`
`
`
`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 to Severinsky et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00579
`
`______________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ. (CLAIMS 1, 7, 8, 18, 21, 23, 37 OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 7,104,347)
`
`
`
`1
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Exhibit List ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 7
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................14
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......15
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART ...................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Series” Hybrid Vehicle ......................................................................20
`
`“Parallel” Hybrid Vehicle ...................................................................23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`One-Motor “Parallel” Hybrid Vehicle ..................................... 25
`
`Two-Motor “Parallel” Hybrid Vehicle .................................... 30
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`“Switching” Two-Motor “Parallel” Hybrid
`Vehicles .......................................................................... 32
`
`“Power-Split” Two-Motor “Parallel” Hybrid
`Vehicles .......................................................................... 35
`
`C.
`
`Hybrid Vehicle “Control Strategies” ..................................................35
`
`V.
`
`THE ’347 PATENT .......................................................................................47
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ’347 Patent .............................................47
`
`Prosecution History of the ’347 Patent ...............................................49
`
`VI. CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’347 PATENT AND
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................................54
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................55
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Status of Bumby Project ......................................................55
`
`Overview of the Bumby Project ..........................................................63
`
`
`
`2
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Bumby I .................................................................................... 63
`
`Bumby II .................................................................................. 66
`
`Bumby III ................................................................................. 73
`
`Bumby IV ................................................................................. 75
`
`Bumby V .................................................................................. 77
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS ....................................................................79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 ..............................................................................................79
`
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................107
`
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................133
`
`Claim 18 ..........................................................................................135
`
`Claim 21 ..........................................................................................138
`
`Claim 23 ..........................................................................................139
`
`Claim 37 ..........................................................................................170
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...............................172
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................173
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1101
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Petition Exhibits
`
`Date
`
`n/a
`n/a
`
`Sept. 1985
`
`Identifier
`The ’347 Patent
`’347 Patent File
`History
`Bumby I
`
`Nov. 1987
`
`Bumby II
`
`Jan. 1988
`
`Bumby III
`
`Apr. 1, 1988
`
`Bumby IV
`
`Jan. 1, 1990
`
`Bumby V
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`’347 Patent File History
`
`Bumby, J.R. et al. “Computer
`modelling of the automotive energy
`requirements for internal
`combustion engine and battery
`electric-powered vehicles” - IEE
`Proc. A 1985(5)
`Bumby, J.R. et al. “Optimisation
`and control of a hybrid electric car”
`- IEE Proc. A 1987, 134(6)
`Bumby, J.R. et al. “A Hybrid
`Internal Combustion
`Engine/Battery Electric Passenger
`Car for Petroleum Displacement” –
`Proc Instn Mech Engrs Volume
`202 (D1), 51-65
`Bumby, J.R. et al. “A Test-Bed
`Facility for Hybrid IC Engine-
`Battery Electric Road Vehicle
`Drive Trains” - Trans Inst Meas &
`Cont 1988 Vol. 10(2)
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1118
`1119
`
`1120
`1121
`1122
`
`1123
`1124
`
`1125
`
`1126
`
`1127
`
`1128
`
`1129
`1130
`
`1131
`
`1132
`
`1133
`
`1134
`1135
`
`1136
`
`
`
`Declaration Exhibits
`
`Date
`
`
`Feb. 1994
`
`Feb. 1997
`Feb. 1998
`1998
`
`
`Feb. 24-28,
`1992
`April 9-11,
`1997
`
`Identifier
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`April 1995
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1998
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1996
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Description
`Curriculum Vitae of Gregory Davis
`Innovations in Design: 1993 Ford
`Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge
`1996 Future Car Challenge
`1997 Future Car Challenge
`History of the Electric Automobile –
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles
`Hybrid Vehicle for Fuel Economy
`Hybrid/Electric Vehicle Design
`Options and Evaluations
`Challenges for the Vehicle Tester in
`Characterizing Hybrid Electric
`Vehicles
`Electric and Hybrid Vehicles
`Program
`Technology for Electric and Hybrid
`Vehicles
`Strategies in Electric and Hybrid
`Vehicle Design
`Hybrid Vehicle Potential Assessment Sept. 30, 1979 Declaration Ex.
`Final Report Hybrid Heat Engine /
`June 1, 1971 Declaration Ex.
