`
`Before Sally C. Medley, KalyanK. Deshpande, and Carl M. DeFranco,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`
`v.
`
`IPR2014-00904 (USPN 7,237,634)
`IPR2014-00884 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00875 (USPN 7,559,388)
`IPR2014-00579 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00571 (USPN 7,104,347)
`IPR2014-00570 (USPN 8,214,097)
`
`Patent Owners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-00571
`PAICE 2013
`
`
`
`2
`
`(‘388 Patent)
`IPR2014-00570 (‘097 Patent) and IPR2014-00875
`(‘347 Patent)
`IPR2014-00579 (‘347 Patent) and IPR2014-00884
`(‘634 Patent)
`IPR2014-00571 (‘347 Patent) and IPR2014-00904
`
`III.
`
`II.
`
`I.
`
`Three groups of IPRs:
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Patent/Technology Overview
`
`Introduction
`
`Agenda
`
`
`
`3
`
`Introduction:
`
`o=o:_oo.::_
`
`
`
`4
`
`Introduction to the Patent Owners
`
`
`
`5
`
`See e.g. IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 4
`
`emissions.
`while significantly lowering
`electric vehicle system possible,
`efficient and cost-effective hybrid
`Paice’s goal: develop the most fuel
`
`company incubator program.
`the University of Maryland’s small
`Alex Severinskywith support from
`Paice was founded in 1992 by Dr.
`
`Who is Paice?
`
`
`
`6
`
`See e.g. IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 4
`
`its goals.
`provided more than $30million in support to help Paice achieve
`The Abell Foundation invested in Paice in 1998 and has since
`serves.
`goal of reinvesting any earnings back into the communities it
`including those focused on environmental issues —with the
`But occasionally invests in promising local companies —
`education, healthcare, and human services initiatives.
`Traditionally focuses on caring for the underserved through
`across Maryland.
`contributes millions of dollars to support worthwhile causes
`The Abell Foundation is a charitable organization that
`
`Who is The Abell Foundation?
`
`
`
`7
`
`See e.g. IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 4-5 (citing to Ex. 2011).
`
`separate Petitions for Inter PartesReview before this Board.
`Ford ultimately declined to arbitrate, and instead filed 25
`into an Arbitration Agreement to resolve further disputes.
`In 2010, Ford took a license to Paice’s ’970 patent, and entered
`auto manufacturer.
`patent portfolio with Toyota, the world’s most successful hybrid
`In 2010, Paice reached a significant license on Paice’sentire
`proposed Ford vehicles.
`detailed modeling of Paice’spatented technology in actual and
`Ford to teach Ford Paice’shybrid vehicle technology, including
`Between 1999 and 2004, Paicespent extensive time working with
`vehicles.
`manufacturers in developing commercially viable hybrid
`Paice has been involved with the world’s top automotive
`
`History of Paice and Ford
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent/Technology Overview
`
`
`
`9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the ‘097 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388 (“the ‘388 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (“the ‘634 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ‘347 Patent”)
`
`Challenged Patents:
`
`Background of the Challenged Patents
`
`
`
`10
`
`1999.
`60/122,296, filed on Mar. 1,
`Provisional application
`1998; and
`60/100,095, filed on Sep.14,
`Provisional application No.
`
`priority to:
`same specification and claim
`All patents share generally the
`
`Theodore Louckes
`
`Alex Severinsky
`
`Named Inventors:
`
`Background of the Challenged Patents
`
`
`
`11
`
`See e.g. IPR ’884, Ex. 2215 at ¶¶ 10-23.
`
`McLaren MP4/12C sports car
`Hybrid configurations for the
`The Chrysler Patriot
`(pictured bottom right)
`The KeplerMotion hybrid sports car
`
`including:
`numerous actual hybrid vehicles
`He has designed and worked with
`
`DaimlerChrysler, Saleen, and McLaren.
`development positions with Ford, GM,
`than 25 years including specialty vehicle
`Mr. Hannemann’scareer spans more
`
`Paice’s expert –Neil Hannemann
`
`
`
`12
`
`See e.g. ‘347 Patent, Fig. 3
`
`See e.g. IPR ’875, Paper No. 19, POR at 5-6.
