232
`
`IPR2014-00570E
`
`m8-Ec~m_n__
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00570E
`
`m8-Ec~m_n__
`
`
`
`233
`
`IPR2014-00570, Paper No. 10, Institution Decision at 5, 12-13.
`
`Asserted Art: Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Katsuno
`Challenged claim: 33
`
`Asserted Art: Severinsky, Anderson, and Yamaguchi
`Challenged claim: 32
`
`Ground 8 (§103):
`
`Ground 7 (§103):
`
`Asserted Art: Severinskyand Anderson
`Challenged claims: 30, 31, 35, 36, 39
`
`Ground 6 (§103):
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`234
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 4.
`
`air-fuel ratio.
`engine at a substantially stoichiometric
`strategy that allows for startingthe
`The ’097 Patent describes a hybrid control
`
`the operator’s command.
`operate the vehicle in response to
`any shortfall in torque required to
`and using the electric motor to meet
`ratio
`substantially stoichiometric air-fuel
`combustion of fuel occurs at a
`engine’s output torque such that the
`limiting the rate of increase of the
`
`strategy for:
`The ’097 Patent describes a hybrid control
`vehicles and control systems thereof.
`The ’097Patent is directed to hybrid
`
`Introduction to the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`235
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 4.
`
`’097 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`’097 Patent at 38:62-39:1
`
`and improve fuel economy”
`limit undesirable emissions
`output torque is preferred to
`the rate of change of engine
`requirement. Thus limiting
`instantaneous torque
`line indicating the vehicle's
`output torque, lags the solid
`the instantaneous engine
`line in FIG. 7(a), indicating
`by noting that the dashed
`per revolution, as indicated
`limited, e.g., to 2% or less
`engine's torque output is
`“The rate of change of the
`
`Introduction to the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`236
`
`’097 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 4.
`
`combustion. ’097 patent at 38:62-65; see also Ex. 2002 at ¶35.
`output torque is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric
`As shown in Figure 7(a) starting at point D, the rate of increase of the engine’s
`
`Introduction to the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`237
`
`’097 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 4.
`
`shown by the red cross-hatched area). Ex. 2002 at ¶35.
`the electric motor provides the balance of the torque to propel the vehicle (as
`When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet the road load, and
`
`Introduction to the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`238
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 24, 27, 29.
`
`’097 Patent, Claim 30.
`
`combustion
`substantially stoichiometric fuel
`output torqueresulting in
`maximum rate of increase of
`engine to less than the inherent
`increase of output torque of the
`controller limit the rate of
`Claim 30 requires that the
`
`‘097 Patent Claim 30 Introduction
`
`
`
`239
`
`Introduction to the Prior Art
`
`
`
`240
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 12-13.
`
`climbing”)
`acceleration and/or hill
`Motor + Engine (“high-speed
`cruising”)
`Engine only (“highway
`Motor only (“low speed”)
`
`Discloses three primary modes:
`
`architecture.
`Directed to a parallel hybrid
`
`Patent.
`common inventor with the ’097
`Severinsky(Ex. 1009) shares a
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`241
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 13-17.
`
`series architectures.
`strategy is explicitly limited to
`Anderson’s emissions-related
`parallel and series vehicles,
`While Anderson considers both
`
`a hybrid strategy
`characteristics affect the design of
`a discussion of how engine [APU]
`Anderson (Ex. 1006) is directed to
`
`Introduction to Anderson
`
`
`
`242
`
`Ground 6 -Severinsky and Anderson Do Not Disclose
`
`or Render Obvious Claims 30, 31, 35, 36, 39
`
`of the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`243
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 2, 32-34.
`
`Ground 6: No motivation to combine Severinsky and
`
`Anderson
`
`
`
`244
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 2, 32-34.
`
`by Anderson
`Allegedly Satisfied
`
`by Severinsky
`Allegedly Satisfied
`
`Ford’s proposed combination
`
`
`
`245
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 10-12 (citing Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 42-45).
`
`Series
`
`Parallel
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`246
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 12-14.
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 59.
`
`Severinsky,Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 55.
`
`Series
`
`Parallel
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`247
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 10, 32-33.
