`
`NEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015
`
`Prepared for you by
`
`Bingham Farms/Southfield • Grand Rapids
`Ann Arbor • Detroit • Flint • Jackson • Lansing • Mt. Clemens • Saginaw
`
`Page 1 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 1Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` FORD MOTOR COMPANY, :
` Petitioner, :
` v. : IPR Case No:
` PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, : IPR2014-00571
` INC., :
` Patent Owner. :
` :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
`
` Oral Deposition of NEIL HANNEMANN
` Washington, DC
` Tuesday, April 7, 2015
` 9:58 a.m.
`
`Job No.: 79874
`Pages: 1 - 145
`Reported By: Rebecca Stonestreet, RPR, CRR
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 2Page 2
`
` Oral Deposition of NEIL HANNEMANN, held at the
`offices of:
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
` 1425 K Street, NW
` 11th Floor
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202) 783-5070
`
` Pursuant to notice, before
`Rebecca Stonestreet, Registered Professional Reporter,
`Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public in and for
`the District of Columbia, who officiated in administering
`the oath to the witness.
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 3Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
` FRANK A. ANGILERI, ESQUIRE
` JOHN P. RONDINI, ESQUIRE
` BROOKS KUSHMAN, PC
` 1000 Town Center
` 22nd Floor
` Southfield, MI 48075
` (248) 226-2913
`
` - and -
`
` THOMAS W. YEH, ESQUIRE
` LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
` 555 Eleventh Street, NW
` Suite 1000
` Washington, DC 20004
` (202) 637-1039
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 4Page 4
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T I N U E D
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` BRIAN J. LIVEDALEN, ESQUIRE
` LINDA LIU KORDZIEL, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` 1425 K Street, NW
` 11th Floor
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202) 783-5070
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Frances Keenan, Paice LLC
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 5 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 5Page 5
`
` C O N T E N T S
`
`EXAMINATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN PAGE
` By Mr. Angileri 6
` By Mr. Livedalen 141
`
` E X H I B I T S
` (Retained by Counsel.)
`
`HANNEMANN EXHIBIT PAGE
` 1 Declaration of Neil Hannemann 8
` 2 Curriculum Vitae 9
` 3 U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 52
` 4 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 52
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`
`6 7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 6 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 6Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` (NEIL HANNEMANN, having been duly sworn, testified as
` follows:)
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`BY MR. ANGILERI:
` Q Good morning.
` A Good morning.
` Q Can you state your name for the record,
`please?
` A Neil Hannemann.
` Q Mr. Hannemann, what's the extent of your
`formal education?
` A Well, I have a bachelor's degree from General
`Motors Institute. That's the only other degree I have.
`I've gone to some graduate classes but didn't receive a
`degree.
` Q What graduate classes?
` A Oh, attended some classes at the University of
`California at Santa Barbara, and when I took a different
`job and moved away, I just did not -- chose not to
`complete that course.
` Q Are any of those graduate classes relevant to
`the hybrid vehicles?
` A You know, in 19 -- I mean, other than they
`were, you know, mechanical engineering classes, but
`
`Page 7 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 7Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`hybrid vehicles weren't really a course of study in --
`that would have been 1981.
` Q Did you focus at all on hybrid vehicles in
`your undergraduate work at GMI?
` A No. I would say I focused more on power train
`and emissions.
` Q What experience do you have in the
`hybrid/electric vehicle area?
` A Well, I can refer to my declaration.
`Actually, I think there was a supplemental declaration
`that has most of my qualifications.
` But it was more the -- the hybrid vehicle work
`was probably within the last 10 years, and specifically
`hybrids, probably the first time I did anything was at
`McLaren, where I worked on some architecture for hybrid
`vehicles based on a McLaren product.
` And then in 2008 I was working at a company
`called Aptera, where we looked at hybrid concepts, and
`the patent that I worked on could be applied to a hybrid
`vehicle.
` Q Have you ever designed a hybrid vehicle?
` A Well, I mean, "designed" is a pretty broad
`term. The work I did at McLaren was design work in the
`designing the architecture of the hybrid vehicle. So
`yes, I would say I've designed a hybrid vehicle.
`
`Page 8 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 8Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. ANGILERI: Let's mark as Exhibit 1
`Mr. Hannemann's declaration.
` (HANNEMANN Exhibit 1 was marked for
`identification and retained by counsel.)
` A Like I said, there's some additional detail of
`my background in the supplemental declaration, which I
`don't have with me.
` Q Supplemental declaration, you said?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection.
` (OFF THE RECORD.)
