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. 8,214,097 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-01415
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Page 1 of 79
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List .................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`
`Paice’s argument focuses on issues that are beyond the scope of
`this IPR .................................................................................................. 9
`
`B.
`
`
`Disputed claims ...................................................................................11
`
`II.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8–12, 15-16, 18–22, 25-26 and 28-29 are
`obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view of Anderson .....................................12
`
`A.
`
`
`Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21 ........................................................12
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`Anderson discloses “using the electric motor to provide
`additional torque when the rate of increase of engine
`output torque is limited” ...........................................................16
`
`Severinsky ’970 teaches starting and stopping the engine
`based on road load or torque required to operate the
`vehicle .......................................................................................21
`
`[1.3, 11.3 and 21.5] 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, and .......................................26
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Anderson’s hybrid strategy that only allows slow
`transients refers to variables subject to control ..............26
`
`Anderson’s hybrid strategy that only allows slow
`transients refers to slow engine torque transients ...........33
`
`B.
`
`
`Rationale to Combine Severinsky ’970 and Anderson .......................36
`
`1.
`
`
`Anderson does not teach away from using an engine
`control strategy employing slow transients in a parallel
`hybrid system ............................................................................43
`
`a.
`
`Anderson’s control strategies apply to parallel
`HEVs ...............................................................................43
`
`Page 2 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Anderson’s hybrid strategy that allows only slow
`transients would work with a parallel hybrid
`because engine transients occur frequently and are
`unpredictable in a parallel hybrid ...................................45
`
`Anderson’s statement that a parallel hybrid vehicle
`“always uses” the following mode does not teach
`away from employing slow transients in all
`parallel hybrid engine control strategies .........................48
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Severinsky ’970’s HEV mode
`selection strategy
`includes modes
`that
`fall
`somewhere
`between Anderson’s
`extreme
`thermostat and follower modes ......................................49
`
`Anderson provides a roadmap for modifying
`Severinsky ’970’s control strategy to employ
`Anderson’s engine control strategy of only
`allowing slow transients .................................................52
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`Anderson’s statement that “slow transients can be a
`serious problem during a
`transition from a hard
`acceleration to a hard braking” does not teach away from
`slow engine transients ...............................................................55
`
`Severinsky ’970 does not teach away from operating at
`the stoichiometric ratio .............................................................57
`
`III. Ground 2: Claims 3, 13 and 23 are obvious over Severinsky ’970 in
`view of Anderson and further in view of Yamaguchi ...................................59
`
`A.
`
`
`Rationale to combine Yamaguchi with Severinsky ’970 and
`Anderson .............................................................................................60
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of operating the engine at
`lower temperatures is unnecessary when controlling the
`engine to operate at the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio ................60
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of operating
`
`Page 3 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`to reduce NOx
`temperatures
`lower
`the engine at
`emissions does not apply to starting conditions ......................61
`
`IV. Ground 3: Claims 4, 14 and 24 are obvious over Severinsky ’970 in
`view of Anderson, Yamaguchi and further in view of Takaoka ...................62
`
`A.
`
`
`Takaoka’s “entire range” includes starting conditions .......................63
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Paice’s argument reads “cold-start” into the claims ...........................67
`
`Rationale to combine Takaoka with Severinsky ’970, Anderson
`and Yamaguchi ....................................................................................68
`
`V. Ground 4: Claims 30 and 34 are obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view
`of Takaoka .....................................................................................................69
`
`A.
`
`
`Independent claim 30 ..........................................................................69
`
`1.
`
`
`[30.7] 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 ...................................................69
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Takaoka’s control strategy for reducing engine
`load fluctuation is not referring to the design of an
`engine ..............................................................................69
`
`teaching a
`Paice’s characterized Takaoka as
`control strategy during the prosecution of the ’347
`Patent ..............................................................................72
`
`2.
`
`
`[30.8] 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. .............................................73
`
`a.
`
`Takaoka’s control strategy for reducing engine
`load is simply another way of saying that the rate
`of change of engine torque is controlled to
`maintain combustion at a stoichiometric ratio ...............73
`
`Page 4 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`Rationale to combine - Modifying Severinsky ’970 control
`strategies to include Takaoka’s engine control strategies to
`maximize fuel economy and reduce emissions ...................................74
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 does not teach away from operating at
`the stoichiometric ratio .............................................................74
`
`Severinsky ’970 does not teach away from Takaoka’s
`“underpowered” engine ............................................................77
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................79
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1101
`1102
`1103
`
`1104
`1105
`
`1106
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`1112
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Severinsky ’970
`Anderson
`
`Identifier
`Description
`’097 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey L. Stein Stein Decl.
