UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`Patent 8,214,097
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2102
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2014-01415
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 2 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 5 
`
`IV.  LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 8 
`
`V.  DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...... 10 
`
`VI.  THE ’097 PATENT ....................................................................................... 11 
`
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED REFERENCES ................................... 22 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Parallel Hybrid Systems and Series Hybrid Systems .......................... 22 
`
`Severinsky ........................................................................................... 25 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Topology ................................................................................... 25 
`
`Control Strategy ........................................................................ 27 
`
`C. 
`
`Anderson ............................................................................................. 34 
`
`D.  Yamaguchi ........................................................................................... 42 
`
`E. 
`
`Takaoka ............................................................................................... 43 
`
`VIII.  ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS .................................................................... 46 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1, 11, and 21 are not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Severinsky and Anderson .......................................... 46 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`combined Severinsky and Anderson ......................................... 46 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson teach away from the
`claimed invention ...................................................................... 51 
`
`Ford’s proposed reasoning for combining the
`references is flawed ................................................................... 55 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`
`4. 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose the “rate
`of increase of output torque of the engine is
`limited” limitations of the challenged claims ........................... 57 
`
`  Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose the
`controller claimed in claims 1, 11, and 21 ................................ 57 
`
`  Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose
`“employing said controller to control the engine
`such that a rate of increase of output torque of the
`engine is limited to less than said inherent
`maximum rate of increase of output torque” ............................ 60 
`
`  Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose
`limiting the rate of increase of engine output
`torque......................................................................................... 63 
`
`  Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose a
`“controlling the engine such that the rate of
`increase of output torque of the engine is limited is
`performed such that combustion of fuel within the
`engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric
`ratio” .......................................................................................... 65 
`
`5. 
`
`Severinsky and Anderson do not disclose a control
`system that uses “road load” or “the torque
`required to operate the hybrid vehicle” to make
`mode switching decisions. ........................................................ 69 
`
`  Differences between “road load” and “the
`torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle” ......................... 70 
`
`  General Critiques of Ford and Dr. Stein’s
`Analysis ..................................................................................... 71 
`
`  Severinsky in view of Anderson does not
`disclose or render obvious the engine mode of
`claims 1, 11, and 21 .................................................................. 80 
`
`  Severinsky in view Anderson does not disclose
`or render obvious the motor mode of claims 1, 11,
`or 21 .......................................................................................... 96 
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`
`  Severinsky in view of Anderson does not
`disclose or render obvious “determining
`instantaneous road load (RL) required to propel the
`hybrid vehicle” .......................................................................... 97 
`
`  Severinsky in view of Anderson Does not
`Disclose or Render Obvious a “setpoint” ................................. 98 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Claims 3, 13, and 23 are not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi ....................100 
`
`Claims 4, 14 and 24 are not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and
`Takaoka .............................................................................................101 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Takaoka does not disclose supplying fuel and air to
`an engine at an air-fuel ratio of no more than 1.2 of
`the stoichiometric ratio for starting the engine .......................101 
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`combine Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi, and
`Takaoka ...................................................................................105 
`
`D. 
`
`Claims 30 and 34 are not obvious over the proposed
`combination of Severinsky and Takaoka ..........................................106 
`
`1. 
`
`Takaoka fails to disclose a “controller” that limits
`engine output torque to maintain stoichiometry .....................106 
`
`  Severinsky does not disclose the limiting that
`rate of change limitations ........................................................107 
`
`  Takaoka discloses an underpowered engine ....................107 
`
`  Takaoka does not limit the rate of change of
`engine output torque to achieve stoichiometry .......................111 
`
`Takaoka at best discloses limiting engine output
`power, not torque ....................................................................113 
`
`Severinsky does not disclose or suggest claim 34 ..................118 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................119 
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`IPR2014-01415, Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (May 29,
`2015)
`
`Patent Owner
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`PAICE Ex. 2103
`
`PAICE Ex. 2104 Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (Mar. 3, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2105 Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (May 29, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2106 Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (Jan. 12, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2107 Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (May 8, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2108 Gregory Davis, Deposition Tr. (Jan. 13, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2109 Gregory Davis, Deposition Tr. (Feb. 25, 2015)
`
`PAICE Ex. 2110 Neil Hannemann CV
`
`PAICE Ex. 2111 McGraw Hill Dictionary Scientific 2003
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`I, Neil Hannemann, hereby declare the following:
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Paice LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation (collectively, “Paice” or “Patent Owner”) to investigate and analyze
`
`certain issues relating to the validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the
`
`’097 patent”) (Ex. 1101).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Petitioner”) in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’097 patent, Case No. IPR2014-01415. I
`
`have reviewed Ford’s petition, along with the declaration of Ford’s expert, Dr.
