UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2002
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-00570
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 2
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 5
`
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 7
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......10
`
`VI. THE ’097 PATENT .......................................................................................10
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED REFERENCES ...................................18
`
`A.
`
`Parallel Hybrid Systems and Series Hybrid Systems ..........................18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Severinsky ...........................................................................................22
`
`Anderson .............................................................................................26
`
`D. Yamaguchi ...........................................................................................34
`
`E.
`
`Katsuno ................................................................................................34
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS ....................................................................35
`
`A.
`
`Claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 are not obvious over the
`proposed combination of Severinsky and Anderson ...........................35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`combined Severinsky and Anderson .........................................35
`
`Severinsky and Anderson teach away from the
`claimed invention ......................................................................41
`
`Ford’s proposed reasoning for combining the
`references is flawed ...................................................................45
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose all of the
`limitations of the challenged claims .........................................47
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
` Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose the
`controller claimed in claim 30 ..................................................47
`
` Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose
`“wherein the controller controls said engine such
`that a rate of increase of output torque of said
`engine is limited . . .” ................................................................50
`
` Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose
`limiting the rate of increase of engine output
`torque.........................................................................................52
`
` Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose a
`“controller . . . such that combustion of fuel within
`the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric
`ratio” ..........................................................................................54
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 32 is not obvious over the proposed combination
`of Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi ...........................................57
`
`Claim 33 is not obvious over the proposed combination
`of Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno ...........................58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Katsuno does not disclose supplying fuel and air to
`an engine at an air-fuel ratio of no more than 1.2 of
`the stoichiometric ratio .............................................................59
`
`Katsuno does not disclose supplying fuel and air at
`the ratio of 1.2 of the stoichiometric ratio for
`starting the engine .....................................................................64
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`combine Severinsky and Katsuno .............................................69
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................69
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Neil Hannemann CV
`
`Jeffrey Stein Deposition Transcript (Jan. 12, 2015)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`I, Neil Hannemann, hereby declare the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Paice LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation (collectively, “Paice” or “Patent Owner”) to investigate and analyze
`
`certain issues relating to the validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the
`
`’097 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Petitioner”) in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’097 patent, Case No. IPR2014-00570.
`
`I have reviewed Ford’s petition, along with the declaration of Ford’s expert, Dr.
`
`Jeffrey L. Stein, and the documents cited therein. I have reviewed the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) decision to institute.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following
`
`claims of the ’097 patent (the “challenged claims”): 30, 31-33, 35, 36, and 39.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Ford and Dr. Stein argue that the challenged claims
`
`are invalid as obvious in light of various combinations of the following references:
`
`•
`
`“Severinsky” – U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970, titled “Hybrid
`
`Electric Vehicle” and issued to Alex J. Severinsky on
`
`September 6, 1994 (Ex. 1009)
`
`
`
`1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`•
`
`“Anderson” – The Effects of APU Characteristics on the
`
`Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric
`
`Vehicles, Catherine Anderson and Erin Pettit, SAE Technical
`
`Paper Series, February 27 – March 2, 1995 (Ex. 1006)
`
`•
`
`“Yamaguchi” – U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263, titled “Hybrid
`
`Vehicle” and issued to Kozo Yamaguchi, Yoshikazu Yamauchi,
`
`and Hideki Nakashima on February 2, 1999 (Ex. 1007)
`
`•
`
`“Katsuno” – U.S. Patent No. 4,707,984, titled “Double Air-Fuel
`
`Ratio Sensor System Having Improved Response
`
`Characteristics” and issued to Toshiyasu Katsuno, Toshinari
`
`Nagai, Takatoshi Masui, and Yasushi Satou on November 24,
`
`1987 (Ex. 1008)
`
`5. My opinions are based on my review of the ’097 patent and each of
`
`the above listed references. Additionally, I have reviewed the documents
`
`identified as exhibits to this declaration, including the deposition transcript of Dr.
`
`Stein and the prosecution history of the ’097 patent. Finally, my opinions are also
`
`based on my experience and work in the field of automotive engineering (as
`
`detailed further below).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`6.
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, I disagree with Ford and Dr. Stein
`
`that the challenged claims are obvious in view the proposed combinations of the
`
`above references. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
`
`
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`the references in the manner proposed by Ford. The proposed combinations would
`
`not have worked, and the references themselves actually teach away from the
`
`proposed combinations. Even if the references could somehow be combined, the
`
`proposed combinations do not disclose all of the limitations of independent claim
`
`30 and its dependent claims 31-33, 35, 36, and 39. Therefore, it is my opinion that
`
`the challenged claims are not obvious in view of the various combinations
`
`proposed by Ford.
