`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00852
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`SECOND PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40 AND 58 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,455,134)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 6
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ...................................................... 9
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered .................................................. 9
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................10
`
`A. General ................................................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter..........................................11
`
`Claim Construction Standard ..............................................................12
`
`D. Anticipation .........................................................................................13
`
`E.
`
`Obviousness .........................................................................................14
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ..................................................18
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART AS OF 1998 ..............................................................20
`
`A.
`
`Engine Fundamentals ..........................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Electric Motor Fundamentals ..............................................................22
`
`HEV Architecture ................................................................................22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Series HEVs ..............................................................................24
`
`Parallel HEVs ............................................................................25
`
`Series-Parallel HEVs ................................................................26
`
`D.
`
`Controls ...............................................................................................28
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Emissions .............................................................................................30
`
`Electrical Characteristics .....................................................................42
`
`V.
`
`THE ’134 PATENT .......................................................................................44
`
`A.
`
`Background of the ’134 Patent ............................................................44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’134 Patent ...............................................49
`
`Construction of Terms in the Challenged Claims ...............................50
`
`D.
`
`Priority Claim ......................................................................................52
`
`VI. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........53
`
`A. Overview of the Prior Art ....................................................................53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613 (“Ehsani”) ......................................53
`
`Yimin Gao et al., The Energy Flow Management and
`Battery Energy Capacity Determination for the Drive
`Train of Electrically Peaking Hybrid Vehicle, SAE
`Technical Paper 972647 (August 1997) (“Ehsani NPL”).........54
`
`Oreste Vittone et al., Fiat Conceptual Approach to
`Hybrid Cars Design, 12th International Electric Vehicle
`Symposium (1994) (“Vittone”) ................................................55
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429 (“Kawakatsu”) ...............................55
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263 (“Yamaguchi”) ...............................56
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: The Combination of Ehsani and Ehsani NPL
`Teaches All the Limitations in Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 of the ’134
`Patent ...................................................................................................57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................57
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................89
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................91
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................94
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................95
`
`Rationale to Combine Ehsani and Ehsani NPL ........................95
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: The Combination of Ehsani, Ehsani NPL and
`Vittone Teaches All the Limitations in Claim 40 of the ’134
`Patent ...................................................................................................98
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of Claim 40 ................................................................98
`
`Rationale to Combine Vittone With Ehsani and Ehsani
`NPL .........................................................................................109
`
`D. Ground 3: Claim 58 Is Obvious Over Ehsani ...................................110
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of Claim 58 ..............................................................110
`
`Rationale .................................................................................127
`
`E.
`
`Ground 4: The Combination of Kawakatsu and Ehsani Teaches
`All the Limitations in Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 19 and 58 of the ’134
`Patent .................................................................................................128
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................128
`
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................149
`
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................150
`
`Claim 5 ....................................................................................150
`
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................150
`
`Claim 19 ..................................................................................151
`
`Claim 58 ..................................................................................156
`
`Rationale to Combine Kawakatsu and Ehsani ........................174
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5: The Combination of Kawakatsu, Ehsani and
`Yamaguchi Teaches the Limitations in Claim 27 .............................176
`
`1.
`
`Analysis of Claim 27 ..............................................................176
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`and
`to Combine Kawakatsu, Ehsani
`Rationale
`Yamaguchi ..............................................................................177
`
`G. Non-obviousness factors ...................................................................179
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................181
`
`VIII. APPENDICES TO DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN .........182
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1. My name is Jeffrey L. Stein. I have been retained by counsel for Ford
`
`Motor Company (“Ford”) as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`I have been asked to provide analysis and my opinion about the state of the art of
`
`the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 (“the ’134 Patent,” Ex.
`
`1101) and on the patentability of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 19, 27, 40 and 58 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of the ‘134 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
`
`University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Campus, and the former Associate Director of
`
`the Automotive Research Center at the University of Michigan. I have studied,
`
`taught and/or practiced in the relevant hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) control
`
`technology for over 20 years.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I received my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. I received a Masters of Science
`
`degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Bachelors of Science degree in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976.
`
`4.
`
`In my capacity as a Professor, I teach undergraduate and graduate
`
`courses in mechanical design, dynamics, systems and control engineering. In my
`
`capacity as a Professor, I also do research in the area of automotive system design
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`and control as well as machine design and control. In several of my research
`
`projects, my students and I discovered unique ways to model, design and control
`
`automotive powertrains including hybrid powertrains.