`
`Severinsky,Ex. 1009 at Fig. 5; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 55.
`
`must perform fast transients. Id.
`and time sensitive, and the engine
`occur frequently, are unpredictable,
`Therefore, the engine transients
`
`vehicle. Id.
`commands for propelling the
`and respond to the operator
`the vehicle, the engine must follow
`Because the engine is used to propel
`
`¶ 43, 78.
`wheels to propel the vehicle. Id. at ¶
`and electric motor are coupled to the
`In a parallel system, both the engine
`
`alsoid.at ¶¶51-52.
`Severinskydiscloses a parallel hybrid system. Ex. 2002 at ¶78; see
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`248
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 55.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 11, 35.
`
`commands. Id.
`battery independentfrom operator
`constant power levels to charge the
`The engine can run at predefined
`
`time sensitive. Id.
`Thus, the control of the engine is not
`
`commands (and in fact cannot). Id.
`respond to changing operator
`Thus, the engine is not required to
`
`drive train. Id. at ¶48, 83.
`a motor that is connected to the
`electric power, which is then used by
`Instead, the engine generates
`connected to the drive train.
`In a series system, the engine is not
`
`hybrid, which is a series hybrid system. Ex. 2002 at ¶¶70, 80.
`Anderson is focused on the design of a strategy for a power assist
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`249
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 7.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 16-17, 30.
`
`strategy”
`Discussion of “hybrid
`
`hybrid. Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 66, 70-72.
`emissions is directed to a series
`Anderson’s disclosure regarding
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`250
`
`Anderson, Ex. 1006at 7; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 71.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 16-17.
`
`vehicles
`to series hybrid
`Strategy explicitly tied
`
`parallel, or both
`applies to series,
`whether this sentence
`Parties dispute
`
`decoupledfrom the wheels.
`Anderson’s series strategy is premised on the output of the engine being
`
`emissions is for a series hybrid vehicle. Ex. 2002 at ¶72.
`Anderson’s only disclosure of an actual hybrid strategy used to reduce
`
`Severinskyand Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`mannerasserted by Ford
`
`
`
`251
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 7.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 16-17, 27-28.
`
`vehicles
`to series hybrid
`Strategy explicitly tied
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 10, Institution Decision at 10.
`
`powertrain. Ex. 1006 at 7 (emphasis added).
`for enabling greater optimization of the hybrid vehicle’s
`“power output” and “combinations of speed and torque”
`describes the engine’s “transient capabilities” in terms of
`Contrary to Paice’sargument, Anderson expressly
`
`Severinskyand Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`mannerasserted by Ford
`
`
`
`252
`
`Anderson, Ex. 1006at 7; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 71.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 16-17.
`
`vehicles
`to series hybrid
`Strategy explicitly tied
`
`parallel, or both
`applies to series,
`whether this sentence
`Parties dispute
`
`As to the disputed sentence…
`
`Severinskyand Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`mannerasserted by Ford
`
`
`
`253
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 7.
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 5.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 17.
`
`Ex. 2002 at ¶ 70.
`
`strategy. Id. at 5.
`always uses the “following” control
`that a parallel hybrid system
`using the “following” strategy and
`must perform fast transients when
`Anderson teaches that the engine
`system. As noted above,
`strategy or to a parallel hybrid
`is not referring to the “following”
`slow transients makes clear that it
`a hybrid strategy that only allows
`of this effect can be reduced using
`Anderson’s suggestion that some
`
`sentence excludes parallel hybrids.
`Mr. Hannemann explains that the disputed
`
`Severinskyand Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`mannerasserted by Ford
`
`
`
`254
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 34, Observations at 1-2.
`
`IPR ’570, Ex. 1002 at ¶ 17.
`
`battery.
`source, namely an electric motor which receives electric power from the
`supplementing the engine output torque with torque from another power
`mean that a parallel HEV can reduce the transient emissions problem by
`included by slowing down the engine transient response time” simply
`strain on the LLD”, and “[e]missions characteristics may then be
`hybrid strategy that only allows slow transients, but this places greater
`Anderson’s statements: “[s]omeof this effect can be reduced using a
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Declaration Testimony
`
`Severinskyand Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`mannerasserted by Ford
`
`Dr. Stein’sdeclaration testimony:
`
`
`
`255
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 34, Observations at 1-2.