`Electric Systems Study
`Transactions of the Institute of
`Measurements and Control: A
`microprocessor controlled gearbox
`for use in electric and hybrid-electric
`vehicles
`Propulsion System Design of
`Electric Vehicles
`Propulsion System Design of
`Electric and Hybrid Vehicles
`Bosch Handbook
`Design Innovations in Electric and
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles
`U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672
`
`Sept. 1, 1988 Declaration Ex.
`
`1996
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Oct. 1996
`Feb. 1995
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Apr. 3, 2001
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`5
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`Declaration Exhibits
`
`Description
`Introduction to Automotive
`Powertrains (Davis Textbook)
`Yamaguchi article: Toyota Prius,
`Automotive Engineering
`International
`60/100095 Provisional Application
`
`Date
`
`
`
`Identifier
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Jan. 1998
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1137
`
`1138
`
`1139
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`I, Gregory Davis, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Ford Motor Company in
`
`the matter of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ’347 Patent”)
`
`to Severinsky et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at a rate of
`
`$315/hour. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparation of this declaration, I have studied the exhibits as listed
`
`in the Exhibit List shown above in my report.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above as well as additional patents and
`
`documents referenced herein;
`
`
`
`(2) The relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398 (2007), and any additional documents cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work and study
`
`in this area as described below.
`
`I.
`
` QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`5.
`
`I have provided my full background in the curriculum vitae that is
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`attached as Exhibit 1118.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1982 and my Master of Science
`
`Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Oakland University in 1986.
`
`7.
`
`I further am a licensed “Professional Engineer” in the state of
`
`Michigan.
`
`8.
`
`As shown in my resume, most of my career has been in the field of
`
`automotive engineering that includes numerous positions in both the academia and
`
`industry settings.
`
`9.
`
`After receiving my Master’s degree, I began work at General Motors
`
`where I had several assignments involving automotive design, advanced
`
`engineering and manufacturing. Over the course of my years at General Motors, I
`
`was involved in all aspects of the vehicle design process, from advanced research
`
`and development to manufacturing.
`
`10. Specifically, my work at General Motors included aspects of engine
`
`and fuel system design relating to the production of fuel sending units, and
`
`modeling the effects of fuels and EGR on vehicle performance and emissions.
`
`11. After leaving General Motors, I returned to the University of
`
`Michigan where I was awarded a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1991. My
`
`thesis was directed
`
`to automotive engineering including
`
`the design and
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`development of systems and models for understanding combustion in automotive
`
`engines.
`
`12. Upon completion of my Ph.D., I joined the faculty of the U.S. Naval
`
`Academy where I led the automotive program in mechanical engineering. As part
`
`of my responsibilities while at the Academy, I managed the laboratories for
`
`Internal Combustion Engines and Power Systems.
`
`13.
`
`I further taught automotive and mechanical engineering courses while
`
`at the U.S. Naval Academy. Some of the courses I taught were directed specifically
`
`to design and operation of internal combustion engines in both conventional and
`
`hybrid vehicles. I also taught courses pertaining to the design and operation of
`
`hybrid vehicles.
`
`14.
`
`In addition to my work at the U.S. Naval Academy, I also served as
`
`faculty advisor for the USNA Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). During this
`
`time I served as project director for the research and development of hybrid electric
`
`vehicles.
`
`15. My work with regards to hybrid electric vehicles included extensive
`
`design and modifications of the powertrain, chassis, and body systems. This
`
`development work included the design, modifications and implementation of
`
`alternate fuel delivery and injection systems.
`
`16. The hybrid electric vehicle work that I worked on at the U.S. Naval
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`Academy was published in a bound 1994 SAE special publication. (Ex. 1116 at 6-
`
`11.)
`
`17. While at the Naval Academy, I also taught classes in mechanical
`
`engineering at Johns Hopkins University.
`
`18.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of Lawrence Technological University
`
`where I served as Director of the Master of Automotive Engineering Program and
`
`Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department.
`
`19. The master’s program in automotive engineering is a professionally
`
`oriented program aimed at attracting and educating practicing engineers in the
`
`automotive industry.
`
`20.
`
`In addition
`
`to
`
`teaching and designing
`
`the curriculum
`
`for
`
`undergraduate and graduate students, I also worked in the automotive industry
`
`closely with Ford Motor Company on the development of a hybrid electric vehicle.