`
`5.
`
` In addition to being the former Associate Director of the Automotive
`
`Research Center at the University of Michigan, I am also the former Principle
`
`Investigator (PI) of the project “A Multi-Scale Design and Control Framework for
`
`Dynamically Coupled Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructures, with Application
`
`to Vehicle-to-Grid Integration.” I am currently the PI of a project “Sustainable
`
`Transportation for a 3rd Century: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Addressing the
`
`Last Mile Problem for Enhanced Accessibility.” In my work at the Automotive
`
`Research Center, and on these projects, I have developed computer–based methods
`
`for facilitating the design evaluation of automotive powertrains including hybrid
`
`powertrains.
`
`6.
`
` From 1983 through 1987 and 1991 through the present, I have also
`
`worked as an Independent Consultant concentrating in the area of design and risk
`
`analysis of mechanical systems and manufacturing machines. Much of this work is
`
`particularly germane to the area of automotive powertrains. Some examples
`
`include: hybrid electric vehicles, automated mechanical transmissions and transfer
`
`cases for on-demand four-wheel drive.
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`From 1988 through 1991, I was also employed as an Independent
`
`Consultant for Failure Analysis Associates in San Francisco, California, focusing
`
`on the design and risk analysis of mechanical systems and manufacturing
`
`machines.
`
`8.
`
`I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan, and
`
`am a member of several professional engineering organizations including the
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers, National Society of Professional Engineers, the
`
`American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Society of Manufacturing
`
`Engineers, and the American Society for Engineering Education.
`
`9.
`
`In my work, I have had a number of opportunities to deal with U.S.
`
`Patents. This work has included infringement and validity analysis in the areas of
`
`hybrid electric vehicle powertrain design, CNC machine tool control, automotive
`
`transfer case design and control, automotive interior lighted mirror design,
`
`automated mechanical transmissions, agricultural seed meters, automotive shipping
`
`containers, medical beds and automated chemical immunoassay machines.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored over 65 journal articles, including at least 13 articles
`
`that are related to hybrid electric vehicles. I have also contributed to over 115
`
`refereed conference papers, including at least 18 papers that are related to hybrid
`
`electric vehicles.
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`11. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Appendix A, and
`
`provides a listing of all publications on which I am a named author.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $425 per hour to provide analysis
`
`and testimony in this inter partes review proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of any matter or the specifics of my testimony. I have
`
`no financial interest in the Petition.
`
`13.
`
`I have previously provided expert testimony in over 15 patent-related
`
`matters. My Curriculum Vitae, provided in Appendix A, identifies some of the
`
`areas in which I have previously provided expert testimony.
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered
`
`14. My findings, as explained below, are based on my years of education,
`
`research, experience, and background in the fields discussed above, as well as my
`
`investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`considered the materials I identify in this declaration and those listed in Appendix
`
`B.
`
`15. Additionally, I am aware of information generally available to, and
`
`relied upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including
`
`technical dictionaries and technical reference materials (including textbooks,
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`manuals, technical papers and articles); some of my statements below are expressly
`
`based on such awareness.
`
`16. Due to procedural limitations for inter partes reviews, the grounds of
`
`unpatentability discussed herein are based solely on prior patents and other printed
`
`publications. I understand that Petitioner reserves all rights to assert other grounds
`
`for unpatentability or invalidity, not addressed herein, at a later time. Thus, the
`
`absence of discussion of such matters here should not be taken as indicating that
`
`there are no such additional grounds for unpatentability and invalidity of the ‘134
`
`Patent.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. General
`
`17.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘134 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal
`
`principles that have been provided to me.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Ford has the burden of proving
`
`that the challenged claims of the ‘134 Patent are unpatentable by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence. I understand that under “a preponderance of the evidence”
`
`standard, Ford must show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`19.
`
` I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`20.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether a
`
`claimed invention is patentable is generally referred to as “prior art” and includes
`
`patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles on
`
`websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`B.
