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. 8,214,097 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Page 1 of 69
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00570
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Page 1 of 69
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List .................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Paice’s argument focuses on issues that are beyond the scope of
`this IPR .................................................................................................. 6
`
`II.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 Are Obvious over Severinsky
`’970 in View of Anderson .............................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`Claim 30 ..............................................................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 31, 35, 36 and 39 .....................................................................24
`
`Rationale to Combine Severinsky ’970 and Anderson .......................24
`
`III. Ground 7: Claim 32 Is Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in View of
`Anderson and further in View of Yamaguchi ...............................................55
`
`A.
`
`Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of operating the engine at cold
`temperatures is not applicable to claim 32 ..........................................55
`
`IV. Ground 8: Claim 33 Is Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in View of
`Anderson, Yamaguchi and further in View of Katsuno ................................58
`
`A. Katsuno teaches operating the engine close to the stoichiometric
`air-fuel ratio during starting conditions when the engine is
`heated above 25 degrees C ..................................................................58
`
`B.
`
`Rationale to combine Katsuno with Severinsky ’970, Anderson,
`Yamaguchi and Katsuno .....................................................................65
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Anderson
`
`Yamaguchi
`Katsuno
`Severinsky ’970
`’634 file history
`
`Heywood
`
`FMC 1011
`
`Identifier
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`’097 patent
`FMC 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`FMC 1002 Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey L. Stein Stein Decl.
`FMC 1003
`File History of U.S. Patent No.
`’097 File History
`8,214,097
`PCT Publication No. WO00/15455 ’455 PCT publication
`FMC 1004
`FMC 1005 A. Caraceni et al., Hybrid Power
`Caraceni
`Unit Development for Fiat
`Multipla Vehicle, SAE Technical
`Paper 981124 (1998)
`FMC 1006 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)
`FMC 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263
`FMC 1008 U.S. Patent No. 4,707,984
`FMC 1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
`FMC 1010
`File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,237,634
`John B. Heywood, Internal
`Combustion Engine Fundamentals
`(McGraw-Hill 1988)
`FMC 1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,959,420
`FMC 1013 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 Patent
`Family Chart
`FMC 1014 U.S. Application No. 09/264,817
`FMC 1015 U.S. Application No. 09/392,743
`FMC 1016
`Society of Automotive Engineers
`Special Publication, Technology
`for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,
`SAE SP-1331 (February 1998)
`FMC 1017 U.S. Application No. 60/122,296
`FMC 1018 U.S. Patent No. 6,554,088
`FMC 1019 U.S. Patent No. 913,846
`
`Boberg
`’097 Patent Family
`
`’817 application
`’743 application
`SAE SP-1331
`
`’296 provisional application
`’088 CIP patent
`Pieper
`
`Page 3 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`FMC 1020 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)
`FMC 1021 Kozo Yamaguchi et al.,
`Development of a New Hybrid
`System – Dual System, SAE
`Technical Paper 960231 (February
`1996)
`FMC 1022 U.S. Patent No. 3,888,325
`FMC 1023 U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429
`FMC 1024
`L. E. Unnewehr et al., Hybrid
`Vehicle for Fuel Economy, SAE
`Technical Paper 760121 (1976)
`FMC 1025 Hawley, G.G., The Condensed
`Chemical Dictionary, Van
`Nostrand Reinhold Co., 9th ed.
`(1977)
`FMC 1026 Brown, T.L. et al., Chemistry, The
`Central Science, Third Edition
`(1985)
`FMC 1027 Grunde T. Engh & Stephen
`Wallman, Development of the
`Volvo Lambda-Sond System, SAE
`Technical Paper 770295 (1977)
`[Not Used]
`FMC 1028
`FMC 1029 A. G. Stefanopoulou et al., Engine
`Air-Fuel Ratio and Torque Control
`using Secondary Throttles,
`Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE
`Conference on Decision and
`Control (December 1994)
`
`Identifier
`
`Duoba
`
`Yamaguchi Paper
`
`Reinbeck
`Kawakatsu
`Unnewehr
`
`The Condensed Chemical
`Dictionary
`
`Brown
`
`Engh
`
`
`Stefanopoulou
`
`Page 4 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit No.
`FMC 1030 General Electric Company, Corp.