`
`Ex. 2008 at 16:17 –17:11.
`
`Ex. 2008 at 8:14 –9:3.
`
`Deposition Testimony
`
`hybrid strategy.
`unrelated to a particular hybrid vehicle and ii) does not propose a particular
`At his deposition, Dr. Stein admitted that the sentence in question is i)
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`256
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 14.
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 4.
`
`vehicle. Anderson, Ex. 1006 at 4; Ex. 2002 at ¶64.
`characteristics and design trade-offs—can be applied to any type of
`hybrid control strategy and considering the effects of APU and battery
`Anderson’s statement below means that the methodology of designing a
`
`Severinskyand Anderson cannotbe combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`257
`
`Ex. 2002 at ¶ 85.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 35-36.
`
`system.
`sensitive, and cannot be predefined in a parallel hybrid
`transients occur frequently, are unpredictable, are time
`the vehicle and must perform fast transients. The engine
`engine must follow the operator’s command for propelling
`parallel hybrid system is used to propel the vehicle, the
`operator’s command. In contrast, since the engine in a
`and most importantly are not in response to the
`are predictable, are not time sensitive, can be predefined,
`of the battery. Thus, APU transients occur less frequently,
`constant power levels depending on the state of charge
`vehicle, the APU can be turned on to run at predefined
`decoupled from the wheels and not used to propel the
`For example, since the APU in a series hybrid system is
`Ex. 2002 at ¶ 83.
`
`disclosed in Severinsky.
`work in a parallel hybrid system such as the one
`Anderson’s hybrid strategy to reduce emissions would not
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by Ford
`
`
`
`258
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 41-43.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 1, Petition at 51.
`
`¶397.)
`art at the time of the invention. (Stein Decl., FMC 1002,
`would have been desired by one of ordinary skill in the
`noxious emissions. These optimization considerations
`correlated to increasing fuel economy and reducing
`control of the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is directly
`motivation to combine the two references as improved
`One skilled in the art would have had sufficient
`
`Ford’s rationale to combine is flawed:
`
`Even if Severinskyand Anderson could be combined, Ford
`
`fails to provide any rationale supporting such a
`
`combination
`
`
`
`259
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 44.
`
`Ex. 2004 at 275:25-276:11.
`
`Whenasked if Severinsky uses a “follower” mode strategy:
`
`vehicle.” See, e.g., Ex. 2004 at 272:21-273:3; 273:5-17.
`patent” and “[i]s it a control strategy based on the speed of the
`control strategy such as “[w]hat control strategy is utilized in the ’970
`Dr. Stein could not answer basic questions regarding the Severinsky
`
`At his first deposition:
`
`Even if Severinskyand Anderson could be combined, Ford
`
`fails to provide any rationale supporting such a
`
`combination
`
`
`
`260
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 34, Observations at 3-4.
`
`Ex. 2008 at 59:3 –60:16.
`
`…
`
`POSITA would implement Anderson’s teaching in Severinsky.
`At his seconddeposition, Dr. Stein still could not describe how a
`
`Even if Severinskyand Anderson could be combined, Ford
`
`fails to provide any rationale supporting such a
`
`combination
`
`
`
`261
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 34, Observations at 5 .
`
`Ex. 2008 at 66:23 –67:14.
`
`Even if Severinskyand Anderson could be combined, Ford fails to
`
`provide any rationale supporting such a combination
`
`
`
`262
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 20.
`
`Severinsky,Ex. 1009 at 14:15-18.
`
`provided by the engine. Ex. 2004 at 162:19-164:16.
`because the operator has demanded torque beyond the torquethat can be
`mode, both the engine and themotor providetorque to the vehicle
`Dr. Stein admits that in Severinsky’shigh-speedacceleration/hill climbing
`
`Even if Severinskyand Anderson could be combined, Ford
`
`fails to provide any rationale supporting such a
`
`combination
`
`
`
`263
`
`Ground 6: Severinsky And Anderson Do Not Disclose
`
`Each And Every Claim Limitation of Claim 30
`
`
`
`264
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 24, 27, 29.
