Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`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.: IPR2014-00884
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY DAVIS
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 1 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`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.: IPR2014-00884
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY DAVIS
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 1 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`’347 Patent File History
`
`Hybrid Power Unit Development
`for Fiat Multipla Vehicle
`U.S. Patent No. 5,841,201
`U.S. Patent No. 6,158,541
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Reply Claim
`Construction Brief (Case No. 2:04-
`cv-00211)
`LLC’s Claim
`Paice
`Plaintiff
`Construction Brief (Case No. 2:04-
`cv-00211)
`Claim Construction Order (Case
`No. 2:04-cv-00211)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Opening
`Claim Construction Brief (Case No.
`2:07-cv-00180)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Reply Brief on
`Claim Construction (Case No. 2:07-
`cv-00180)
`Claim Construction Order (Case
`No. 2:07-cv-00180)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC and Abell
`Foundation, Inc.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (Case No. 1:12-
`cv-00499)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC and Abell
`Foundation, Inc.’s Responsive Brief
`on Claim Construction (Case No.
`1:12-cv-00499)
`U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`January 3, 2014 Decision (Appeal
`No. 2011-004811)
`
`Date
`
`n/a
`n/a
`
`Feb. 23, 1998
`
`Identifier
`The ’347 Patent
`’347 Patent File
`History
`Caraceni
`
`Feb. 27 1997
`Feb. 27 1997
`Mar. 8, 2005
`
`Tabata ’201
`Tabata ’541
`n/a
`
`Mar. 29, 2005
`
`n/a
`
`Sept. 28, 2005
`
`n/a
`
`June 25, 2008
`
`n/a
`
`Aug. 1, 2008
`
`n/a
`
`Dec. 5, 2008
`
`n/a
`
`Nov. 14, 2013
`
`n/a
`
`Dec. 16, 2013
`
`n/a
`
`Jan. 3, 2014
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1201
`1202
`
`1203
`
`1204
`1205
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`1214
`
`
`PAGE 2 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1215
`1216
`
`1217
`1218
`1219
`
`1220
`1221
`
`1222
`
`1223
`
`1224
`
`1225
`
`1226
`
`1227
`
`1228
`
`1229
`
`1230
`
`1231
`1232
`
`1233
`1234
`
`and Hybrid Vehicles
`
`Description
`Declaration 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
`Program
`Technology for Electric and Hybrid
`Vehicles
`Strategies in Electric and Hybrid
`Vehicle Design
`Hybrid
`Vehicle
`Assessment
`Final Report Hybrid Heat Engine /
`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
`Introduction
`to
`Automotive
`Powertrains (Davis Textbook)
`
`Potential
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`Date
`
`n/a
`Feb. 1994
`
`Feb. 1997
`Feb. 1998
`1998
`
`Identifier
`Davis
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb.24-28, 1992 Declaration Ex.
`
`April 9-11, 1997 Declaration Ex.
`
`April 1995
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1998
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1996
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`1996
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Oct. 1996
`Feb. 1995
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Apr. 3, 2001
`n/a
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`
`PAGE 3 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1235
`
`1236
`
`1237
`
`1238
`1239
`1240
`
`1241
`1242
`1243
`
`1244
`
`1245
`
`1246
`
`1247
`
`1248
`
`1249
`
`
`Date
`Jan. 1998
`
`Description
`Yamaguchi article: Toyota Prius,
`Automotive
`Engineering
`International
`60/100,095 Provisional Application Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`Feb. 29, 2012
`
`Oct. 9, 1996
`Feb. 27 1997
`Dec. 1989
`
`n/a
`
`Amendment in File History of U.S.
