`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`Patent 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2102
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-00579
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 5
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 7
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........ 9
`
`V.
`
`THE ’347 PATENT ....................................................................................... 10
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 13
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE BUMBY REFERENCES ......................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`Clarke .................................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Bumby 1987 and Forster ..................................................................... 18
`
`Bumby 1988 and Masding .................................................................. 26
`
`D. Masding Thesis .................................................................................... 29
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS .................................................................... 32
`
`A.
`
`There is no motivation or reason to combine the Bumby
`references. ............................................................................................ 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The “sub-optimal” control algorithm leads to
`excessive gear shifting. ............................................................. 33
`
`The “sub-optimal” control algorithm results in
`poor fuel economy .................................................................... 34
`
`B.
`
`The Bumby references do not disclose or suggest each
`and every limitation of the challenged claims. ................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`The Bumby references do not disclose or suggest
`the “first electric motor” of claims 1 and 8 ............................... 37
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`2.
`
`The Bumby references do not disclose or suggest
`the use of “setpoints (SP)” as required by claims 1,
`7, and 23 .................................................................................... 43
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`a) The “sub-optimal” control algorithm
`fundamentally requires the use of a transmission. .................... 44
`
`b) The “sub-optimal” control algorithm compares
`demand power to a range of power outputs. ............................. 48
`
`The Bumby references do not disclose or suggest
`use of “road load” in claims 7 and 23 ....................................... 56
`
`The Bumby references do not disclose or suggest
`the battery charging mode of claim 1 or 23 .............................. 59
`
`a) The Bumby references do not disclose or
`suggest the battery charging mode of claim 1 .......................... 60
`
`b) The Bumby references do not disclose or
`suggest the battery charging mode of claim 23 ........................ 66
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit Number
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`PAICE Ex. 2103 Neil Hannemann CV
`
`PAICE Ex. 2104 Masding, Philip Wilson (1988) “Some drive train control
`problems in hybrid i.c engine/battery electric vehicles,”
`Durham theses, Durham University.
`
`PAICE Ex. 2105
`
`Bosch Handbook, 4th Edition (excerpts)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2106 Gregory Davis Deposition Transcript (Jan. 13, 2015)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`I, Neil Hannemann, hereby declare the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Paice LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation (collectively, “Paice” or “Patent Owner”) to investigate and analyze
`
`certain issues relating to the validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the
`
`’347 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Petitioner”) in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’347 patent, Case No. IPR2014-00579. I
`
`have reviewed Ford’s petition, along with the declaration of Ford’s expert, Dr.
`
`Gregory Davis, and the documents cited therein. I have reviewed the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) decision to institute, as well as the Board’s claim
`
`constructions. My analysis is based on the Board’s claim constructions.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following claims
`
`of the ’347 patent (the “challenged claims”): 1, 7, 8, 18, 21, 23, and 37.
`
`
`
`1
`
`5
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Ford and Dr. Davis argue that the challenged claims
`
`are invalid as obvious in light of the combination of five different references (the
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`“Bumby references”):1
`
`
`
`“Clarke” - Computer Modeling of the Automotive Energy
`
`Requirements for Internal Combustion Engine and Battery
`
`Electric-Powered Vehicles, J.R. Bumby at H. Clarke and I.
`
`Forster, IEE Proceedings, September 1985 (“Bumby I,” Ex.
`
`1103);
`
`
`
`“Bumby 1987” - Optimisation and Control of a Hybrid Electric
`
`Car, J.R. Bumby and I. Forster, IEE Proceedings, November
`
`1987 (“Bumby II,” Ex. 1104);
`
`
`
`“Forster” - A Hybrid Internal Combustion Engine/Battery
`
`Electric Passenger Car for petroleum Displacement, I. Forster
`
`and J.R. Bumby, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
`
`
`1 Because I disagree that these references can be considered a single “project,” I
`
`have not used Dr. Davis’s shorthand names. Referring to each reference with a
`
`“Bumby” name implies that Dr. Bumby was the primary contributor for each
`
`reference. I have seen no evidence in the references or Dr. Davis’s declaration
`
`showing that to be the case. However, for clarity I will refer to the references
`
`collectively as the “Bumby references.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`Engineers – Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, Jan 1,
`
`1988 (“Bumby III,” Ex. 1105);
`
`
`
`“Bumby 1988”
`
`- A Test-Bed Facility
`
`for Hybrid
`
`ICEngine/Battery-Electric Road Vehicle drive Trains, J.R.