`
`is run only under conditions of high efficiency…
`accordance with the vehicle's instantaneous torque demands so that the engine
`starter motor, and a battery bank, all controlled by a microprocessor in
`A hybrid vehicle comprises an internal combustion engine, a traction motor, a
`
`See e.g. ‘347 Patent, Abstract
`
`electric vehicles and the control thereof:
`Inventions of the Challenged Patents are generally directed to hybrid
`
`Background of the Challenged Patents
`
`
`
`13
`
`See e.g. IPR ’875, Paper No. 19, POR at 5-6.
`
`Battery
`
`Controller
`
`Traction Motor
`
`Engine
`
`Starter motor
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`14
`
`See e.g. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 2-3.
`
`propulsion
`Mode V: engine and motor
`Mode IV: engine propulsion
`engine charges the battery
`Mode II: motor propulsion,
`Mode I: motor only propulsion
`
`
`
`.:o_w_:n_o.3_._3oE___w_uos_
`
`
`
`Basso.9:mwmgmco2__9_¢
`
`
`
`:o_m__3_o.3_2.5%_>_w_uos_
`
`._3oEucm2__9_¢_>o_oos_
`
`:o_w_:n_o._n_
`
`
`
`:o_w_:n_o.a_>_:o._3oE__w_uos_
`
`ramprgm»zofiuwuo
`
`auwm.33
`
`>42,191
`
`.uz_..u5.B
`
`..az.n.m¢....
`zo:.4uu.5..o4
`
`«uz.wS3ii
`
`”w_oEw>2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_wn_o._n_3.£on_._o.w:_m:w.._3oE
`
`the vehicle:
`motor, engine, or both, to propel
`different combinations of the
`operated in various “modes,” i.e.
`challenged patents can be
`The hybrid electric vehicle of the
`
`
`
`
`
`6......mm_ooE..w:o_._m>E_u3m._wn_o
`
`
`
`2:*0w:o=m:_n_EooEw._w=__o
`
`
`
`
`
`ancmowpcflma_owm:w__m;o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:*0m_oEw>o_.:ow_w_o_._n_>;as...Q
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`_u::o._mv_omm_>mo_o:;ow._.
`
`
`
`15
`
`See e.g. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 2-3.
`
`Motor only propulsion
`
`Engine propulsion
`
`propulsion
`Engine + motor
`
`solid line in the example from Fig. 7) to a “setpoint.”
`on an innovative system that compares the “road load” (depicted as a
`In a number of embodiments, switching between these modes depends
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`16
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`17
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`SPandMTO;
`isbetweensaidlowerlevel
`torqueRLrequiredtodoso
`propelsaidvehiclewhenthe
`employingsaidengineto
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`thansaidlowerlevelSP;
`requiredtodosoisless
`vehiclewhenthetorqueRL
`electricmotortopropelsaid
`employingsaidatleastone
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`18
`
`See e.g.IPR2014-00884, Patent Owner’s Response at 17 (citing Ex. 1201, ’347 patent at col. 13:11-17).
`
`Power
`Pedal position
`Vehicle speed
`
`Some of the other control metrics used by Ford’s asserted prior art:
`varying conditions encountered in ‘real world’ driving situations.”
`response to operator commands and fuel efficiency, under the widely
`“Road load” provides “superior performance, in terms of both vehicle
`torque requirements, i.e., the road load.”
`mode should preferably be controlled in response to the vehicle's actual
`Prior art metrics however failed to recognize that the “vehicle operational
`operating mode based on the “road load.”
`that uses “road load” in a control system that determines the vehicle
`Many of the challenged claims are directed to a vehicle control system
`
`“Road load”
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR ’570, Paper No. 22, POR at 4.
`
`’097 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`’097 Patent at 38:62-39:1
`
`and improve fuel economy”
`limit undesirable emissions
`output torque is preferred to
`the rate of change of engine
`requirement. Thus limiting
`instantaneous torque
`line indicating the vehicle's
`output torque, lags the solid
`the instantaneous engine
`line in FIG. 7(a), indicating
`by noting that the dashed
`per revolution, as indicated
`limited, e.g., to 2% or less
`engine's torque output is
`“The rate of change of the
`
`Technology Background
`
`
`
`20
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`21
`
`may not be reset.”
