UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