`
`Bumby and P.W. Masding, Trans Inst. Meas. & Cont. 1990 Vol.
`
`10:2, April 1, 1988 (“Bumby IV,” Ex. 1106);
`
`
`
`“Masding” - Bumby, J.R. et al. “Integrated Microprocessor
`
`Control of a Hybrid i.c. Engine/Battery-Electric Automotive
`
`Power Train” - Trans Inst. Meas. & Cont. 1990 Vol. 12:128,
`
`January 1, 1990 (“Bumby V,” Ex. 1107).
`
`5. My opinions are also based on my review of the ’347 patent and each
`
`Bumby reference. Additionally, I have also reviewed the documents listed as
`
`exhibits to this declaration, and the deposition transcript of Dr. Davis. Finally, my
`
`opinions are also based on my experience and work in the field of automotive
`
`engineering (as detailed further below).
`
`6.
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, I disagree with Ford and Dr. Davis
`
`that the Bumby references render obvious the challenged claims.
`
`7.
`
`First, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`been motivated and/or would not have had reason to combine the Bumby references
`
`because the Bumby 1988 and Masding references disclosing the implementation of
`
`
`
`3
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`a “test bed” teach away from the use of the control algorithms disclosed in the
`
`Bumby 1987 and Forster references.2
`
`8.
`
`Second, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would habve
`
`combined the Bumby references, the result would not have disclosed or suggested
`
`the invention claimed by the challenged claims of the ’347 patent. The Bumby
`
`references teach a different vehicle topology with a different control system that uses
`
`power demand calibrated by pedal position and available gear ratios to determine
`
`whether to use the engine to propel the vehicle, unlike the ’347 patent, which
`
`compares “road load” to “setpoints” in making that determination.
`
`9.
`
`Therefore, it is my opinion that the ’347 patent is not obvious in light
`
`of the Bumby references.
`
`10.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $525 for each hour of service that
`
`I provide in connection with this matter. This compensation is not contingent upon
`
`my performance, upon the outcome of this matter, or upon any issues involved in or
`
`related to this matter.
`
`
`2 As I explain more below, Clarke does not disclose how to control a hybrid
`
`vehicle, nor does it disclose or suggest the components of such a vehicle. A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Clarke with any other Bumby
`
`reference.
`
`
`
`4
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`11. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2103, and
`
`contains a description of my work history, education, and accomplishments. I am an
`
`automotive engineer with over 25 years of experience in road and race vehicle
`
`engineering and design.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
`
`Automotive option, from the General Motors Institute (now known as Kettering
`
`University) in 1981. My college thesis was entitled “Design of an Emissions
`
`Laboratory”, dated May 15, 1981.
`
`13.
`
`I worked for almost 20 years for Chrysler (then DaimlerChrysler).
`
`During my assignment as the vehicle development engineer for the Dodge Viper I
`
`was responsible for certain aspects of emissions development and certification. This
`
`included scheduling and monitoring the durability cycle, coordinating emissions
`
`calibration and development. The Dodge Viper utilized a metal monolith catalytic
`
`converter. While a product development engineer at Chrysler, I also performed
`
`calibrations to Engine Control Modules (ECM).
`
`14.
`
`I spent two years as a Chief Engineer at Saleen Inc. While there, I was
`
`responsible for all vehicle design, design analysis and vehicle development. I was
`
`also responsible for emissions certification for all Saleen models. Additionally, I
`
`
`
`5
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`was responsible for powertrain calibrations. I personally approved every final
`
`calibration that the engineers performed.
`
`15.
`
`I was the Chief Engineer for the Ford GT, initially produced as a 2005
`
`model. In this role, I was responsible for all aspects of the performance of the Ford
`
`GT. This included drafting and approving the plan for all safety and certification
`
`testing, including emissions development and testing. I was also responsible for the
`
`decision on which engine to use for the vehicle. I also was the architect for the main
`
`structure of the vehicle and was responsible for all structural design, analysis, testing
`
`and development.