`
`21. Specifically, I served as project director on a cooperative research
`
`project to develop and design all aspects of a hybrid electric vehicle. While in
`
`many instances we used standard Ford components, we custom designed many
`
`automotive subsystems. As part of this project, we completely redesigned and
`
`replaced the existing powertrain including the fuel storage, delivery and injection
`
`systems. We also did analytical and actual testing of the systems.
`
`22. While at Lawrence Technological University, I also served as the
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`faculty advisor on several student based hybrid vehicle competitions that were
`
`sponsored primarily by Ford Motor Company, General Motor Company, and
`
`Chrysler Corporation.
`
`23. These competitions required the complete design of hybrid vehicle,
`
`including the design of the power train. These competitions also required the
`
`complete design of the software and hardware required to control the hybrid
`
`vehicle.
`
`24. Attached as Exhibits 1120 and 1121 are the competition papers that
`
`were submitted for the 1996 and 1997 competitions for which I served as the
`
`faculty advisor. (Ex. 1120 & Ex. 1121.)
`
`25. During my time at Lawrence Technological University, I further
`
`served as advisor for 145 automotive graduate and undergraduate project students.
`
`Many of the graduate students whom I advised were employed as full time
`
`engineers in the automotive industry. This service required constant interaction
`
`with the students and their automotive companies which included the major
`
`automotive manufacturers (e.g., Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Toyota, etc.)
`
`along with many automotive suppliers, including those that supply fuel delivery
`
`systems (e.g., Denso, Delphi and Bosch.)
`
`26. Currently, I am employed as a Professor of Mechanical Engineering
`
`& Director of the Advanced Engine Research Laboratory (AERL) at Kettering
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`University—formerly known as “General Motors Institute.”
`
`27. At Kettering University I develop curriculum and teach courses in
`
`mechanical and automotive engineering to both undergraduate and graduate
`
`students.
`
`28. Since coming to Kettering, I have advised over 90 undergraduate and
`
`graduate theses in automotive engineering. Further, I actively pursue research and
`
`development activities within automotive engineering.
`
`29. My work requires constant involvement with my students and their
`
`sponsoring automotive companies which have included not only those mentioned
`
`above, but also Walbro, Nissan, Borg Warner, FEV, Inc., U.S. Army Automotive
`
`Command, Denso, Honda, Dana, TRW, Tenneco, Navistar, and ArvinMeritor.
`
`30. As is further shown by resume, I have published over 50 peer
`
`reviewed technical articles and presentations involving topics in automotive
`
`engineering.
`
`31. Automotive and mechanical engineering topics covered in these
`
`articles include development of hybrid vehicles, mechanical design and analysis of
`
`components and systems, vehicle exterior design including aerodynamics,
`
`development of alternative fueled vehicles and fuel systems, thermal and fluid
`
`system design and analysis, selection and design of components and sub-systems
`
`for optimum system integration, and system calibration and control.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`32.
`
`I have also chaired or co-chaired sessions in automotive engineering
`
`at many
`
`technical conferences
`
`including sessions
`
`involving powertrain
`
`development and control in automotive engineering.
`
`33. Additionally, while acting as director of the AERL, I am responsible
`
`for numerous laboratories and undergraduate and graduate research projects, which
`
`include On-road and Off-road engine and chassis testing laboratories. Projects
`
`have included the design and development of fuel injection systems for off-road
`
`vehicles, fuel compatibility studies of vehicle storage and delivery systems,
`
`modification of fuel delivery systems to accommodate alternative fuels, and other
`
`extensive modifications and development of vehicular powertrains.
`
`34.
`
`I also serve as faculty advisor to the Society of Automotive Engineers
`
`International (SAE) at the national level, on the local Student Branch and for the
`
`“SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge.” I have served as a director on the SAE
`
`Board of Directors, the Engineering Education Board, and the Publications Board.
`
`35. Further, I have chaired the Engineering Education Board and several
`
`of the SAE Committees.
`
`36.
`
`I also actively develop and
`
`teach Continuing Professional
`
`Development (CPD) courses both for SAE and directly for corporate automotive
`
`clients. These CPD courses are directed to automotive powertrain, exterior body
`
`systems, hybrid electric vehicle design, and include extensive engine performance,
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`emissions, and economy considerations. These courses are taught primarily to
`
`engineers who are employed in the automotive industry.