`Patent 8,214,097
`U.S. Patent No. 6,098,733
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,042
`Surface Vehicle Recommended
`Practice
`PCT Publication No. WO93/23263 Nov. 25, 1993
`Curriculum Vitae of Gregory Davis n/a
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`April 30, 2015-
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00884
`May 1, 2015
`Exhibit
`12
`from Deposition
`n/a
`Transcript of Neil Hannemann
`Exhibit
`9
`from Deposition
`Transcript of Neil Hannemann
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00571
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00875
`Reply Declaration of Gregory
`Davis
`U.S. Patent No. 5,285,862
`
`
`April 7, 2015
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`n/a
`
`
`
`Identifier
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`884 Dep
`
`
`
`
`
`571 Dep
`
`875 Dep
`
`Davis Reply
`
`‘862 Patent
`
`
`PAGE 4 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Gregory Davis, hereby declare as follows:
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`1.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration on June 5, 2014 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 confirm that the statements regarding my qualifications, experience and
`
`knowledge provided in my Initial Declaration are true and accurate. I also confirm
`
`that the opinions stated in my Initial Declaration are based on my personal
`
`qualifications, and my experience and knowledge in the automotive field, including my
`
`teaching, research, and development experience in the hybrid electric vehicle field.
`
`(Ex. 1215 at ¶¶ 5-37, Ex. 1242, curriculum vitae of Dr. Gregory Davis.) I have applied
`
`those same qualifications to this Reply Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I confirm that the documents cited and used within my Initial
`
`Declaration and Reply Declaration are true and accurate copies. I also confirm that
`
`the opinions stated in my Initial Declaration and Reply Declaration are based in part
`
`on these cited documents, as well as all other cited exhibits.
`
`4. My Initial and Reply Declaration is based, in part, on my review of prior
`
`art references referred to as “Caraceni” (Ex. 1203), “Tabata ‘201” (Ex. 1204) and
`
`“Tabata ‘541” (see Ex. 1215 ¶¶175-198.)
`
`5.
`
`I am providing this Reply Declaration in response to arguments
`
`presented by the Patent Owner.
`
`
`PAGE 5 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`II. The ’347 Patent would have been obvious in view of Caraceni
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`A.
`
`Caraceni’s “hybrid mode” discloses a “setpoint” that
`determines when to “start and operate” the engine, as
`recited by claim [1.6]
`
`6.
`
`It my understanding that I used the word “inherent” in my original
`
`declaration. (see Ex. 1215 at ¶275.) It is also my understanding that depending on the
`
`usage, the word “inherent” may have a special legal meaning in the context of patent
`
`law. I did not intend, nor did I use the word “inherent” according to any legal
`
`connotation it may have in the context of patent law. Instead, I intended to use the
`
`word “inherent” according to its more commonly understood non-legal meaning, for
`
`example that an attribute simply may exist or be obvious within a disclosed device.
`
`7.
`
`I also understand that in my deposition regarding this Petition, opposing
`
`counsel questioned me about my understanding of the “doctrine of inherency.” It is
`
`now my understanding that opposing counsel asked me about the “doctrine of
`
`inherency” because of my usage of the word “inherent” within my Initial Declaration.
`
`However, as my answer illustrates I did not believe I had examined this doctrine when
`
`presenting my original opinions. My answer also illustrates that I am not fully aware of
`
`how this legal doctrine should be applied in the context of patent law.
`
`Q And what's your understanding of the doctrine of inherency?
`
`A
`
`I don't know if I had that disclosed in mine. Again, I'm not a
`
`patent attorney. But I think "inherency" means that if something -- if
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would know that something must be there
`
`
`PAGE 6 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`in order for it to function, maybe, in the claimed way, that it would be
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`inherently there.
`
`(Ex. 2212 at 153:14-22)
`
`8. When I used the word “inherent,” I was referring to Fig. 9 and
`
`explaining the torque “setpoint” I annotated as a dashed green line. Caraceni discloses
`
`that below this “setpoint,” the engine is not started and operated (time period 1) and
`
`the electric motor is used to propel the vehicle. And below this “setpoint” if the engine
`
`were operating, the engine would operate inefficient (i.e. have a high specific fuel
`
`consumption value). It is due to this inefficiency that Caraceni teaches that the engine
`
`is not operated in region 1. Caraceni then illustrates that when the torque required to
`
`be produced by the engine exceeds a predetermined torque value where engine torque
`
`can be operated more efficiently (i.e. engine operation would be at a lower specific fuel
`
`consumption), the engine is started and begins operating to provide torque to propel
`
`the vehicle. This is illustrated by the transition from region 1 to region 2.
`
`
`PAGE 7 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`Ex. 1203, Caraceni, Fig. 9 (annotated)
`
`
`
`9.