`Research & Dev., Near-Term
`Hybrid Vehicle Program, Final
`Report — Phase 1 (October 1979)
`FMC 1031 U.S. Application No. 13/065,704
`FMC 1032
`[Not Used]
`FMC 1033 U.S. Application No. 12/320,600
`FMC 1034 U.S. Application No. 11/429,458
`FMC 1035 U.S. Application No. 10/382,577
`FMC 1036 U.S. Application No. 09/822,866
`FMC 1037 U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672
`FMC 1038 U.S. Application No. 60/100,095
`FMC 1039 U.S. Patent No. 6,338,391
`FMC 1040
`[Not Used]
`FMC 1041 U.S. Application No. 11/229,762
`FMC 1042 Comparison of ’455 PCT
`Publication and ’097 Patent
`Descriptions
`FMC 1043 Reply Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey L.
`Stein
`FMC 1044 Mr. Hannemann Deposition
`Transcript (April 8, 2015)
`FMC 1045 Mr. Hannemann Deposition
`Transcript (April 7, 2015)
`
`Identifier
`GE Final Report
`
`’704 application
`
`’600 application
`’458 application
`’577 application
`’866 CIP application
`’672 patent
`’095 provisional application
`’391 patent
`
`’762 application
`’455/’097 Description
`Comparison
`
`Reply Decl.
`
`Hn Tr.
`
`Hn Tr. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`1. My name is Jeffrey L. Stein. I provided my background, qualifications
`
`and opinions pertaining to a Petition for Inter Partes Review, Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00570, of certain claims of U.S. 8,214,097 (“the ’097 Patent”, FMC 1001) in a
`
`Declaration that was filed on April 4, 2014. (“Stein Decl.”, “First Declaration,”
`
`FMC 1002.)
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by Ford to provide this Second Declaration (“Reply
`
`Decl.”, FMC 1043) regarding certain factual issues raised in IPR2014-00570.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Paice in their Patent Owner Response, along with
`
`the declaration of Paice’s expert, Mr. Hannemann (“Hannemann Decl.”, Ex. 2002)
`
`and his CV (“Hannemann CV”, Ex. 2003.) I have also analyzed the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board’s decision to institute. (“Decision”, IPR2014-00570, Paper 10.)
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed my first declaration (Stein Decl., FMC 1002), the
`
`exhibits cited in my declaration and the transcript of my deposition (“Stein Tr.”,
`
`Ex. 2004.)
`
`A.
`
`5.
`
`Paice’s argument focuses on issues that are beyond the scope of
`this IPR
`
`I understand that the scope of my deposition was supposed to be
`
`limited to issues raised in my first declaration. Therefore when I was asked general
`
`questions that seemed to be outside of the scope of my First Declaration during my
`
`Page 6 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`deposition, I asked for clarification. When these questions were either not clarified
`
`or were clearly directed outside of the scope of my First Declaration, I informed
`
`Paice that I did not prepare for such questions. (See e.g., Stein Tr., Ex. 2004 at
`
`272:1-278:4.)
`
`6.
`
`For example, the ’097 Patent Family includes hundreds of claims that
`
`are directed to Paice’s HEV mode selection control strategy. Most of these claims
`
`include the claim terms “road load” and “set point”. I have analyzed many such
`
`claims in other IPRs. However, the challenged claims in this IPR are not directed
`
`to Paice’s HEV mode selection control strategy and do not include these terms.
`
`7.
`
`As I explained in my first declaration, claim 30 of the ’097 patent, is
`
`directed toward a common parallel hybrid topology that includes the known
`
`control strategy of limiting the rate of increase of engine torque so that combustion
`
`can occur near the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. (Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶87.) This
`
`“control strategy” is an engine control strategy, not a HEV mode selection control
`
`strategy.
`
`8.
`
`During my deposition, I was often asked broad questions about a
`
`“control strategy” and it was difficult to determine whether Paice was asking me
`
`questions about an engine control strategy or a HEV mode selection control
`
`strategy, for example:
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] What control strategy is utilized in the '970 patent?
`
`Page 7 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Objection, form.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I guess I don't -- that's a very general question so I don't
`
`really know what you're trying to ask me.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Is it a control strategy based on the speed of the
`
`vehicle?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] Well, again, it seems like you're getting off into issues
`
`that were not raised in my declaration here.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Does that mean you just can't answer the question?
