`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE
`CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. JEFFERY STEIN
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit Number
`PAICE Ex. 2001 Arbitration Agreement between Paice LLC and Ford Motor
`Company
`PAICE Ex. 2002 Declaration of Neil Hannemann
`
`PAICE Ex. 2003 Neil Hannemann CV
`
`PAICE Ex. 2004
`
`Jeffrey Stein Deposition Transcript (Jan. 12, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2005
`
`Complaint
`
`PAICE Ex. 2006 Griffith Hack
`
`PAICE Ex. 2007 Declaration in support of Pro Hac Vice of Peter Guarnieri
`
`PAICE Ex. 2008
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey L. Stein, Ph.D.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`In exhibit 2008, on page 8, line 14 – page 9, line 3, Dr. Stein testified
`
`1.
`
`that the sentence in Anderson (Ex. 1006) that states “[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” is not related to a single type of hybrid vehicle but
`
`related to all types of vehicles. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 17 of the
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Stein (Ex. 1043), where Dr. Stein testified that a POSITA
`
`would have understood that the same sentence “simply mean[s] that a parallel
`
`HEV can reduce the transient emissions problem by supplementing the engine
`
`output torque with torque from another power source, namely an electric motor.”
`
`This testimony is relevant because it shows that a POSITA would not have
`
`understood the sentence at issue to refer to a parallel hybrid vehicle or the parallel-
`
`specific strategy of supplementing the engine output torque with torque from the
`
`electric motor.
`
`2.
`
`In exhibit 2008, on page 16, line 14 – page 17, line 11, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that the term “hybrid strategy” used by Anderson (Ex. 1006) in the
`
`sentence “[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” is not referring to
`
`a particular strategy but is a suggestion that coming up with a hybrid strategy
`
`should involve thinking about the trade-off between different variables and
`
`different issues as they relate to the performance of a hybrid vehicle. This
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`testimony is relevant to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Reply Declaration of Dr. Stein
`
`(Ex. 1043), where Dr. Stein testified that a POSITA 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.” This testimony is relevant because it shows that a POSITA would not
`
`have understood that the term “hybrid strategy” refers to a specific strategy of
`
`actively controlling the engine (slowing its transient performance) and the motor
`
`during transient conditions using software.
`
`3.
`
`In exhibit 2008, on page 30, line 20 – page 33, line 15, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that Anderson’s hybrid strategy includes considering the weight and
`
`volume of the vehicle and choosing the sizes of the APU (engine) and LLD
`
`(battery). This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Reply
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stein (Ex. 1043), where Dr. Stein testified that a POSITA would
`
`have understood that Anderson’s hybrid strategy is not referring to choosing a
`
`particular engine size with characteristics of slow transient capabilities based on
`
`the engine’s inherent mechanical inertia. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`shows that a POSITA would have understood that Anderson’s hybrid strategy is to
`
`be understood broadly to include choosing the size of the engine.
`
`4.
`
`In exhibit 2008, on page 19, line 20 – page 20, line 7, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that a POSITA would understand Anderson’s thermostat mode would
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`result in the battery being cycled frequently. And on page 27, line 23 – page 29,
`
`line 7, Dr. Stein testified with reference to the vehicle disclosed by Anderson that
`
`“[i]n the following mode for this vehicle, the magnitude and frequency of the
`
`cycling in the battery is less than in the thermostat mode.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to paragraphs 64 and 65 of the Reply Declaration of Dr. Stein (Ex. 1043),
`
`where Dr. Stein testified that a POSITA would understand that Anderson’s
`
`discussion of strain on the LLD in the sentence “[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” becomes more important as one approaches follower
`
`mode and less important in thermostat mode. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`shows that a POSITA would have understood that the reference to “strain on the
`
`LLD” refers to Anderson’s thermostat mode rather than the follower mode.
`
`5.
`
`In exhibit 2008, on page 59, line 3 – page 60, line 16, when asked
`
`about the hybrid mode of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky,” Ex. 1009) in
`
`which a POSITA would apply Anderson’s teachings, Dr. Stein was unable to
`
`provide a response. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 38-47 of the Reply
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stein (Ex. 1043), where Dr. Stein opines that it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA to combine Severinsky and Anderson. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it shows that Dr. Stein has failed to provide any analysis
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`demonstrating how a POSITA would incorporate the teachings of Anderson into
`
`the hybrid vehicle of Severinsky.
`
`6.
`
`In exhibit 2008, on page 63, line 17 – page 68, line 17, Dr. Stein
`
`testified that he had not considered the mode selection strategy employed by
`
`Severinsky when reaching his conclusions. This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`Stein’s opinion that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine
`
`Severinsky and Anderson because it shows that Dr. Stein did not consider
`
`Severinsky in its entirety in coming to his conclusions regarding obviousness.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Timothy W. Riffe/
`Timothy W. Riffe (Reg. No. 43,881)
`Kevin Greene, (Reg. No. 46,031)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`P.O. Box 1022
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`Tel: (202) 626-6447
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Paice LLC & Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on May 15, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Obsersations on the Cross Examination of Dr. Jeffery Stein was
`
`provided via email to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses
`
`of record as follows:
`
`Sangeeta Shah, Frank A. Angileri
`Michael D. Cushion and Andrew B. Turner
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Email: FPGP0110IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road
`Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-11251
`Email: lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`Email: kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`Email: iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jessica K. Detko/
`
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2516
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