`“a predetermined torque value that may or
`
`positive or negative.”
`required to propel the vehicle, be it
`“the amount of instantaneous torque
`
`Board’s Construction:
`
`IPR2014-00904
`
`‘634 Patent:
`
`IPR2014-00884
`IPR2014-00579
`IPR2014-00571
`
`‘347 Patent
`
`IPR2014-00904
`
`‘634 Patent:
`
`IPR2014-00875
`
`‘388 Patent:
`
`IPR2014-00884
`IPR2014-00579
`IPR2014-00571
`
`‘347 Patent:
`Patents/IPRs:
`Relevant
`
`“setpoint(SP)”
`
`“road load”
`
`Claim Term:
`
`Board’s Initial Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22, POR at 6-12.
`22
`See: IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 5-11; IPR ‘579, Paper No. 20, POR at 5-11; IPR ‘884, Paper No. 20, POR at 6-13; IPR ‘904,
`
`modes may occur.”
`which a transition between operating
`“a definite, but potentially variable value at
`PatentOwner’s Proposed Construction
`
`“setpoint(SP)”
`Claim term
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction:
`‘571, ‘579, ‘884, and ‘904) and respectfully requests that the Board adopt
`Patent Owner opposes the Board’s construction of “setpoint(SP)” (in IPRs
`
`‘875, ‘884, and ‘904.
`Parties do not dispute the construction of “road load” in IPRs ‘571, ‘579,
`
`Disputed Claim Constructions
`
`
`
`23
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 7.
`
`specification”).
`“unreasonable and inconsistent with the language of the claims and the
`(holding that Board’s construction of “electrochemical sensor” was
`See e.g. In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`which would be clear, reversible error.
`cannot limit its analysis to just a portion of the disputed claim phrase,
`Board must consider the entirety of the claims and specification, and
`
`Vaidyanathan, 381 Fed. Appx. 985, 995-96 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`conformity with the invention as described in the specification. In re
`The Board’s “broadest” interpretation must be reasonable, and must be in
`
`Claim Construction Standards
`
`
`
`24
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 6-7.
`
`consistently with Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`Court for the District of Maryland have both construed the term
`The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. District
`
`different operating modes may occur.
`recognize that “setpoint” represents a point at which a transition between
`The Board’s construction of “setpoint(SP)” is incorrect because it fails to
`
`may or may not be reset.”
`“a predetermined torque value that
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`modes may occur.”
`transition between operating
`variable value at which a
`“a definite, but potentially
`Claim Construction
`PatentOwner’s Proposed
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP”
`
`
`
`25
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 9.
`
`‘634 Patent, claim 16:
`
`also can be used to propel the vehicle or charge the battery:
`which only the motor propels the vehicle, to modes in which the engine
`vehicle may transition between two modes, for example between a mode in
`Claim language makes clear that a “setpoint” marks a point at which the
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`26
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 9.
`
`‘347 Patent, claim 23:
`
`also can be used to propel the vehicle or charge the battery:
`which only the motor propels the vehicle, to modes in which the engine
`vehicle may transition between two modes, for example between a mode in
`Claim language makes clear that a “setpoint” marks a point at which the
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`27
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 9 (citing ‘347 patent); IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 9-10 (citing ‘634 patent)
`
`‘347 Patent at col. 40:47-55
`
`of the invention.
`between 30-50% of MTO, within the scope
`arbitrary and can vary substantially, e.g.,
`operation in modes I and IV)is obviously
`as the transition point (i.e., between
`claims as "SP", and sometimes hereinafter
`This setpoint, referred to in the appended
`when road load is equal to 30% of MTO.
`operation to highway cruising occurs
`stated that the transition from low-speed
`strategy discussed above, it is repeatedly
`[I]n the example of the inventive control
`
`“transition point” between modes
`Specification makes clear that a “setpoint” is synonymous with a
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`28
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 9 (citing ‘347 patent); IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 9-10 (citing ‘634 patent)
`
`‘347 Patent at col. 44:32-39
`
`operator's commands…
`particular may vary in accordance with the
`points between modes I, IV, and V in
`Further, as noted above the transition
`
`‘347 Patent at col. 41:59-63
`
`load equal to 30% of MTO.