`
`7.
`
`In Ground 6, Ford asserts that claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 are
`
`obvious over the proposed combination of Severinsky and Anderson. It is my
`
`opinion that claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 are not obvious in view of the proposed
`
`combination of Severinsky and Anderson. As an initial matter, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Severinsky and Anderson in the
`
`manner proposed by Ford. Severinsky and Anderson are directed to very different
`
`hybrid topologies and control strategies. The series hybrid control strategies of
`
`Anderson would not work with the parallel hybrid topology and control strategies
`
`of Severinsky. Severinsky and Anderson also expressly teach away from
`
`combining the references. Even if the references could somehow be combined, the
`
`proposed combination does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 30, 31, 35,
`
`36 and 39.
`
`
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In Ground 7, Ford asserts that claim 32 is obvious over the proposed
`
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi. It is my opinion that claim
`
`32 is not obvious over the proposed combination of Severinsky, Anderson and
`
`Yamaguchi. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
`
`Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi in the manner proposed by Ford.
`
`Severinsky teaches away from heating the engine, and in fact teaches reducing
`
`combustion temperature and operating at a lower temperature to lower emissions.
`
`Even if the references could somehow be combined, the proposed combination of
`
`Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi does not disclose all of the limitations of
`
`claim 32.
`
`9.
`
`In Ground 8, Ford asserts that claim 33 is obvious over the proposed
`
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno. It is my opinion
`
`that claim 33 is not obvious over the proposed combination of Severinsky,
`
`Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not have combined Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno in the manner
`
`proposed by Ford. Katsuno is not even related to hybrid vehicles. Rather, Katsuno
`
`is directed to feedback control of an air-fuel ratio in an internal combustion engine
`
`of conventional non-hybrid vehicles. Moreover, Katsuno describes an air-fuel
`
`ratio correction routine using a correction factor that cannot be equated to the air-
`
`fuel ratio itself. Even if the references could somehow be combined, the proposed
`
`
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno does not disclose
`
`all of the limitations of claim 33.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`10. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2003,
`
`and contains a description of my work history, education, and accomplishments. I
`
`am an automotive engineer with over 25 years of experience in road and race
`
`vehicle engineering and design.
`
`11.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
`
`Automotive option, from the General Motors Institute (now known as Kettering
`
`University) in 1981. My college thesis was entitled “Design of an Emissions
`
`Laboratory”, dated May 15, 1981.
`
`12.
`
`I worked for almost 20 years for Chrysler (then DaimlerChrysler).
`
`During my assignment as the vehicle development engineer for the Dodge Viper I
`
`was responsible for certain aspects of emissions development and certification.
`
`This included scheduling and monitoring the durability cycle, coordinating
`
`emissions calibration and development. The Dodge Viper utilized a metal
`
`monolith catalytic converter. While a product development engineer at Chrysler, I
`
`also performed calibrations to Engine Control Modules (ECM).
`
`13.
`
`I spent two years as a Chief Engineer at Saleen Inc. While there, I
`
`was responsible for all vehicle design, design analysis and vehicle development. I
`
`
`
`5
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`was also responsible for emissions certification for all Saleen models.
`
`Additionally, I was responsible for powertrain calibrations. I personally approved
`
`every final calibration that the engineers performed.
`
`14.
`
`I was the Chief Engineer for the Ford GT, initially produced as a 2005
`
`model. In this role, I was responsible for all aspects of the performance of the Ford
`
`GT. This included drafting and approving the plan for all safety and certification
`
`testing, including emissions development and testing. I was also responsible for
`
`the decision on which engine to use for the vehicle. I also was the architect for the
`
`main structure of the vehicle and was responsible for all structural design, analysis,
`
`testing and development.
`
`15. As Chief Engineer responsible for design, design analysis and
`
`development for the Ford GT I was involved in the emissions strategy, and the
`
`design of the emissions related components. Ford had yet to utilize a metal
`
`monolith catalytic converter and my experience at Chrysler with the Dodge Viper
`
`was a factor in convincing Ford to use this new (for them) technology.
`
`16.
`
`I worked as an Executive Director of Engineering for McLaren
`
`Automotive. While there, I was responsible for all aspects of engineering and
`
`technical integrity for their current and future products. My focus was on mid-
`
`engine sports cars for Mercedes-Benz, FMVSS 208 compliance for Mercedes-
`
`McLaren SLR and future variants.
