMC 1020, pp. 7-8.)
`
`1. Series HEVs
`
`48. One topology known prior to September 1998 is a “series” HEV that
`
`is configured to operate like a pure electric vehicle (“EV”). (Yamaguchi Paper4,
`
`FMC 1012, pp. 3-4.) Series HEVs mechanically connect and use the motor to
`
`supply all propulsive torque to the wheels. Id.
`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, p. 4, Figure 1(a)
`
`
`2 Society of Automotive Engineers Special Publication, Technology for Electric
`
`and Hybrid Vehicles, SAE SP-1331 (February 1998)
`
`3 Catherine Anderson & Erin Pettit, The Effects of APU Characteristics on the
`
`Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE Technical
`
`Paper 950493 (1995)
`
`4 Kozo Yamaguchi et al., Development of a New Hybrid System – Dual System,
`
`SAE Technical Paper 960231 (February 1996)
`
`20
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`49. One of skill in the art in September 1998 understood that the engine in
`
`a series HEV is controlled independently of the power, torque and speed demanded
`
`at the road wheels and is solely operated to provide electric energy to the batteries
`
`or motor. (Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, p. 3.) It was also known that a series
`
`HEV is operated at optimum efficiency and low emission ranges at all times.
`
`(Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, p. 3.)
`
`2. Parallel HEVs
`
`50.
`
`“Parallel” HEVs, on the other hand, were known to use an engine and
`
`motor either separately or in combination to supply propulsive torque to the
`
`wheels. (Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, pp. 3-4.)
`
`Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, p. 4, Figure 1(B)
`
`
`
`51. As shown below, parallel HEV topologies were known by September
`
`1998 to include one or more clutches [11, 13] to connect the internal combustion
`
`
`
`21
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`engine [10] and electric machine [12] to the driven wheels [16]. (Reinbeck5, FMC
`
`1021, col. 2:45-53.)
`
`Reinbeck, FMC 1021, Figure 1
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Series-Parallel HEVs
`
`52. A third known topology is the series-parallel HEV that combined the
`
`functional benefits of series and parallel HEV systems. The significant structural
`
`difference of series-parallel was the addition of a second—typically smaller—
`
`motor/generator. (Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, p. 4.) Series-Parallel HEVs were
`
`generally further classified as either a “switching” HEV or a “split” or “power-
`
`split” HEV. (Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, p. 4.)
`
`
`5 U.S. Patent No. 3,888,325 issued to Reinbeck (June 10, 1975)
`
`22
`
`FMC 1002
`
`

`
`
`
`Yamaguchi Paper, FMC 1012, Figure 1(C-1, C-2)
`
`
`
`53. Switching HEVs were known to inc