`mode IV highway cruising, set at a road
`between mode I, low-speed operation, and
`microprocessor, with the transition point
`points of the control program run by the
`FIG. 9 thus shows the main decision
`
`“Setpoint,” “SP” marks a transition between modes
`
`
`
`29
`
`See e.g.IPR ‘571, Paper No. 20, POR at 10-11 (citing ‘347 patent); IPR ‘904, Paper No. 22, POR at 10-11 (citing ‘634 patent)
`
`specification of the challenged patents.
`Such an unreasonably broad construction is fundamentally contrary to the
`
`modes never occur.
`read to broadly cover hybrid vehicle systems where transitions between
`Under the Board’s improper construction, the claims could improperly be
`
`propulsion to engine propulsion in response to “road load.”
`thesignificant efficiency to be gained by transitioning between motor
`rob the “mode” limitations of one of the key aspects of the invention, i.e.
`Board’s failure to recognize the “transition” function of “setpoints” could
`
`motor propulsion to engine propulsion).
`system actively changes the vehicle from one mode to another (e.g.from
`“setpoint” marks the amount of “road load” at which the claimed control
`Board’s construction reads out a crucial limitation of the claims: the
`
`Board’s construction is unreasonably broad
`
`
`
`30
`
`IPR2014-00571 AND IPR2014-00904§
`
`m8-Ec~m_n__nz<Em8-Ec~m_n__
`
`
`
`31
`
`IPR2014-00571, Paper 12, Institution Decision at 16.
`
`ground of “Severinskyand Ehsani” on which we institute trial.
`a different ground, but simply as additional support for the
`view Ford’s challenge based on “Ehsaniand Severinsky” not as
`As such, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R. §42.108 to
`
`Ford’s Ground 3 was included in Ground 2:
`Asserted Art: Severinskyand Ehsani
`Challenged claims: 1, 6, 7, 9, 15 and 21
`
`Ground 2 (§103):
`
`Asserted Art: Severinsky
`Challenged claims: 23 and 36
`
`Ground 1 (§103):
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`IPR2014-00571 –Introduction
`
`
`
`32
`
`IPR ’904, Paper 13, Institution Decision at 13.
`
`this presumably weaker ground. See 37 C.F.R. §42.108(a).
`grounds, and we exercise our discretion to deny institution of
`Ehsani, we presume that it is the weaker of the two asserted
`to proceeding with the additional ground of Severinskyand
`And in the absence of Ford advancing some meaningful benefit
`
`The Board declined to institute Ground 2
`
`Asserted Art: Severinsky, Field, and SAE 1996
`Challenged claims: 1, 14, 16, 18 and 24
`
`Ground 1 (§103):
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`IPR2014-00904 –Introduction
`
`
`
`33
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 3.
`
`‘real world’ driving situations.”
`varying conditions encountered in
`fuel efficiency, under the widely
`response to operator commands and
`performance, in terms of both vehicle
`patent provides “superior
`Use of “road load” according to the
`
`requirements, i.e., the road load.”
`to the vehicle's actual torque
`preferably be controlled in response
`“vehicle operational mode should
`The ’347 patent recognized that the
`
`control systems thereof
`directed to hybrid vehicles and
`The’347 Patent (IPR ’571, Ex. 1001) is
`
`Introduction to the ’347 Patent
`
`
`
`34
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 25, 52, 56-57.
`
`to a “setpoint.”
`modes by comparing the “road load”
`recites selecting various operating
`Independent claim 23 similarly
`
`SP.”
`road load (RL) and said setpoint
`responsive to the value for the
`plurality of operating modes
`“vehicle [that] is operated in a
`Dependent claim 7 recites a
`
`to a setpoint(SP).
`charge said battery is at least equal
`or both said electric motor(s) to
`the vehicle and/or to drive either one
`produced by said engine to propel
`on “when torque require[d] to be
`Independent claim 1 turns the engine
`
`Introduction to the ’347 Patent
`
`
`
`35
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 3, 27, 30, 54-55.
`
`road load (RL) and the SP.”
`of operating modes responsive to
`operable to implement a plurality
`“wherein the controller is
`Dependent claim 16 recites a
`
`setpoint(SP).”