`
`16. As Chief Engineer responsible for design, design analysis and
`
`development for the Ford GT I was involved in the emissions strategy, and the design
`
`of the emissions related components. Ford had yet to utilized a metal monolith
`
`catalytic converter and my experience at Chrysler with the Dodge Viper was a factor
`
`in convincing Ford to use this new (for them) technology.
`
`17.
`
`I worked as an Executive Director of Engineering for McLaren
`
`Automotive. While there, I was responsible for all aspects of engineering and
`
`technical integrity for their current and future products. My focus was on mid-engine
`
`sports cars for Mercedes-Benz, FMVSS 208 compliance for Mercedes-McLaren
`
`SLR and future variants.
`
`
`
`6
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`18.
`
`I was a Senior Vice President at Aptera Motors, Inc. While at Aptera,
`
`I was involved in the development and testing of regenerative braking calibrations.
`
`I have also done this type of work for other consulting clients. These clients include
`
`those developing hybrid-electric vehicles.
`
`19.
`
` I am a named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,276,693 B2, October 2,
`
`2012, entitled “Powertrain, Vehicle, and Method with Electric Motors and Dual Belt
`
`Drive”, directed to a transaxle.
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`20.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`below, as provided to me by counsel for Patent Owners and as I understand them.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that a
`
`claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and
`
`understand that obviousness may be based upon a combination of references. I am
`
`informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that the combination of
`
`
`
`7
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`when a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior art.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that identifying a
`
`reason those elements would be combined can be important because inventions in
`
`many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`already known. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent's claims
`
`should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that an
`
`obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure
`
`of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that all
`
`prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26. Based on my review of the ’347 patent, the documents cited by Ford
`
`and Dr. Davis, and my own knowledge and skill based on my experience in the
`
`automotive industry and with the design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, it is
`
`my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in September of 19983 is a person
`
`who would have a combination of experience and education in the design and
`
`
`3 I understand that the ’347 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed
`
`on September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’347
`
`patent, that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`development of mechanical systems or control systems, typically a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or similar field
`
`plus at least three years of experience in designing, implementing, testing, teaching,
`
`or otherwise working with automotive systems, control system logic, or a related
`
`field.
`
`V. THE ’347 PATENT
`
`27. The ’347 patent (Ex. 1001), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on
`
`September 12, 2006 from an application that claims priority to a provisional
`
`application filed on September 14, 1998. The ’347 patent discloses embodiments of
`
`a hybrid electric vehicle, with an internal combustion engine and two motors. One
`
`or both of the motors may be used to recharge the battery. Additionally, a
`
`microprocessor is employed to select different operating modes based on the
`
`vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements, the state of charge of the battery bank,
`
`and other variables. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at Abstract.)
`
`28. An embodiment of the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the ’347 patent is
`
`shown in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`10
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`
`
`29. As shown, a traction motor 25 is connected to the road wheels 34
`
`through a differential 32. A starter motor 21 is connected to the internal combustion
`
`engine 40. The motors 21 and 25 are functional as either motors or generators,
`
`depending on the operation of the corresponding inverter/charger units 23 and 27,
`
`which connect the motors to the battery bank 22. (See Ex. 1001 at 26:13-24.)
`
`30. These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48 or any
`
`controller capable of examining input parameters and signals and controlling the
`
`mode of operation of the vehicle. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 26:25-27:20.) For example,
`
`control of engine 40 is accomplished by way of control signals provided by the
`
`
`
`11
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`microprocessor to the electronic fuel injection (EFI) unit 56 and electronic engine
`
`management (EEM) unit 55. Control of (1) starting of the engine 40; (2) use of
`
`motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or (3) use of motors as generators to
`
`provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is accomplished through control
`
`signals provided by the microprocessor to the inverter/charger units 23 and 27. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 26:59-27:20; 28:38-49.)
`
`31. The hybrid vehicle may be operated in a number of modes based on
`
`comparing the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements (i.e. the “road load”), the
`
`engine’s maximum torque output, the state of charge of the battery, and other
`
`operating parameters. In an implementation of the ’347 patent, the microprocessor
`
`causes the vehicle to operate in various operating modes pursuant to its control
`
`strategy.