`
`
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I was a Senior Vice President at Aptera Motors, Inc. While at Aptera,
`
`I was involved in the development and testing of regenerative braking calibrations.
`
`I have also done this type of work for other consulting clients. These clients
`
`include those developing hybrid-electric vehicles.
`
`18.
`
` I am a named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,276,693 B2, October 2,
`
`2012, entitled “Powertrain, Vehicle, and Method with Electric Motors and Dual
`
`Belt Drive”, direct to a transaxle.
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $525 for each hour of service
`
`that I provide in connection with this matter. This compensation is not contingent
`
`upon my performance, upon the outcome of this matter, or upon any issues
`
`involved in or related to this matter.
`
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`20.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`below, as provided to me by counsel for Patent Owners and as I understand them.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that a
`
`claim is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`an obviousness rejection may be based upon a combination of references. I am
`
`informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. However, I am informed by counsel for the
`
`Patent Owners and understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is
`
`not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`when a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior
`
`art. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`identifying a reason those elements would be combined can be important because
`
`inventions in many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and
`
`claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some
`
`sense, is already known. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and
`
`understand that it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that
`
`a patent's claims should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`an obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the
`
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved
`
`need, failure of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`all prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one of
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`in an inter partes review proceeding, the claims of a patent are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable meaning as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, consistent with the specification of the patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27. Based on my review of the ’097 patent, the documents cited by Ford
`
`and Dr. Stein, and my own knowledge and skill based on my experience in the
`
`automotive industry and with the design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, it
`
`is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in September of 19981 is a
`
`person who would have a combination of experience and education in the design
`
`and development of mechanical systems or control systems, typically a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or similar field
`
`plus at least three years of experience in designing, implementing, testing,
`
`teaching, or otherwise working with automotive systems, control system logic, or a
`
`related field.2
`
`VI. THE ’097 PATENT
`
`28. The ’097 patent (Ex. 1001), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on July
`
`3, 2012 from an application that claims priority to a provisional application filed
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’097 claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’097 patent,
`
`that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`2 I note that the differences between the level of skill above and the level of skill
`
`defined by Dr. Stein are minor and do not affect my opinions set forth below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`on September 14, 1998. The ’097 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with control
`
`methods that are directed to reducing emissions during start, as well as operation of
`
`the hybrid vehicle. Ex. 1001, col. 1:24-32, col. 29:63-30:12. For example, the
`
`’097 patent describes control methods that provide for starting the engine at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The ’097 patent also describes control
`
`methods for limiting the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation
`
`of the hybrid vehicle such that the combustion of fuel occurs at a substantially
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel ratio and using the electric motor to meet any shortfall in
`
`torque required to operate the vehicle in response to the operator’s command. Id.,
`
`col. 27:31-35, col. 29:63-30:12, col. 37:2-6, col. 37:39-42, and col. 38:62-39:14.
`
`The methods of control described the ’097 patent result in the reduction of
`
`emissions and improve fuel economy.
`
`29. The ’097 patent discloses embodiments of hybrid vehicles with an
`
`internal combustion engine, at least one electric motor, and a battery coupled to the
`
`electric motor. The internal combustion engine, electric motor, or both the engine
`
`and electric motor, can be used to propel the hybrid vehicle. A microprocessor is
`
`used to control the operation of the components, as well as select different
`
`operating modes based on the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements, the
`
`state of charge of the battery bank, and other variables.
`
`
`
`11
`
`15
`
`

`
`30. An embodiment of the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the ’097 patent is
`
`shown in Figure 3, which is reproduced below:
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`31. As shown in Figure 3, a traction motor 25 and an internal combustion
`
`engine 40 (through clutch 51) are mechanically connected with the road wheels 34
`
`through a differential 32. A starter motor 21 is connected to the internal
`
`combustion engine 40. The motors 21 and 25 are functional as either motors or
`
`generators, depending on the operation of the corresponding inverter/charger units
`
`23 and 27, which connect the motors to the battery bank 22. Id. at 26:13-24.
`
`32. These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48 capable of
`
`examining input parameters and signals and controlling the flow of electrical and
`
`
`
`12
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`mechanical power between the engine, the electric motor, and the wheels. Id., col.