`
`As I discussed in my deposition, an engine performance map (e.g. engine
`
`torque map) could be used in order to determine when the engine may or may not
`
`operate efficiently. This engine performance map could be stored as calibration data
`
`within a vehicle controller and could be used for determining torque values where the
`
`engine should not be operated (e.g. region 1) from torque values where the engine
`
`could be operated (e.g. regions 2, 3, 4.)
`
`Q
`
`So is it possible, based on the exposure of Figure 1, that the
`
`setpoint is actually a specific fuel consumption setpoint?
`
`A
`
`But you don't know when you're achieving good brake specific
`
`fuel consumption unless you -- that's typically plotted on a torque map.
`
`So you would be using the driver torque request, or the torque required
`
`
`PAGE 8 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`to produce, as your indicator where you are on the specific fuel
`
`consumption map so you know whether you're operating efficiently.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`(Ex. 2212 at 94:4-15)
`
`Q
`
` Well, could another design choice be to use a power setpoint to
`
`change between motor mode and --
`
`A
`
`Yes. That could be another design choice. But, again, I don't think
`
`that's the point here because they're talking about the driver torque
`
`request, the torque provided by the thermal engine, the torque provided
`
`by the electric motor, as well. So they're showing a torque map here.
`
`Q
`
`So it's possible, but someone of skill in the art, in your opinion,
`
`wouldn't understand Figure 9 to disclose that?
`
`A Figure 9 to me, because they're specifically disclosing torque and
`
`throughout the document, they're talking about torque levels:
`
`"Furthermore, when the vehicle operates with light loads" -- which
`
`would be a light torque -- "it is convenient to use electric power instead
`
`of a thermal one because of the high specific fuel consumption of
`
`the gasoline engine."
`
`Q Well, light load doesn't always mean light torque, does it?
`
`A Load can be used somewhat generically to mean a torque or a power
`
`requirement. But that, in light of everything else, leads me to believe
`
`they're using torque.
`
`Q
`
`But fair to say, that disclosure tells you that someone of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand they're using a predetermined torque
`
`value, but it's technically possible they could be using something other
`
`
`PAGE 9 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`than a predetermined torque value, such as a predetermined power
`
`value?
`
`A
`
`You couldn't display that on this type of a graph in that way. This
`
`is, you know, clearly showing -- it's a torque-based graph. So I don't
`
`think you would display that graph in this way if you were using power
`
`mode. It would be a fundamentally different-looking plot.
`
`(Ex. 2212 at 95:5-96:24.)
`
`10.
`
`I also explained in my previous deposition testimony that “specific fuel
`
`consumption” is “the rate you’re consuming fuel divided by the power that’s being
`
`produced by the engine.” (Ex. 2212 at 93:2-8.) And high “specific fuel consumption”
`
`is where the engine when operated would be running generally at a lower efficiency.
`
`Q. What is "specific fuel consumption"?
`
`A. That's shorthand for brake-specific fuel consumption, which is the
`
`rate you're consuming fuel divided by the power that's being produced
`
`by the engine. So high fuel consumption would be low efficiency; low
`
`fuel consumption is high efficiency.
`
`(Ex. 2212 at 93:2-8.)
`
`11. My deposition opinion was further confirmed by my initial declaration
`
`where I explained how engine performance maps typically plot engine speed versus
`
`torque (or power) to evaluate specific fuel consumption. (See Ex. 1215 at ¶¶108-110).
`
`12.
`
`For instance, I previously explained that engines generally operate
`
`inefficiently and have high specific fuel consumption at the low torque levels that are
`
`
`PAGE 10 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`normally encountered at low vehicle speeds. (See Ex. 1215 at ¶¶108-110.)
`
`13. Also, as I previously explained using Figure 2 of the ’347 Patent, certain
`
`engines cannot operate below a given engine speed. For instance, the minimum
`
`operating range of the engine below does not start until 1,000 RPM. Although this
`
`figure is not discussed in the text of the ’347 Patent, the parent ’672 Patent does
`
`describe this figure. In particular, the ’672 Patent states that “Point H” which I have
`
`highlighted in green is “the most efficient region of operation of the engine” (i.e. the
`
`engine’s “sweet spot”). (Ex. 1233 at 17:16-19, Figure 2).
