UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`
`Patent 8,214,097
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Background of the ’097 Patent ........................................................................ 4 
`
`III.  Defects in the instituted grounds of unpatentability ........................................ 8 
`
`IV.  Ground 6 is defective because claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 are not obvious
`over the proposed combination of Severinsky and Anderson ......................... 9 
`
`A.  Overview of the References .................................................................. 9 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Parallel Hybrid System and Series Hybrid System .................. 10 
`
`Severinsky ................................................................................. 12 
`
`Anderson ................................................................................... 13 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose the controller claimed in
`claim 30 ............................................................................................... 18 
`
`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 . . .” ................................................................... 24 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose limiting the rate of increase
`of engine output torque ....................................................................... 27 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose a “controller . . . such that
`combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially
`stoichiometric ratio” ............................................................................ 29 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the manner asserted
`by Ford................................................................................................. 32 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson teach away from the claimed invention .... 37 
`
`Ford’s proposed reasoning for combining the references is flawed ... 41 
`
`Ford’s expert should be given little or no weight ............................... 44 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`V.  Ground 7 is defective because claim 32 is not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson, and Yamaguchi ............................... 48 
`
`VI.  Ground 8 is defective because claim 33 is not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi, and Katsuno ................ 49 
`
`A. 
`
`Ford’s proposed combination of references would not render obvious
`claim 33, because the combination does not meet all the requirements
`of the claim .......................................................................................... 50 
`
`Katsuno does not disclose or suggest supplying fuel and air to
`1. 
`an engine at an air-fuel ratio of no more than 1.2 of the stoichiometric
`ratio 51 
`
`Katsuno does not disclose or suggest supplying fuel and air at
`2. 
`the ratio of 1.2 of the stoichiometric ratio for starting the engine ...... 54 
`
`B. 
`
`Ford’s proposed reasoning for combining the references is flawed ... 58 
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986) .................................................................................................................... 39
`
`Fluor Tec, Corp. v. Kappos, 499 Fed. Appx. 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................... 40
`
`In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................... 59
`
`In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................. 37
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................... 41, 43
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................ 40, 41
`
`Outside The Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) .................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Sata GmbH & Co., v. Anest Iwata Corp., 2013 WL 5970199 (June 25, 2013 Patent
`
`Tr. & App. Bd.) ............................................................................................. 48, 57
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................... 37
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................... 40
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 47, 48
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit Number
`PAICE Ex. 2002 Declaration of Neil Hannemann
`
`PAICE Ex. 2003 Neil Hannemann CV
`
`Jeffrey Stein Deposition Transcript (Jan. 12, 2015)
`
`Complaint
`
`PAICE Ex. 2006 Griffith Hack
`
`
`PAICE Ex. 2004
`
`PAICE Ex. 2005
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`The Board instituted trial with respect to claims 30-33, 35, 36, and 39 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the ’097 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`owned by Paice LLC and The Abell Foundation, Inc. (collectively, the “Patent
`
`Owner” or “Paice”) in view of a Petition requesting inter partes review filed by
`
`Ford Motor Company (“Ford”).
`
`The Board instituted a subset of the grounds based on the following
`
`references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky”) (Ex. 1009); (2) “The
`
`Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for
`
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” SAE Technical Paper Series, February 27–March 2,
`
`1995 (“Anderson”) (Ex. 1006); (3) U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263 (“Yamaguchi”) (Ex.