`
`‘097 Patent, Claim 30
`
`combustion
`substantially stoichiometric fuel
`output torqueresulting in
`maximum rate of increase of
`engine to less than the inherent
`increase of output torque of the
`controller limit the rate of
`Claim 30 requires that the
`
`Every Claim Limitation of Claim 30 of the ’097 Patent
`Severinsky And Anderson Do Not Disclose Each And
`
`
`
`265
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 24, 27, 29.
`
`3)“such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric ratio.”
`
`2)“output torque of said engine is limited to less than said inherent
`
`maximum rate of increase of output torque.”
`
`1)“wherein said controller controls said engine such that a rate of
`
`increase of output torque of said engine is limited.”
`
`Severinskyin view of Anderson fails to disclose or render obvious:
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose or render obvious
`
`all of the limitations of claim 30 of the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`266
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 24.
`
`3)“such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric ratio.”
`
`2)“output torque of said engine is limited to less than said inherent
`
`maximum rate of increase of output torque.”
`
`1)“wherein said controller controls said engine such that a rate of
`
`increase of output torque of said engine is limited.”
`
`Severinskyin view of Anderson fails to disclose or render obvious:
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose or render obvious
`
`all of the limitations of claim 30 of the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`267
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 27.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 1, Petition at 46.
`
`stoichiometric ratio.
`torque or operating the engine at a
`limiting the rate of change of engine output
`Severinsky’970 does not explicitly disclose
`
`Ford admits that Severinskydoes not disclose this limitation
`
`controller controls said engine such that a rate of increase
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose “wherein the
`
`of output torque of said engine is limited . . .”
`
`
`
`268
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 16-17, 24-25, 37-38.
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 7.
`
`Id. at ¶109.
`characteristics of the engine itself.
`by the inherent mechanical
`transient capabilities are limited
`Anderson discloses that the
`
`¶108.
`control strategy that takesinto account battery requirements. Ex. 2002 at
`transient capabilities, fuel efficiency, and emissions) to design a hybrid
`Anderson merelyteaches choosing engine characteristics( such as
`
`controller controls said engine such that a rate of increase
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose “wherein the
`
`of output torque of said engine is limited . . .”
`
`
`
`269
`
`269
`
`Ex. 2008 at 16:17 –17:11.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 34, Observations at 1-4.
`
`Severinsky. Id.at 59:3 –60:16.
`Anderson’s teaching in
`a POSITA would implement
`Dr. Stein could not describe how
`
`33:15.
`the hybrid strategy. Id.at 30:20 –
`the size of the engine is part of
`Dr. Stein admitted that choosing
`
`different variables and issues. Ex. 2008 at 16:17 –17:11.
`hybrid strategy–just a suggestion to consider trade-offs between
`Dr. Stein admitted that Anderson does not even teach a particular
`
`controller controls said engine such that a rate of increase
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose “wherein the
`
`of output torque of said engine is limited . . .”
`
`
`
`270
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 27.
`
`3)“such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric ratio.”
`
`2)“output torque of said engine is limited to less than said inherent
`
`maximum rate of increase of output torque.”
`
`1)“wherein said controller controls said engine such that a rate of
`
`increase of output torque of said engine is limited.”
`
`Severinskyin view of Anderson fails to disclose or render obvious:
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose or render obvious
`
`all of the limitations of claim 30 of the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`271
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 27.
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 7.
`
`engine torque. Ex. 2002 at ¶113.
`limited by inertia relating to increasing and decreasing engine speed, not
`Anderson merely states that the APU transient characteristics are mechanically
`
`output torque.
`There is no disclosure in Anderson of limiting the rate of increase of engine
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose limiting the rate
`
`of increase of engine output torque
`
`
`
`272
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 28.
`
`Anderson,Ex. 1006 at 7; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 71.
`
`required power output” at atorque/speed point that reduces emissions.
`freedom provided in a series hybridto operate the engineat “given
`Themost charitable reading of Anderson is thatit suggests using the
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose limiting the
`
`rate of increase of engine output torque
`
`
`
`273
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 29.
`
`3)“such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric ratio.”