`
`(Ex. 1233, Fig. 2, annotated)
`
`
`
`14. As I also previously discussed, a September 1988 publication illustrates
`
`an engine performance map showing efficiency curves for a typical gasoline engine.
`
`As shown below with annotations, the optimum engine efficiency, or “sweet spot”
`
`(highlighted in green) is the desired range of conditions in which the engine would
`
`
`PAGE 11 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`provide torque required to propel the vehicle or charge the battery. (Ex. 1228, Figure
`
`1.)
`
`(Ex. 1228 at 3-Fig. 1, annotated)
`
`
`
`15. With reference to the above figure, the 1988 reference states:
`
`Fig. 1 shows a typical efficiency map for a 50 kW ic engine. Also shown
`
`on this diagram is a line corresponding to the road load seen by the engine
`
`when operating in a fixed gear. It is only at high loads that the engine
`
`operates at all efficiently. At low the operating point is well removed
`
`from the high-efficiency (low specific fuel-consumption) area. At a road
`
`load of 10 kW, the engine operates at about 3000 rev/min and is
`
`relatively inefficient. By reducing engine speed relative to the vehicle
`
`speed, through a suitable change in gear ratio, the engine operating point
`
`can be moved up, along the constant power line, towards the high-
`
`efficiency region. As the operating point moves up this constant power
`
`
`PAGE 12 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`line it would, ultimately, reach the optimum engine operating line, the
`
`locus of which links the maximum engine efficiency points at each
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`speed.
`
`(Ex. 1228 at 2.)
`
`16. Again, the exemplary engine performance maps I used in my Initial
`
`Declaration would typically be stored as calibration data within a vehicle controller
`
`(e.g. the Engine Control Unit in Caraceni). The vehicle would use this stored
`
`calibration data for knowing when the engine would produce torque efficiently versus
`
`when the engine would produce torque inefficiently.
`
`17. Therefore, it is my opinion that Caraceni illustrates a torque threshold
`
`that determines when to turn on/off the engine. And based on Caraceni’s repeated
`
`disclosure of “driver torque request,” “required traction torque” and “torque split
`
`strategies,” and a common understanding of engine performance maps using torque,
`
`it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the threshold
`
`illustrated in Fig. 9 would be a torque “setpoint”. This torque “setpoint” would be used
`
`for knowing when the engine should not be used because it would produce a “high
`
`specific fuel consumption” (i.e. region 1) versus when the engine should be started
`
`and operated because it would be operating at a lower specific fuel consumption (i.e.
`
`regions 2-4).
`
`B.
`
`Caraceni discloses the “torque required to propel the
`vehicle, as recited in claim [1.6] and “road load”, as recited
`in claim 7
`
`
`PAGE 13 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`18. Mr. Hannemann states:
`
`In the quoted passage, Caraceni discloses that the pedal position is used
`
`to set the “required traction torque,” which is then “splitted (in hybrid
`
`mode) between the engine and the motor as a function of vehicle
`
`operating condition and battery state of charge.” See Ex. 1203 at 6. In
`
`my opinion, a person of skill in the art would understand that the
`
`“required traction torque” set by the “accelerator pedal position” does
`
`not disclose or suggest “the amount of instantaneous torque required to
`
`propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative,” at least because the
`
`“required traction torque” would be understood to be simply the throttle
`
`valve position.
`
` (Hanneman Dec. at ¶88.)
`
`19.
`
`It is my opinion that “required traction torque” is synonymous with the
`
`“torque required to propel the vehicle.” And I disagree with Mr. Hannemann that the
`
`“required traction toque’ would be understood to be simply the throttle valve
`
`position.
`
`20.
`
`First, I disagree because it appears Mr. Hannemann is describing a
`
`conventional vehicle having only an engine (i.e. does not include a traction-motor).