` Q Let's look at -- have you ever worked for Ford
`Motor Company?
` A For two years I've worked for Ford Motor
`Company as a contract employee through a company called
`Saleen.
` Q So you've never been a Ford Motor Company
`employee?
` A Well, I was a contract employee. It's a
`little bit of a subtlety, but probably 10 or 15 percent
`of all Ford engineers are working under contract. The
`best way to describe it is like a Kelly Girl thing, where
`your paycheck comes through a different company, but
`you're called a contract employee. So that would make me
`an employee of Ford.
` Q I guess that's your view. But your paycheck
`
`Page 9 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 9Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`came from Saleen. Right?
` A Yes.
` Q So you never got a paycheck from Ford Motor
`Company?
` A That's correct.
` Q What time period were you a contract employee
`with Saleen but located at Ford?
` A That was 2002 through 2004.
` Q How long were you employed at Saleen?
` A I was at Saleen for four or five years. And
`two years of that was the time at Ford.
` Q So did your employment with Saleen start
`before 2002?
` A Yes.
` Q When? Would your CV help?
` A Yes.
` MR. ANGILERI: Let's mark this.
` (HANNEMANN Exhibit 2 was marked for
`identification and retained by counsel.)
` Q So we marked as Exhibit 2 a -- strike that.
` What is Exhibit 2?
` A Exhibit 2 is my CV.
` Q And just for the record, what is Exhibit 1,
`that thing we marked earlier?
` A Exhibit 1 is my declaration for IPR 571.
`
`Page 10 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 10Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q Back to Exhibit 2, my question is, when did
`you work for Saleen?
` A I started working for Saleen in October of
`2000.
` Q And when did you finish working for Saleen?
` A I was assigned by Saleen to Ford in 2002, and
`that went through February of 2004.
` And there's a typo on this CV. So under Ford
`Motor Company it should be January 2002.
` Q This says you were at Ford Motor Company
`from now, as corrected by you, January 2002 through
`February 2004. Correct?
` A That's correct.
` Q And then it says in March 2004 you were at
`McLaren Automotive?
` A Correct.
` Q So were you still employed by Saleen when you
`were at McLaren or were you now a McLaren employee?
` A I was an employee of McLaren at that time.
` Q So just to be clear, you were employed by
`Saleen from October 2000 through February 2004. Right?
` A That's -- yeah. And as a contract employee, I
`was assigned to Ford Motor Company for part of that time.
` Q How did it come that Saleen assigned you to
`work at Ford Motor Company?
`
`Page 11 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 11Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A Well, Saleen had a working relationship with
`Ford, and Ford, they had a project that Saleen was
`working on from a subcontract standpoint. And, you know,
`Ford just requested that I be assigned to them as the
`chief engineer of that project.
` Q Who at Ford made that request?
` A That would have been John Coletti.
` Q How did you know John Coletti?
` A I really didn't know John. I think John
`was -- worked more with other people at Saleen.
` And I think -- well, possibly other people
`were involved in that decision. I just -- John Coletti
`is the one I met with who made that request. Other
`people may have been involved in the decision; it would
`have been Chris Theodore and possible Neil Ressler.
` Q So you never met John Coletti, but you know
`he's the one that requested that you work on the project?
` A I met him in the process of this project
`starting up.
` Q How do you know he asked that you work on the
`project?
` A Well, he's the first one that asked me to come
`to Detroit.
` Q So he literally spoke to you directly and
`said, Please come to Detroit?
`
`Page 12 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 12Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A Yes.
` Q Gotcha.
` Where were you before you came to Detroit?
` A Oh, I was based in Irvine, California.
` Q That's where Saleen is?
` A Yes.
` Q Do you know why Ford wanted somebody from
`Saleen to come on-site and work with them at that time?
` A I think that had less to do with Saleen and
`more to do with my background.
` Q What about your background gives you that
`impression?
` A Just the work I had done on the Dodge Viper at
`Chrysler was similar type of work that they were looking
`to do with the Ford GT.
` Q And what work is that?
` A Well, it was more the project, that it was
`going to be a low-volume, high-performance, two-seat
`sports car. So the Viper and Ford GT were similar
`vehicles from that viewpoint.
` Q In your declaration, which is Exhibit 1 in the
`deposition and Exhibit 2002 in the IPR, paragraph 22 has
`a definition of a person of skill in the art.
` Do you see that?
` A Yes.
`
`Page 13 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 13Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q Where did that come from?
` A Oh, that was, you know, my definition in
`consultation with attorneys here at Fish & Richardson.
` MR. LIVEDALEN: I would counsel the witness
`not to reveal any substance in any communication between
`the client and himself.