`
`1007); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 4,707,984 (“Katsuno”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`In particular, the Board instituted the following grounds: Ground 6—claims
`
`30, 31, 35, 36, and 39 as obvious over Severinsky and Anderson; Ground 7—claim
`
`32 as obvious over Severinsky, Anderson, and Yamaguchi; and Ground 8—claim
`
`33 as obvious over Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi, and Katsuno. See
`
`September 30, 2014 Decision at 12 (“Decision”). This Response is filed in
`
`opposition to the Petition, as informed and narrowed by the Decision, and does not
`
`address grounds not adopted by the Board. It is respectfully submitted that all
`
`challenged claims are patentable for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`Ford’s arguments with regards to the ’097 patent are fundamentally flawed
`
`for several reasons. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Severinsky may
`
`be combined with Anderson, the proposed combination fails to disclose the
`
`claimed controller of claim 30. The proposed combination does not disclose a
`
`controller, in response the operator’s command, (1) controlling the electric motor
`
`to provide additional torque when the torque provided by the engine is less than the
`
`amount required to operate the vehicle, and (2) limiting the rate of increase of the
`
`engine’s output torque to less than the inherent maximum rate of increase, such
`
`that combustion of fuel occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`Moreover, Severinsky discloses a parallel hybrid system, whereas Anderson
`
`is focused on a series hybrid system, which are very different systems. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the parallel hybrid topology and
`
`control strategies of Severinsky with the series hybrid control strategies of
`
`Anderson. Such a person would not have formed the proposed combinations
`
`because the proposed combinations would not have worked, and the references
`
`themselves actually teach away from the proposed combinations. Therefore, for
`
`the reasons detailed more fully herein, the Board should affirm the patentability of
`
`claims 30-33, 35, 36, and 39 of the ’097 patent.
`
`Before reaching the merits, it is important to place the Patent Owners and
`
`Ford’s Petition into the proper context. Abell is a Baltimore-based charitable
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`organization dedicated to fighting urban poverty and finding solutions to
`
`intractable problems confronting Maryland residents. Abell has invested millions
`
`of dollars in small companies like Paice, which is a small Maryland-based
`
`company that has developed and promoted hybrid electric technology since 1992.
`
`Paice has been involved with the world’s top automotive manufacturers in
`
`developing commercially viable hybrid vehicles, and in 2010 reached a significant
`
`license on the patent subject to Ford’s Petition with Toyota, the world’s most
`
`successful hybrid auto manufacturer. Between 1999 and 2004, Paice spent
`
`extensive time working with Ford to teach Ford Paice’s hybrid vehicle technology,
`
`including detailed modeling of Paice’s patented technology in actual or proposed
`
`Ford vehicles. Attached as Exhibit 2005 is the complaint Paice filed in district
`
`court that summarizes the full context of how Ford accepted Paice’s help and
`
`teaching, repeatedly complimented and validated Paice’s technology, but
`
`ultimately refused to license Paice’s patents.
`
`As the result of an earlier district court litigation, Ford did take a license in
`
`2010 to one of Paice’s patents—U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970. At that time, the
`
`parties were not able to reach resolution on the other Paice patents and entered into
`
`an Arbitration Agreement as a means to resolve the dispute. Ford declined to take
`
`Paice’s claims that Ford is unlawfully using Paice’s technology to arbitration, and
`
`instead has filed ten separate Petitions for Inter Partes Review before this Board.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`Beyond recognition by the automotive industry, others have considered
`
`Paice’s patents as among the most important in the automotive industry. Griffith
`
`Hack, an Australian law firm specializing in intellectual property, conducted an
`
`independent study of the most dominant hybrid vehicle patents in the world
`
`without input or even contact with Paice. Griffith Hack analyzed more than 58,000
`
`hybrid vehicle technology patents and their inter-relationships and concluded that
`
`the top hybrid vehicle patents were those held by Paice, ahead of those held by
`
`leading hybrid vehicle manufacturers such as Toyota, Ford and Honda. A copy of
`
`Griffith Hack’s white paper is attached as Exhibit 2006.
`
`II. Background of the ’097 Patent
`The ’097 patent describes a hybrid vehicle featuring a hybrid control
`
`strategy that reduces emissions during start and operation of the hybrid vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 1:24-32, col. 29:63-30:12; see also Ex. 2002, ¶28. For example, the
`
`’097 patent describes a hybrid control strategy that allows for starting the engine at
`
`a substantially stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The ’097 patent also describes a
`
`hybrid control strategy for limiting the rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque 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. See, e.g., id., col.
`
`27:31-35, col. 29:63-30:12, col. 37:2-6, col. 37:39-42, col. 38:62-39:14; see also
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`Ex. 2002, ¶28. This reduces emissions and improves fuel economy. Ex. 2002, ¶28.