`
`22.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter
`
`I understand that in order to be considered “prior art,” patents or
`
`printed publications must predate the pertinent priority dates for the subject matter
`
`claimed in the ‘134 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a patent is only entitled to a priority date
`
`based on an earlier filed application if the earlier filed application meets the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112. Specifically, I have been informed that 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification of a patent or patent application must
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`“contain a written description of the invention, and the manner and process of
`
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`
`person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`
`connected, to make and use the [invention] . . . .” I understand that the
`
`requirements of this provision are commonly called the written description
`
`requirement and the enablement requirement.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that compliance with both the written
`
`description requirement and enablement requirement must be determined as of the
`
`effective filing date of the application for which priority is sought.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that to satisfy the written description
`
`requirement a patent’s specification should reasonably convey to a person of skill
`
`in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the
`
`effective filing date of the application.
`
`C. Claim Construction Standard
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art, which for this proceeding is limited to patents and printed
`
`publications. I also understand that, at the same time, absent some reason to the
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`contrary, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in other forums, such as in federal courts, different
`
`standards of proof and claim interpretation control, which are not applied by the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review. Accordingly, any
`
`interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in this proceeding, either
`
`implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as constituting, in whole or in part,
`
`Petitioner’s own interpretation or construction, except as regards the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the claims presented.
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, for a patent to be “anticipated” by the prior art, each
`
`and every limitation of the claim must be found, expressly, implicitly or inherently,
`
`in a single prior art reference. I further understand that the requirement of strict
`
`identity between the claim and the reference is not met if a single element or
`
`limitation required by the claim is missing from the applied reference.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly described in
`
`a prior art reference may still be there if they are implicit or inherent to the thing or
`
`process being described in the prior art. I have been informed that to establish
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive
`
`matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it
`
`would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I have been
`
`informed that inherency cannot be established just because a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`32.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render obvious a claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art must
`
`have been able to arrive at the claimed invention by altering or combining the
`
`applied references.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter taught 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 of ordinary skill in the relevant field.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question involves a consideration
`
`of:
`
`a) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`b) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`c) the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`d) whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case – referred to as “secondary
`
`considerations.”
`
`34. Such secondary considerations include: (a) commercial success of a
`
`product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unmet need
`
`for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the claimed
`
`invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art;
`
`(g) the taking of licenses under the patent by others and (h) the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. Secondary considerations are
`
`relevant where there is a connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rationale for combining cited references as proposed.
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`37.
`
` Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by establishing that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior
`
`art or with other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be
`
`considered:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods,
`
`or products) in the same way;
`
`(D)
`
` Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E)
`
` Applying a technique or approach that would have been
`
`“obvious to try” (i.e., choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success);
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations would
`
`have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) 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. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from such sources as explicit statements
`
`in the prior art, or from the knowledge or common sense of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statement saying the combination should not be made).
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`
`39.
`
` Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant
`
`field for purposes of the ‘134 Patent is system, methods and apparatuses for
`
`controlling and operating a hybrid electric vehicle (“HEV”) and methods for
`
`improving fuel economy and reducing emissions. (See ‘134 Patent, Ex. 1101, 1:21-
`
`29 (“Field of the Invention”).)
`
`40.
`
` As described in Section I(B) above, I have extensive experience in
`
`the relevant field, including experience relating to hybrid powertrain control
`
`strategies and the related architecture. Based on my experience, I have an
`
`established understanding of the relevant field.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill in the art” is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art as of the relevant timeframe, thinks along
`
`conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. I understand
`
`that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references. It is my
`
`understanding that the ‘134 Patent is to be interpreted based on how it would be
`
`read by a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is my understanding that factors such
`
`as the education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish
`
`the level of skill in the art. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`not a specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the
`
`qualities reflected by the factors above.
`
`42.
`
`I understand the relevant timeframe for evaluating a claim is at the
`
`time of the invention, which is based on the effective filing date of each claim, or
`
`the date at which the subject matter of the claim was first disclosed in an
`
`application in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable the person
`
`skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention. The earliest claimed
`
`priority date of the ‘134 Patent is September 14, 1998, as I explain in more detail
`
`below. (‘134 Patent, Ex. 1101 at 1.) For reasons not addressed in this Declaration
`
`or the Petition it accompanies, the effective filing date of the claims of the ‘134
`
`Patent is April 2, 20011. However, I have assumed a September 14, 1998 priority
`
`date for purposes of my analysis below, as the priority date is not relevant to the
`
`specific grounds of unpatentability forming the basis of this challenge. In my
`
`opinion, given the relevant field and relevant timeframe of the ‘134 Patent, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have: 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
`
`
`1 The issue of the effective filing date of the claims of the ‘134 Patent was taken up
`
`in a separate Petition for Inter Partes Review and supporting Declaration filed
`
`April 4, 2014 in Case No. IPR2014-00568.
