1
`
`Before Sally C. Medley, KalyanK. Deshpande, and Carl M. DeFranco,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`
`v.
`
`IPR2014-00904 (USPN 7,237,634)
`IPR2014-00884 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00875 (USPN 7,559,388)
`IPR2014-00579 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00571 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00570 (USPN 8,214,097)
`
`Patent Owners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-00570
`PAICE 2009
`
`
`
`Before Sally C. Medley, KalyanK. Deshpande, and Carl M. DeFranco,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`
`v.
`
`IPR2014-00904 (USPN 7,237,634)
`IPR2014-00884 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00875 (USPN 7,559,388)
`IPR2014-00579 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00571 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00570 (USPN 8,214,097)
`
`Patent Owners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-00570
`PAICE 2009
`
`
`
`2
`
`(‘388 Patent)
`IPR2014-00570 (‘097 Patent) and IPR2014-00875
`(‘347 Patent)
`IPR2014-00579 (‘347 Patent) and IPR2014-00884
`(‘634 Patent)
`IPR2014-00571 (‘347 Patent) and IPR2014-00904
`
`III.
`
`II.
`
`I.
`
`Three groups of IPRs:
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Patent/Technology Overview
`
`Introduction
`
`Agenda
`
`
`
`3
`
`Introduction:
`
`o=o:_oo.::_
`
`
`
`4
`
`Introduction to the Patent Owners
`
`
`
`5
`
`See e.g. IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 4
`
`emissions.
`while significantly lowering
`electric vehicle system possible,
`efficient and cost-effective hybrid
`Paice’s goal: develop the most fuel
`
`company incubator program.
`the University of Maryland’s small
`Alex Severinskywith support from
`Paice was founded in 1992 by Dr.
`
`Who is Paice?
`
`
`
`6
`
`See e.g. IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 4
`
`its goals.
`provided more than $30million in support to help Paice achieve
`The Abell Foundation invested in Paice in 1998 and has since
`serves.
`goal of reinvesting any earnings back into the communities it
`including those focused on environmental issues —with the
`But occasionally invests in promising local companies —
`education, healthcare, and human services initiatives.
`Traditionally focuses on caring for the underserved through
`across Maryland.
`contributes millions of dollars to support worthwhile causes
`The Abell Foundation is a charitable organization that
`
`Who is The Abell Foundation?
`
`
`
`7
`
`See e.g. IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 4-5 (citing to Ex. 2011).
`
`separate Petitions for Inter PartesReview before this Board.
`Ford ultimately declined to arbitrate, and instead filed 25
`into an Arbitration Agreement to resolve further disputes.
`In 2010, Ford took a license to Paice’s ’970 patent, and entered
`auto manufacturer.
`patent portfolio with Toyota, the world’s most successful hybrid
`In 2010, Paice reached a significant license on Paice’sentire
`proposed Ford vehicles.
`detailed modeling of Paice’spatented technology in actual and
`Ford to teach Ford Paice’shybrid vehicle technology, including
`Between 1999 and 2004, Paicespent extensive time working with
`vehicles.
`manufacturers in developing commercially viable hybrid
`Paice has been involved with the world’s top automotive
`
`History of Paice and Ford
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent/Technology Overview
`
`
`
`9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the ‘097 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388 (“the ‘388 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (“the ‘634 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ‘347 Patent”)
`
`Challenged Patents:
`
`Background of the Challenged Patents
`
`
`
`10
`
`1999.
`60/122,296, filed on Mar. 1,
`Provisional application
`1998; and
`60/100,095, filed on Sep.14,
`Provisional application No.
`
`priority to:
`same specification and claim
`All patents share generally the
`
`Theodore Louckes
`
`Alex Severinsky
`
`Named Inventors:
`
`Background of the Challenged Patents
`
`
`
`11
`
`See e.g. IPR ’884, Ex. 2215 at ¶¶ 10-23.
`
`McLaren MP4/12C sports car
`Hybrid configurations for the
`The Chrysler Patriot
`(pictured bottom right)
`The KeplerMotion hybrid sports car
`
`including:
`numerous actual hybrid vehicles
`He has designed and worked with
`
`DaimlerChrysler, Saleen, and McLaren.