`
`During the engine startup process of conventional engines, a rich air-fuel
`
`mixture on the order of 6-7 times the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is provided 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; see also Ex.
`
`2002, ¶33. 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; see also Ex. 2002, ¶33.
`
`During operation of conventional engines, when the operator depresses the
`
`accelerator, additional fuel is injected and thus results in a non-stoichiometric and
`
`inefficient combustion. See, e.g., id., col. 39:1-14; Ex. 2002, ¶33.
`
`By contrast, the ’097 patent describes a hybrid control strategy for limiting
`
`the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation to reduce emissions
`
`and using the electric motor to provide the balance of torque required to operate
`
`the vehicle in response to the operator’s command. See, e.g., id., col. 37:39-42; see
`
`also Ex. 2002, ¶34. The ’097 patent also describes a hybrid control strategy that
`
`allows 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
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel mixture can be provided to the engine during the startup
`
`phase. See, e.g., id., col. 30:3-12; see also Ex. 2002, ¶34. An example of the
`
`hybrid control strategy of the ’097 patent is illustrated in Figure 7(a) (annotated):
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`
`
`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; see also Ex.
`
`2002, ¶35. As 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; see also Ex. 2002, ¶35. 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)). Ex. 2002, ¶35.
`
`During the prosecution of the ’097 patent, the patentee stated that while
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`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. Ex. 2002,
`
`¶40. The electric ‘traction’ motor of the hybrid vehicle is instead employed to
`
`provide a rapid increase in torque provided to the wheels of the vehicle instead of
`
`forcing the engine out of stoichiometric combustion, thereby providing drivability.
`
`Ex. 1003, at 232-233; see also Ex. 2002, ¶40. The patentee also 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; see also Ex. 2002, ¶40.
`
`This hybrid control strategy is set forth in claim 30 of the ’097 patent. In
`
`particular, claim 30 recites a hybrid vehicle including an engine and electric motor
`
`both operable to propel the vehicle by providing torque to the wheels, and 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.
`
`Ex. 2002, ¶¶37-38. The wherein clauses further define how the controller controls
`
`both the electric motor and engine in response to the operator’s command. Id. In
`
`particular, the controller (1) controls the electric motor to provide additional torque
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`when the amount of torque being provided by the engine is less than the amount of
`
`torque required to operate the vehicle; and (2) controls the engine such that a rate
`
`of increase of output torque of the engine 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 change of torque produced by the engine such that combustion
`
`of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio. Id.
`
`III. Defects in the instituted grounds of unpatentability
`The instituted grounds of unpatentability are defective because key aspects
`
`of the invention are missing from the prior art such as the concept of a controller,
`
`in response the operator’s command, controlling the electric motor to provide
`
`additional torque when the torque provided by the engine is less than the amount
`
`required to operate the vehicle and limiting the rate of increase of the engine’s
`
`output torque such that combustion of fuel occurs at a substantially stoichiometric
`
`ratio. Even overlooking that defect, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have combined Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno in the manner
`
`proposed by Ford. (The level of skill in the art is defined in the declaration of Mr.
`
`Hannemann. Ex. 2002, ¶27. However, the differences between the level of skill
`
`described by Mr. Hannemann and Dr. Stein do not affect the outcome of the
`
`obviousness determination.) Such a person would not have formed the proposed
`
`combinations because the proposed combinations would not have worked, and the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`references themselves actually teach away from the combinations. Indeed, Ford’s
`
`asserted reasons for making the combinations are directly undercut by the actual
`
`teachings of the references.
`
`IV. Ground 6 is defective because claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 are not
`obvious over the proposed combination of Severinsky and Anderson
`
`The proposed combination of Severinsky and Anderson does not render
`
`obvious independent claim 30 and its dependent claims 31, 35, 36, and 39. Even
`
`assuming for the sake of argument that the parallel hybrid topology and control
`
`strategies of Severinsky could be combined with the series hybrid control strategies
`
`of Anderson, the proposed combination does not disclose the limitations of claim
`
`30. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined
`
`Severinsky and Anderson in the manner asserted by Ford. Ex. 2002, ¶6.