`
`26:44-27:12. For example, control of engine 40 is accomplished by way of control
`
`signals provided by the microprocessor to the electronic fuel injection (EFI) unit
`
`56 and electronic engine management (EEM) unit 55. Control of (1) starting of the
`
`engine 40; (2) use of motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or (3) use of
`
`motors as generators to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is
`
`accomplished through control signals provided by the microprocessor to the
`
`inverter/charger units 23 and 27. Id., col. 25:46-27:22; 27:59-28:15; 29:8-18.
`
`33.
`
`In conventional engines, a rich air-fuel mixture on the order of 6-7
`
`times the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is provided during the engine startup process
`
`to ensure that some fraction of the fuel is in the vapor phase, since only fuel in the
`
`vapor phase can be ignited by a spark. See, e.g., id., col. 29:64-67. Most of the
`
`excess fuel condenses as liquid on the cold cylinder walls and is emitted unburned.
`
`See, e.g., id., col. 29:67-30:3. During operation of conventional engines, when the
`
`operator depresses the accelerator pedal, additional fuel is injected into the engine
`
`to meet the operator’s command and thus, may result in a non-stoichiometric and
`
`inefficient combustion. See, e.g., id., col. 39:1-14.
`
`34. By contrast, the control methods disclosed in the ’097 patent allow for
`
`starting the engine at high speeds, creating turbulence in the combustion chamber
`
`that is sufficient to ensure the presence of vapor so that a substantially
`
`
`
`13
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel mixture can be provided to the engine during the startup
`
`phase. See, e.g., id., col. 30:3-12. The ’097 patent also describes control methods
`
`that allow for limiting the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation
`
`to reduce emissions and using the electric motor to meet any shortfall in torque
`
`required to operate the vehicle. See, e.g., id., col. 37:39-42. An example of the
`
`hybrid control method disclosed by the ’097 patent is illustrated in Figure 7(a)
`
`(annotated):
`
`35. The solid line of the graph in Figure 7(a) depicts the vehicle’s
`
`instantaneous torque requirement (road load), whereas the dashed line of the graph
`
`depicts the engine’s instantaneous output torque. See, e.g., id., col. 37:51-63. As
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`shown in Figure 7(a) starting at point D, the rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric combustion. See,
`
`e.g., id., col. 38:62-65. When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet
`
`the road load, and thus, the electric motor is used to provide the balance of the
`
`torque to propel the vehicle (see red cross-hatched annotation in Fig. 7(a)).
`
`36. By contrast, a conventional vehicle does not have an electric motor to
`
`provide additional torque and cannot limit the rate of increase of the engine’s
`
`output torque to maintain stoichiometric combustion. Instead, when the operator
`
`depresses the accelerator pedal, the operator’s command must be met entirely by
`
`the engine in the conventional vehicle, even if this results in a non-stoichiometric
`
`and inefficient combustion when additional fuel is injected into the engine.
`
`37. The claimed inventions of the ’097 patent control the operation of the
`
`engine and electric motor in response to the operator’s command such that
`
`combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`For example, independent claim 30 of the ’097 patent recites a hybrid vehicle
`
`comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`one or more wheels;
`
`an internal combustion engine operable to propel the hybrid vehicle
`
`by providing torque to the one or more wheels, wherein said engine has an
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque;
`
`
`
`15
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`
`
`at least one electric motor operable to propel the hybrid vehicle by
`
`providing torque to the one or more wheels;
`
`
`
`a battery coupled to the at least one electric motor, operable to provide
`
`electrical power to the at least one electric motor; and
`
`
`
`a controller, operable to control the flow of electrical and mechanical
`
`power between the engine, the at least one electric motor, and the one or
`
`more wheels, responsive to an operator command;
`
`
`
`wherein said controller controls said at least one electric motor to
`
`provide additional torque when the amount of torque being provided by said
`
`engine is less than the amount of torque required to operate the vehicle; and
`
`
`
`wherein said controller controls said engine such that a rate of
`
`increase of output torque of said engine is limited to less than said inherent
`
`maximum rate of increase of output torque, and wherein the controller is
`
`operable to limit the rate of change of torque produced by the engine such
`
`that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially
`
`stoichiometric ratio.