`development positions with Ford, GM,
`than 25 years including specialty vehicle
`Mr. Hannemann’scareer spans more
`
`Paice’s expert –Neil Hannemann
`
`
`
`12
`
`See e.g. ‘347 Patent, Fig. 3
`
`See e.g. IPR ’875, Paper No. 19, POR at 5-6.
`
`is run only under conditions of high efficiency…
`accordance with the vehicle's instantaneous torque demands so that the engine
`starter motor, and a battery bank, all controlled by a microprocessor in
`A hybrid vehicle comprises an internal combustion engine, a traction motor, a
`
`See e.g. ‘347 Patent, Abstract
`
`electric vehicles and the control thereof:
`Inventions of the Challenged Patents are generally directed to hybrid
`
`Background of the Challenged Patents
`
`
`
`13
`
`See e.g. IPR ’875, Paper No. 19, POR at 5-6.
`
`Battery
`
`Controller
`
`Traction Motor
`
`Engine
`
`Starter motor
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`14
`
`See e.g. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 2-3.
`
`propulsion
`Mode V: engine and motor
`Mode IV: engine propulsion
`engine charges the battery
`Mode II: motor propulsion,
`Mode I: motor only propulsion
`
`
`
`.:o_w_:n_o.3_._3oE___w_uos_
`
`
`
`Basso.9:mwmgmco2__9_¢
`
`
`
`:o_m__3_o.3_2.5%_>_w_uos_
`
`._3oEucm2__9_¢_>o_oos_
`
`:o_w_:n_o._n_
`
`
`
`:o_w_:n_o.a_>_:o._3oE__w_uos_
`
`ramprgm»zofiuwuo
`
`auwm.33
`
`>42,191
`
`.uz_..u5.B
`
`..az.n.m¢....
`zo:.4uu.5..o4
`
`«uz.wS3ii
`
`”w_oEw>2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_wn_o._n_3.£on_._o.w:_m:w.._3oE
`
`the vehicle:
`motor, engine, or both, to propel
`different combinations of the
`operated in various “modes,” i.e.
`challenged patents can be
`The hybrid electric vehicle of the
`
`
`
`
`
`6......mm_ooE..w:o_._m>E_u3m._wn_o
`
`
`
`2:*0w:o=m:_n_EooEw._w=__o
`
`
`
`
`
`ancmowpcflma_owm:w__m;o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:*0m_oEw>o_.:ow_w_o_._n_>;as...Q
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`_u::o._mv_omm_>mo_o:;ow._.
`
`
`
`15
`
`See e.g. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 2-3.
`
`Motor only propulsion
`
`Engine propulsion
`
`propulsion
`Engine + motor
`
`solid line in the example from Fig. 7) to a “setpoint.”
`on an innovative system that compares the “road load” (depicted as a
`In a number of embodiments, switching between these modes depends
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`16
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`17
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`SPandMTO;
`isbetweensaidlowerlevel
`torqueRLrequiredtodoso
`propelsaidvehiclewhenthe
`employingsaidengineto
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`thansaidlowerlevelSP;
`requiredtodosoisless
`vehiclewhenthetorqueRL
`electricmotortopropelsaid
`employingsaidatleastone
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`18
`
`See e.g.IPR2014-00884, Patent Owner’s Response at 17 (citing Ex. 1201, ’347 patent at col. 13:11-17).
`
`Power
`Pedal position
`Vehicle speed
`
`Some of the other control metrics used by Ford’s asserted prior art:
`varying conditions encountered in ‘real world’ driving situations.”
`response to operator commands and fuel efficiency, under the widely
`“Road load” provides “superior performance, in terms of both vehicle
`torque requirements, i.e., the road load.”
`mode should preferably be controlled in response to the vehicle's actual
`Prior art metrics however failed to recognize that the “vehicle operational
`operating mode based on the “road load.”