`File History of U.S. Patent No.
`’097 File History
`8,214,097
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
`Catherine Anderson & Erin Pettit,
`The Effects of APU Characteristics
`on the Design of Hybrid Control
`Strategies for Hybrid Electric
`Vehicles, SAE Technical Paper
`950493 (1995)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263
`Toshifumi Takaoka et al., A High-
`Expansion Ratio Gasoline Engine
`for the Toyota Hybrid System,
`Toyota Technical Review Vol. 47,
`No. 2 (April 1998)U.S. Patent No.
`4,707,984
`U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429
`
`John B. Heywood, Internal
`Combustion Engine Fundamentals
`(McGraw-Hill 1988)
`Society of Automotive Engineers
`Special Publication, Technology
`for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,
`SAE SP-1331 (February 1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 913,846
`Michael Duoba, Ctr. for Transp.
`Research, Argonne Nat’l Lab.,
`Challenges for the Vehicle Tester
`in Characterizing Hybrid Electric
`Vehicles, 7th CRC on Road
`Vehicle Emissions Workshop
`(April 1997)
`
`Yamaguchi
`Takaoka
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Heywood
`
`SAE SP-1331
`
`Pieper
`Duoba
`
`Page 6 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1113
`
`1114
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`1123
`1124
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`Description
`Kozo Yamaguchi et al.,
`Development of a New Hybrid
`System — Dual System, SAE
`Technical Paper 960231 (February
`1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,888,325
`U.S. Application No. 11/229,762
`
`
`L. E. Unnewehr et al., Hybrid
`Vehicle for Fuel Economy, SAE
`Technical Paper 760121 (1976)
`Hawley, G.G., The Condensed
`Chemical Dictionary, Van
`Nostrand Reinhold Co., 9th ed.
`(1977)
`Brown, T.L. et al., Chemistry, The
`Central Science, Third Edition
`(1985)
`Grunde T. Engh & Stephen
`Wallman, Development of the
`Volvo Lambda-Sond System, SAE
`Technical Paper 770295 (1977)
`Claim Construction Order (Paice,
`LLC v. Toyota, Case No. 2:07-cv-
`180)
`A. G. Stefanopoulou et al., Engine
`Air-Fuel Ratio and Torque Control
`using Secondary Throttles,
`Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE
`Conference on Decision and
`Control (December 1994)
`General Electric Company, Corp.
`Research & Dev., Near-Term
`Hybrid Vehicle Program, Final
`Report - Phase 1 (October 1979)
`U.S. Application No. 13/065,704
`Paice, LLC v. Hyundai Claim
`Construction Order (Case No.
`
`Identifier
`Yamaguchi Paper
`
`Reinbeck
`’762 Application
`
`Unnewehr
`
`The Condensed Chemical
`Dictionary
`
`Brown
`
`Engh
`
`Toyota Litigation
`
`Stefanopoulou
`
`GE Final Report
`
`’704 Application
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`Page 7 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1125
`1126
`
`1127
`
`1128
`
`1129
`1130
`
`1131
`
`1132
`
`1133
`
`1134
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`’347 Patent
`’347 File History
`
`Johnson Declaration
`
`Description
`WDQ-12-0499)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`File History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,104,347
`Declaration of Walt Johnson,
`Librarian at Patent and Trademark
`Resource Center (PTRC),
`Minneapolis Central Library
`Email correspondence between
`Petitioner and Board
`Reply Decl. of Dr. Jeffrey L. Stein Reply Decl.
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition
`Hn Tr.
`Transcript (IPR2014-01415,
`September 4, 2015)
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition
`Transcript (IPR2014-00570, April
`8, 2015)
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition
`Transcript (IPR2014 – 00571,
`April 7, 2015)
`Oral Hearing Transcript (July 1,
`2015)
`Bosch Automotive Handbook
`(Oct. 1996)
`
`
`
`Email
`
`Hn Tr. 2
`
`Hn Tr. 3
`
`OH Tr.
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Page 8 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`1. My name is Jeffrey L. Stein. I provided my background, qualifications
`
`and opinions pertaining to a Petition for Inter Partes Review, Case No. IPR2014-
`
`01415, of certain claims of U.S. 8,214,097 (“the ’097 Patent,” Ex. 1101) in a
`
`Declaration that was filed on August 31, 2014. (“Stein Decl.,” “First Declaration,”
`
`Ex. 1102.)