`
`Jeffrey L. Stein, and the documents cited therein. I have reviewed the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) decision to institute.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following claims
`
`of the ’097 patent (the “challenged claims”): 1–6, 8–16, 18–26, 28–30, and 34.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Ford and Dr. Stein argue that the challenged claims
`
`are invalid as obvious in light of various combinations of the following references:
`
`
`
`“Severinsky” – U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970, titled “Hybrid
`Electric Vehicle” and issued to Alex J. Severinsky on September
`6, 1994 (Ex. 1104)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`“Anderson” – The Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design
`of Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles,
`Catherine Anderson and Erin Pettit, SAE Technical Paper Series,
`February 27 – March 2, 1995 (Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Yamaguchi” – U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263, titled “Hybrid
`Vehicle” and issued to Kozo Yamaguchi, Yoshikazu Yamauchi,
`and Hideki Nakashima on February 2, 1999 (Ex. 1106)
`
`“Takaoka” – “A High-Expansion Ratio Gasoline Engine for the
`Toyota Hybrid System,” Toyota Technical Review, vol. 47, no.
`2, Apr. 1998 (Ex. 1107)
`
`5. My opinions are based on my review of the ’097 patent and each of the
`
`above listed references. Additionally, I have reviewed the documents identified as
`
`exhibits to this declaration, including the deposition transcripts of Dr. Stein and the
`
`prosecution history of the ’097 patent. Finally, my opinions are also based on my
`
`experience and work in the field of automotive engineering (as detailed further
`
`below).
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`6.
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, I disagree with Ford and Dr. Stein that
`
`the challenged claims are obvious in view the proposed combinations of the above
`
`references. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the
`
`references in the manner proposed by Ford. The proposed combinations would not
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`have worked, and the references themselves actually teach away from the proposed
`
`
`
`combinations. Even if the references could somehow be combined, the proposed
`
`combinations do not disclose all of the limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`Therefore, it is my opinion that the challenged claims are not obvious in view of the
`
`various combinations proposed by Ford.
`
`7.
`
`In Ground 1, Ford asserts that independent claims 1, 11, and 21 (and
`
`their respective dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 25, 26, 28 and
`
`29) are obvious over the proposed combination of Severinsky and Anderson. It is
`
`my opinion that claims 1, 11, and 21 are not obvious in view of the proposed
`
`combination of Severinsky and Anderson.1 As an initial matter, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not have combined Severinsky and Anderson in the manner
`
`proposed by Ford. Severinsky and Anderson are directed to very different hybrid
`
`topologies and control strategies. The series hybrid control strategies of Anderson
`
`would not work with the parallel hybrid topology and control strategies of
`
`Severinsky. Severinsky and Anderson also expressly teach away from combining
`
`the references. Even if the references could somehow be combined, the proposed
`
`
`1 For the same reasons, it is also my opinion that the respective dependent claims
`
`are not obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`combination does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, 11, 21 and their
`
`
`
`respective challenged dependent claims.
`
`8.
`
`In Ground 2, Ford asserts that claims 3, 13, and 23 are obvious over the
`
`proposed combination of Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi. It is my opinion
`
`that claims 3, 13, and 23 are not obvious over the proposed combination of
`
`Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not have combined Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi in the manner proposed
`
`by Ford. Severinsky teaches away from heating the engine, and in fact teaches
`
`reducing combustion temperature and operating at a lower temperature to lower
`
`emissions. Even if the references could somehow be combined, the proposed
`
`combination of Severinsky, Anderson and Yamaguchi does not disclose all of the
`
`limitations of claims 3, 13, and 23.
`
`9.