`
`37. Finally, I am a member of the Advisory Board of the National
`
`Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology at the University of Idaho. In
`
`addition to advising, I also review funding proposals and project reports of the
`
`researchers funded by the center.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`38.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions on the claims of the ’347 Patent
`
`in light of the prior art.
`
`39.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 USC § 102 if a prior art reference teaches every element of the claim. Further,
`
`it is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I also understand that an obviousness analysis takes into factual
`
`inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`40.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`of the claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable
`
`results; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`ART
`
`41.
`
`I have reviewed the ’347 Patent, those patents cited in the ’347 Patent
`
`as well as the prior art documents. Based on this review and my knowledge of
`
`hybrid electric vehicles, including my work on multiple hybrid vehicles during the
`
`course of the 1990’s, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have either: (1) a graduate degree in mechanical, electrical or automotive
`
`engineering with at least some experience in the design and control of combustion
`
`engines, electric or hybrid electric vehicle propulsion systems, or design and
`
`control of automotive transmissions, or (2) a bachelor's degree in mechanical,
`
`electrical or automotive engineering and at least five years of experience in the
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`design of combustion engines, electric vehicle propulsion systems, or automotive
`
`transmissions.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that this determination is made at the time of the
`
`invention, which I understand that the patentee purports as being the September 14,
`
`1998 filing of U.S. Provisional Application
`
` No. 60/100,095 (“the ’095
`
`Provisional,” Ex. 1136). As I also discussed in my “Qualifications and Professional
`
`Experience” (¶¶5-37) above, I am familiar with the level of knowledge and the
`
`abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention based on my experience in the industry (both as an employee and as a
`
`professor).
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART
`
`43. Hybrid-Electric Vehicles (hybrid vehicle) were conceived over 100
`
`years ago in an attempt to combine the power capabilities of electric motors and
`
`internal combustion engines1 (ICE) to satisfy all the driver demand required to
`
`propel a vehicle. (Ex. 1122 at 11).
`
`44.
`
`I am aware that one of the first functioning hybrid vehicles was
`
`designed and built by Justus Entz in May 1897. (Ex. 1122 at 11-13).
`
`45.
`I am also aware that hybrid vehicle patents extend as far back as 1909
`
`1 An engine could also be referred to as a “heat engine” and is commonly known to
`
`be a part of the overall “Auxiliary Power Unit” of a hybrid vehicle (i.e., “APU”).
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`for U.S. Patent No. 913,846 to Pieper that was granted for a “Mixed Drive Auto
`
`Vehicle.”
`
`46.
`
`I am aware that the hybrid vehicle disclosed by the Pieper patent was
`
`likewise assembled as a functioning hybrid vehicle that was publically used. (Ex.
`
`1122 at 13-14).
`
`47.
`
`I am also aware of well-known hybrid vehicles that were built and
`
`publically used by Baker and Woods in 1917. (Ex. 1122 at 21-23).
`
`48. While these early hybrid vehicles did not include the complex
`
`microprocessor based control strategies found in present-day hybrid vehicles, it has
`
`always been known that one goal of hybrid vehicles is the possibility of operating
`
`the engine at its “optimum efficiency.”
`
`From almost
`
`the beginning of
`
`the Automotive Age, various
`
`combinations of drive systems have been tried in order to achieve
`
`vehicle performance characteristics superior to those that can be
`
`obtained using a single type of drive. These efforts have been made
`
`in the name of many worthwhile goals such as increased vehicle
`
`acceleration capability, audible noise reduction, operation of an
`
`engine or turbine at optimum efficiency, reduction of noxious
`
`emissions, and improved fuel economy.
`
`(Ex. 1123 at 1; emphasis added).
`
`49.
`
`It was not until events in the 1970’s, however, that a renewed interest
`
`in hybrid vehicles emerged as a means to combat the U.S. dependency on oil and
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`to meet increased air pollution reduction goals. (See e.g., Ex. 1124 at 3; Ex. 1125
`
`at 3).
`
`50. For instance, in 1976 the U.S. government enacted Public Law 94-413
`
`pertaining to the “Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and
`
`Demonstration Act” that was to “encourage and support accelerated research into,
`
`and development of electric and hybrid vehicle technologies.” (Ex. 1026 at 4).
`
`51. As a result of this law, multiple fully functional hybrid and electric
`
`vehicles were developed by automotive corporations. (Ex. 1026 at 4).
`
`52.
