UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2002
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-00571
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 2
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 5
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART .............................. 7
`
`V.
`
`THE ’347 PATENT ......................................................................................... 8
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................11
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT TECHNICAL CONCEPTS ........................12
`
`A.
`
`Engine Operating Range .....................................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Engine Output ......................................................................................13
`
`Engine Control Strategy ......................................................................14
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED REFERENCES ...................................22
`
`A.
`
`Severinsky ...........................................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Topology ...................................................................................22
`
`Control Strategy ........................................................................23
`
`B.
`
`Ehsani ..................................................................................................31
`
`IX. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS ....................................................................32
`
`A. General Critiques of Ford and Dr. Davis’s Analysis ..........................32
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1 ..............................................................................................39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Severinsky Does Not Employ the Engine Based on
`Road Load .................................................................................39
`
`Severinsky Does Not Employ the Motor When
`Road Load is Less Than a Setpoint ..........................................59
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`3.
`
`Severinsky Does Not Employ the Engine to Propel
`the Vehicle When the Torque RL Required to do
`so is Less Than the Lower Level SP and Using the
`Torque Between RL and SP to Drive the at Least
`One Electric Motor to Charge the Battery ................................63
`
`4.
`
`Severinsky Does not Disclose or Render Obvious a
`“setpoint” ..................................................................................69
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2 ..............................................................................................71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Severinsky in View of Ehsani does not Render
`Obvious “wherein said controller starts and
`operates said engine when torque require to be
`produced by said engine to propel the vehicle
`and/or to drive either one or both said electric
`motor(s) to charge said battery is at least equal to a
`setpoint (SP) above which said engine torque is
`efficiently produced” as Required by Claim 1..........................72
`
`Severinsky in View of Ehsani does not Render
`Obvious a “Setpoint” ................................................................76
`
`Severinsky in View of Ehsani does not Render
`Obvious Operating Modes Responsive to the
`Value for the Road Load (RL) and Setpoint SP as
`Required by Claim 7 .................................................................77
`
`Severinsky in View of Ehsani does not Render
`Obvious “a highway cruising mode IV, wherein
`said vehicle is propelled by torque provided by
`said internal combustion engine, while
`SP<RL<MTO” as Required by Claim 7 ...................................78
`
`Severinsky in View of Ehsani Does not Render
`Obvious “a low-load mode I, wherein said vehicle
`is propelled by torque provided by said second
`electric motor in response to energy supplied from
`said battery, while RL<SP” as Required by Claim
`7 .................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`6.
`
`Severinsky in View of Ehsani does not Render
`Obvious Claim 9 .......................................................................80
`
`D. Ground 3 ..............................................................................................82
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................82
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Dr. Gregory W. Davis Deposition Transcript (Jan. 13, 2015)
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Excerpt from File History for U.S. Patent 8,214,097
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Integrated Microprocessor Control of a Hybrid i.c.
`Engine/Battery-Electric Automotive Power Train,” P.W.
`Masding, J.R. Bumby, Jan. 1990
`
`Masding, Philip Wilson (1988) “Some drive train control
`problems in hybrid i.c engine/battery electric vehicles,” Durham
`theses, Durham University
`
`Ex. 2007
`
`Excerpt from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
`Technical Terms, Sixth Ed., 2003.
`
`Ex. 2008
`
`Neil Hannemann CV
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`I, Neil Hannemann, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Paice LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation (collectively, “Paice” or “Patent Owner”) to investigate and analyze
`
`certain issues relating to the validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the
`
`’347 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Petitioner”) in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’347 patent, Case No. IPR2014-00571.
`
`I have reviewed Ford’s petition, along with the declaration of Ford’s expert, Dr.
`
`Gregory Davis, and the documents cited therein. I have reviewed the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) decision to institute, as well as the Board’s
`
`claim constructions. My analysis is based on the Board’s claim constructions,
`
`unless I specifically note otherwise.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following
`
`claims of the ’347 patent (the “challenged claims”): 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23 and 36.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Ford and Dr. Davis argue that the challenged claims
`
`are obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky”) either alone or in
`
`combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613 (“Ehsani”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`5. My opinions are based on my review of the ’347 patent and each of
`
`the references on which Ford’s petition relies. Additionally, I have also reviewed
`
`the documents listed as exhibits to this declaration. Finally, my opinions are also
`
`based on my experience and work in the field of automotive engineering (as
`
`detailed further below). For the reasons discussed herein, I disagree with Ford and
`
`Dr. Davis. As I explain below, Severinsky discloses a speed-based control strategy
`
`that fails to account for road load or other torque demands when determining when
`
`to employ the engine. Therefore, it is my opinion that the ’347 patent is not
`
`obvious in light of Severinsky either alone or in combination with Ehsani.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $525 for each hour of service
`
`that I provide in connection with this matter. This compensation is not contingent
`
`upon my performance, upon the outcome of this matter, or upon any issues
`
`involved in or related to this matter.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`7. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2008,
`
`and contains a description of my work history, education, and accomplishments. I
`
`am an automotive engineer with over 25 years of experience in road and race
`
`vehicle engineering and design.