`
`32. For example, in mode I, the hybrid vehicle is operated as an electric car,
`
`with the traction motor providing all torque to propel the vehicle. (Ex. 1001 at 37:26-
`
`35.) As the vehicle continues to be propelled in electric only mode, the state of
`
`charge of the battery may become depleted, and need to be recharged. In this case,
`
`the hybrid vehicle may transition to mode II to recharge the battery, in which the
`
`vehicle operates as in mode I, with the addition of the engine running the
`
`starter/generator motor to provide electrical energy to operate the traction motor and
`
`recharge the battery. (Ex. 1001 at 37:35-39.) When the internal combustion engine
`
`
`
`12
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`can operate in its fuel efficient range based on an evaluation of the road load, the
`
`hybrid vehicle operates in mode IV, with the engine providing torque to propel the
`
`vehicle. (Ex. 1001 at 37:45-47; 38:55-65). In this mode, the motor may also provide
`
`torque in order to, for example, limit the rate of increase of engine output torque
`
`during operation to reduce emissions. (Ex. 1001 at 39:34 – 40:19). If the vehicle
`
`requires additional torque, such as for acceleration or passing, the vehicle may enter
`
`mode V, where the traction motor provides additional torque to propel the vehicle
`
`beyond that provided by engine 40. (Ex. 1001 at 38:4-11.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`33.
`
`I am informed by counsel for Patent Owners and understand that in an
`
`inter partes review proceeding, the claims of a patent are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable meaning as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`consistent with the specification of the patent.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the Board has construed the following terms. I have
`
`used these constructions in my analysis.
`
`Claim term
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`“road load (RL)”
`
`“setpoint (SP)”
`
`“the amount of instantaneous torque
`required to propel the vehicle, be it
`positive or negative.”
`
`
`“predetermined value that may or may
`not be reset.”
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`“a predetermined torque value.”
`
`
`
`35.
`
`I note that the Board’s decision does not make clear which of the two
`
`definitions of “setpoint (SP)” the Board intends to use. See Decision at 9-10. In my
`
`analysis, I have attempted to apply both definitions, such that a “setpoint” is a
`
`“predetermined torque value that may or may not be reset.” I understand that this
`
`latter definition of “setpoint” is consistent with the Board’s construction of the same
`
`term in the concurrent Inter Partes Review of the ’347 patent, Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00571. See Institution of Inter Partes Review Decision, Case No. IPR2014-00571,
`
`at 9 (Sep. 30, 2014). Further, I note that to the extent one of these differing
`
`constructions of the term “setpoint” are found to apply, it does not substantively
`
`change my analysis or final conclusion with respect to the challenged claims.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE BUMBY REFERENCES
`
`36. Ford and Dr. Davis rely on five different references, which they refer
`
`to as the “Bumby project.” See e.g. Ex. 1108, Davis Dec. at ¶ 175. These five
`
`references were published in three different journals: IEE Proceedings, The Journal
`
`of Automobile Engineering, and Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and
`
`Control. The five references were written by differing sets of four different authors,
`
`with Professor J.R. Bumby as a common (though not necessarily primary) author for
`
`each publication. The articles were published across a span of approximately 5
`
`
`
`14
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`years, starting in 1985 and ending in 1990. Neither the references themselves, nor
`
`Dr. Davis’s declaration, provide any indication of the relative contribution of each
`
`author; indeed, as noted further below, what Dr. Davis refers to as “Bumby V”
`
`appears to have been the adaption of the Ph.D. dissertation of P.W. Masding, and
`
`thus is unlikely to have been primarily the work of Dr. Bumby. Thus, I have adopted
`
`the following naming convention to describe these various publications:
`
`Reference Short Name Ford Name Ford Exhibit Number
`
`Clarke
`
`Bumby I
`
`Ford Ex. 1103
`
`Bumby 1987
`
`Bumby II
`
`Ford Ex. 1104
`
`Forster
`
`Bumby III
`
`Ford Ex. 1105
`
`Bumby 1988
`
`Bumby IV
`
`Ford Ex. 1106
`
`Masding
`
`Bumby V
`
`Ford Ex. 1107
`
`
`
`A. Clarke
`
`37.
`
`I refer to “Computer modeling of the automotive energy requirements
`
`for internal combustion engine and battery electric-powered vehicles” by J.R.