`that uses “road load” in a control system that determines the vehicle
`Many of the challenged claims are directed to a vehicle control system
`
`“Road load”
`
`
`
`19
`
`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
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`20
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`21
`
`may not be reset.”
`“a predetermined torque value that may or
`
`positive or negative.”
`required to propel the vehicle, be it
`“the amount of instantaneous torque
`
`Board’s Construction:
`
`IPR2014-00904
`
`‘634 Patent:
`
`IPR2014-00884
`IPR2014-00579
`IPR2014-00571
`
`‘347 Patent
`
`IPR2014-00904
`
`‘634 Patent:
`
`IPR2014-00875
`
`‘388 Patent:
`
`IPR2014-00884
`IPR2014-00579
`IPR2014-00571
`
`‘347 Patent:
`Patents/IPRs:
`Relevant
`
`“setpoint(SP)”
`
`“road load”
`
`Claim Term:
`
`Board’s Initial Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22, POR at 6-12.
`22
`See: IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 5-11; IPR ‘579, Paper No. 20, POR at 5-11; IPR ‘884, Paper No. 20, POR at 6-13; IPR ‘904,
`
`modes may occur.”
`which a transition between operating
`“a definite, but potentially variable value at
`PatentOwner’s Proposed Construction
`
`“setpoint(SP)”
`Claim term
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction:
`‘571, ‘579, ‘884, and ‘904) and respectfully requests that the Board adopt
`Patent Owner opposes the Board’s construction of “setpoint(SP)” (in IPRs
`
`‘875, ‘884, and ‘904.
`Parties do not dispute the construction of “road load” in IPRs ‘571, ‘579,
`
`Disputed Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`23
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 7.
`
`specification”).
`“unreasonable and inconsistent with the language of the claims and the
`(holding that Board’s construction of “electrochemical sensor” was
`See e.g. In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`which would be clear, reversible error.
`cannot limit its analysis to just a portion of the disputed claim phrase,
`Board must consider the entirety of the claims and specification, and
`
`Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed. Appx. 985, 995-96 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`conformity with the invention as described in the specification. In re
`The Board’s “broadest” interpretation must be reasonable, and must be in
`
`Claim Construction Standards
`
`
`
`24
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 6-7.
`
`consistently with Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`Court for the District of Maryland have both construed the term
`The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. District
`
`different operating modes may occur.
`recognize that “setpoint” represents a point at which a transition between
`The Board’s construction of “setpoint(SP)” is incorrect because it fails to
`
`may or may not be reset.”
`“a predetermined torque value that
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`modes may occur.”
`transition between operating
`variable value at which a
`“a definite, but potentially
`Claim Construction
`PatentOwner’s Proposed
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP”
`
`
`
`25
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 9.
`
`‘634 Patent, claim 16:
`
`also can be used to propel the vehicle or charge the battery:
`which only the motor propels the vehicle, to modes in which the engine
`vehicle may transition between two modes, for example between a mode in
`Claim language makes clear that a “setpoint” marks a point at which the
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`26
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 9.
`
`‘347 Patent, claim 23:
`
`also can be used to propel the vehicle or charge the battery:
`which only the motor propels the vehicle, to modes in which the engine
`vehicle may transition between two modes, for example between a mode in
`Claim language makes clear that a “setpoint” marks a point at which the
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`27
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 9 (citing ‘347 patent); IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 9-10 (citing ‘634 patent)
`
`‘347 Patent at col. 40:47-55
`
`of the invention.
`between 30-50% of MTO, within the scope
`arbitrary and can vary substantially, e.g.,
`operation in modes I and IV)is obviously
`as the transition point (i.e., between
`claims as "SP", and sometimes hereinafter
`This setpoint, referred to in the appended
`when road load is equal to 30% of MTO.
`operation to highway cruising occurs
`stated that the transition from low-speed
`strategy discussed above, it is repeatedly
`[I]n the example of the inventive control
`
`“transition point” between modes
`Specification makes clear that a “setpoint” is synonymous with a
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`28
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 9 (citing ‘347 patent); IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 9-10 (citing ‘634 patent)
`
`‘347 Patent at col. 44:32-39
`
`operator's commands…
`particular may vary in accordance with the
`points between modes I, IV, and V in
`Further, as noted above the transition
`
`‘347 Patent at col. 41:59-63
`
`load equal to 30% of MTO.