`
`38. The “stoichiometric” features of the claimed invention are set forth in
`
`the limitations relating to the controller. Claim 30 requires a controller operable to
`
`control the flow of electrical and mechanical power between the engine, the
`
`electric motor, and the wheels, responsive to an operator command. The wherein
`
`
`
`16
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`clauses set forth how the controller controls both the electric motor and engine in
`
`response to the operator’s command. In particular, the controller controls (1) the
`
`electric motor to provide additional torque when the amount of torque being
`
`provided by the engine is less than the amount of torque required to operate the
`
`vehicle, and (2) the engine such that a rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque is limited to less than the inherent maximum rate of increase of output
`
`torque, and wherein the controller is operable to limit the rate of increase of the
`
`engine’s output torque such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`39. As discussed above, this is consistent with the specification. Figure
`
`7(a) starting at point D shows that the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque
`
`is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric combustion. See, e.g., id.,
`
`col. 38:62-65. When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet the road
`
`load, and the electric motor provides the balance of the torque to propel the vehicle
`
`(see red cross-hatched annotation in Fig. 7(a)).
`
`40.
`
`I also note that during the prosecution of the ’097 patent, the patentee
`
`explained that while substantially stoichiometric combustion is to be maintained,
`
`“drivability – that is, rapid increase in the torque provided to the wheels in
`
`response to the operator’s command – is nonetheless essential to a commercially
`
`viable vehicle. The at least one electric ‘traction’ motor of the hybrid vehicle is
`
`
`
`17
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`instead employed to provide a rapid increase in the torque to be provided to the
`
`wheels of the vehicle, providing drivability.” See Ex. 1003 at 232-233. The
`
`patentee further explained that: “the rate of increase of torque output by the ICE
`
`[internal combustion engine] is limited by the controller to less than the inherent
`
`maximum rate of increase in output torque of the ICE, and any shortfall in the
`
`torque required to meet the operator’s requirements – that is, to provide drivability
`
`– is supplied by torque from the traction motor.” Id. at 234.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED REFERENCES
`
`41.
`
`I understand that Ford relies on various combinations of Severinsky,
`
`Anderson, Yamaguchi, and Katsuno. Before discussing the cited references, I
`
`believe it is important to understand the fundamental differences between the
`
`different types of hybrid vehicles described in the references.
`
`A. Parallel Hybrid Systems and Series Hybrid Systems
`
`42. Parallel hybrid systems typically include an engine, a battery, and an
`
`electric motor that is powered by the battery. In a parallel hybrid system, the
`
`engine, the electric motor, or both the engine and electric motor, can be used to
`
`propel the vehicle. Below is an example of a parallel hybrid system.
`
`
`
`18
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`
`
`43. Both the engine and the electric motor are mechanically coupled with
`
`the wheels of the hybrid vehicle (e.g., through a transmission.) and can be used for
`
`propelling the hybrid vehicle. Because the engine is used to propel the vehicle, the
`
`engine must respond to operator commands for propelling the vehicle. In addition,
`
`the control of the engine is time sensitive because the engine must respond quickly
`
`to changing operator commands and perform fast transients. For example, when
`
`the operator depresses the accelerator pedal, the engine must quickly respond to the
`
`operator’s command, even if this results in a non-stoichiometric and inefficient
`
`combustion when additional fuel is injected into the engine.
`
`44. The electric motor can operate as a “traction motor” to provide torque
`
`to the wheels for propelling the vehicle or as a “generator” to recharge the battery
`
`(e.g., through regenerative braking or through the engine rotating the electric
`
`motor). To recharge the battery, the engine can split its output to propel the hybrid
`
`vehicle and to charge the battery through the electric motor. When the electric
`
`motor is being used as a generator, the motor cannot be used to propel the vehicle.
`
`
`
`19
`
`23
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`45. A series hybrid system typically includes an engine, a generator, a
`
`battery, and an electric motor. In a series hybrid system, only the electric motor is
`
`used to propel the vehicle. The engine is not used to propel the vehicle. Below is
`
`an example of a series hybrid system.
`
`
`
`46.
`
` The engine is coupled to the electric generator and rotates the
`
`generator, which generates electrical power for charging the battery. The engine in
`
`a series hybrid system is only used to charge the battery through the generator.
`
`The battery is electrically coupled with the electric motor and provides power to
`
`the electric motor. The electric motor is mechanically coupled to the wheels of the
`
`vehicle (e.g., through a differential). The generator provides power to the battery,
`
`which provides power to the electric motor, which then provides torque to drive
`
`the wheels.
`
`47.
`
`In a series hybrid system, the engine is not mechanically coupled to
`
`the wheels to propel the vehicle. As noted above, only the electric motor is
`
`mechanically coupled to the wheels to provide torque to propel the vehicle. The
`
`
`
`20
`
`24
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`engine is used only to charge the battery and cannot be used to provide torque to
`
`propel the vehicle.
`
`48. Because the e