`
`Bumby, P.H. Clarke, I. Forster, IEE Proceedings, Vol. 132, Pt. A., No. 5 (September
`
`1985) as “Clarke.” Clarke describes the development of a vehicle simulation
`
`software package called Janus. Ex. 1103 at 2-3. As the authors describe it, Janus
`
`was a “simulation package …conceived as a user-friendly interactive program,
`
`
`
`15
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`capable of evaluating the performance of a vehicle.” Ex. 1103 at 2. While Clarke
`
`describes that it can be used to simulate any kind of vehicle (such as a conventional
`
`internal combustion engine vehicle,4 battery electric vehicle, or hybrid vehicle), the
`
`reference itself discloses only the results of using Janus to simulate “electric” and
`
`“internal combustion engine [sic] road vehicles.” Ex. 1103 At 2. Clarke does not
`
`disclose using Janus to simulate a hybrid vehicle.
`
`38. Clarke discloses that in order to simulate a vehicle (regardless of the
`
`vehicle type), the program uses a pre-programmed drive cycle such as the ECE-15,
`
`90 km/h, or 120 km/h, where velocity is set as a function of time. See Ex. 1103 at 3-
`
`4. Drive cycles, also referred to as driving schedules, are simply a series of data
`
`points reflecting the speed of a vehicle over time. Government regulatory agencies
`
`in various countries generally require vehicle manufacturers to test their vehicles
`
`(usually on a dynamometer) according to the drive cycles, and report to the agency
`
`(and the public) metrics about the vehicle, such as fuel consumption. This allows
`
`comparisons of the performance of different vehicles operating under similar
`
`conditions. The ECE-15 drive cycle is one such drive cycle commonly used in
`
`
`4 The Bumby references often refer to the internal combustion engine as the “i.c.
`
`engine.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`20
`
`
`
`Europe; as described in Clarke, it lasts for 195 seconds and reaches a maximum
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`speed of 50 km/h:
`
`Ex. 1103 at Fig. 3
`
`
`
`39. Clarke explains that using a drive cycle “enable[es] [Janus] to step
`
`through the driving cycle at one second intervals (default value) calculating vehicle
`
`velocity and acceleration directly from the driving-cycle data.” See Ex. 1103 at 4.
`
`At each one second step interval, Janus calculates “[t]he tractive effort at the road
`
`wheels,” and uses that to calculate what the corresponding demand on the power
`
`source(s) would be for the simulated vehicle. See Ex. 1103 at 4. Based on a known
`
`fuel consumption map, and by assuming the load over the entire one second interval
`
`
`
`17
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`is constant, Janus can record how much fuel is consumed during that step interval.
`
`See Ex. 1103 at 4. At the end of the cycle, Janus outputs the resulting data to the user
`
`in “graphical presentation” format. See Ex. 1103 at 4.
`
`40. Notably, Clarke does not disclose any information about the structure
`
`or control of hybrid vehicles. Clarke does not disclose the topology of a hybrid
`
`electric vehicle, e.g. the structure and arrangement of an engine, one or two motors,
`
`and a battery. Clarke also does not disclose anything about how to control a hybrid
`
`electric vehicle. As noted previously, Clarke illustrates the use of Janus by
`
`simulating an electric car (specifically, the General Electric ETV-1) and two
`
`conventional cars (i.e. conventional internal combustion engine cars). See Ex. 1103
`
`at 9-10.
`
`B.
`
`Bumby 1987 and Forster
`
`41.
`
`I refer to “Optimisation and Control of a Hybrid Electric Car,” J.R.
`
`Bumby and I. Forster, IEE Proceedings (Nov. 1987) as “Bumby 1987.”
`
`42.
`
`I refer to “Hybrid Internal Combustion Engine/Battery Electric
`
`Passenger Car for petroleum Displacement,” I. Forster and J.R. Bumby, Proceedings
`
`of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers – Part D: Journal of Automobile
`
`Engineering (Jan 1, 1988) as “Forster.”