`
`2)“output torque of said engine is limited to less than said inherent
`
`maximum rate of increase of output torque.”
`
`1)“wherein said controller controls said engine such that a rate of
`
`increase of output torque of said engine is limited.”
`
`Severinskyin view of Anderson fails to disclose or render obvious:
`
`Severinskyand Anderson do not disclose or render obvious
`
`all of the limitations of claim 30 of the ’097 Patent
`
`
`
`274
`Anderson, Ex. 1006 at 7; Ex. 2002 at ¶ 55.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 30-31.
`
`strategy”
`Discussion of “hybrid
`
`feedback system.
`hybrid) closed
`conventional (non-
`Discussion of
`
`limited to conventional closed feedback systems
`Anderson’s disclosure regarding stoichiometry is
`
`
`
`275
`
`Anderson, Ex. 1006 at 7.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 31.
`
`strategy”
`Discussion of “hybrid
`
`Anderson, Ex. 2002 at ¶120.
`slow transient capabilities would not work in a parallel hybrid system.
`As discussed previously, Anderson expressly teaches that an engine with
`
`¶120.
`hybrid strategy that only allows slow transients.” Anderson at 7; Ex. 2002 at
`Anderson merely states that “someof this effect can be reduced using a
`
`occurring at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`that results in the combustion of fuel within the engine
`
`Nowhere does Anderson disclose a hybrid strategy
`
`
`
`276
`
`Severinsky,Ex. 1009 at 21:9-13.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 39.
`
`Severinsky,Ex. 1009 at 12:13-22.
`
`emissions. Id.
`with reducing nitrogen
`Severinskyis more concerned
`
`Ex. 2002, ¶ 94.
`operating in a lean burn mode.
`Severinskyexpressly teaches
`
`Severinsky teaches away from operating at
`
`stoichiometry
`
`
`
`277
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 18.
`
`‘097 Patent, Claim 30
`
`stoichiometry.
`of output torque to maintain
`by limiting the rate of increase
`torque and controls the engine
`motor to provide additional
`command and controls the
`responsive to an operator
`that controls the engine
`Claim 30 requires a controller
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose or render
`
`obvious the controller limitation
`
`
`
`278
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 18.
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose or render
`
`obvious the controller limitation
`
`
`
`279
`
`’097 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 4, 18.
`
`required to operate the vehicle.
`is less than the amount of torque
`torque being provided by said engine
`additional torque when the amount of
`at least one electric motor to provide
`whereinsaid controller controls said
`
`substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a
`limit the rate of change of torque produced by the engine
`output torque, and wherein the controller is operable to
`to less than said inherent maximum rate of increase of
`rate of increase of output torque of said engine is limited
`whereinsaid controller controls said engine such that a
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose the
`
`controller limitation
`
`
`
`280
`
`Not Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 32 of the ’097
`Ground 7: Severinsky, Anderson, And Yamaguchi Do
`
`Patent
`
`
`
`281
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 47-48.
`
`’097 Patent, Claim 32.
`
`‘097 Patent Claim 32 Introduction
`
`
`
`282
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 47-48.
`
`during operation.
`stopping and starting the engine
`engine interruption system for
`to a hybrid vehicle that uses an
`Yamaguchi (Ex. 1007) is directed
`
`Introduction to Yamaguchi
`
`
`
`283
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 47-48.
`
`Severinsky,Ex. 1009 at 12:13-22.
`
`nitrogen oxide emissions. Id.
`and operating the engine at a lower temperature to lower
`Instead, Severinskyteaches reducing combustion temperature
`
`2002, ¶123.
`Severinskyexpressly teaches away from heating the engine. Ex.
`
`Severinsky teaches away from heating the engine
`
`
`
`284
`
`Disclose or Render Obvious Claim 33 of the ’097 Patent
`Ground 8: Severinsky, Anderson, And Katsuno Do Not
`
`
`
`285
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 49-50.
`
`’097 Patent, Claim 33.
`
`‘097 Patent Claim 33 Introduction
`
`
`
`286
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 50.
`
`vehicle.
`a conventional (i.e., non-hybrid)
`Katsuno(Ex. 1008) is directed to
`
`Introduction to Katsuno
`
`
`
`287
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 54-56.