`
`In Ground 3, Ford asserts that claims 4, 14 and 24 are obvious over the
`
`proposed combination of Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Takaoka. It is my
`
`opinion that claims 4, 14 and 24 are not obvious over the proposed combination of
`
`Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Takaoka. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not have combined Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi and Takaoka in the
`
`manner proposed by Ford. Takaoka does not describe a system for limiting the air-
`
`fuel ratio during startup to no more than 1.2 of the stoichiometric ratio. Even if the
`
`references could somehow be combined, the proposed combination of Severinsky,
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`Anderson, Yamaguchi and Takaoka does not disclose all of the limitations of claims
`
`
`
`4, 14 and 24.
`
`10. Ground 4, Ford asserts that claims 30 and 34 are obvious over the
`
`proposed combination of Severinsky and Takaoka. It is my opinion that claims 30
`
`and 34 are not obvious over the proposed combination of Severinsky and Takaoka.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Severinsky and
`
`Takaoka in the manner proposed by Ford. Takaoka does not disclose or suggest a
`
`control system for limiting the rate of engine output torque, but instead teaches
`
`limiting engine torque output with the design of the engine itself. Even if the
`
`references could somehow be combined, the proposed combination of Severinsky
`
`and Takaoka does not disclose all of the limitations of claims 30 and 34.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`11. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2110, and
`
`contains a description of my work history, education, and accomplishments. I am an
`
`automotive engineer with over 25 years of experience in road and race vehicle
`
`engineering and design.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
`
`Automotive option, from the General Motors Institute (now known as Kettering
`
`University) in 1981. My college thesis was entitled “Design of an Emissions
`
`Laboratory”, dated May 15, 1981.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`13.
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`I worked for almost 20 years for Chrysler (then DaimlerChrysler).
`
`
`
`During my assignment as the vehicle development engineer for the Dodge Viper I
`
`was responsible for certain aspects of emissions development and certification. This
`
`included scheduling and monitoring the durability cycle, coordinating emissions
`
`calibration and development. The Dodge Viper utilized a metal monolith catalytic
`
`converter. While a product development engineer at Chrysler, I also performed
`
`calibrations to Engine Control Modules (ECM).
`
`14.
`
`I spent two years as a Chief Engineer at Saleen Inc. While there, I was
`
`responsible for all vehicle design, design analysis and vehicle development. I was
`
`also responsible for emissions certification for all Saleen models. Additionally, I
`
`was responsible for powertrain calibrations. I personally approved every final
`
`calibration that the engineers performed.
`
`15.
`
`I was the Chief Engineer for the Ford GT, initially produced as a 2005
`
`model. In this role, I was responsible for all aspects of the performance of the Ford
`
`GT. This included drafting and approving the plan for all safety and certification
`
`testing, including emissions development and testing. I was also responsible for the
`
`decision on which engine to use for the vehicle. I also was the architect for the main
`
`structure of the vehicle and was responsible for all structural design, analysis, testing
`
`and development.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`16. As Chief Engineer responsible for design, design analysis and
`
`
`
`development for the Ford GT I was involved in the emissions strategy, and the design
`
`of the emissions related components. Ford had yet to utilize a metal monolith
`
`catalytic converter and my experience at Chrysler with the Dodge Viper was a factor
`
`in convincing Ford to use this new (for them) technology.
`
`17.
`
`I worked as an Executive Director of Engineering for McLaren
`
`Automotive. While there, I was responsible for all aspects of engineering and
`
`technical integrity for their current and future products. My focus was on mid-engine
`
`sports cars for Mercedes-Benz, FMVSS 208 compliance for Mercedes-McLaren
`
`SLR and future variants.
`
`18.
`
`I was a Senior Vice President at Aptera Motors, Inc. While at Aptera,
`
`I was involved in the development and testing of regenerative braking calibrations.
`
`I have also done this type of work for other consulting clients. These clients include
`
`those developing hybrid-electric vehicles.
`
`19.
`
` I am a named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,276,693 B2, October 2,
`
`2012, entitled “Powertrain, Vehicle, and Method with Electric Motors and Dual Belt
`
`Drive”, direct to a transaxle.
`
`20.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $525 for each hour of service that
`
`I provide in connection with this matter. This compensation is not contingent upon
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`my performance, upon the outcome of this matter, or upon any issues involved in or
`
`
`
`related to this matter.
`
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`21.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`below, as provided to me by counsel for Patent Owners and as I understand them.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that a
`
`claim is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`an obviousness rejection may be based upon a combination of references. I am
`
`informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. However, I am informed by counsel for the
`
`Patent Owners and understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is
`
`not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`23.
