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