`mode IV highway cruising, set at a road
`between mode I, low-speed operation, and
`microprocessor, with the transition point
`points of the control program run by the
`FIG. 9 thus shows the main decision
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`29
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 10-11 (citing ‘347 patent); IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 10-11 (citing ‘634 patent)
`
`specification of the challenged patents.
`Such an unreasonably broad construction is fundamentally contrary to the
`
`modes never occur.
`read to broadly cover hybrid vehicle systems where transitions between
`Under the Board’s improper construction, the claims could improperly be
`
`propulsion to engine propulsion in response to “road load.”
`thesignificant efficiency to be gained by transitioning between motor
`rob the “mode” limitations of one of the key aspects of the invention, i.e.
`Board’s failure to recognize the “transition” function of “setpoints” could
`
`motor propulsion to engine propulsion).
`system actively changes the vehicle from one mode to another (e.g.from
`“setpoint” marks the amount of “road load” at which the claimed control
`Board’s construction reads out a crucial limitation of the claims: the
`
`Board’s construction is unreasonably broad
`
`
`
`30
`
`IPR2014-00571 AND IPR2014-00904§
`
`m8-Ec~m_n__nz<Em8-Ec~m_n__
`
`
`
`31
`
`IPR2014-00571, Paper 12, Institution Decision at 16.
`
`ground of “Severinskyand Ehsani” on which we institute trial.
`a different ground, but simply as additional support for the
`view Ford’s challenge based on “Ehsaniand Severinsky” not as
`As such, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. §42.108 to
`
`Ford’s Ground 3 was included in Ground 2:
`Asserted Art: Severinskyand Ehsani
`Challenged claims: 1, 6, 7, 9, 15 and 21
`
`Ground 2 (§103):
`
`Asserted Art: Severinsky
`Challenged claims: 23 and 36
`
`Ground 1 (§103):
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`IPR2014-00571 –Introduction
`
`
`
`32
`
`IPR ’904, Paper 13, Institution Decision at 13.
`
`this presumably weaker ground. See 37 C.F.R. §42.108(a).
`grounds, and we exercise our discretion to deny institution of
`Ehsani, we presume that it is the weaker of the two asserted
`to proceeding with the additional ground of Severinskyand
`And in the absence of Ford advancing some meaningful benefit
`
`The Board declined to institute Ground 2
`
`Asserted Art: Severinsky, Field, and SAE 1996
`Challenged claims: 1, 14, 16, 18 and 24
`
`Ground 1 (§103):
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`IPR2014-00904 –Introduction
`
`
`
`33
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 3.
`
`‘real world’ driving situations.”
`varying conditions encountered in
`fuel efficiency, under the widely
`response to operator commands and
`performance, in terms of both vehicle
`patent provides “superior
`Use of “road load” according to the
`
`requirements, i.e., the road load.”
`to the vehicle's actual torque
`preferably be controlled in response
`“vehicle operational mode should
`The ’347 patent recognized that the
`
`control systems thereof
`directed to hybrid vehicles and
`The’347 Patent (IPR ’571, Ex. 1001) is
`
`Introduction to the ’347 Patent
`
`
`
`34
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 25, 52, 56-57.
`
`to a “setpoint.”
`modes by comparing the “road load”
`recites selecting various operating
`Independent claim 23 similarly
`
`SP.”
`road load (RL) and said setpoint
`responsive to the value for the
`plurality of operating modes
`“vehicle [that] is operated in a
`Dependent claim 7 recites a
`
`to a setpoint(SP).
`charge said battery is at least equal
`or both said electric motor(s) to
`the vehicle and/or to drive either one
`produced by said engine to propel
`on “when torque require[d] to be
`Independent claim 1 turns the engine
`
`Introduction to the ’347 Patent
`
`
`
`35
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 3, 27, 30, 54-55.
`
`road load (RL) and the SP.”
