UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`
`AND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`(GROUP 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`
`AND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00904
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`(GROUP 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2 & 0104IPR1
`
`
`
`Attached please find Ford’s demonstrative exhibits to be used at the trial
`
`hearing on July 1, 2015 in regard to Case Nos. IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904
`
`(Group 1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Frank A. Angileri/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`DENTONS US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2 & 0104IPR1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 29, 2015, a complete and
`
`entire copy of Notice Of Filing Ford Motor Company’s Demonstrative
`
`Exhibits (Group 1), was served via electronic mail by serving the correspondence
`
`email address of record as follows:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Reg. No. 33,487
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: RBC@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`Linda L. Kordziel, Reg. No. 39,732
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: IPR36351-0011IP1@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IP1@fr.com
`
`Greene@fr.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Frank A. Angileri/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`John E. Nemazi (Reg. No. 30,876)
`John P. Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949)
`Erin K. Bowles (Reg. No. 64,705)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`Group 1 | page 1
`
`FORD DEMONSTRATIVES:
`GLOBAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER v.
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, PATENT OWNERS
`Inter Partes Review Consolidated Oral Hearing,
`IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00904,
`IPR2014-00579, IPR2014-00884,
`IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00875
`
`
`Before Sally C. Medley, Kalyan K. Deshpande, and Carl M. DeFranco
`Administrative Patent Judges
`Oral Argument: July 1, 2015
`
`
`
`Paice Patent Family
`
`Group 1 | page 2
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’347/’634 Patents
`
`Group 1 | page 3
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 Patent) at Claim 1.
`
` IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1001 (’634 Patent) at Claim 1.
`
`
`
`Group 1 | page 4
`“the amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be
`it positive or negative”
`Vittone
`
`Bumby
`
`IPR2014-00579, Ex. 1104 (Bumby II) at 11-12.
`Caraceni
`
`IPR2014-00875, Ex. 1005 (Vittone) at 30, Fig. 8.
`
`Severinsky ’970
`
`IPR2014-00884, Ex. 1203 (Caraceni) at 6, Fig. 9; Ex. 1215 (Davis Dec.) at ¶310.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 14:15-18.
`
`
`
`Paice’s expert: “how you determine road load” is
`“something that wasn’t a part of the [’347] patent”
`
`Group 1 | page 5
`
`Ex. 1039 (Hannemann Dep.) at 61:24-62:5.
`
`
`
`Group 1 | page 6
`Paice/Expert: “never conclusively identified the specific
`factors that should be used to determine road load”
`
`IPR2014-00904, Reply, Paper 25 at 4-5.
`
`• Driver command (pedal position/driver’s
`intent)
`• Ex. 1039 (Hannemann Dep.) at 46:20-25; IPR2014-
`00875, POR, Paper 19 at 23, 26.
`
`
`• Pedal position and vehicle speed
`• Ex. 1039 (Hannemann Dep.) at 52:4-8.
`
`• Torque measurement; pressure tap;
`attitude of the vehicle
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1043 (IPR2014-00875
`•
`Hannemann Dep.) at 57:12-58:4.
`
`• Pedal position; vehicle speed; engine
`RPM; gear ratio; engine vacuum
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1043 (IPR2014-00875
`•
`Hannemann Dep.) at 59:23-60:9.
`
`•
`• Engine RPM; engine vacuum; gear ratio;
`vehicle speed; pedal position; actual
`torque measurement; pressure tap;
`attitude of the vehicle
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1043 (IPR2014-00875
`•
`Hannemann Dep.) at 64:17-65:6.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1043 (IPR2014-00875 Hannemann Dep.) at
`59:23-60:9.
`
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1043 (IPR2014-00875 Hannemann Dep.) at
`64:25-65:6.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Setpoint
`Group 1 | page 7
`The Board’s setpoint construction is correct: “a predetermined
`torque value that may or may not be reset”
`
`The claims recite a setpoint that is
`compared to a torque value.
`Claim 1:
`
`Reply, Paper 29 at 21.
`
`Claim 23:
`
`Ex. 1039 (Hannemann Dep.) at 80:14-25.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 Patent) at Claims 1 and 23.