`the battery is at least equal to a
`first or the second motors to charge
`and/or to drive one or more of the
`the engine to propel the vehicle
`engine “when torque required from
`Independent claim 1 operates the
`road load to effect mode switching.
`a hybrid vehicle and claims the use of
`also directed to the control system of
`The ’634 Patent (IPR ’904, Ex. 1001) is
`
`Introduction to the ’634 Patent
`
`
`
`36
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`SPandMTO;
`isbetweensaidlowerlevel
`torqueRLrequiredtodoso
`propelsaidvehiclewhenthe
`employingsaidengineto
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`thansaidlowerlevelSP;
`requiredtodosoisless
`vehiclewhenthetorqueRL
`electricmotortopropelsaid
`employingsaidatleastone
`
`Introduction to the ’347 and ’634 Patents
`
`
`
`37
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7
`
`SPandMTO;
`isbetweensaidlowerlevel
`torqueRLrequiredtodoso
`propelsaidvehiclewhenthe
`employingsaidengineto
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`thansaidlowerlevelSP;
`requiredtodosoisless
`vehiclewhenthetorqueRL
`electricmotortopropelsaid
`employingsaidatleastone
`
`Introduction to the ’347 and ’634 Patents
`
`
`
`38
`
`Ground 1 -SeverinskyDoes Not Disclose or Render
`
`Obvious Claims 23 and 36 of the ’347 Patent
`
`
`
`39
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 43.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`propel the vehicle
`i.e.the instantaneous torque required to
`Claim 23 determines the “road load,”
`
`‘347 Patent -Claim 23 Introduction
`
`
`
`40
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`mode to transition into
`“setpoint” to determine what operating
`Claim 23 compares the “road load” to
`
`‘347 Patent -Claim 23 Introduction
`
`
`
`41
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 45.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`“setpoint” to charge the battery
`torque between “road load” and
`at least at “setpoint” and uses the
`“setpoint,” claim 23 operates the engine
`the “road load” is less than a
`When the battery needs charging, and
`
`‘347 Patent -Claim 23 Introduction
`
`
`
`42
`
`Introduction to the Prior Art
`
`
`
`43
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 17-19; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 19.
`
`climbing”)
`acceleration and/or hill
`Motor + Engine (“high-speed
`cruising”)
`Engine only (“highway
`Motor only (“low speed”)
`
`Discloses three primary modes:
`
`architecture.
`Directed to a parallel hybrid
`
`and ’634 patents.
`common inventor with the ’347
`Severinsky(Ex. 1009) shares a
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`44
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 17-19, 36-37; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 18-20, 42-43.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 5.
`
`Motor 20
`
`Engine 40
`
`which utilizes a single electric motor.
`Severinskyis directed to a parallel hybrid architecture,
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`45
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 17-19, 36-37; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 18-20, 42-43.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 6:36-43.
`
`POR at 36-37
`range. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20,
`speed enters the given speed
`Utilize the engine when vehicle
`
`Paper No. 20, POR at 36-37
`a given speed range. IPR ’571,
`Size the engine to operate over
`
`the engine efficiently.
`Severinsky’sstrategy to operate
`
`Introduction to Severinsky
`
`
`
`46
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26, 43, 45, 50.
`
`battery
`“setpoint” to determine when to run the engine while charging the
`3)Severinsky’sbattery charging mode does not use “road load” or a
`
`2)Severinskydoes not determine road load at all.
`
`1)Severinskyuses speed, not “road load,” to determine when to turn the
`
`engine on and off.
`
`Severinskyfails to disclose each and every claim limitation of claim 23:
`
`Severinskydoes not disclose all the limitations of
`
`claim 23 of the ‘347 Patent
`
`
`
`47
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26, 50.
`
`battery
`“setpoint” to determine when to run the engine while charging the
`3)Severinsky’sbattery charging mode does not use “road load” or a
`
`2)Severinskydoes not determine road load at all.
`
`1)Severinskyuses speed, not “road load,” to determine when to turn the
`
`engine on and off.
`
`Severinskyfails to disclose each and every claim limitation of claim 23:
`
`Severinskydoes not disclose all the limitations of
`
`claim 23 of the ‘347 Patent
`
`
`
`48
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26.
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`when to employ the motor.