` Q How did you come up with this definition?
` A Well --
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Same instruction.
` A I guess for my part of it, it seems that I had
`a number of jobs where I had to build teams from scratch
`and hired quite a few engineers. At Chrysler, they had
`programs where I mentored engineers, and I was pretty
`active in that.
` So I had a lot of experience with engineers
`out of school, and then how a career might develop and
`transition. And I understood and had really my own idea
`of what an engineer should be doing after 5 or 10 years,
`and the best way to gain experience.
` So -- you know, that experience that I had, I
`used that to determine, you know, what type of experience
`that someone in this time frame would have.
` Q What time frame?
` A Well, I guess you're looking at September of
`1998 as the time frame for this particular IPR.
`
`Page 14 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 14Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q Did your conversations with Fish & Richardson
`attorneys influence your analysis of the definition of a
`person of skill in the art?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Same instruction.
` A Really, the conversations, I just -- you know,
`I was told that a definition was needed, so I would say
`that I wasn't influenced.
` Q Were you aware of the definition of skill in
`the art of a -- strike that.
` Were you aware of the definition of a person
`of skill in the art that was put forth in the litigation
`against Toyota?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A No, I wasn't aware of that. I probably was
`only aware of the definition in Dr. Davis and Stein's
`declarations. That's all I had really seen at that
`point.
` Q At what point?
` A The point where I came up with this
`definition.
` Q So you're not aware of any definition that
`Paice offered in litigation?
` A No.
` Q Why did you pick three years of experience?
` A Well, I had students coming out of school and
`
`Page 15 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 15Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`working through various jobs and programs. You know, at
`least two but three years was about the time frame it
`takes to get, you know, a full understanding of how
`vehicles and systems and components all interrelate with
`each other.
` Q What were you doing in 1998, September of
`1998?
` A I was working at Chrysler and I was...I was
`either in the small car platform as a vehicle development
`specialist, and I think during that year I transitioned
`to being the supervisor of the aerothermal lab.
` Let me correct that. I would have been the
`suspension design supervisor job, transitioning to the
`aerothermal development supervisor job.
` Q Are you looking at something on your CV to
`help you with that answer?
` A Yes.
` Q Where are you looking?
` A Under my DaimlerChrysler corporation
`experience, which was from '89 until 2000.
` Q Just as a note, this Chrysler corporation has
`a typo as well. Right? It should be 1982 to 1988?
` A Yes. That's correct.
` Q So in the DaimlerChrysler section of your CV,
`you list these various jobs. And you said in 1998 you
`
`Page 16 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 16Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`were transitioning from what to what?
` A In 1998, the year it started, I was the
`suspension design supervisor. And I think during that
`year I transitioned to becoming the aerothermal
`development supervisor.
` Q You were suspension design -- so these aren't
`in chronological order, then, obviously. Correct?
` A Correct. Correct.
` Can I add just a little bit more to the
`conversation we had about the person of skill in the art?
` Q Sure.
` A Because at Chrysler we had a two-year program
`where we trained engineers out of school. So if you came
`into that program with a bachelor's degree, it was a
`two-year program, and the reason I went three years is
`because if a company didn't have an organized program, it
`might take a little longer for an engineer to gain that
`type of experience. So that was -- the Chrysler program
`was one thing that influenced my decision.
` Q As of 1998, had you worked on any hybrid
`electric vehicles?
` A Well, yes. I had done -- not as a full-time
`job, but Chrysler had a program, it was a race car called
`the Chrysler Patriot, and I was involved in what we call
`fresh eyes reviews, which -- in a fresh eyes review is
`
`Page 17 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 17Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`where you take people that are not directly working on a
`program, give them a design review presentation just to
`have another viewpoint. So I participated in the Patriot
`program from that standpoint.
` Q Anything else?
` A That was probably -- there may be something
`else in that supplemental declaration. I just don't
`recall at this time every little job or task I may have
`done.
` Q The last sentence of paragraph 22 says, quote,
`"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," end
`quote.
` Do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q Why do the differences in your respective
`opinions on the level of skill in the art not affect your
`opinions in this IPR?
` A Well, I guess I have to refresh my memory on
`Dr. Davis's definition, because I don't recall that as I
`sit here right now.
` Q Do you know why the differences didn't affect
`your opinions in this IPR?
` A Well, because they were -- like I say, they
`
`Page 18 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 18Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`were relatively minor, I think, and he -- if I recall
`correctly, he had an option for an advanced degree as a
`trade-off for work experience.
` Q And so you don't see that as significant?