`
`You just don't know?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] As I said previously, I haven't prepared myself to delve
`
`into the material that you're talking about. I focused on preparing the
`
`issues that are discussed and analyzed in my declaration, Stein Exhibit
`
`1.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Well, we agreed earlier in your analysis of '970
`
`patent you concluded it was a parallel HEV system, correct?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I think we agreed that there was a sentence in here in
`
`which Severinsky describes his vehicle as a parallel configuration.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Did anybody tell you what you should or shouldn't
`
`read in the '970 patent?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] Of course not.
`
`Page 8 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] So you considered the reference as a whole in your
`
`work, correct?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I focused in my work on those parts of the reference
`
`which were specifically needed to analyze and develop the ideas and
`
`analyzing the prior art in terms of issues that are discussed in my
`
`declaration.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Does the Severinsky '970 patent use a thermostat
`
`control approach?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Objection, relevance.
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I haven't made an analysis of that. But as I told you
`
`before, the term of art -- that term that was used by Anderson before
`
`was in the context of exploring that design and control space. It was
`
`not an algorithm that -- control algorithm that one would expect to
`
`find in some of these patents. In fact, it's not in these patents, as far as
`
`I know. I haven't made an exhaustive search looking for that particular
`
`issue.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] What about a follower mode algorithm? Did Dr.
`
`Severinsky put that in the '970 patent?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] As -- again –
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] It's just not relevant to your analysis?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I would say that Anderson's description of a follower
`
`mode was, again, one that she used to benchmark or to provide an
`
`Page 9 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`extreme example of a series hybrid operating in -- at a very extreme
`
`mode. And she said that -- that it was similar to a parallel structure for
`
`at least the mode -- for at least one mode of hybrid vehicle parallel --
`
`hybrid vehicle operation.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] You've lapsed over into Anderson. I asked you about
`
`Severinsky. Does Dr. Severinsky use a follower mode control
`
`structure?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I understood your question to be talking about two
`
`concepts that Anderson introduced into our discussion today.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] That is correct. But the question is with respect to the
`
`'970 patent. Did Dr. Severinsky use a follower mode control structure?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I have not studied in detail to answer the question
`
`between that specific follower mode that Anderson discusses and the
`
`control modes of operation that the Severinsky patent describes. It
`
`wasn't part of my analysis. I wasn't asked to look at that.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Did you do anything with respect to determining
`
`what control algorithm Dr. Severinsky used in the '970 patent?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I think that your question is overly broad: Did I do
`
`anything? Could you perhaps rephrase that?
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Does he use a speed-based algorithm for control in
`
`the '970 patent?
`
`Page 10 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] Again, you're asking me to discuss things that are not in
`
`my current -- in the declaration that's part of today's --
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] So you just don't know?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I have not prepared myself to discuss that issue today.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] And you didn't discuss Dr. Severinsky's control
`
`algorithm in your declaration for the '970 patent?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] It depends on what you mean by that.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] Well, I want to make sure that it's not just because
`
`you're not prepared today. It's not an issue you had to confront as part
`
`of your work in this case, determining whether or not Dr. Severinsky
`
`used one particular control algorithm or another; is that fair?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Objection, form.
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] I mean, you're using words very loosely here. If we go
`
`to my declaration, we can see where I analyzed things that are
`
`relevant to concepts of control that I needed to concern myself with in
`
`doing the analysis that's in my declaration, Stein Exhibit 1.
`
`Q [Mr. Cordell:] I'll ask you again, sir: Did Dr. Severinsky use a
`
`speed-based control algorithm for the '970 patent?
`
`A [Dr. Stein:] And I -- my answer to that is I haven't -- I did not prep
`
`for that particular issue for today's examination.
`
`(Stein Tr., Ex. 2004 at 272:21-278:4.)
`
`Page 11 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`I understand that Paice’s primary argument in a related IPR (IPR2014-
`
`00571) that also uses Severinsky ’970 as its primary reference is that Severinsky
`
`’970 teaches a “speed-based” HEV mode selection control strategy. Perhaps this
`
`explains why Mr. Cordell repeatedly asked me if Severinsky ’970 uses a “speed-
`
`based” control strategy. (See e.g., Stein Tr., Ex. 2004 at 276:18-19, 277:24-25.)
`
`However, I am not Petitioner’s expert on IPR2014-00571 and I understood my
`
`deposition was supposed to be limited to IPR2014-00570.