`
`8.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
`
`Automotive option, from the General Motors Institute (now known as Kettering
`
`
`
`2
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`University) in 1981. My college thesis was entitled “Design of an Emissions
`
`Laboratory”, dated May 15, 1981.
`
`9.
`
`I worked for almost 20 years for Chrysler (then DaimlerChrysler).
`
`During my assignment as the vehicle development engineer for the Dodge Viper I
`
`was responsible for certain aspects of emissions development and certification.
`
`This included scheduling and monitoring the durability cycle, coordinating
`
`emissions calibration and development. The Dodge Viper utilized a metal
`
`monolith catalytic converter. While a product development engineer at Chrysler, I
`
`also performed calibrations to Engine Control Modules (ECM).
`
`10.
`
`I spent two years as a Chief Engineer at Saleen Inc. While there, I
`
`was responsible for all vehicle design, design analysis and vehicle development. I
`
`was also responsible for emissions certification for all Saleen models.
`
`Additionally, I was responsible for powertrain calibrations. I personally approved
`
`every final calibration that the engineers performed.
`
`11.
`
`I was the Chief Engineer for the Ford GT, initially produced as a 2005
`
`model. In this role, I was responsible for all aspects of the performance of the Ford
`
`GT. This included drafting and approving the plan for all safety and certification
`
`testing, including emissions development and testing. I was also responsible for
`
`the decision on which engine to use for the vehicle. I also was the architect for the
`
`
`
`3
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`main structure of the vehicle and was responsible for all structural design, analysis,
`
`testing and development.
`
`12. As Chief Engineer responsible for design, design analysis and
`
`development for the Ford GT I was involved in the emissions strategy, and the
`
`design of the emissions related components. Ford had yet to utilize a metal
`
`monolith catalytic converter and my experience at Chrysler with the Dodge Viper
`
`was a factor in convincing Ford to use this new (for them) technology.
`
`13.
`
`I worked as an Executive Director of Engineering for McLaren
`
`Automotive. While there, I was responsible for all aspects of engineering and
`
`technical integrity for their current and future products. My focus was on mid-
`
`engine sports cars for Mercedes-Benz, FMVSS 208 compliance for Mercedes-
`
`McLaren SLR and future variants.
`
`14.
`
`I was a Senior Vice President at Aptera Motors, Inc. While at Aptera,
`
`I was involved in the development and testing of regenerative braking calibrations.
`
`I have also done this type of work for other consulting clients. These clients
`
`include those developing hybrid-electric vehicles.
`
`15.
`
` I am a named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,276,693 B2, October 2,
`
`2012, entitled “Powertrain, Vehicle, and Method with Electric Motors and Dual
`
`Belt Drive”, direct to a transaxle.
`
`
`
`4
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`16.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`below, as provided to me by counsel for Patent Owner and as I understand them.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`patent claim is unpatentable as “anticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if it is
`
`determined that the claimed invention was previously known, and that all the
`
`limitations of the claim are described in a single prior art reference. I am informed
`
`by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that, to anticipate a claim, a prior
`
`art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every
`
`limitation of that claim and enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use
`
`the invention.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and
`
`understand that obviousness may be based upon a combination of references. I am
`
`
`
`5
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. However, I am informed by counsel for the
`
`Patent Owner and understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is
`
`not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`when a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior
`
`art. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that identifying
`
`a reason those elements would be combined can be important because inventions
`
`in many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`
`
`6
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`already known. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand
`
`that it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent's
`
`claims should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`21.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that an
`
`obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need,
`
`failure of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that all prior art
`
`references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Furthermore, obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`22. Based on my review of the ’347 patent, the documents cited by Ford
`
`and Dr. Davis, and my own knowledge and skill based on my experience in the
`
`automotive industry and with the design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, it
`
`
`
`7
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in September of 19981 is a
`
`person who would have a combination of experience and education in the design
`
`and development of mechanical systems or control systems, typically a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or similar field
`
`plus at least three years of experience in designing, implementing, testing,
`
`teaching, or otherwise working with automotive systems, control system logic, or a
`
`related field. I note that the differences between the level of skill above and the
`
`level of skill defined by Dr. Davis are minor and do not affect my opinions set
`
`forth below.