`of operating modes responsive to
`operable to implement a plurality
`“wherein the controller is
`Dependent claim 16 recites a
`
`setpoint(SP).”
`the battery is at least equal to a
`first or the second motors to charge
`and/or to drive one or more of the
`the engine to propel the vehicle
`engine “when torque required from
`Independent claim 1 operates the
`road load to effect mode switching.
`a hybrid vehicle and claims the use of
`also directed to the control system of
`The ’634 Patent (IPR ’904, Ex. 1001) is
`
`Introduction to the ’634 Patent
`
`
`
`36
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`SPandMTO;
`isbetweensaidlowerlevel
`torqueRLrequiredtodoso
`propelsaidvehiclewhenthe
`employingsaidengineto
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`thansaidlowerlevelSP;
`requiredtodosoisless
`vehiclewhenthetorqueRL
`electricmotortopropelsaid
`employingsaidatleastone
`
`Introduction to the ’347 and ’634 Patents
`
`
`
`37
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`SPandMTO;
`isbetweensaidlowerlevel
`torqueRLrequiredtodoso
`propelsaidvehiclewhenthe
`employingsaidengineto
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`thansaidlowerlevelSP;
`requiredtodosoisless
`vehiclewhenthetorqueRL
`electricmotortopropelsaid
`employingsaidatleastone
`
`Introduction to the ’347 and ’634 Patents
`
`
`
`38
`
`Ground 1 -SeverinskyDoes Not Disclose or Render
`
`Obvious Claims 23 and 36 of the ’347 Patent
`
`
`
`39
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 43.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`propel the vehicle
`i.e.the instantaneous torque required to
`Claim 23 determines the “road load,”
`
`‘347 Patent -Claim 23 Introduction
`
`
`
`40
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`mode to transition into
`“setpoint” to determine what operating
`Claim 23 compares the “road load” to
`
`‘347 Patent -Claim 23 Introduction
`
`
`
`41
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 45.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`“setpoint” to charge the battery
`torque between “road load” and
`at least at “setpoint” and uses the
`“setpoint,” claim 23 operates the engine
`the “road load” is less than a
`When the battery needs charging, and
`
`‘347 Patent -Claim 23 Introduction
`
`
`
`42
`
`Introduction to the Prior Art
`
`
`
`43
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 17-19; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 19.
`
`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
`
`and ’634 patents.
`common inventor with the ’347
`Severinsky(Ex. 1009) shares a
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`44
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 17-19, 36-37; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 18-20, 42-43.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5.
`
`Motor 20
`
`Engine 40
`
`which utilizes a single electric motor.
`Severinskyis directed to a parallel hybrid architecture,
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`45
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 17-19, 36-37; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 18-20, 42-43.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 6:36-43.
`
`POR at 36-37
`range. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20,
`speed enters the given speed
`Utilize the engine when vehicle
`
`Paper No. 20, POR at 36-37
`a given speed range. IPR ’571,
`Size the engine to operate over
`
`the engine efficiently.
`Severinsky’sstrategy to operate
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`46
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26, 43, 45, 50.
`
`battery
`“setpoint” to determine when to run the engine while charging the
`3)Severinsky’sbattery charging mode does not use “road load” or a
`
`2)Severinskydoes not determine road load at all.
`
`1)Severinskyuses speed, not “road load,” to determine when to turn the
`
`engine on and off.
`
`Severinskyfails to disclose each and every claim limitation of claim 23:
`
`Severinskydoes not disclose all the limitations of
`
`claim 23 of the ‘347 Patent
`
`
`
`47
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26, 50.
`
`battery
`“setpoint” to determine when to run the engine while charging the
`3)Severinsky’sbattery charging mode does not use “road load” or a
`
`2)Severinskydoes not determine road load at all.
`
`1)Severinskyuses speed, not “road load,” to determine when to turn the
`
`engine on and off.
`
`Severinskyfails to disclose each and every claim limitation of claim 23:
`
`Severinskydoes not disclose all the limitations of
`
`claim 23 of the ‘347 Patent
`
`
`
`48
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`when to employ the motor.