`
`II. Ground 6: Claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 Are Obvious over Severinsky
`’970 in View of Anderson
`
`A. Claim 30
`
`10. The limitations of claim 30 have been parsed and given a unique
`
`numerical identifier.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`[30.0] 30. A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`
`[30.1] one or more wheels;
`
`[30.2] 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;
`
`[30.3] at least one electric motor operable to propel the hybrid vehicle by
`
`providing torque to the one or more wheels;
`
`[30.4] a battery coupled to the at least one electric motor, operable to provide
`
`electrical power to the at least one electric motor; and
`
`[30.5] a controller, operable to control the flow of electrical and mechanical power
`
`Page 12 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`between the engine, the at least one electric motor, and the one or more wheels,
`
`responsive to an operator command;
`
`[30.6] 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
`
`[30.7] 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
`
`[30.8] 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.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Anderson discloses New Claim Limitation: “the electric
`motor is used to provide additional torque to propel the
`vehicle when the rate of increase of engine output torque is
`limited”
`
`11. Paice argues that claim 30 requires the following limitation: “the
`
`electric motor is used to provide additional torque to propel the vehicle when the
`
`rate of increase of engine output torque is limited.” (Response, p. 20, see also pp.
`
`13, 21, 22, 23, 25, 36 and 38.)
`
`12. Ford proposes that the term “rate of change” should be construed as
`
`“rate of increase” to correct a typographical error:
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that, under
`
`the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard, the term “rate of change” of claim 30 should
`
`be construed to mean “rate of increase.” Although “rate of change” is
`
`Page 13 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`broader than “rate of increase,” the prosecution history suggests that
`
`“rate of increase” is the only reasonable interpretation. As stated
`
`above in ¶¶ 100-102, during the prosecution of the ’097 patent, the
`
`Patentee amended the term “rate of change” to “rate of increase”:
`
`* * *
`
`The lack of antecedent basis for “the rate of change” in claim 30 is
`
`indicative of a
`
`typographical mistake, and further evidences
`
`Patentee’s intent to recite “rate of increase” instead of “rate of
`
`change.” Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard, the term “rate of change” of claim 30 should be construed to
`
`mean the “rate of increase.”
`
`(Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶¶111-113.)
`
`13. Paice did not propose any claim constructions in its Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 7) or in its Response (Paper 22).
`
`14. The Board did not construe any terms in claim 30. (Decision, p. 6.)
`
`15. Because I cannot find the limitation “the electric motor is used to
`
`provide additional torque to propel the vehicle when the rate of increase of engine
`
`output torque is limited” in claim 30 of the ’097 Patent or in any construction, I
`
`will refer to it as “New Claim Limitation.”
`
`16. Although I did not analyze New Claim Limitation in my First
`
`Declaration, I did explain how Anderson teaches New Claim Limitation in
`
`Page 14 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`paragraph 83 of my First Declaration, while explaining the state of the art as of
`
`1998 regarding HEV controls to reduce transient emissions:
`
`83. However, an HEV can reduce the transient emissions problem by
`
`supplementing the engine output torque with torque from another
`
`power source, namely an electric motor. The HEV can control the
`
`engine operation to only allow slow engine transients (i.e., limit the
`
`rate of change of engine torque), while controlling the electric motor
`
`to provide supplementary torque to meet the current vehicle torque
`
`and power requirements:
`
`Some of
`
`this effect
`
`[emissions during
`
`transient
`
`conditions] can be reduced using a hybrid strategy that
`
`only allows slow [engine] transients, but this places
`
`greater strain on the LLD [the battery].
`
`(Anderson, FMC 1006 at 7, emphasis added.)
`
`A
`
`battery
`
`can
`
`change
`
`power
`
`levels
`
`almost
`
`instantaneously, unlike the APU [engine] which is
`
`limited by its mechanical inertia. When the APU [engine]
`
`cannot respond quickly enough to fluctuations in power
`
`demand, the battery must make up the difference. The
`
`battery must be able to sustain output at a peak power
`
`during these transients until the APUs [engine’s] power
`
`output reaches the commanded power.
`
`(Anderson, FMC 1006 at 6.)
`
`Page 15 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`For example, a generic [HEV control] strategy may begin
`
`with a focus on fuel economy. A basic strategy would
`
`drive the APU at a constant peak efficiency power level
`
`(based on the first APU efficiency estimates), similar to
`
`the
`
`thermostat APU scheme discussed previously.