` A No. I would say the difference there is
`actually less than the difference, say, between the car
`companies. A company that has a more organized training
`program may develop people of skill in the art in less
`time than a company that doesn't have an organized
`program.
` Q All right. With respect to your definition of
`a person of skill in the art, what can that person do, in
`the way of solving problems?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague and calls
`for speculation.
` A Yeah, well, it depends on what exactly the job
`is. But during that time frame, engineers would gain
`experience that lets them understand how the different
`systems on a vehicle interrelate with each other, and
`that in general is the important thing.
` Now, they'll have different detail skills,
`depending on if their particular line of work is then
`focused on a system, you know, from air conditioning to
`suspension systems to brake systems. Those are all
`different specialties. But I think the understanding of
`
`Page 19 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 19Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`how the systems interrelate into a total vehicle is the
`important experience.
` Q Why?
` A Well, because systems do have
`interrelationships, and you can't consider a system in a
`vacuum. You need to analyze it all as it relates to the
`total vehicle.
` Q What systems are you talking about?
` A Well, I typically break it down to -- I mean,
`at a higher level, I typically look at five major areas,
`and then it can be broken down into probably 70 different
`systems in a vehicle.
` Q What are the five major areas?
` A Well, the five major areas are body, interior,
`chassis, power train, and electrical.
` Q Which major area is relevant to the '347
`patent?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`legal conclusion.
` A It would have, probably in order of -- I mean,
`power train and electrical are two that are probably the
`major ones. Then probably there is some chassis
`involvement. And the body involvement may be related to
`how the parts are packaged, and probably, you know,
`interior may be if the -- if how somebody may design a
`
`Page 20 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 20Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`system, they put a switch in, if there were some type of
`switch. And I guess that's more my opinion on how a
`hybrid system would fit in; maybe less as it relates to
`the patent, I think.
` The patent, you could probably design
`different systems or apply to the patent to different
`systems. I don't think the patent really gives you
`enough to, you know, design the entire hybrid system.
` Q Why not?
` A Well, for example, the engine. It doesn't
`specify that the engine should be a gas engine or diesel
`engine. So there's design choices like that that would
`be left open to the people designing the vehicle, even
`following the patent.
` Q Is there any other area where the patent
`doesn't give you enough to design the entire system?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`legal conclusion.
` A Yeah. And I don't think -- I'm not sure I'd
`say the patent doesn't have enough that you couldn't
`design the system. But there are design elements that
`the patent is not specific about. It's specific about
`certain things, but not everything that you would use to
`design the system.
` Q So what sort of problem-solving capacity or
`
`Page 21 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 21Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`capability does the person of ordinary skill have?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A Specifically, it varies on their area. But in
`the time frame that somebody is gaining experience, they
`would have been trained or exposed or practiced some of
`the problem-solving techniques that the automotive
`companies typically follow.
` Q What are those?
` A Well, they're different from company to
`company. But -- you know, they generally fall under some
`type of a root cause analysis, which would be an overall
`type of problem-solving technique. Ford had developed
`what we call an 8D process, and Ford and other companies
`used a process called the 5 Whys. These are just ways to
`help organize the problem solving in a logical type of
`format.
` Q So a person of skill in the art would solve
`problems in a logical way?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
`Mischaracterizes his previous testimony.
` A I think there -- you know, the point of the
`processes are to, you know, not only provide logic but
`provide some consistency among the different
`problem-solving techniques.
` Q Would a person of skill in the art approach
`
`Page 22 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 22Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`problems, in your opinion, in a logical way?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objections. Asked and
`answered.
` A Well, you know, I can't account for how every
`engineer would approach their job, but I certainly think
`they would have been exposed to the problem-solving
`techniques and processes.
` Q And in your opinion, would a person of
`ordinary skill in the art relative to the '347 patent
`approach problems and attempt to solve problems in a
`logical way?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objections.
` A Yeah. I think that someone with engineering
`background, someone of skill in the art would approach it
`in a logical fashion, yes.
` Q You mentioned a root cause analysis. Can you
`explain what that is, please?
` A Well, I mean, it sometimes covers a lot of
`different techniques. But basically, it's a way to help
`focus on what is the actual problem. So it has to do
`with gathering data and performing analysis to make sure
`that you really have gotten to the actual solution.
` Q Can you give me an example?
` A Well, probably one we used on the Ford GT is
`we had failures of a suspension component, and so we used
`
`Page 23 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 23Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`the -- Ford's 8D process to go through analyzing that.