`when to employ the engine on and
`“road load” to a “setpoint” to determine
`‘347 Patent, claim 23 compares the
`
`Severinskyuses speed, not “road load,” to determine
`
`when to turn the engine on and off.
`
`
`
`49
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 27-28; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 20, 29-30.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`off.
`When to turn the engine
`
`on
`When to turn the engine
`
`Severinskydiscloses turning the engine on and off
`
`based on speed
`
`
`
`50
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 27-28; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 20, 29-30.
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2002 at ¶ 52; IPR ’904, Ex. 2004 at ¶ 57.
`
`uses road load to control engine starts and stops….
`not use “speed responsive-hysteresis” if that same system
`control system (such as that disclosed in Severinsky) would
`2009 at 3…. One of skill in the art would understand that a
`on the history of past inputs in addition to the current input. Ex.
`[H]ysteresisrelates to the dependence of the state of a system
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`Severinskydiscloses “speed-responsive hysteresis”
`
`
`
`51
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19-20, 31; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 19.
`
`see also 10:52-53, 13:65 –14:3.
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 6:26-43, 17:43-48;
`
`or off based on road load or even pedal position.
`Nowhere does Severinskysay that the engine is turned on
`
`teaches turning the engine on and off based on speed
`Severinskyconsistently throughout the specification
`
`
`
`52
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26-27; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 28-29.
`
`’347 patent, claim 23.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`said lower level SP and MTO;
`required to do so is between
`said vehicle when the torque RL
`employing said engine to propel
`
`(cid:143)
`
`23.A method…
`
`render obvious the claimed road load-based engine mode
`Severinsky’sspeed-based strategy cannot disclose or
`
`
`
`53
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 42-45; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 50-51.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 6:26-43.
`
`’347 patent, claim 23.
`
`less than said lower level SP;
`the torque RL required to do so is
`motor to propel said vehicle when
`employing said at least one electric
`
`23.A method…
`
`(cid:143)
`
`render obvious the claimed road load-based motor mode
`Severinsky’sspeed-based strategy cannot disclose or
`
`
`
`54
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 38.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 10:36-37.
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 1, Petition at 38; IPR ’571, Paper No. 1, Petition at 25.
`
`1003 at 10:36-37; Ex. 1005, Davis ¶289.)
`positive when the vehicle “starts to climb a hill.” (Ex.
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” may be
`“microprocessor 48” determines that “the instantaneous
`Severinsky’970 further discloses that the
`
`Severinsky
`portion of
`Quoted
`
`Petition
`
`and unsupportedby Severinsky’s disclosure.
`Ford’s petition contains statements that are aremisleading
`
`Ford’s effort to recast Severinskyas a road-load based
`
`reference is a classic example of hindsight bias
`
`
`
`55
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 28; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 30.
`
`demands”
`of “torque
`discussion
`relies on
`Dr. Davis
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2005 at 171:9-13, 171:21 –172:4.
`
`that.”
`acceleration, hill [sic] climb modes, things like
`demandsas well; for example, some of the
`been a lot of discussion about meeting the torque
`know, by now we're at Column 18 and there's
`that there has to be more involved, especially, you
`“[O]ne of ordinary skill would readily understand
`
`…
`
`driver's commands.”
`this would not be a vehicle that's responsive to the
`recognize that there's more involved here because
`“One of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`involved.” Ex. 2005, Davis Tr. at 169:11-16, 171:21 –172:4.
`hysteresis in mode switching” but claims “there has to be more
`Dr. Davis agrees that Severinskydiscloses “speed-responsive [sic]
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`56
`
`IPR ’904, Ex. 2004 at ¶ 82.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 28-34; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 28-39.
`
`the art to use it as a control input in a hybrid system.
`mention of torque as a concept does not tell one of skill in
`a vehicle to include these concepts. However, the
`of skill in the art would expect many references discussing
`control, transmission control, and stabilization. Thus, one
`purposes, for example, fuel flow, air metering, emissions
`torque parameters that are used for many different
`systems include a large number of power, speed, and
`One of skill in the art would understand that vehicle
`
`Col. 6:19-26 -simply states that the system is able to receive user inputs. Id.