`
`Mr. Hannemann does not describe how using engine throttle position can relate to
`
`controlling a hybrid vehicle that includes a tractive motor that can be operated alone
`
`or in combination with the engine. For instance, the pedal position cannot set only
`
`the engine throttle position because it would not correlate to the times when the
`
`motor is operated. So Figure 9 cannot be based on engine throttle position because in
`
`
`PAGE 14 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`region 1 where the motor alone is used to propel the vehicle, engine throttle position
`
`would not indicate how much torque the electric motor should produce.
`
`21. Also, the hybrid vehicle in Caraceni includes two tractive-power sources,
`
`an engine and a motor. In a hybrid vehicle, the driver’s torque request via the pedal
`
`sets the torque demand to both the motor and the engine, not just the throttle valve
`
`connected to the engine. Caraceni uses the accelerator pedal at least in part to set the
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle. The vehicle controller then determines how to
`
`split the amount of torque that is required from the engine and motor, respectively, to
`
`meet the driver torque request. Caraceni discloses that only after the portion of
`
`torque required by the engine is determined does the controller set the throttle
`
`position for the engine.
`
`Parameters from engine and vehicle ECU, are exchanged through CAN
`
`protocol. The driver, through the accelerator pedal position, sets the
`
`required traction torque; this is then splitted (in hybrid mode)
`
`between the engine and the motor as a function of vehicle operating
`
`condition and battery state of charge to optimize fuel economy, emission
`
`and drivability. The electric torque request is then actuated through the
`
`inverter. The thermal engine torque request is supplied to the
`
`engine control unit that set the throttle angle accordingly.
`
`(Ex. 1203 at 6, emphasis added.)
`
`22. Therefore, Caraceni confirms that the “required traction torque”
`
`illustrated by Figure 9 is not simply a direct correlation to the “engine’s throttle
`
`
`PAGE 15 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`position.” Instead, the “required traction torque” is the “the instantaneous torque
`
`required to propel the vehicle.” And the “required traction torque” is determined by
`
`Caraceni’s controller for setting how much torque should be provided by the motor
`
`and engine to propel the vehicle.
`
`C.
`
`Caraceni discloses a “recharge mode” as recited by
`limitation [1.6]
`
`23.
`
`I understand that Paice and Mr. Hanneman argue that “recharge mode”
`
`is “manually selected by the driver.” (Ex. 2215 at 100.) But it would be obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art that Caraceni discloses automatic mode switching
`
`when the vehicle is in “hybrid mode.” The Multipla Vehicle in Caraceni allows the
`
`driver to manually operate the vehicle as 1) an electric-vehicle by selecting “electric
`
`mode;” 2) a conventional-vehicle by selecting or “economy mode;” or 3) as a hybrid-
`
`vehicle by selecting “hybrid mode.” The Multipla Vehicle also offers a selectable
`
`“recharge mode” that would allow the driver to selectively charge the battery with the
`
`engine.
`
`24.
`
`If the driver selected that “hybrid mode,” it is my opinion that Caraceni
`
`would have automatically switched to “recharge mode” if the battery state-of-charge
`
`began to drop. For instance, Caraceni discloses the following sententce:
`
`The powertrain management controls takes care of not discharging the
`
`battery below a certain threshold; if the threshold is reached the system
`
`does not allow the use of electric motor automatically switching in
`
`economy mode.
`
`
`PAGE 16 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`(Ex. 1203 at 6.)
`
`25. The first portion of this sentence informs that the controller will work to
`
`ensure that the battery is not discharged below a certain threshold. And as the
`
`remainder of the sentence states, if the battery’s state-of-charge falls below the
`
`threshold the vehicle enters the “thermal mode.” Reading this sentence it is clear that
`
`the system will first try to recharge the batteries by entering the “recharge mode.” And
`
`if recharge mode did not substantially provide the charge needed, or the battery state-
`
`of-charge was to substantial (i.e. below the threshold), the vehicle would transition to
`
`operating by engine alone (thermal mode). In other words, the automatic transition to
`
`“thermal mode” is a fail-safe in case the battery cannot be recharged. This was an
`
`obvious implementation in hybrid strategies because the ultimate goal was to ensure
`
`the vehicle was drivable.
`
`26. Also, since the engine provides the vehicle propulsion and battery
`
`charging in “recharge mode,” it would be obvious that the engine is started for this
`
`mode. The controller disclosed by Caraceni (i.e. “Vehicle Management Unit (VMU”
`
`and/or “Engine Control Unit”) would start the engine, if it wasn’t already running.