`
`Katsuno, Ex. 1008 at 5:61-64; see also Ex. 2002 at ¶¶139-142.
`Katsunodoes not apply any control when the engine is in a starting state.
`
`’097 Patent, Claim 33.
`
`of the stoichiometric ratio for starting the engine.
`supplied to said engine at a fuel:airratio of no more than 1.2
`33. The hybrid vehicle of claim 32, wherein fuel and air are
`
`¶136.
`more than 1.2 of the stoichiometric ratio for starting the engine. Ex. 2002 at
`Claim 33 specifically requires that fuel and air is supplied at a ratio of no
`disclose or render obvious claim 33 of the ’097 Patent
`Severinsky in view of Anderson and Katsuno fail to
`
`
`
`288
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 54-55.
`
`2002 at ¶¶139-142.
`5:61-64; see also Ex.
`Katsuno, Ex. 1008 at
`
`[multiplies by 1] so no correction of the actual air-fuel ratio occurs.
`In open-loop control, Katsunosets the air-fuel ratio correction amount to 1.0
`
`also Ex. 2002 at ¶137.
`5:40-50 and 6:1-3; see
`Katsuno, Ex. 1008 at
`
`conditions are not satisfied (e.g., the engine is in a starting state).
`Katsunooperates the engine in “open-loop” when closed loop control
`
`disclose or render obvious claim 33 of the ’097 Patent
`Severinsky in view of Anderson and Katsuno fail to
`
`
`
`289
`
`END
`
`
`
`290
`
`IPR2014-00875m
`
`$8-Ec~m_n__
`
`
`
`291
`
`IPR2014-00875, Paper No. 11, Institution Decision at 5, 18
`
`Vittone
`Asserted Art: Kawakatsuand
`Challenged claims: 1, 3, 4, 19
`
`and Fjallstrom
`Asserted Art: Ehsani, Vittone
`Challenged claim: 6
`
`Ground 3 (§103):
`and Caraceni
`Asserted Art: Ehsani, Vittone
`Challenged claim: 2
`
`Ground 5 (§103):
`
`Ground 2 (§103):
`
`and Yamaguchi
`Asserted Art: Ehsani, Vittone
`Challenged claim: 12
`
`Ground 4 (§103):
`
`Vittone
`Asserted Art: Ehsaniand
`Challenged claims: 1, 3, 19
`
`Ground 1 (§103):
`U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`292
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 5-6.
`
`‘real world’ driving situations.”
`widely varying conditions encountered in
`commands and fuel efficiency, under the
`of both vehicle response to operator
`provides “superior performance, in terms
`Use of “road load” according to the patent
`
`i.e., the road load.”
`the vehicle's actual torque requirements,
`preferably be controlled in response to
`“vehicle operational mode should
`The ‘388 patent recognized that the
`
`vehicles and control systems thereof
`‘388 Patent (Ex. 1001) is directed to hybrid
`
`Introduction to the ’388 Patent
`
`
`
`293
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 7
`
`propelling the vehicle.
`additional power to the wheels for
`uses the electric motor to supply
`exceeds that threshold value, the ‘388
`When the rate of change of road load
`
`value.
`the engine torque output to a threshold
`strategy for limiting the rate of change of
`The ’388 patent describes a hybrid control
`
`operation of the hybrid vehicle.
`strategy that reduces emissions during
`‘388 patent describes a hybrid control
`
`Introduction to the ’388 Patent
`
`
`
`294
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 8-9
`
`and improve fuel economy”
`limit undesirable emissions
`output torque is preferred to
`the rate of change of engine
`requirement. Thus limiting
`instantaneous torque
`line indicating the vehicle's
`output torque, lags the solid
`the instantaneous engine
`line in FIG. 7(a), indicating
`by noting that the dashed
`per revolution, as indicated
`limited, e.g., to 2% or less
`engine's torque output is
`“The rate of change of the
`’388 Patent, Ex. 1001 at 38:55-39:19
`
`‘388 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Fig. 7
`
`Introduction to the ’388 Patent
`
`
`
`295
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 8-9
`
`value,
`islimitedtoathreshold
`torqueoutputofsaidengine
`whereinarateofchangeof
`’388 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Introduction to the ’388 Patent
`
`
`
`296
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 8-9
`
`torque.