`when to employ the engine on and
`“road load” to a “setpoint” to determine
`‘347 Patent, claim 23 compares the
`
`Severinskyuses speed, not “road load,” to determine
`
`when to turn the engine on and off.
`
`
`
`49
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 27-28; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 20, 29-30.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`off.
`When to turn the engine
`
`on
`When to turn the engine
`
`Severinskydiscloses turning the engine on and off
`
`based on speed
`
`
`
`50
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 27-28; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 20, 29-30.
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2002 at ¶ 52; IPR ’904, Ex. 2004 at ¶ 57.
`
`uses road load to control engine starts and stops….
`not use “speed responsive-hysteresis” if that same system
`control system (such as that disclosed in Severinsky) would
`2009 at 3…. One of skill in the art would understand that a
`on the history of past inputs in addition to the current input. Ex.
`[H]ysteresisrelates to the dependence of the state of a system
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`Severinskydiscloses “speed-responsive hysteresis”
`
`
`
`51
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19-20, 31; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 19.
`
`see also 10:52-53, 13:65 –14:3.
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 6:26-43, 17:43-48;
`
`or off based on road load or even pedal position.
`Nowhere does Severinskysay that the engine is turned on
`
`teaches turning the engine on and off based on speed
`Severinskyconsistently throughout the specification
`
`
`
`52
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 26-27; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 28-29.
`
`’347 patent, claim 23.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 18:34-44.
`
`said lower level SP and MTO;
`required to do so is between
`said vehicle when the torque RL
`employing said engine to propel
`
`(cid:143)
`
`23.A method…
`
`render obvious the claimed road load-based engine mode
`Severinsky’sspeed-based strategy cannot disclose or
`
`
`
`53
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 42-45; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 50-51.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 6:26-43.
`
`’347 patent, claim 23.
`
`less than said lower level SP;
`the torque RL required to do so is
`motor to propel said vehicle when
`employing said at least one electric
`
`23.A method…
`
`(cid:143)
`
`render obvious the claimed road load-based motor mode
`Severinsky’sspeed-based strategy cannot disclose or
`
`
`
`54
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 38.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 10:36-37.
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 1, Petition at 38; IPR ’571, Paper No. 1, Petition at 25.
`
`1003 at 10:36-37; Ex. 1005, Davis ¶289.)
`positive when the vehicle “starts to climb a hill.” (Ex.
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” may be
`“microprocessor 48” determines that “the instantaneous
`Severinsky’970 further discloses that the
`
`Severinsky
`portion of
`Quoted
`
`Petition
`
`and unsupportedby Severinsky’s disclosure.
`Ford’s petition contains statements that are aremisleading
`
`Ford’s effort to recast Severinskyas a road-load based
`
`reference is a classic example of hindsight bias
`
`
`
`55
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 28; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 30.
`
`demands”
`of “torque
`discussion
`relies on
`Dr. Davis
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2005 at 171:9-13, 171:21 –172:4.
`
`that.”
`acceleration, hill [sic] climb modes, things like
`demandsas well; for example, some of the
`been a lot of discussion about meeting the torque
`know, by now we're at Column 18 and there's
`that there has to be more involved, especially, you
`“[O]ne of ordinary skill would readily understand
`
`…
`
`driver's commands.”
`this would not be a vehicle that's responsive to the
`recognize that there's more involved here because
`“One of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`involved.” Ex. 2005, Davis Tr. at 169:11-16, 171:21 –172:4.
`hysteresis in mode switching” but claims “there has to be more
`Dr. Davis agrees that Severinskydiscloses “speed-responsive [sic]
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`56
`
`IPR ’904, Ex. 2004 at ¶ 82.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 28-34; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 28-39.
`
`the art to use it as a control input in a hybrid system.
`mention of torque as a concept does not tell one of skill in
`a vehicle to include these concepts. However, the
`of skill in the art would expect many references discussing
`control, transmission control, and stabilization. Thus, one
`purposes, for example, fuel flow, air metering, emissions
`torque parameters that are used for many different
`systems include a large number of power, speed, and
`One of skill in the art would understand that vehicle
`
`Col. 6:19-26 -simply states that the system is able to receive user inputs. Id.