`
`V. THE ’347 PATENT
`
`23. The ’347 patent (Ex. 1001), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on
`
`September 12, 2006 from an application that claims priority to a provisional
`
`application filed on September 14, 1998. The ’347 patent discloses embodiments
`
`of a hybrid electric vehicle, with an internal combustion engine and two motors.
`
`One or both of the motors may be used to recharge the battery. Additionally, a
`
`microprocessor is employed to select different operating modes based on the
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’347 claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’347 patent,
`
`that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`
`
`8
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements, the state of charge of the battery bank,
`
`and other variables. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`24. An embodiment of the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the ’347 patent is
`
`shown in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`25. As shown, a traction motor 25 is connected to the road wheels 34
`
`through a differential 32. A starter motor 21 is connected to the internal
`
`combustion engine 40. The motors 21 and 25 are functional as either motors or
`
`generators, depending on the operation of the corresponding inverter/charger units
`
`
`
`9
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`23 and 27, which connect the motors to the battery bank 22. See Ex. 1001 at
`
`26:13-24.
`
`26. These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48 or any
`
`controller capable of examining input parameters and signals and controlling the
`
`mode of operation of the vehicle. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 26:25-27:20. For example,
`
`control of engine 40 is accomplished by way of control signals provided by the
`
`microprocessor to the electronic fuel injection (EFI) unit 56 and electronic engine
`
`management (EEM) unit 55. Control of (1) starting of the engine 40; (2) use of
`
`motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or (3) use of motors as generators
`
`to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is accomplished through
`
`control signals provided by the microprocessor to the inverter/charger units 23 and
`
`27. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 26:59-27:20; 28:38-49.
`
`27. The hybrid vehicle may be operated in a number of modes based on
`
`comparing the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements (i.e. the “road load”),
`
`the engine’s maximum torque output, the state of charge of the battery, and other
`
`operating parameters. In an implementation of the ’347 patent, the microprocessor
`
`causes the vehicle to operate in various operating modes pursuant to its control
`
`strategy.
`
`28. For example, in mode I, the hybrid vehicle is operated as an electric
`
`car, with the traction motor providing all torque to propel the vehicle. Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`
`10
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`37:26-35. As the vehicle continues to be propelled in electric only mode, the state
`
`of charge of the battery may become depleted, and need to be recharged. In this
`
`case, the hybrid vehicle may transition to mode II to recharge the battery, in which
`
`the vehicle operates as in mode I, with the addition of the engine running the
`
`starter/generator motor to provide electrical energy to operate the traction motor
`
`and recharge the battery. Ex. 1001 at 37:35-39. When the internal combustion
`
`engine can operate in its fuel efficient range based on an evaluation of the road
`
`load, the hybrid vehicle operates in mode IV, with the engine providing torque to
`
`propel the vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 37:45-47; 38:55-65. In this mode, the motor may
`
`also provide torque in order to, for example, limit the rate of increase of engine
`
`output torque during operation to reduce emissions. Ex. 1001 at 39:34 – 40:19. If
`
`the vehicle requires additional torque, such as for acceleration or passing, the
`
`vehicle may enter mode V, where the traction motor provides additional torque to
`
`propel the vehicle beyond that provided by engine 40. Ex. 1001 at 38:4-11.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`29.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, the claims of a
`
`patent are to be given their broadest reasonable meaning as they would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification of
`
`the patent. I understand that Board has construed the following terms. I have used
`
`these constructions in my analysis.
`
`
`
`11
`
`16
`
`

`
`Claim term
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`“the amount of instantaneous torque
`required to propel the vehicle, be it
`positive or negative.”
`
`“predetermined torque value that may or
`may not be reset.”
`
`
`
`“road load (RL)”
`
`“setpoint (SP)”
`
`
`
`30. While I understand that the Board has adopted the above-referenced
`
`constructions, counsel for Patent Owner has asked that in addition to applying the
`
`Board-adopted constructions that I apply an alternative construction of “setpoint
`
`(SP),” which requires that the setpoint be a value “at which a transition between
`
`operating modes may occur.” Throughout my declaration, I apply the Board’s
`
`construction unless I specifically note otherwise.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT TECHNICAL CONCEPTS
`
`A. Engine Operating Range
`
`31. An internal combustion engine operates over a range of engine
`
`speeds. The speed is measured and reported as revolutions per minute (RPM).