`
`Severinsky and Anderson are directed to very different hybrid topologies and
`
`control strategies. In fact, the series hybrid control strategies of Anderson would
`
`not work with the parallel hybrid topology and control strategies of Severinsky. Id.
`
`Claims 31, 35, 36 and 39 depend from claim 30, and thus, those claims are not
`
`obvious for at least the reasons discussed below with respect to claim 30.
`
`A. Overview of the References
`Severinsky and Anderson are directed to very different hybrid vehicle
`
`architectures, in this are called “topologies,” as well as very different control
`
`strategies. Ex. 2002, ¶77. Severinsky is directed to a parallel hybrid topology,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent NNo. 8,214,0097
`
`
`Patent OOwner Ressponse
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2014-000570
`3IP1
`
`
`Atttorney Doocket No: 336351-0013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`topology. es hybrid ted to a serien is directewhereass Anderson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before turrning to an
`
`
`
`overvieww of the reeferences, iit is importtant to undderstand thhe differencces betweeen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electric motor, whhich is powwered by thhe battery. Ex. 2002,, ¶42. In a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ry, and an
`
`parallel
`
`
`
`parallel and seriess topology hybrid sysstems. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2002, ¶411.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`Parallel
`
`
`
`Hybrid Syystem andd Series Hyybrid Systtem
`
`
`
`Inn general, a parallel hhybrid systtem includdes an enginne, a batte
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`motor, or hybrid ssystem, thee engine, thhe electric
`
`
`
`
`both, can bbe used to
`
`
`
`propel thee
`
`
`
`vehicle.. Id. Below is an exaample of aa parallel hyybrid systeem. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BBoth the enngine and eelectric motor are couupled to thee wheels too propel thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle.. Id., ¶43. Because tthe engine is used to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`propel the
`
`
`
` vehicle, thhe engine mmust
`
`
`
`
`
`respondd to operatoor commannds for proopelling thee vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. In adddition, the
`
`
`
`control of the engiine is timee sensitive bbecause thhe engine mmust responnd quicklyy to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`changinng operatorr commandds and perfform fast trransients.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. For exxample, whhen
`
`
`
`
`
`the operrator depreesses the acccelerator ppedal, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`engine muust quickly
`
`
`
`respond too the
`
`
`
`operatorr’s commaand, even iff this resullts in a nonn-stoichiommetric and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inefficientt
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent NNo. 8,214,0097
`
`
`Patent OOwner Ressponse
`
`
`
`Case IPPR2014-000570
`3IP1
`
`
`Atttorney Doocket No: 336351-0013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combusstion when
`
`
`
`additionall fuel is inj
`
`ected into
`
`
`
`the enginee. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AA series hybbrid systemm generallyy includes
`
`
`
`
`
`generatoor/motor, aa battery, aand an elecctric motorr. Id., ¶45.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an engine,, an electriic
`
`
`
` In contra
`
`
`
`st to a paraallel
`
`
`
`propel thee vehicle inn a series
`
`
`
`
`
`hybrid ssystem, onnly the elecctric motor is used to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hybrid ssystem. Idd. The engine is neveer used to ppropel the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vehicle, annd in fact tthere
`
`
`
`
`
`is no meechanical cconnectionn between tthe engine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the drrive wheelss. Id. Insttead,
`
`
`
`the engiine is usedd to charge the batteryy that poweers the elecctric motorr. Id., ¶¶466-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47. Bellow is an eexample of f a series hyybrid systeem. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`he vehicle.to propel thde torque tls to provido the wheelThe enggine is not coupled to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.