`
`I am specifically aware that Ford Motor Company and Toyota Motor
`
`Company invested considerable time and money into developing both hybrid and
`
`electric vehicles. (See e.g., Ex. 1123 at 1; Ex. 1127 at 4).
`
`53. Further collegiate competitions intensified during the 1990’s starting
`
`with the 1993-1995 Ford Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge. The 1993 Ford
`
`Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge is attached as Exhibit 1116. By 1994 these
`
`competitions had grown to include teams from over 38 universities representing
`
`more than 800 students. (Ex. 1126 at 10).
`
`54. As I mentioned in my “Qualifications and Professional” section
`
`above, I was personally involved with the U.S. Naval Academy’s hybrid vehicle
`
`design that was entered in the 1993 “Ford Hybrid Vehicle” competition. (Ex. 1119
`
`at 6).
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`55.
`
`I was also personally
`
`involved with Lawrence Technological
`
`University’s hybrid vehicle design that was entered in the 1996 and 1997 “Future
`
`Car” hybrid vehicle competitions. (Ex. 1120 at 6; Ex. 1121 at 9).
`
`56. Based upon the level of research and development prior to 1998,
`
`numerous hybrid vehicle “architectures” were well-known. (See e.g., Ex. 1128 at 4
`
`& 7-8). As I explain in detail below, known hybrid vehicle “architectures”
`
`included what was commonly referred to as: (1) “series” hybrid vehicles (¶¶61-69
`
`below); and (2) “parallel” hybrid vehicles (¶¶70-72 below). As I further explain in
`
`detail below, “parallel” hybrid vehicle architectures were further known to include:
`
`(1) one motor “parallel” hybrid vehicle architectures (¶¶73-86 below); and (3) two
`
`motor “parallel” hybrid vehicle architectures (¶¶87-107 below).
`
`57. As I explain further below, these varying hybrid vehicle architectures
`
`differed in how the powertrain (i.e., the engines and motors) was arranged and
`
`connected to the wheels. The various architectures were done in order to achieve
`
`many of the goals I mentioned above in paragraph 48, including operating the
`
`engine at its peak efficiency. (See e.g., Ex. 1123 at 1; Ex. 1128 at 4 & 7).
`
`58. Due to the rapid advancement of computers starting in the 1970’s,
`
`each of these hybrid vehicles included microprocessor based control strategies for
`
`properly controlling the engine, motor(s), transmission, and/ clutching mechanisms
`
`used. (See e.g., Ex. 1127 at 4).
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`59. While the control strategies varied based on the architecture being
`
`employed, the primary goal still focused on operating the engine within its “sweet
`
`spot” or “optimum efficiency range.” (See e.g., Ex. 1123 at 1; Ex. 1127 at 4).
`
`60. Such efficient engine control strategies were desired so as to meet the
`
`Federal government’s reduced air pollution goals of 1976 and to meet California’s
`
`“Low Emissions Vehicle” regulation that was enacted in 1990. (Ex. 1125 at 3).
`
`A.
`
`“Series” Hybrid Vehicle
`
`61. A person of ordinary skill in the art knew well-prior to September
`
`1998 of the design and operational advantages of “series” hybrid vehicle
`
`architectures. (Ex. 1124 at 6-7; Ex. 1128 at 7).
`
`62.
`
`In fact, by 1979 it was well-known that “series” hybrid vehicles could
`
`be designed in various arrangements that could include one or more electric
`
`motors.2 (Ex. 1129 at 17).
`
`
`2 The term “dynamotor” was commonly used to describe an electric motor that was
`
`capable of operating both as (1) a motor for propulsion; and (2) as a generator that
`
`converts mechanical torque into electrical energy that is stored in the battery.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1129 at 17-Fig. 7)
`
`
`
`63. Although multiple configurations were known, I have provided the
`
`following exemplary figure to explain the general architecture and operation of a
`
`“series” hybrid vehicle.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`64. As I illustrated, the motor is always connected to the road wheels. (see
`
`also Ex. 1124 at 6; Ex. 1128 at 7-8).
`
`65.
`
`In other words, the motor alone provides the torque required to
`
`propel the vehicle. (Ex. 1124 at 6; Ex. 1128 at 15).
`
`66. The engine, on the other hand, is not mechanically connected to the
`
`wheels and the engine is therefore controlled independently of driving conditions.
`
`(Ex. 1124 at 6; Ex. 1128 at 7).