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 design and control of combustion engines, electric vehicle
`
`propulsion systems, or automotive transmissions.
`
`43. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field as of September 1998. I have
`
`supervised and directed many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART AS OF 1998
`
`A. Engine Fundamentals
`
`44. An engine is a transformer; it transforms chemical energy into
`
`mechanical energy:
`
`The purpose of internal combustion engine is the production of
`
`mechanical power from the chemical energy contained in the fuel. In
`
`internal combustion engines this energy is released by burning or
`
`oxidizing the fuel inside the engine.
`
`(Heywood2,3 Ex. 1109 at 11.)
`
`
`2 John B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals (McGraw-Hill
`
`1988)
`
`3 John Heywood is the preeminent researcher in automotive engines and
`
`powertrain and his book is widely used as a textbook in schools and cited in
`
`scholarly articles (9,406 cites by Google Scholar 3/28/14).
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`45. To control the mechanical power of the engine you have to control the
`
`combustion process. Engine controls control the amount of air and fuel provided
`
`to the engine to control the amount of mechanical power that is produced.
`
`46. Engine control strategies are further implemented to strive towards
`
`complete combustion (i.e., operating at a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio) for the
`
`purpose of reducing emissions and improving fuel economy.
`
`47. A catalyst is defined as “[a]ny substance of which a fractional
`
`percentage notably affects the rate of a chemical reaction without itself being
`
`consumed or undergoing a chemical change.” (The Condensed Chemical
`
`Dictionary4, Ex. 1110 at 3.) In automotive applications catalysts are used for after
`
`treatment of the noxious products of incomplete combustion. The heat created by
`
`the combustion process generates energy which is mechanically converted to
`
`output mechanical power (torque times rotational speed) and also generates
`
`noxious emissions. The noxious emissions are treated in a secondary reaction
`
`through a catalyst, which further reduces emissions from noxious to harmless.
`
`Controlling engine emissions is difficult during rapid changes in output engine
`
`torque (i.e., transient conditions) because: a) it takes time to measure the effects of
`
`combustion downstream of the engine; b) it takes time to use that feedback to
`
`
`4 Gessner G. Hawley, The Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Van Nostrand
`
`Reinhold Co., 9th ed. 1977)
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`update the air-fuel mixture; and c) it takes time for the updated air-fuel mixture to
`
`travel to the combustion chamber.
`
`B.
`
`Electric Motor Fundamentals
`
`48. Like an engine, an electric motor is a transformer; it transforms
`
`electrical energy to mechanical energy. Unlike the engine, an electric motor does
`
`not generate noxious emissions. Thus, rapid changes in motor output torque are
`
`possible without emissions concerns.
`
`C. HEV Architecture
`
`49. HEVs were conceived in an attempt to combine and utilize the power
`
`capabilities of internal combustion engines and electric motors to satisfy all the
`
`torque required or demanded for propelling the vehicle in a more fuel efficient
`
`manner and with reduced emissions, as compared to conventional (non-HEV)
`
`vehicles. Application of the electric motor during rapid changes in vehicle torque
`
`demand resolves the problem of additional emissions that would otherwise be
`
`created by the engine alone. This was well known prior to the earliest claimed
`
`priority date of the challenged claims of the ‘134 Patent.
`
`50. HEVs are not new and in fact date back to the early 1900s. Indeed, I
`
`am aware of U.S. Patent No. 913,846 that issued to H. Pieper in March 1909,
`
`entitled “Mixed Drive Auto Vehicles.” (Pieper, Ex. 1117.) Pieper discloses a
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`FORD 1102
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`vehicle having an internal combustion engine, a dynamo motor directly connected
`
`to the engine and a storage battery connected to the motor. Id. at 1:20-35.
`
`51. World events such as the Clean Air Act and other regulatory events
`
`during the 1960s and 1970s spurred a renewed interest in both electric vehicle and
`
`HEV development. (Duoba5, Ex. 1111 at 3.) This renewed interest spurred a 30
`
`year span of HEV research and development (R&D). Id.
`
`52. Based upon the level of HEV R&D during this period, various HEV
`
`powertrain “topologies” and corresponding control strategies were well-known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art by September 1998. The various HEV
`
`topologies generally differ in how the engine and motor(s) are arranged and
`
`connected to the wheels. It was also known that HEV control strategies gen