`
`the vehicle in engine only mode. Id. at 29.
`Col. 13:65-14:21 -merely states that the engine provides the torque required to drive
`
`charge the battery when the engine is already in operation. Id. at 33.
`Col. 17:7-15 –relates to providing torque from the engine to the electric motor to
`
`POR at 29.
`torque to the wheels when the engine is already in operation. IPR ’571, Paper No. 20,
`Col. 13:65 –14:22 -relates to activating the electric motor to provide additional
`
`“torque demands” areunrelated to whether Severinsky
`Theplaces from which Dr. Davisidentifies disclosure of
`
`uses road load to turn the engine onand off
`
`
`
`57
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 28, 45; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 30, 38, 51.
`
`mode.
`hill climbing
`acceleration/
`relies on the
`Dr. Davis
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2005 at 171:9-13, 171:21 –172:4.
`
`that.”
`acceleration, hill [sic] climb modes, things like
`demands as well; for example, some of the
`been a lot of discussion about meeting the torque
`know, by now we're at Column 18 and there's
`that there has to be more involved, especially, you
`“[O]ne of ordinary skill would readily understand
`
`…
`
`driver's commands.”
`this would not be a vehicle that's responsive to the
`recognize that there's more involved here because
`“One of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`involved.” Ex. 2005, Davis Tr. at 169:11-16, 171:21 –172:4.
`hysteresis in mode switching” but claims “there has to be more
`Dr. Davis agrees that Severinskydiscloses “speed-responsive [sic]
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`58
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 35, Observations at 1-3.
`
`Severinsky, Ex. 1003 at 10:66 –11:6.
`
`climbing” mode is also unrelated to turning the engine on
`Dr. Davis’s reliance on “high-speed and/or acceleration hill
`
`and off
`
`
`
`59
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 1005, Davis Dec. at ¶¶ 286-87.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 35, Observations at 1-3.
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 1038, Davis Dec. at ¶¶ 24-25.
`
`increased above the 60% lower threshold.
`required to propel the vehicle to meet the desired acceleration has
`started and employed to propel the vehicle because the torque
`have described illustrates a situation where the engine would be
`engine and motor to propel the vehicle…. The operating situation I
`result in the “acceleration mode”starting and employing both the
`As Severinsky‘970 discloses, this full acceleration request would
`
`climbing” mode is also unrelated to turning the engine on
`Dr. Davis’s reliance on “high-speed and/or acceleration hill
`
`and off
`
`
`
`60
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 1005, Davis Dec. at ¶¶ 286-87.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 35, Observations at 1-3.
`
`and motor provide torque to the wheels to propel the vehicle.
`illustrates the acceleration/hill climbing modeswhere both the engine
`output) of the engine…. Fig. 6, reproduced below and annotated,
`propulsion of the vehicle exceeds the capability (i.e. maximum torque
`to provide supplemental torque when the torque required for
`Fig. 6 of Severinsky’970 illustrates and discloses operating the motor
`
`alleged road load is greater than the MTO.
`In “high-speed and/or acceleration hill climbing” mode, the
`
`to when to turnon the motor.
`“High-speed and/or acceleration hill climbing” mode is related
`
`previous testimony. Indeed, Dr. Davis previously admitted that:
`Dr. Davis’s new testimony contradicts Severinskyand Dr. Davis’s
`
`climbing” mode is also unrelated to turning the engine on
`Dr. Davis’s reliance on “high-speed and/or acceleration hill
`
`and off
`
`
`
`61
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 33, Observations at 1.
`
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 2015 at 19:16-22.
`
`hill climbing mode when going up a hill.
`otherwise at low speeds the vehicle of Severinskywould not enter
`Dr. Davis states that Severinskymustuse road load because
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`62
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 33, Observations at 1.
`
`IPR ’904, Ex. 2016 at 40:21 –41:4.
`
`only mode (ZEV mode) (id. at 4:6 –5:9).
`mode (HEV mode) at lower speeds and would instead stay in motor
`determine when to enter into the engine plus motor hill climbing
`Davis agreed that the disclosed vehicle would be unable to
`and an engine plus motor hill climbing mode (id. at 23:2-23), Dr.