`
`Bringing in aspects of battery life would push the turn
`
`down ratio up (using an approximation of the engine
`
`sweet spot) until a suitable balance point between life and
`
`fuel efficiency appears, incorporating
`
`their relative
`
`importance. Emissions characteristics may
`
`then be
`
`included by slowing down the engine transient response
`
`time. The balance between the first two factors (fuel
`
`efficiency and battery life) must then be re-adjusted,
`
`resulting in a three way balance that enforces the order of
`
`priority of characteristics. This process will continue
`
`until all optimization characteristics are included, in
`
`order of their importance.
`
`(Anderson, FMC 1006 at 8, emphasis added.)
`
`17. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Anderson’s statements: “[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”,
`
`and “[e]missions characteristics may then be included by slowing down the engine
`
`transient response time” simply mean that a parallel HEV can reduce the transient
`
`emissions problem by supplementing the engine output torque with torque from
`
`Page 16 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`another power source, namely an electric motor which receives electric power
`
`from the battery. The HEV can control the engine operation to only allow slow
`
`engine transients (i.e., limit the rate of increase of engine torque), while controlling
`
`the electric motor to provide supplementary torque to meet the current vehicle
`
`torque and power requirements, but this will strain the battery by cycling it more
`
`often than it would otherwise.
`
`18. Thus, Anderson discloses New Claim Limitation: “the electric motor
`
`is used to provide additional torque to propel the vehicle when the rate of increase
`
`of engine output torque is limited.”
`
`
`2.
`
`Limitations [30.0] – [30.4]
`
`19.
`
`I understand that Paice did not argue claim limitations [30.0] – [30.4].
`
`20. As I explained in my First Declaration, Severinsky ’970 discloses
`
`claims [30.0]-[30.4]. (See Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶¶324-339.)
`
`
`3.
`
`[30.5] 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
`
`21. As I explained in my First Declaration, Severinsky ’970 discloses
`
`claim [30.5]. (See Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶¶340-343.)
`
`
`4.
`
`[30.6] 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
`
`Page 17 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`
`22. As I explained in my First Declaration, Severinsky ’970 discloses
`
`claim [30.6]. (See Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶¶344-346.)
`
`
`5.
`
`[30.7] 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
`
`23. As I explained in my First Declaration, the combination of Severinsky
`
`’970 and Anderson teach claim [30.7]. (See Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶¶347-353.)
`
`24. Paice argues that Anderson’s disclosure of slowing engine transients
`
`refers to the transient capabilities of an engine and not “variables subject to
`
`control”:
`
`Anderson is focused on the choice of APU (engine) characteristics on
`
`the design of hybrid control strategies and states that APU
`
`characteristics (such as transient capabilities, fuel efficiency and
`
`emissions) must be chosen to complement the battery requirements.
`
`Id. Anderson treat these as inherent characteristics rather than
`
`variables subject to control. In discussing the APU transient
`
`capabilities, Anderson states that “[m]echanically, 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.” Id.; see also Ex.
`
`1006 at 7.
`
`Page 18 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`In other words, Anderson discloses that the transient capabilities are
`
`limited by the inherent mechanical characteristics of the engine itself,
`
`such as its inertia in responding to increasing or decreasing engine
`
`speed. Ex. 2002, ¶109. Consequently, the transient capabilities of the
`
`engine depends on the particular mechanical capabilities of an APU,
`
`and thus, varies for different APUs. Id. The idea is that the designer
`
`can choose one engine over another based on
`
`the desired
`
`characteristics. Anderson does not suggest which feature set is better,
`
`and critically, never suggests a control strategy that can modify these
`
`inherent characteristics. In particular, nowhere does Anderson teach a
`
`controller that controls the engine such that a rate of increase of
`
`engine output torque is limited to less than the inherent maximum rate
`
`of increase of engine output torque. Id.
`
`(Response, pp. 24-25, emphasis added.)
`
`109. In other words, Anderson discloses that the transient capabilities
`
`are limited by the inherent mechanical capabilities of the engine itself
`
`(i.e., its inertia in responding to increasing or decreasing engine
`
`speed) rather than actively controlled by a controller. The transient
`
`capabilities of an engine depends on the particular mechanical
`
`capabilities of the engine, and thus, varies for different engine types.
`
`As noted above, Anderson teaches away from ‘using a hybrid strategy
`
`that only allows slow transients’ in a parallel hybrid system. Even in
`
`the context of a series hybrid system, Anderson simply teaches
`
`choosing an APU with characteristics of slow transient capabilities,
`
`which are limited due to its inherent mechanical inertia.