`
`Paice’s Proposed Construction: “a definite,
`but potentially variable value at which a
`transition between operating modes may
`occur.”
`
`IPR2014-00904, POR, Paper 22 at 6,8; IPR2014-
`00571, POR, Paper 20 at 7.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 8
`
`FORD DEMONSTRATIVES – IPR SPECIFIC
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER v.
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, PATENT OWNERS
`Inter Partes Review Consolidated Oral Hearing,
`IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00904,
`IPR2014-00579, IPR2014-00884,
`IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00875
`
`
`Before Sally C. Medley, Kalyan K. Deshpande, and Carl M. DeFranco
`Administrative Patent Judges
`Oral Argument: July 1, 2015
`
`
`
`Reply, Paper 29 at 13-15.
`
`Issue 1: Engine/Motor/Setpoint Limitations
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 9
`Severinsky ’970 discloses when to operate the engine/motor
`[23.8]: “employing said
`engine to propel said
`vehicle when the torque RL
`required to do so is
`between said lower level
`SP and MTO”
`see also ’347 Patent, Claims [1.6], [7.2];
`’634 Patent, Claims [1.7], [16.2].
`[23.7]: “employing said
`at least one electric
`motor to propel said
`vehicle when the
`torque RL required to
`do so is less than said
`lower level SP”
`see also ’347 Patent, Claim [7.1]; ’634
`Patent, Claim [16.1].
`[23.1]: “an internal
`combustion engine
`capable of efficiently
`producing torque at loads
`between a lower level SP
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 20:63-67.
`and a maximum torque
`output MTO,” see also ’347 Patent, Claim [1.6]; ’634 Patent, Claims [1.7], [16.0].
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 7:8-16.
`
`
`
`Issue 1: Engine/Motor/Setpoint Limitations
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 10
`Severinsky ’970 discloses switching modes based on torque
`
`Reply, Paper 29 at 6-9.
`
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 14:15-18.
`
`IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1042 (IPR2014-00904 Hannemann Dep.) at 11:8-11:11.
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 14:22-25, 10:63-11:6.
`
`
`
`Issue 1: Engine/Motor/Setpoint Limitations
`
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 11
`The ’347/’634 Patents describe the disclosure in Severinsky ’970
`
`
`Reply, Paper 29 at 9; IPR2014-00904, Reply, Paper 25 at 9.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 Patent) at 35:5-11; IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1001 (’634 Patent) at 35:3-9.
`
`
`
`Issue 1: Engine/Motor/Setpoint Limitations
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 12
`The ’347/’634 Patents describe the disclosure in Severinsky ’970
`
`
`Reply, Paper 29 at 15-16; IPR2014-00904, Reply, Paper 25 at 15-16.
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 Patent) at 25:4-16; IPR2014-00904, Ex. 1001 (’634 Patent) at 25:11-24.
`
`
`
`Issue 2: Battery Charging Limitations
`
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 13
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses battery charging limitations
`
`Petition, Paper 1 at 31-32; Reply, Paper 29 at 21-24.
`
`[23.10]: “employing said engine to
`propel said vehicle when the torque
`RL required to do so is less than said
`lower level SP and using the torque
`between RL and SP to drive said at
`least one electric motor to charge
`said battery when the state of charge
`of said battery indicates the desirability
`of doing so”
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 10:32-36
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 20:63-67
`
`
`
`Issue 2: Battery Charging Limitations
`IPR2014-00571 & IPR2014-00904 (Group 1) | page 14
`• Like Severinsky ’970, Claim [23.10] charges the battery “when
`the state of charge of said battery indicates the desirability
`of doing so” not based on “road load” (Paice’s position)
`
`Reply, Paper 29 at 21-24.
`
`[23.10]: “employing said
`engine to propel said
`vehicle when the torque
`RL required to do so is
`less than said lower level
`SP and using the torque
`between RL and SP to
`drive said at least one
`electric motor to charge
`said battery when the
`state of charge of said
`battery indicates the
`desirability of doing so”
`
`Ex. 1003 (Severinsky ’970) at 15:1-10.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