`supplyremainingrequired
`atleastsaidtwowheelsto
`supplyadditionalpowerto
`and/orsaidsecondmotorto
`operate
`saidfirstmotor
`controller
`isoperableto
`outputof
`theengine,said
`rateofchangeof
`torque
`saidthresholdvalueofthe
`changeofroadloadexceeds
`whereinwhenarateof
`’388 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Introduction to the ’388 Patent
`
`
`
`297
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 13
`
`propel the vehicle.” POR at 13 .
`added on the same drive shaft to
`respective torque and power are
`propel the vehicle such that the
`and a single electric motor to
`the combination of an engine
`hybrid architecture, which uses
`“Vittoneis directed to a parallel
`
`a parallel hybrid architecture.
`Vittone(Ex. 1005) is directed to
`
`Introduction to Vittone
`
`
`
`298
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 12-13
`
`at 11 .
`peak power requirements.” POR
`power to the drive shaft only at
`the electric machine delivers
`controls the system such that
`the fact that the controller
`“The term ‘ peaking’ comes from
`
`(ELPH) vehicle
`an electrically peaking hybrid
`Ehsani(Ex. 1003) is directed to
`
`Introduction to Ehsani
`
`
`
`299
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 15-16
`
`at 16 .
`change operating modes.” POR
`operate the engine and to
`vehicle output shaft speed to
`“Kawakatsuteaches using
`
`motor/generator.
`motor/generator and a larger DC
`mechanism to a smaller DC
`transmission or a clutch
`engine coupled through a
`a hybrid vehicle that includes an
`Kawakatsu(Ex. 1004) discloses
`
`Introduction to Kawakatsu
`
`
`
`300
`
`Grounds 1 and 5: Vittone does not disclose limiting the
`
`rate of change of engine output torque
`
`
`
`301
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 21-22.
`
`threshold value of the rate of change of torque output of the engine.
`required torquewhen a rate of change of road load exceeds the
`additional power to the at least two wheels to supply remaining
`operating the first and/or the second AC electric motors to supply
`value; and
`limiting a rate of change of torque output of the engine to a threshold
`
`two wheels to supply remaining required torque.
`and/or said second motor to supply additional power to at least said
`of the engine, said controller is operable to operate said first motor
`exceeds said threshold value of the rate of change of torque output
`a threshold value, wherein when a rate of change of road load
`wherein a rate of change of torque output of said engine is limited to
`
`Claim 19:
`
`Claim 1:
`
`disclose limiting the rate of change claim elements
`
`Ground 1 and 5 are defective: Vittone does not
`
`
`
`302
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 22, 28
`
`a threshold value.” POR at 28 .
`“Vittonedoes not disclose limiting a rate of change of engine torque to
`
`“Vittonedoes not disclose ‘road load.’” POR at 22 .
`
`Vittonedoes not disclose the claim limitations: (POR at 22)
`
`disclose limiting the rate of change claim elements
`
`Ground 1 and 5 are defective: Vittone does not
`
`
`
`303
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 22, 28
`
`a threshold value.” POR at 28.
`“Vittonedoes not disclose limiting a rate of change of engine torque to
`
`“Vittonedoes not disclose ‘road load.’” POR at 22.
`
`Vittonedoes not disclose the claim limitations: (POR at 22)
`
`disclose limiting the rate of change claim elements
`
`Ground 1 and 5 are defective: Vittone does not
`
`
`
`304
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 24-25, (citing Ex. 2003 at ¶68-69; Ex. 1005 at 25-26).
`
`Vittone, Ex. 1005 at 26
`
`Vittone does not disclose “road load”
`
`
`
`305
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 27, (citing Ex. 2003 at ¶72-73).
`
`takes into account external torque requirements such as driving conditions.”
`motor and the engine (the internal power sources). Road load, on the other hand,
`pedal position, which is scaled in relationship to the combined torque output of the
`“Vittonedefines the ‘driveabilitytorque requirement’ according to the accelerator
`
`Vittone, Ex. 1005 at 26
`
`Vittone discloses using pedal position
`
`
`
`306
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 25 (citing Ex. 2003 at ¶70).