`
`Page 19 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`(Hannemann Decl., Ex. 2002, ¶109, emphasis added.)
`
`25.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Hannemann’s statement in paragraph ¶109 that
`
`“Anderson simply teaches choosing an APU with characteristics of slow transient
`
`capabilities, which are limited due to its inherent mechanical inertia.” A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an engine’s inherent
`
`mechanical inertia is defined by the mass and geometry of its moving components.
`
`Mr. Hannemann implies that Anderson teaches adding mass to the moving
`
`components of the engine (i.e. the crankshaft, flywheel or pistons) or choose an
`
`engine with larger moving elements to increase the mechanical inertia of the
`
`engine to slow engine transients. Taken to its logical extreme, Mr. Hannemann’s
`
`choice for an engine operating at constant power (e.g., thermostat mode) would be
`
`a massive engine whose inherent transient response meets the needs of this very
`
`slow transient operating mode.
`
`26. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have designed (or
`
`chosen) an engine in this manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known that it would require additional energy to overcome additional mechanical
`
`inertia, and this runs counter to the general objectives of a hybrid (i.e., improve
`
`fuel economy and reduce emissions.) (See e.g., Severinsky ’970, FMC 1009. 5:24-
`
`36; Anderson, FMC 1006 at 3 and 5.)
`
`Page 20 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Rather, as stated in my First Declaration, Anderson discloses “a
`
`hybrid strategy that only allows slow transients, but this places greater strain on the
`
`LLD [battery].” (Anderson, FMC 1006 at 7; Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶347.)
`
`Anderson also describes the development of a working strategy that addresses
`
`engine emissions by “slowing down the engine transient response time.”
`
`(Anderson, FMC 1006 at 8; Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶83.)
`
`28. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Anderson’s “hybrid strategy” is a strategy for actively controlling the engine
`
`(slowing its transient performance) and the motor during transient conditions using
`
`software and clearly not referring to choosing an engine whose inherent
`
`mechanical inertia provides a slow enough transient response. (Stein Decl., FMC
`
`1002, ¶347-349.)
`
`29. Paice also argues that Anderson’s disclosure of transients is limited to
`
`speed: “Anderson makes clear that engine transients are linked to increasing or
`
`decreasing engine speed—‘transient capabilities of an engine are limited by the
`
`inertia involved in increasing or decreasing the engine speed.’” (Response, p. 29.)
`
`30. Anderson describes the engine’s transient capabilities in terms of
`
`“power output” and combinations of speed and torque. (Anderson, FMC 1006 at
`
`7.) For example, with reference to Figure 5, Anderson discloses that when
`
`operating in a thermostat mode, “the LLD [battery] must accommodate all the
`
`Page 21 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`transient power requirements.” (Anderson, FMC 1006 at 5, Figure 5.) Also, with
`
`reference to Figure 6, Anderson discloses that when operating in the follower
`
`mode, the “APU [engine], however, must then operate over its entire range of
`
`power levels and perform fast power transients.” (Anderson, FMC 1006 at 5,
`
`Figure 5.)
`
`Anderson, FMC 1006, Figure 5
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`Anderson, FMC 1006, Figure 6
`
`
`
`31. Anderson also explains that “[f]or a given required power output,
`
`there are many combinations of speed and torque that could be used to provide that
`
`power.” (Anderson, FMC 1006 at 7.) Thus Anderson’s disclosure of transients is
`
`not limited to speed transients.
`
`32. Further, when an engine is being used to provide torque for propulsion
`
`of a parallel HEV, the engine is coupled to the wheels and cannot change speed
`
`rapidly due to the friction between the tire and the road. Therefore a person of
`
`Page 23 of 69
`
`
`
`FORD 1043
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00570
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR1
`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the transients described in
`
`Anderson, at least when describing a parallel HEV, refer to torque transients.
`
`
`6.
`
`[30.8] 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.
`
`33. As I explained in my First Declaration, the combination of Severinsky
`
`’970 and Anderson teach claim [30.8]. (See Stein Decl., FMC 1002, ¶¶354-360.)
`
`B. Claims 31, 35, 36 and 39
`
`34.
`
`I understand that Paice did not argue claims 31, 35, 36 and 39.
`
`35. As I explained in my first declaration, Severinsky ’970 discloses
`
`claims 31, 35, 36 and 39. (See Stein Decl., FMC Ex. 1002, ¶¶361-396.)
`
`C. Rationale to Combine Se
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