`that discloses speed-responsive hysteresis (Ex. 2016 8:9 –9:13)
`When asked about another reference (U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534)
`
`Dr. Davis’s refusal to accept Severinsky’sspeed-based
`
`teaching reveals his hindsight bias
`
`
`
`63
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 13-14, 24, 34; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 13-14, 25, 40.
`
`IPR ’571, Ex. 2002 at ¶ 34; see also ¶¶ 40-45, 53, 57.
`
`sought to accomplish this goal with varying degrees of success.
`not readily apparent.Indeed, much of hybrid control theory has
`would be advantageous, the control strategy employed to do so is
`the art understands that maintaining an engine only in its sweet spot
`understood as aspirational…. In other words, while one of skill in
`teachings of operating the engine within the sweet spot must be
`While it is possible to operate an engine at its sweet spot, such
`
`control strategy.
`vehicles), but identifying the sweet spot does not define the
`operation in the sweet spot is aspirational (i.e., the goal of hybrid
`Paice’sexpert, Mr. Hannemann, testified that maintaining engine
`
`’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 14.
`sweet spot for a disclosure about a control strategy is wrong. IPR
`Ford’s reliance on Severinsky’sdisclosure about the engine’s
`
`disclosure of a “sweet spot” is also improper
`Ford’s hindsight-driven read of Severinsky’s
`
`
`
`64
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 15 FN 6, 50; IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 16 FN 7, 52.
`
`Severinsky‘970 at 20:63 –21:8.
`
`Proper Context
`
`produces 60-90%” MTO.
`run” … “such that it
`that the engine is “only
`Ford’s “key” passage –
`
`improving fuel economy would reduce emissions.
`Found at the very end of the specification and related to how
`
`Unrelated to mode switching or any type of hybrid control
`
`institution was granted) is:
`The “key” passage [Passage 1] on which Ford relies (and on which
`
`Ford’s hindsight-driven read of Severinskyis improper
`
`
`
`65
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 13-14; see alsoIPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 13-15.
`
`164:22 –165:7).
`Ex. 2005 at
`
`at 16)
`POSITA when to employ the engine. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 58-61. (IPR ‘904, POR
`Dr. Davis admitted that defining the engine sweet spot does not tell a
`8.
`within its sweet spot. Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 46-49; Ex. 2005 at 104:3-9, 106:4-
`There is not a single control strategy that would maintain the engine
`105:1.
`goal of hybrid vehicles). Ex. 2002 at ¶¶ 42-45; Ex. 2005 at 103:20 –
`Maintaining engine operation in the sweet spot is aspirational (i.e., the
`¶¶ 58-61; Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 259-60.
`“60-90%” MTO is a disclosure of the engine’s sweet spot. Ex. 2002 at
`
`Both experts agree that “60-90%” MTO does not
`
`disclose when to operate the engine
`
`Both experts agree that:
`
`
`
`66
`
`IPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 21-22; see alsoIPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 20.
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 1, Petition at 29-30; IPR ’904, Paper No. 1, Petition at 42.
`
`280.)
`of the maximum torque output of the engine. (Ex. 1005, Davis ¶¶278-
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is between 60% and 90%
`engine is employed to propel the vehicle whenthe “instantaneous
`SP”). (Ex. 1005, Davis ¶279.) Severinsky’970 thus discloses that the
`POSA as a lower level predetermined torque value (i.e., “lower level
`engine’s maximum torque output value would be understood by a
`7:8-16; 20:63-66; Ex. 1005, Davis ¶¶278-280.) Again, the 60% of the
`between “60-90% of [the engine’s] maximum torque ...” (Ex. 1003 at
`“most efficient conditions of output power and speed” which are
`Severinsky’970 discloses that the engine is onlyoperated under its
`
`The output torque of the engine and the road load
`
`control strategy)
`spot) with a teaching of when to run the engine (i.e., the actual
`Ateaching of how to run the engine (i.e., an aspirational sweet
`
`Ford’s hindsight-based reading of Passage 1 is based on confusing:
`
`disclosure of a “sweet spot” is also improper
`Ford’s hindsight-driven read of Severinsky’s
`
`
`
`67
`
`IPR ’571, Paper No. 20, POR at 19, 23; see alsoIPR ’904, Paper No. 22, POR at 20, 24.
`
`Se