`
`The controller would provide a start signal to the engine starter if the driver manually
`
`selects the “recharge mode” or if “recharge mode” is automatically initiated because
`
`the battery state-of-charge starts to drop, for example.
`
`27.
`
`Finally, it is my understanding that the claim appears to require only that
`
`the controller start the engine, not automatically switch modes. Caraceni’s controller
`
`
`PAGE 17 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`would start the engine for operation in “recharge mode,” whether the signal was from
`
`a manual or automatic signal to switch to the recharge mode.
`
`D. Caraceni discloses a first electric motor that can accept
`current from a battery
`
`28.
`
`I understand the Patent Owner cited “The Development and
`
`Performance of the AMPhibian Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” SAE Technical Paper Series
`
`940337 (“AMPhibian Paper”, Ex. 2214). The AMPhibian Paper was published in
`
`1994.
`
`29. Exhibit 2214 submitted by Paice is simply an updated re-publication of
`
`the paper included within Exhibit 1216 that I provided within my initial declaration.
`
`(Ex. 1216 at 6; Ex. 2214 at 1.) Exhibit 1216 was a compilation of papers from the
`
`1993 collegiate hybrid vehicle challenge. (Ex. 1216 at 2.) As discussed more fully in
`
`Ex. 1216, this collegiate challenge included university teams from across the nation
`
`that designed, built, tested and then competed against other schools. (Ex. 1216 at 2.)
`
`30. Exhibit 2214 submitted by Paice lists myself and two of my colleagues at
`
`the U.S. Naval Academy, LT. Gary Hodges (USN) and CAPT. Frank Madeka (USAF)
`
`as authors. Exhibit 1216 was the original publication and also lists the students who
`
`worked on this project as authors. Exhibit 2214/1216 is based on the student’s
`
`research and participation in the 1993 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge, for which I
`
`was the faculty advisor. (Ex. 1216 at 6.) The paper discusses the student-designed
`
`hybrid electric vehicle, the AMPhibian.
`
`
`PAGE 18 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`For the design that I was involved with for the U.S. Naval Academy, we
`
`31.
`
`were provided with a conventional 1993 Ford Escort vehicle which we converted to a
`
`hybrid vehicle. (Ex. 1216 at 4.) Exhibit 1216 shows the full results of our converted
`
`vehicles against other university teams that also converted a 1993 Ford Escort into a
`
`hybrid vehicle. (Ex. 1216 at 4.)
`
`32. Because the team I was involved with was involved in the conversion
`
`challenge (as opposed to the ground-up challenge) space was limited by the 5-door
`
`Escort LX vehicle that we were provided. (Ex. 2214 at 4.)
`
`33. The AMPhibian was a series hybrid vehicle that employed a 12-volt
`
`system that included a starter motor. (Ex. 1216 at 7; Ex. 2214 at 6.) The 12V system
`
`was connected to the high voltage battery stack via a DC-DC converter.
`
`34. At the time of the AMPhibian Paper, there were several well-known
`
`techniques for providing power to starter motor and 12-volt system in a hybrid
`
`vehicle.
`
` The AMPhibian Paper discussed these different electrical system
`
`configurations.
`
`35. One technique for providing power to a starter motor was to directly
`
`connect the starter motor to one of the batteries in the power stack of batteries
`
`combined together to meet high-voltage requirements of a hybrid vehicle.
`
`One approach for providing power to the 12V system was to utilize the
`
`output of one twelve volt battery from the 120V stack. This approach
`
`has the advantage of simplicity. One disadvantage of this approach is
`
`
`PAGE 19 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`that, using the existing 12V components which are grounded to the
`
`chassis, means that the battery stack is no longer electrically isolated
`
`from the chassis and, thus, the chance of injury in the event of failure is
`
`increased. Another problem, is that, since the batteries are connected in
`
`series, if the battery used for the 12V system fails, the whole battery
`
`stack will become inoperable. The chance of battery failure can be
`
`reduced by inserting a higher amp-hr rated battery into the 120V stack to
`
`compensate for the added use. The disadvantage is that this local change
`
`to the series of batteries imparts an unknown on the primary battery
`
`stack performance (i.e., internal impedance and resistance).