`
`the vehicle in engine only mode. Id. at 29.
`Col. 13:65-14:21 -merely states that the engine provides the torque required to drive
`
`charge the battery when the engine is already in operation. Id. at 33.
`Col. 17:7-15 –relates to providing torque from the engine to the electric motor to
`
`POR at 29.
`torque to the wheels when the engine is already in operation. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20,
`Col. 13:65 –14:22 -relates to activating the electric motor to provide additional
`
`“torque demands” areunrelated to whether Severinsky
`Theplaces from which Dr. Davisidentifies disclosure of
`
`uses road load to turn the engine onand off
`
`
`
`57
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 28, 45; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 30, 38, 51.
`
`mode.
`hill climbing
`acceleration/
`relies on the
`Dr. Davis
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2005 at 171:9-13, 171:21 –172:4.
`
`that.”
`acceleration, hill [sic] climb modes, things like
`demands as well; for example, some of the
`been a lot of discussion about meeting the torque
`know, by now we're at Column 18 and there's
`that there has to be more involved, especially, you
`“[O]ne of ordinary skill would readily understand
`
`…
`
`driver's commands.”
`this would not be a vehicle that's responsive to the
`recognize that there's more involved here because
`“One of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`involved.” Ex. 2005, Davis Tr. at 169:11-16, 171:21 –172:4.
`hysteresis in mode switching” but claims “there has to be more
`Dr. Davis agrees that Severinskydiscloses “speed-responsive [sic]
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`58
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 35, Observations at 1-3.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 10:66 –11:6.
`
`climbing” mode is also unrelated to turning the engine on
`Dr. Davis’s reliance on “high-speed and/or acceleration hill
`
`and off
`
`
`
`59
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 1005, Davis Dec. at ¶¶ 286-87.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 35, Observations at 1-3.
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 1038, Davis Dec. at ¶¶ 24-25.
`
`increased above the 60% lower threshold.
`required to propel the vehicle to meet the desired acceleration has
`started and employed to propel the vehicle because the torque
`have described illustrates a situation where the engine would be
`engine and motor to propel the vehicle…. The operating situation I
`result in the “acceleration mode”starting and employing both the
`As Severinsky‘970 discloses, this full acceleration request would
`
`climbing” mode is also unrelated to turning the engine on
`Dr. Davis’s reliance on “high-speed and/or acceleration hill
`
`and off
`
`
`
`60
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 1005, Davis Dec. at ¶¶ 286-87.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 35, Observations at 1-3.
`
`and motor provide torque to the wheels to propel the vehicle.
`illustrates the acceleration/hill climbing modeswhere both the engine
`output) of the engine…. Fig. 6, reproduced below and annotated,
`propulsion of the vehicle exceeds the capability (i.e. maximum torque
`to provide supplemental torque when the torque required for
`Fig. 6 of Severinsky’970 illustrates and discloses operating the motor
`
`alleged road load is greater than the MTO.
`In “high-speed and/or acceleration hill climbing” mode, the
`
`to when to turnon the motor.
`“High-speed and/or acceleration hill climbing” mode is related
`
`previous testimony. Indeed, Dr. Davis previously admitted that:
`Dr. Davis’s new testimony contradicts Severinskyand Dr. Davis’s
`
`climbing” mode is also unrelated to turning the engine on
`Dr. Davis’s reliance on “high-speed and/or acceleration hill
`
`and off
`
`
`
`61
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 33, Observations at 1.
`
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 2015 at 19:16-22.
`
`hill climbing mode when going up a hill.
`otherwise at low speeds the vehicle of Severinskywould not enter
`Dr. Davis states that Severinskymustuse road load because
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`62
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 33, Observations at 1.
`
`IPR ’904, Ex. 2016 at 40:21 –41:4.
`
`only mode (ZEV mode) (id. at 4:6 –5:9).
`mode (HEV mode) at lower speeds and would instead stay in motor
`determine when to enter into the engine plus motor hill climbing
`Davis agreed that the disclosed vehicle would be unable to
`and an engine plus motor hill climbing mode (id. at 23:2-23), Dr.