`And it involves analyzing the design and includes the
`manufacturing process and -- you know, help you determine
`if it's a design problem or a manufacturing problem or
`whatever other type of problem it might be.
` Q How would a person of ordinary skill decide
`what sort of data to gather in a root cause analysis?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A Yeah. It probably depends on what type of
`system they're working on or what type of problem.
` Q What if you were trying to decide how to run
`an engine efficiently? What sort of data would you
`gather? What sort of data would a person of ordinary
`skill gather?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A Yeah, and you're jumping from problem solving
`to design, so it's not really -- I don't think it's
`really the same question.
` Q If a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`trying to decide how to run an engine efficiently, what
`sort of data would that person gather?
` A Okay. And that's different than problem
`solving. Because when you design a system, you design
`the system and you make decisions about your design, and
`you -- you know, the problem -- the root cause analysis
`
`Page 24 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 24Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`comes later once problems occur. So you have to get
`through the process to a certain point before you're
`actually solving problems.
` Q Can you answer my question, please?
` A Okay. Can you repeat the question, then?
` Q Sure. If a person of ordinary skill in the
`art is trying to decide how to run an engine efficiently,
`what sort of data would that person gather?
` A Well -- again, in trying to run an engine, I'm
`going to take it more as you're designing some type of
`engine control system.
` I mean, trying to make an engine run more
`efficiently, like you said, could be either a
`problem-solving exercise, or it could be what's called
`continuous improvement, where somebody is taking an
`existing design and trying to improve it. Or it could be
`a ground-up design. And you would approach them
`differently, depending on what you're trying to do.
` Q Just for economy of language, when I talk
`about a person of ordinary skill in the art, I'm talking
`about your definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art as it applies to this IPR. Okay?
` A Yes.
` Q Is that how you've understood my questions for
`the last 5 or 10 minutes?
`
`Page 25 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 25Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A Yes.
` Q Is a person of ordinary skill in the art good
`at solving problems?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A Yeah, I would say it covers the whole range.
`Some may inherently be good, and some people may never
`become good at solving problems.
` Q Well, this hypothetical person of ordinary
`skill in the art, are they somewhere in the middle of
`that range of solving problems?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objection.
` A I think that it covers the range. I mean,
`when we start breaking down what a person of skill in the
`art can do from very specific standpoints like that --
`it's just like somebody who specialized in heating,
`ventilation, and air conditioning may not be as adept at
`suspension design as somebody who learned more about
`suspension design.
` So there are a lot of variables, and the skill
`at problem solving depends on if a particular person had
`practice or experience, or if after three years it's the
`first time they're trying to solve a problem.
` Q If a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`experienced in engine controls and encounters a problem
`with emissions, is that person likely to consult someone
`
`Page 26 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 26Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`who has knowledge in emissions?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A Yeah. Typically, somebody of skill in the
`art, as we've defined it here, is going to have a
`supervisor or a manager, somebody who they would be
`working with on a daily basis. So somebody of skill in
`the art would have -- at least a large auto company would
`have the kind of support and knowledge depth to rely on.
` Q If a person of skill in the art is trying to
`reduce emissions, and that person encounters some
`teaching that helps reduce emissions, do you think that
`person would consider it and apply it if it helps?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague. Compound.
` A Yeah, I think they would consider whether it
`applies, and if it is applicable, then they would
`consider that. And it could be that there's some
`emission reduction that might apply to, for example,
`diesel engines that you wouldn't apply to gas engines.
` Q If a person of skill in the art is consulting
`past publications that are relevant, and notices that
`they cite to other related publications, is that person
`likely to consult those related publications?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague.
` A Yeah, if they feel that they're related, then
`I think that they would consult them.
`
`Page 27 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 27Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q Do you think that's especially likely if the
`related references are for the same project?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`speculation.
` A Yeah, and I'm not sure a person of skill in
`the art would know if they're all related to the same
`project or not.
` Q What if the first reference says they are?
`Don't you think that person would be especially likely to
`consult them?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objections.
` Q Together?
` A I think they would consider them, and then
`they would make decisions based on if those references
`are appropriate.
` Q Does a person of skill in the art understand
`that if you're comparing two things, they have to be in
`the same units?
` A I would think that would be something they
`would understand, yes.
` Q If a person of skill in the art is reviewing a
`reference and there are two portions of that reference
`that relate to one another, do you agree that the person
`of skill would read them together and consider those two
`related portions together?
`
`Page 28 of 146
`
`FORD 1039
`
`
`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANNNEIL HANNEMANN
`
`April 7, 2015April 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Page 28Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`speculation.
` A I mean, it just depends on if it applies to
`what they're a