`
`43. Bumby 1987 and Forster disclose a control system for a parallel hybrid
`
`vehicle. See Ex. 1104 at 2 (“As a result of these considerations, it is the parallel
`
`
`
`18
`
`22
`
`
`
`hybrid arrangement that offers most potential”). The parallel hybrid topology of
`
`Bumby 1987 and Forster is a single motor system as shown below:
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`See Ex. 1105 at Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`44. Bumby 1987 and Forster propose to determine a theoretical-”optimum”
`
`control of a hybrid vehicle mathematically by minimizing an “energy based
`
`objective function.” See Ex. 1104 at 3. The “optimization” process calculates the
`
`“the torque required at the road wheels to overcome both vehicle drag and rolling
`
`resistance and to provide any vehicle acceleration” for each one second interval of a
`
`pre-programmed drive cycle. See Ex. 1105 at 5. By considering the energy
`
`consumed by the engine and motor “associated with every possible combination of
`
`gear ratio and torque split [between the engine and motor],” the “optimization
`
`process” determines which “gear ratio” and “torque split” result in the minimum
`
`value of the objective function at each second of the pre-programmed drive cycle.
`
`See Ex. 1105 at 5-6. However, Bumby 1987 and Forster acknowledge that this
`
`
`
`19
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`modeling simulation cannot be implemented in “real time,” and therefore, cannot be
`
`used to control a hybrid vehicle. See Ex. 1104 at 7 (“the implementation of the
`
`optimal algorithm requires substantial computation time because of the direct search
`
`technique used. As a result, it cannot be implemented in real time.”); Ex. 1105 at 7.
`
`Bumby 1987 also notes that this method results in “operating conditions” that are
`
`“unacceptable,” including the number of gear changes required. See Ex. 1104 at 7.
`
`45. Bumby 1987 and Forster disclose that instead of the “optimum”
`
`control, a “sub-optimal” control algorithm could be used in an actual vehicle. The
`
`“sub-optimal” algorithm generally uses demand power (as set by the pedal position)
`
`and available gear ratios to determine whether or not to use the engine to propel the
`
`vehicle. The “sub-optimal” control algorithm works in the following manner.
`
`46. First, the algorithm calculates driver demand power and vehicle speed.
`
`See Ex. 1105 at 7. Forster discloses that driver demand power is calibrated by pedal
`
`position. See Ex. 1105 at 7. Power is a measurement of energy consumed over time.
`
`The standard unit of power is the watt (or kilowatt, kW). In rotational systems, such
`
`as an engine or motor turning a drive shaft in a vehicle, power is the product of
`
`torque on the shaft and the rotational speed of the shaft. By multiplying torque in
`
`newton meters (Nm) by revolutions per minute (RPM), and dividing the result by
`
`approximately 9548, the output power in kilowatts of a rotational system can be
`
`
`
`20
`
`24
`
`
`
`calculated. For example, an engine turning a driveshaft with 20 Nm of torque, at a
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`speed of 2000 RPMs, outputs approximately 4.2 kW of power:
`
`(20 nM * 2000 RPM) / 9458 = 4.1893 kW
`
`47. Because of the nature of this proportional mathematical relationship
`
`between torque, rotational speed, and power, different amounts of torque and
`
`rotational speed can produce the same amount of output power. For example, the
`
`same 4.2 kW of power can be produced by spinning the drive shaft at 4000 RPMs
`
`with only approximately 10 Nm of torque; similarly, 1000 RPMs of rotational speed
`
`with 40 Nm of torque can produce approximately the same 4.2 kW of power. In
`
`other words, different combinations of torque and rotational speed can be used to
`
`produce the same power output. Dr. Davis’s declaration includes an illustration of
`
`this principle with the figures at ¶¶ 121-123.
`
`48. The second step in the “sub-optimal” control algorithm is to “convert[]
`
`the instantaneous power and speed requirement into a torque and speed demand, at
`
`the torque split point for each available gear ratio.” See Ex. 1104 at 11. The “torque
`
`and speed demand” are different torque and drive shaft speeds that are capable of
`
`producing the same power output for different gear ratios. For example, the “base
`
`vehicle” in Bumby 1987 and Forster uses a four speed transmission, i.e. four
`
`different gear ratios. See Ex. 1104 at 3; Ex. 1105 at 4. Each of the four gear ratios
`
`is may be capable of operating in a range of different speed and torque outputs to
`
`
`
`21
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00579
`
`
`produce the demanded power. In first gear the drive shaft will need to spin at a higher
`
`speed and a lower torque to produce the necessary power, while in fourth gear the
`
`drive shaft can spin at a lower speed and higher torque to produce the demanded
`
`power. The “sub-optimal” control algorithm places these power demand pairs for
`
`each gea