`
`The lowest operating range is referred to as the idle speed. This is an engine speed
`
`at which the engine can maintain a running condition with a minimum throttle
`
`opening and no or little applied load. In a modern engine the idle speed must be
`
`maintained at a steady speed with variances limited to no more than 50 rpm from a
`
`
`
`12
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`given idle speed that is defined by the manufacturer. This variance is defined by
`
`the emissions regulations published by the Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(EPA). The starting speed is an engine speed at which the engine must be rotated
`
`in order for combustion to occur and then allow the engine to reach the idle speed.
`
`A starter motor typically achieves the engine rotation, but it can be achieved by
`
`other methods of engine rotation including from the road wheels. The highest
`
`operating speed is referred to as the “red line” and it is the maximum safe
`
`operating speed allowed for a given engine. This maximum speed is determined
`
`by either mechanical limits or airflow limits. Between the idle speed and the
`
`maximum engine speed the engine can operate at many discrete points and can
`
`transition between points. Spark ignition, diesel and two stroke engines have
`
`different operating ranges. For every engine speed, there is an associated torque
`
`value. Another way of defining an engine’s operating range would be by its output
`
`power, which is the engine’s speed multiplied by the output torque.
`
`B. Engine Output
`
`32. As mentioned above, there is an engine output related to each engine
`
`speed, at a given throttle opening. The output can be measured as engine torque.
`
`Torque is the rotational force created by the combustion process and the
`
`mechanical layout of the engine. Torque available at the end of the crankshaft is a
`
`result of the process of converting combustion into rotary motion and force.
`
`
`
`13
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`Torque is a different value for each engine speed and throttle opening at which the
`
`engine is optimized for fuel ratio and the spark advance (for a spark ignition
`
`engine). Diesel engines are optimized for fuel ratio and combustion is initiated by
`
`auto ignition. Engine power is the product of engine torque and engine speed at
`
`any given operating point. The power generated by a reciprocating piston internal
`
`combustion engine generally increases as engine speed (rpm) increases to a certain
`
`engine speed at which point either the mechanical friction increase is greater than
`
`the power increase, a limit of airflow is reached or some other mechanical
`
`limitation is reached (such as valve float or critical piston speed). The engine’s
`
`output torque (and its associated power value) is the torque that the engine can
`
`produce in order to, for example, move the wheels, recharge the battery, power
`
`accessories, etc. This output torque is different than what the ’347 patent terms as
`
`torque demands, which are derived from inputs to the system rather than the
`
`engine’s properties. The instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle (i.e.,
`
`road load) is one example of a torque demand.
`
`C. Engine Control Strategy
`
`33. The ’347 patent contemplates at least two different aspects of an
`
`engine control strategy in a hybrid vehicle. Conceptually, these two aspects can be
`
`described as determining how to operate the engine and determining when to
`
`operate the engine. Determining how to operate the engine is a question related to
`
`
`
`14
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`the parameters that the system designer sets to define the range over which the
`
`engine will operate when running. The engine operating range described above is
`
`one example of defining how a given engine will operate. For example, a designer
`
`may size an engine such that it has an inherent operating range.
`
`34.
`
`In addition to the physical constraints of the engine, the designer may
`
`attempt to decrease the size of the operating range of the engine by way of a
`
`control strategy. For example, all engines have what is referred to as a power band
`
`or sweet spot, which is the range of operating speeds, torques, or powers under
`
`which the engine is able to operate efficiently. Severinsky understands the benefits
`
`of operating the engine within this efficient region expressed in terms of the power
`
`of the engine. While it is possible to operate an engine at its sweet spot, such
`
`teachings of operating the engine within the sweet spot must be understood as
`
`aspirational. This is true for both Severinsky and the Anderson reference I discuss
`
`below. In other words, while one of skill in the art understands that maintaining an
`
`engine only in its sweet spot would be advantageous, the control strategy employed
`
`to do so is not readily apparent. Indeed, much of hybrid control theory has sought
`
`to accomplish this goal with varying degrees of success.
`
`35. The ’347 patent teaches a second aspect of hybrid control strategy,
`
`namely, when to turn the engine on. In a hybrid system, which has more than one
`
`
`
`15
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`source of power, it must be determined when to use only the motor, or when to use
`
`the engine, or when to use both the motor and the engine.
`
`36.