`
`67.
`
`In other words, the engine does not provide any of the torque required
`
`to propel the vehicle; rather, the engine powers the generator to produce electrical
`
`energy that is stored in the battery and/or used by the motor.
`
`68. The primary reason for the engine in a “series” hybrid vehicle was to
`
`overcome the limited driving range associated with “pure” electric vehicles. By
`
`including an engine, drivers were able to “fill up” at gas-stations that are common
`
`throughout the United States. Without the engine, drivers would have needed to
`
`find an electrical source to recharge the battery. Not only were electrical sources
`
`less common than gas stations, it could also require hours to fully charge the
`
`battery.
`
`69. Because the engine is controlled independently of the torque
`
`requirements of the vehicle, it was well known that the engine would be designed
`
`to operate at its optimum efficiency and low emission ranges during the majority of
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`operation. However, during conditions of low battery state of charge, the engine
`
`could be operated above its “sweet spot.” Such efficient operation was performed
`
`for the sole purposes of operating the generator illustrated by the figure in
`
`paragraph 63. (Ex. 1124 at 6-7; Ex. 1128 at 7).
`
`B.
`
`“Parallel” Hybrid Vehicle
`
`70. A person of ordinary skill in the art was also aware that prior to
`
`September 1998 “parallel” hybrid vehicle architectures existed. (Ex. 1124 at 7-8;
`
`Ex. 1128 at 7-8).
`
`71. Again, by 1979 it was well-known that “parallel” hybrid vehicles
`
`could be designed in various arrangements that could include one or more electric
`
`motors.3 (Ex. 1129 at 18).
`
`
`3 The term “dynamotor” was commonly used to describe an electric motor that was
`
`capable of operating both as (1) a motor for propulsion; and (2) as a generator that
`
`converts mechanical torque into electrical energy that is stored in the battery.
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1129 at 18-Fig.7 (cont))
`
`
`
`72. As illustrated above, there existed three generally known “parallel”
`
`hybrid vehicle architectures. The first architecture was a one-motor “parallel”
`
`hybrid vehicle as illustrated by “Pa,” “Pc,” and “Pd.” The second architecture is a
`
`two-motor “parallel” hybrid vehicle as illustrated by “Pb” and “Pe.” (Ex. 1129 at
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`18).4
`
`a. One-Motor “Parallel” Hybrid Vehicle
`
`73. Although multiple various configurations existed, I have provided the
`
`following exemplary figure in order to assist in explaining the general architecture
`
`and operation of a one-motor “parallel” hybrid vehicle.
`
`
`4 The third type of “parallel” hybrid vehicle illustrated was an all-wheel drive
`
`platform that used a motor and engine to power both the front and rear wheels as
`
`
`
`shown by “Pf.”
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`74. As I illustrated, “parallel” hybrid vehicles typically included one or
`
`more “clutches” that were controlled by a microprocessor (i.e., controller).5 These
`
`clutches selectively enabled either or both the engine and motor to provide drive
`
`torque to the wheels of the vehicle.
`
`75. Generally, “parallel” hybrid vehicles were known to include a single
`
`traction motor that could be operated to provide torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle as explained, for example, by the following 1992 SAE paper.
`
`The parallel hybrid (Figure 5) [is one] in which both the electric motor
`
`and the engine provide torque to the wheels either separately or
`
`together and the motor can be used as a generator to recharge the
`
`batteries when the engine can produce more power than is needed to
`
`propel the vehicle… (Ex. 1124 at 5).
`
`(Ex. 1124 at 25-Fig. 5)
`
`
`
`
`5 It was also known that a transmission and/or fixed gear ratio could be used
`
`between the motors or engine and the wheels.
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1108
`
`
`
`76. With reference back to my exemplary figure illustrated in paragraph
`
`73, “parallel” hybrid vehicles engage the motor and/or engine by operating one or
`
`more clutches. For example, the controller could engage “clutch 1” which would
`
`connect the engine to the road wheels.
`
`77. Alternatively, the controller could engage “clutch 2” which would
`
`connect the motor to the road wheels. Both “clutch 1” and “clutch 2” could be
`
`engaged in order to connect both the motor and engine to the road wheels.
`
`78.
`
`In another configuration of a “parallel” hybrid vehicle, either “clutch
`
`1” or “clutch 2” could be removed from the system so that its respective power
`
`source (i.e., the engine or