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`
`
`when a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I
`
`am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that identifying a
`
`reason those elements would be combined can be important because inventions in
`
`many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`already known. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that
`
`it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent's claims
`
`should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that an
`
`obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`
`
`non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure
`
`of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that all
`
`prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one of skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made.
`
`27.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owners and understand that in
`
`an inter partes review proceeding, the claims of a patent are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable meaning as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, consistent with the specification of the patent.
`
`V. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`28. Based on my review of the ’097 patent, the documents cited by Ford
`
`and Dr. Stein, and my own knowledge and skill based on my experience in the
`
`automotive industry and with the design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, it is
`
`my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in September of 19982 is a person
`
`
`2 I understand that the ’097 claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’097 patent,
`
`that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`who would have a combination of experience and education in the design and
`
`
`
`development of mechanical systems or control systems, typically a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or similar field
`
`plus at least three years of experience in designing, implementing, testing, teaching,
`
`or otherwise working with automotive systems, control system logic, or a related
`
`field.3
`
`VI. THE ’097 PATENT
`29. The ’097 patent (Ex. 1101), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on July
`
`3, 2012 from an application that claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 14, 1998. The ’097 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with control
`
`methods that are directed to reducing emissions during start, as well as operation of
`
`the hybrid vehicle. Ex. 1101, col. 1:24-32, col. 29:63-30:12. For example, the ’097
`
`patent describes control methods that provide for starting the engine at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The ’097 patent also describes control
`
`methods for limiting the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation of
`
`the hybrid vehicle such that the combustion of fuel occurs at a substantially
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel ratio and using the electric motor to meet any shortfall in
`
`
`3 I note that the differences between the level of skill above and the level of skill
`
`defined by Dr. Stein are minor and do not affect my opinions set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`torque required to operate the vehicle in response to the operator’s command. Id.,
`
`
`
`col. 27:31-35, col. 29:63-30:12, col. 37:2-6, col. 37:39-42, and col. 38:62-39:14.
`
`The methods of control described the ’097 patent result in the reduction of emissions
`
`and improve fuel economy.
`
`30. The ’097 patent discloses embodiments of hybrid vehicles with an
`
`internal combustion engine, at least one electric motor, and a battery coupled to the
`
`electric motor. The internal combustion engine, electric motor, or both the engine
`
`and electric motor, can be used to propel the hybrid vehicle. A microprocessor is
`
`used to control the operation of the components, as well as select different operating
`
`modes based on the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements, the state of charge
`
`of the battery bank, and other variables.
`
`31. An embodiment of the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the ’097 patent is
`
`shown in Figure 3, which is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`32. As shown in Figure 3, a traction motor 25 and an internal combustion
`
`engine 40 (through clutch 51) are mechanically connected with the road wheels 34
`
`through a differential 32. A starter motor 21 is connected to the internal combustion
`
`engine 40. The motors 21 and 25 are functional as either motors or generators,
`
`depending on the operation of the corresponding inverter/charger units 23 and 27,
`
`which connect the motors to the battery bank 22. Id. at 26:13-24.
`
`33. These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48 capable of
`
`examining input parameters and signals and controlling the flow of electrical and
`
`mechanical power between the engine, the electric motor, and the wheels. Id., col.
`
`26:44-27:12. For example, control of engine 40 is accomplished by way of control
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`signals provided by the microprocessor to the electronic fuel injection (EFI) unit 56
`
`
`
`and electronic engine management (EEM) unit 55. Control of (1) starting of the
`
`engine 40; (2) use of motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or (3) use of
`
`motors as generators to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is
`
`accomplished through control signals provided by the microprocessor to the
`
`inverter/charger units 23 and 27. Id., col. 25:46-27:22; 27:59-28:15; 29:8-18.
`
`34.
`
`In conventional engines, a rich air-fuel mixture on the order of 6-7 times
`
`the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is provided during the engine startup process to
`
`ensure that some fraction of the fuel is in the vapor phase, since only fuel in the
`
`vapor phase can be ignited by a spark. See, e.g., id., col. 29:64-67. Most of the
`
`excess fuel condenses as liquid on the cold cylinder walls and is emitted unburned.
`
`See, e.g., id., col. 29:67-30:3. During operation of conventional engines, when the
`
`operator depresses the accelerator pedal, additional fuel is injected into the engine
`
`to meet the operator’s command and thus, may result in a non-stoichiometric and
`
`inefficient combustion. See, e.g., id., col. 39:1-14.