`that discloses speed-responsive hysteresis (Ex. 2016 8:9 –9:13)
`When asked about another reference (U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534)
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`63
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 13-14, 24, 34; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 13-14, 25, 40.
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2002 at ¶ 34; see also ¶¶ 40-45, 53, 57.
`
`sought to accomplish this goal with varying degrees of success.
`not readily apparent.Indeed, much of hybrid control theory has
`would be advantageous, the control strategy employed to do so is
`the art understands that maintaining an engine only in its sweet spot
`understood as aspirational…. In other words, while one of skill in
`teachings of operating the engine within the sweet spot must be
`While it is possible to operate an engine at its sweet spot, such
`
`control strategy.
`vehicles), but identifying the sweet spot does not define the
`operation in the sweet spot is aspirational (i.e., the goal of hybrid
`Paice’sexpert, Mr. Hannemann, testified that maintaining engine
`
`’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 14.
`sweet spot for a disclosure about a control strategy is wrong. IPR
`Ford’s reliance on Severinsky’sdisclosure about the engine’s
`
`disclosure of a “sweet spot” is also improper
`Ford’s hindsight-driven read of Severinsky’s
`
`
`
`64
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 15 FN 6, 50; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 16 FN 7, 52.
`
`Severinsky‘970 at 20:63 –21:8.
`
`Proper Context
`
`produces 60-90%” MTO.
`run” … “such that it
`that the engine is “only
`Ford’s “key” passage –
`
`improving fuel economy would reduce emissions.
`Found at the very end of the specification and related to how
`
`Unrelated to mode switching or any type of hybrid control
`
`institution was granted) is:
`The “key” passage [Passage 1] on which Ford relies (and on which
`
`Ford’s hindsight-driven read of Severinskyis improper
`
`
`
`65
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 13-14; see alsoIPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 13-15.
`
`164:22 –165:7).
`Ex. 2005 at
`
`at 16)
`POSITA when to employ the engine. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 58-61. (IPR ‘904, POR
`Dr. Davis admitted that defining the engine sweet spot does not tell a
`8.
`within its sweet spot. Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 46-49; Ex. 2005 at 104:3-9, 106:4-
`There is not a single control strategy that would maintain the engine
`105:1.
`goal of hybrid vehicles). Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 42-45; Ex. 2005 at 103:20 –
`Maintaining engine operation in the sweet spot is aspirational (i.e., the
`¶¶ 58-61; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 259-60.
`“60-90%” MTO is a disclosure of the engine’s sweet spot. Ex. 2002 at
`
`Both experts agree that “60-90%” MTO does not
`
`disclose when to operate the engine
`
`Both experts agree that:
`
`
`
`66
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 21-22; see alsoIPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 20.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 1, Petition at 29-30; IPR ’904, Paper No. 1, Petition at 42.
`
`280.)
`of the maximum torque output of the engine. (Ex. 1005, Davis ¶¶278-
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is between 60% and 90%
`engine is employed to propel the vehicle whenthe “instantaneous
`SP”). (Ex. 1005, Davis ¶279.) Severinsky’970 thus discloses that the
`POSA as a lower level predetermined torque value (i.e., “lower level
`engine’s maximum torque output value would be understood by a
`7:8-16; 20:63-66; Ex. 1005, Davis ¶¶278-280.) Again, the 60% of the
`between “60-90% of [the engine’s] maximum torque ...” (Ex. 1003 at
`“most efficient conditions of output power and speed” which are
`Severinsky’970 discloses that the engine is onlyoperated under its
`
`The output torque of the engine and the road load
`
`control strategy)
`spot) with a teaching of when to run the engine (i.e., the actual
`Ateaching of how to run the engine (i.e., an aspirational sweet
`
`Ford’s hindsight-based reading of Passage 1 is based on confusing:
`
`disclosure of a “sweet spot” is also improper
`Ford’s hindsight-driven read of Severinsky’s
`
`
`
`67
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 23; see alsoIPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 20, 24.
`
`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