`
`
`
`The enggine’s onlyy role is to occasionallly spin thee generatorr, which chharges the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`battery when the sstate of chaarge of the battery fallls too loww. Id., ¶¶466-47. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`battery provides thhe power ffor the elecctric motorr to propel
`
`
`
`
`
`the vehiclee. Id. In thhis
`
`
`
`
`
`manner
`
`
`
`
`, the enginne is decouppled from the drive ttrain and iss not requirred to resppond
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to changging operaator commaands, and tthus, the coontrol of thhe engine i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s not time
`
`
`
`sensitivve. Id., ¶488. Instead, the enginee can run aat predefineed constannt power lev
`vels
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`to charge the battery independent from operator commands. Id. Because the
`
`engine is used only to charge the battery, the control of the engine can be based,
`
`for example, on the state of charge of the battery. Id. In other words, the power
`
`output of the engine can be set to constant power levels responsive to the state of
`
`charge of the battery to charge the battery, independent of operator commands. Id.
`
`2.
`Severinsky
`Severinsky is directed to a parallel hybrid system. Ex. 1009, col. 6:3-5; see
`
`also Ex. 2002, ¶50. In fact, Severinsky discourages the use of series hybrid
`
`systems by stating that “series hybrid electric vehicles are inefficient and grossly
`
`uneconomical.” Ex. 1009, col. 2:55-65; see also Ex. 2002, ¶50. Severinsky
`
`discloses a control strategy where the engine, electric motor, or both the engine and
`
`electric motor, can be used to propel the parallel hybrid vehicle. Ex. 2002, ¶¶52-
`
`53. The hybrid vehicle operates in various modes based on vehicle speed,
`
`including a low speed mode where only the electric motor is used to propel the
`
`vehicle, and a high speed/cruising mode where only the engine is used to propel
`
`the vehicle. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, col. 10:52-68; 13:66-14:2; see also Ex. 1003, at
`
`238-239 (Severinsky “teaches making such ‘mode switching’ determination based
`
`on the vehicle speed, not the road load RL”); see also Ex. 2002, ¶¶52-56. There is
`
`also a high-speed acceleration/hill climbing mode where both the engine and
`
`electric motor are used to propel the vehicle. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, col. 14:22-26; see
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`also Ex. 2002, ¶¶52-56.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`Severinsky clearly teaches that the microprocessor activates the electric
`
`motor when torque in excess of the capabilities of the engine is required. Id., col.
`
`14:16-18; see also Ex. 2002, ¶93. There is no disclosure in Severinsky that the
`
`electric motor is used to provide additional torque to propel the vehicle when the
`
`rate of increase of the engine output torque is limited or when the engine is
`
`operating below its capabilities. Id. Instead, Severinsky discloses the electric
`
`motor providing additional torque to propel the vehicle when the capabilities of the
`
`engine are exceeded. Id.; see also Ex. 2004, Stein Tr. at 162:19-164:16.
`
`Anderson
`
`3.
`Anderson is entitled “The Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of
`
`Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles.” Anderson explores the
`
`methodology behind the design of a hybrid control strategy, including component
`
`characteristics and design trade-offs for the auxiliary power unit (APU) (e.g.,
`
`engine) and battery. Ex. 1006 at 3; see also Ex. 2002, ¶57.
`
`As an initial matter, Anderson notes that hybrid vehicles are divided into two
`
`architectural categories—series and parallel. Ex. 1006 at 3-4. In a series hybrid
`
`system, the APU is decoupled from the wheels, and thus, the increased flexibility
`
`of the series hybrid system offers more optimized components that overcome the
`
`inefficiencies from converting mechanical power from the APU into electrical
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`power and then back into mechanical power. Id. at 3-4; see also Ex. 2002, ¶¶58-
`
`61. In contrast to the series topology, in a parallel hybrid system, there is a direct
`
`mechanical connection between the APU and the wheels through a transmission.
`
`Id. at 4. Because the APU is directly coupled to the wheels, the APU speed is
`
`determined by the vehicle speed and transmission and thus, the direct coupling
`
`limits the flexibility of hybrid strategy design. Id. at 4; see also Ex. 2002, ¶¶62-63.
`
`Although Anderson states that the thought processes presented in this paper
`
`are sufficiently general that they can be applied to any type of vehicle, this simply
`
`means that the “thought processes”—in other words, the methodology of designing
`
`a hybrid control strategy and the effects of APU and battery characteristics and
`
`design trade-offs—can be applied to any type of vehicle. Id. at 4; see also Ex.