`
`(Ex. 1216 at 7; Ex. 2214 at 6.)
`
`36. Another technique for providing power to a starter motor was a
`
`DC/DC converter.
`
`A DC/DC converter, powered by the 120V stack, could be used to meet
`
`all of the 12V demand. However, this converter must meet the peak 12V
`
`load, which is estimated to be 210 amps during starting of the APU. This
`
`option was rejected due to the heavy weight and size of this converter. A
`
`DC/DC converter, sized to handle the sustained accessory loads under
`
`moderate to heavy use, was incorporated in parallel with a small I2V
`
`battery, sized to accommodate the APU starting loads. This design saves
`
`both space and weight. The estimated sustained load encountered during
`
`moderate to heavy accessory use is 20A. However, a 30 amp DC/DC
`
`converter was selected to accommodate the future addition of a climate
`
`control system for the passenger compartment. The APU starter requires
`
`a battery rated at 210 cranking amps. The ultra-light Pulsar Racing
`
`Battery, offered by GNB Incorporated, was used since this battery
`
`
`PAGE 20 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`
`weighed only 4.5 kg, or approximately 50% less than other conventional
`
`lead-acid batteries, and provides 220 cranking amps. AMPhibian’s net
`
`12V accessory system, occupies the same volume as the OEM 12V
`
`battery, but weighs approximately 9.5 kg less than the OEM battery
`
`alone.
`
`(Ex. 1216 at 7; Ex. 2214 at 7.)
`
`37. The team also considered converting the 12 Volt components, such as
`
`the starter motor to accept 120 Volts.
`
`38. Again, being a university challenge we were constrained by financial
`
`limitations. Also, our team was involved in the conversion challenge so space and size
`
`of componentry was also a large consideration since the Escort LX vehicle we were
`
`provided was not very large. So many of the design decisions came down to cost and
`
`size.
`
`39. Due to these constraints, the students chose to implement a 12-Volt
`
`battery combined with a DC/DC convertor in order to use power from the high
`
`voltage battery system and the 12-Volt battery to provide starting power for the
`
`engine and provide power to the 12 Volt accessories. This 12-Volt battery was also
`
`connected to the high voltage battery via the DC-DC converter in order to maintain
`
`the 12-Volt battery charge. During engine starting, the high-voltage battery would
`
`provide current to starter motor to supplement the 12-volt battery. The connection
`
`between the high-voltage battery and the 12-volt battery is shown in the electrical
`
`schematic in Fig. 2. (Ex. 2214 at 5.)
`
`
`PAGE 21 OF 40
`
`
`
`FORD 1248
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00884
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR4
`
`40. Any of these alternatives could have been used. Nothing in the
`
`AMPhibian Paper discloses that these alternative methods would be inoperable in a
`
`hybrid vehicle. Further, I did not contradict this fact in my deposition. Also, I was
`
`not given an opportunity to refresh my memory of the AMPhibian Paper during the
`
`deposition. For example, the reason the students did not utilize “the output of one
`
`twelve volt battery from 120 V stack” was because this would have led to rewiring the
`
`entire 12-volt system to prevent the problems identified in the paper. And since this
`
`was a conversion vehicle, rewiring the entire vehicle was not cost effective. Another
`
`alternative discussed in the paper is using a larger DC-DC converter directly between
`
`the high-voltage battery and the starter motor. This alternative eliminated the need
`
`for the 12-volt battery. Since this was a conversion vehicle, the size of the larger DC-
`
`DC converter that was evaluated was too large and couldn’t be packed in the
`
`conversion vehicle. Therefore any of these alternatives could have been implemented
`
`with different packaging/budget constraints. In fact, if we had been part of the
`
`ground-up competition, some of these alternatives would have been preferable.
`
`41.
`
`Since Caraceni does not disclose a separate 12-V battery it is my opinion
`
`that Caraceni could have directly used the output from one of the twelve volt batteries
`
`from the high voltage “traction battery.” Such a configuration would have been
`
`obvious sin
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