`
` Merely defining an operating range of sweet spot does not inform one
`
`of skill in the art as to when to actually utilize the engine. For example, the engine
`
`could operate within the defined operating range all of the time. This control
`
`strategy could be applied, for example, in a locomotive using a series hybrid
`
`configuration. A locomotive operates normally at constant speeds and a series
`
`configuration separates the engine from the drive shaft because the engine is used
`
`solely to charge the battery. As a result, the output speed and torque of the engine
`
`are not related to the speed of the locomotive such that the engine could always
`
`operate in its most efficient operating range to continuously charge the battery.
`
`The battery, in turn, provides current to the motor for propulsion. In contrast to a
`
`series hybrid (in which the engine could always operate), the engine could never
`
`operate, for example, in an electric car (which does not utilize an engine).
`
`37. Within these two extreme cases, there are any number of control
`
`strategies that could be employed to determine when to utilize the engine in some
`
`instances while turn the engine off in other instances. The vehicle operator could
`
`manually turn the engine on or off by selecting a mode of operation with the push
`
`of a button. As another example, the control system could activate the engine at
`
`certain time intervals. These are just two examples and while these control
`
`
`
`16
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`strategies may not present a practical solution in the context of a commercial
`
`hybrid automobile, they illustrate that the question when to operate the engine is
`
`not answered by defining an engine operating range or sweet spot.
`
`38. Defining an optimal control strategy is a complicated task that must
`
`take into account the system as a whole. If the engine is operated too infrequently,
`
`the state of charge of the battery may diminish too quickly such that the range of
`
`the vehicle may be inadequate. On the other hand, if the engine is operated too
`
`frequently, the engine may generate excess torque that is not consumed by other
`
`components of the hybrid system (or operate outsides its efficient operating region)
`
`resulting in poor fuel economy.
`
`39. The papers cited by Dr. Davis demonstrate that while a preferred
`
`engine operating range (a sweet spot) may be identified, the control strategy to
`
`actually keep the engine within that sweet spot as much as possible is not easily
`
`ascertained.
`
`The maximum power output of the [engine] will affect strategy
`
`design choices in a similar manner to the capacity of the battery.
`
`With a high power capability, one may design the strategy to operate
`
`more or less like a conventional car engine in a power following
`
`mode, whereas a low power capability will force the strategy to run
`
`
`
`17
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`the engine at its highest power level so that it can keep up with current
`
`demands and store extra energy for periods of high demand.
`
`***
`
`The fuel efficiency of an [engine] generally varies as a function of the
`
`power level. The specific fuel consumption (SFC) of an engine is
`
`typically best at middle power levels and worst at the low and high
`
`power extremes. The [engine] operating strategy that will maximize
`
`fuel efficiency is one that runs the [engine] primarily in the range of
`
`powers over which the SFC is best (often termed the engine's "sweet
`
`spot").
`
`Ex. 1032 at 11 (emphasis added).
`
`40. The quoted passage above from Anderson et al., The Effects of APU
`
`Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric
`
`Vehicles (“Anderson”) illustrates that merely identifying a preferred operating
`
`range in an aspirational sense does not tell one of skill in the art what strategy to
`
`employ. In his deposition, Dr. Davis confirmed that operating the engine within its
`
`sweet spot is the goal of both hybrid and conventional vehicles but that other
`
`considerations such drivability and operating conditions would also be a factor.
`
`
`
`18
`
`23
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`Q. You do it right here. I mean you -- in Paragraph 129 you tell us that
`
`one advantage of a hybrid vehicle is the ability to limit operation of
`
`the engine to its sweet spot, right?
`
`A. That's definitely a goal of a hybrid vehicle, yes, is to try and
`
`operate the engine in an area near its best efficiency.
`
`…
`
`The goal of all these vehicles is to try and operate the vehicle near its
`
`sweet spot for more efficient operation. I mean that's a goal in a
`
`conventional vehicle in many cases too, but we also have to meet
`
`concerns of drivability, we have to look at the particular hardware
`
`structure, we have to look at the operating conditions. There's a
`
`number of factors…
`
`Ex. 2003 at 103:20 – 105:1.
`
`41. Notably, while Anderson states that the strategy that maximizes fuel
`
`efficiency is the strategy that runs the engine primarily in its sweet spot, it does not
`
`offer a solution that actually accomplishes this goal. The strategy is complex and
`
`must take into account a variety of factors. For example, the strategy must take
`
`into account the topology. Indeed the context of the passage in Anderson is
`
`directed to series hybrid vehicles in which the engine is used to solely charge the
`
`battery.
`
`
`
`19
`
`24
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00571
`
`
`4