`
`2002, ¶64. Nowhere does Anderson suggest that the hybrid control strategies
`
`articulated for a series hybrid can be applied to a parallel hybrid. In fact, Anderson
`
`differentiates the two architectures and makes clear that, to fully explore the
`
`flexibility allowed by the hybrid system, its focus is on the design of a strategy for
`
`a power assist hybrid, which is a series hybrid system. Ex. 1006 at 4-5.
`
`When considering control strategies for a series hybrid system, Anderson
`
`starts by describing two extremes in control strategies for a series hybrid system:
`
`“thermostat” mode and “following” mode. Id. at 5; see also Ex. 2002, ¶65. Using
`
`the “thermostat” mode, the APU is turned on to a constant power level when the
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`state of charge of the battery is below a certain lower threshold, and turned off
`
`when the state of charge exceeds an upper threshold. Id. The “following” mode
`
`requires the “APU to follow the actual wheel power whenever possible (similar to
`
`a conventional automobile).” Id. Using the “following” mode, the APU “must
`
`then operate over its entire range of power levels and perform fast power
`
`transients, both of which can adversely affect engine efficiency and emissions
`
`characteristics.” Id. Importantly, Anderson notes that the “following” mode “is
`
`the mode a parallel hybrid vehicle always uses.” Id. Thus, although the
`
`“thermostat” mode or the “following” mode may be considered for a series hybrid
`
`vehicle, Anderson expressly teaches that a parallel hybrid vehicle always uses the
`
`“following” mode and that the engine must perform fast power transients. Id. This
`
`is because the engine follows the actual wheel power and responds to an operator’s
`
`command for more power. Id.
`
`
`
`Anderson acknowledges that neither strategy would be the optimum
`
`strategy, because the optimum strategy is dependent on the component
`
`characteristics and design trade-offs for the APU and battery. Id. at 5; see also Ex.
`
`2002, ¶66. Of note, Anderson discusses APU characteristics of transient
`
`capabilities and emissions. In discussing APUs and their characteristics, Anderson
`
`again makes clear that its focus is on the control strategy for a series hybrid
`
`system. Anderson states that “[b]ecause the APU is decoupled from the drivetrain,
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`there is greater flexibility in its design,” and the “design need not be performance
`
`driven.” Id.; see also id. at 7 (“a series hybrid vehicle decouples both the speed
`
`and power of the APU from the speed and power requirement at the wheels”).
`
`Regarding APU transient capabilities, Anderson states that: “Mechanically,
`
`the transient capabilities of an engine are limited by the inertia involved in
`
`increasing or decreasing the engine speed. Although slower transients are
`
`desirable for reducing emissions, slow transients can curtail the life of the battery
`
`or potentially harm the engine.” Ex. 1006 at 7. In other words, Anderson’s focus
`
`is limited to the inherent transient characteristics of an engine, recognizing the
`
`limitations associated with an engine’s mechanical inertia when increasing or
`
`decreasing the engine speed. Ex. 2002, ¶69. For example, engines have different
`
`transient capabilities based on mechanical parameters such as flywheel inertia,
`
`inertia of other rotating and reciprocating components, limitations of air flow, and
`
`internal friction. Id.; see also Ex. 1003 at 234-235. Anderson is simply making
`
`the unremarkable observation that when choosing engines based on their
`
`characteristics for a series hybrid system, the transient capability of an engine is
`
`inherently limited by mechanical inertia and that may be a consideration. Ex. 1006
`
`at 6; see also Ex. 2002, ¶69.
`
`Anderson’s discussion regarding APU emissions is also focused on a series
`
`hybrid system. Anderson recognizes that transients present an emissions problem
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 8,214,097
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No: 36351-0013IP1
`
`that is largely related to the speed of the transient and teaches that “[s]ome of this
`
`effect can be reduced using a hybrid strategy that only allows slow transients, but
`
`this places greater strain on the LLD.” Ex. 1006 at 7; see also Ex. 2002