`
`35. By contrast, the control methods disclosed in the ’097 patent allow for
`
`starting the engine at high speeds, creating turbulence in the combustion chamber
`
`that is sufficient to ensure the presence of vapor so that a substantially stoichiometric
`
`air-fuel mixture can be provided to the engine during the startup phase. See, e.g.,
`
`id., col. 30:3-12. The ’097 patent also describes control methods that allow for
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`limiting the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation to reduce
`
`
`
`emissions and using the electric motor to meet any shortfall in torque required to
`
`operate the vehicle. See, e.g., id., col. 37:39-42. An example of the hybrid control
`
`method disclosed by the ’097 patent is illustrated in Figure 7(a) (annotated):
`
`
`
`36. The solid line of the graph in Figure 7(a) depicts the vehicle’s
`
`instantaneous torque requirement (road load), whereas the dashed line of the graph
`
`depicts the engine’s instantaneous output torque. See, e.g., id., col. 37:51-63. As
`
`shown in Figure 7(a) starting at point D, the rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric combustion. See, e.g.,
`
`id., col. 38:62-65. When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet the
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`road load, and thus, the electric motor is used to provide the balance of the torque to
`
`
`
`propel the vehicle (see red cross-hatched annotation in Fig. 7(a)).
`
`37. By contrast, a conventional vehicle does not have an electric motor to
`
`provide additional torque and cannot limit the rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque to maintain stoichiometric combustion. Instead, when the operator depresses
`
`the accelerator pedal, the operator’s command must be met entirely by the engine in
`
`the conventional vehicle, even if this results in a non-stoichiometric and inefficient
`
`combustion when additional fuel is injected into the engine.
`
`38. The claimed inventions of the ’097 patent control the operation of the
`
`engine and electric motor in response to the operator’s command such that
`
`combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`For example, independent claim 30 of the ’097 patent recites a hybrid vehicle
`
`comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`one or more wheels;
`
`an internal combustion engine operable to propel the hybrid vehicle by
`
`providing torque to the one or more wheels, wherein said engine has an
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque;
`
`
`
`at least one electric motor operable to propel the hybrid vehicle by
`
`providing torque to the one or more wheels;
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`a battery coupled to the at least one electric motor, operable to provide
`
`
`
`electrical power to the at least one electric motor; and
`
`
`
`a controller, operable to control the flow of electrical and mechanical
`
`power between the engine, the at least one electric motor, and the one or more
`
`wheels, responsive to an operator command;
`
`
`
`wherein said controller controls said at least one electric motor to
`
`provide additional torque when the amount of torque being provided by said
`
`engine is less than the amount of torque required to operate the vehicle; and
`
`
`
`wherein said controller controls said engine such that a rate of increase
`
`of output torque of said engine is limited to less than said inherent maximum
`
`rate of increase of output torque, and wherein the controller is operable to limit
`
`the rate of change of torque produced by the engine such that combustion of
`
`fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`39. The “stoichiometric” features of the claimed invention are set forth in
`
`the limitations relating to the controller. Claim 30 requires a controller operable to
`
`control the flow of electrical and mechanical power between the engine, the electric
`
`motor, and the wheels, responsive to an operator command. The wherein clauses set
`
`forth how the controller controls both the electric motor and engine in response to
`
`the operator’s command. In particular, the controller controls (1) the electric motor
`
`to provide additional torque when the amount of torque being provided by the engine
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,214,097
`
`Case IPR2014-01415
`
`is less than the amount of torque required to operate the vehicle, and (2) the engine
`
`
`
`such that a rate of increase of the engine’s output torque is limited to less than the
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque, and wherein the controller is
`
`operable to limit the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque such that
`
`combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`40. As discussed above, this is consistent with the specification. Figure
`
`7(a) starting at point D shows that the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque
`
`is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric combustion. See, e.g., id.,
`
`col. 38:62-65. When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet the road
`
`load, and the electric motor provides the balance of the torque to propel the vehicle
`
`(see red cross-hatched annotation in Fig. 7(a)).
`
`41.
`
`I also note that during the prosecution of the ’097 patent, the patentee
`
`explained that while substantially stoichiometric combustion is to be maintained,
`
`“dri