`
`Vittone, Ex. 1005 at 26.
`
`performed mechanically.
`is a system that performs electronically what a conventional system
`DRIVE-BY-WIRE system.” Ex. 1005 at 26. A DRIVEBY-WIRE system
`Vittone’sdisclosure that “the thermal engine is controlled through the
`this conventional method of measuring pedal position is confirmed by
`was associated with 100% “total traction torque.” That Vittoneapplies
`torque output of the motor and the engine, i.e. 100% pedal position
`position, 100% pedal position was associated with the combined
`In hybrid vehicle systems like Vittonethat use accelerator pedal
`
`Vittone discloses using pedal position
`
`
`
`307
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 26 (citing Ex. 2003 at ¶72).
`
`Vittone, Ex. 1005 at 30
`
`reflects the changes in pedal position.
`driveabilitytorque requirement line
`line. The “step function” shape of the
`reflected by the sloped portions of the
`the change in pedal position is
`presses on the pedal to accelerate,
`shown in Figure 8. When the driver
`flat portions of the line
`which is reflected by the
`change in pedal position,
`position, there is no
`the pedal at the same
`When the driver holds
`
`Vittone discloses using pedal position
`
`
`
`308
`
`See IPR ‘875, Paper No. 19, POR at 23.
`
`
`
`.MN3mo;.9..02._wQmn_£5.ma:8m
`
`
`
`.¢—._w—.—.-¢—._h—.—.E.._._.53m.38.xm_
`
`...m_oEm>9:m:___mqoE
`
`
`
`
`
`5..SEEoEom_m9:cam@5959:mN___S2E9.m>mEmEmmm:mE9.90..camEmEmmmcmE
`
`Ex. 2007, Stein Tr. at 117:14-118:14.
`propelling the vehicle.”
`utilize the engine and the electric motor for
`management and torque management system to
`and then is used by the subsequent optimal power
`requirements to propel the vehicle is determined,
`system, how the --an estimate of the torque
`“So this is how Vittonedetermines the --in his
`
`
`
`._umc_E_m_.m_um_m_oEm>9:_mn_oE2mE®E®.__:U®._
`
`
`
`@289.9:. --9:26;.Em..m>m
`
`mE:_--9:$c_E§%m:o:_>26;m_m_£om.
`
`
`
`
`
`_m>>on__mE_EoEmsvmmgsm9:3cmm:m_:9:ccm
`
`Vittone does not disclose “road load”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.._umo__omo._..wmo_om=uHO:mwo_o@:Ouu_>
`
`
`
`309
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 22, 28
`
`a threshold value.” POR at 28.
`“Vittonedoes not disclose limiting a rate of change of engine torque to
`
`“Vittonedoes not disclose ‘road load.’” POR at 22.
`
`Vittonedoes not disclose the claim limitations: (POR at 22)
`
`disclose limiting the rate of change claim elements
`
`Ground 1 and 5 are defective: Vittone does not
`
`
`
`310
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 29
`
`during both transient phases (i.e., SlopeE).”
`change of torque output of the engine”) is approximately equal to a common value
`transient phase. However, the slope of the ENGINE TORQUE curve (i.e., the “rate of
`change of road load” is greater during the first transient phase than during the second
`“I have confirmed that Slope D1 is greater that Slope D2. This means that the “rate of
`Stein Dec., Ex. 1002 at 80-81.
`
`Vittone does not disclose limiting the rate of change of
`
`engine torque
`
`
`
`311
`
`IPR ‘875, Paper 19, PORat 29
`
`between 2-3 seconds.
`cm between 1-2 seconds, and 4.0 cm
`version, the x-axis measures 4.2 cm between 0-1 seconds, 4.8
`between 2-3 seconds. In Dr. Stein’s enlarged annotated
`between 0-1 seconds, 2.5 cm between 1-2 seconds, and 2.0 cm
`change in y-axis. In Vittone, the x-axis measures 2.3 cm
`Slope is defined as the ratio of the change in y-axis to the
`
`Hannemann Dec., Ex. 2003 at 38
`
`and precise.
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