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by Ford to provide this Second Declaration in
`
`support of Ford’s reply to Paice’s response (“Reply Decl.,” Ex. 1129) regarding
`
`certain factual issues raised in IPR2014-01415.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Paice in their Patent Owner Response, along with
`
`the declaration of Paice’s expert, Mr. Hannemann (“Hn Decl.,” Ex. 2102). I have
`
`also analyzed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute.
`
`(“Decision,” IPR2014-01415, Paper 10.)
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed my first declaration (Stein Decl., Ex. 1102), the
`
`exhibits cited in my declaration and the transcript of my deposition for this IPR,
`
`IPR2015-01415. (“Stein Tr.,” Ex. 2004.)
`
`
`A.
`
`5.
`
`Paice’s argument focuses on issues that are beyond the scope of
`this IPR
`
`I understand that the IPR rules limit the scope of my deposition for
`
`this IPR, to issues raised in my first declaration. During my deposition for this IPR,
`
`Page 9 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`
`Paice’s Attorney repeatedly read a sentence from a document and asked me if I
`
`agreed with the sentence, without providing any context. (See e.g., Stein Tr. Ex.
`
`2103, 58:25-59:3; 86:14-87:16.) I would then ask questions for clarification and/or
`
`ask Paice’s Attorney to let me see the document that they were reading from. (Id.)
`
`6.
`
`For example, Paice’s attorney repeatedly read from one such
`
`document and asked me if I agreed “that Severinsky '970 discloses a motor
`
`operation mode that is based both on the vehicle's speed and torque requirements?”
`
`(See e.g., Stein Tr. Ex. 2103 at 58:25-59:3.) I asked Paice’s attorney for
`
`clarification for a few minutes. (See e.g., Stein Tr. Ex. 2103 at 58:25-62:8.)
`
`Afterwards, I described Severinsky ’970’s hysteresis control sequence. (Stein Tr.,
`
`Ex. 2103 at 62:8-64:19.)
`
`7.
`
`Paice attempts to attack my credibility by rewriting their ambiguous
`
`question from “do you agree that Severinsky '970 discloses a motor operation
`
`mode that is based both on the vehicle's speed and torque requirements?” to one
`
`limited to speed:
`
`Similarly, when asked whether Severinsky disclosed a motor
`
`operation mode based on speed, Dr. Stein first argued the mode was
`
`based on torque, then pointed to the “hysteresis” disclosure at col.
`
`18:34-42 of Severinsky as evidence of switching based on speed, then
`
`reversed course and argued that it was “mentioning speed ranges in
`
`the context of a patent, which is all about torque control,” then finally
`
`Page 10 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`agreed that the “hysteresis” disclosure did not even use the word
`
`“torque.” See Ex. 2103, Stein Tr. at 62:1-66:11. Dr. Stein’s analysis is
`
`riddled with hindsight bias, which is perhaps best captured by his
`
`reading “torque” into every mention of “speed,” contrary to the plain
`
`language of Severinsky.
`
`(POR at 48-49.)
`
`8.
`
`Similarly, in a deposition for a related IPR, Paice asked me questions
`
`about a paper I co-authored in 2006, without providing the paper to me. (See POR
`
`at 49.) Thus, Paice’s tactic of asking me if I agree with a statement without
`
`supporting context is difficult to answer, especially when the statement is outside
`
`the scope of my declaration.
`
` Disputed claims
`B.
`
`9.
`
`Paice did not argue all claim limitations. I understand that Paice
`
`argued claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24, 30 and 34 and the rationale to combine
`
`for Grounds 1-4 in their Response. Additionally, I was not asked to give an
`
`additional opinion on some of Paice’s new arguments. For all claim limitations not
`
`analyzed in this declaration, I refer to the analysis in my First Declaration (Stein
`
`Decl., Ex. 1102.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`II. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8–12, 15-16, 18–22, 25-26 and 28-29 are
`obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view of Anderson
`
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 11 and 21
`
`10. The limitations of claims 1, 11 and 21 have been parsed and given a
`
`unique numerical identifier:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`[1.0] A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle, [a] said vehicle comprising a
`
`battery, a controller, wheels, an internal combustion engine and at least one electric
`
`motor, [b] wherein both the internal combustion engine and motor are capable of
`
`providing torque to the wheels of said vehicle, and [c] wherein said engine has an
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque, said method comprising the
`
`steps of:
`
`
`
`[1.1] operating the internal combustion engine of the hybrid vehicle to provide
`
`torque to operate the vehicle;
`
`[1.2] operating said at least one electric motor to provide additional torque when
`
`the amount of torque provided by said engine is less than the amount of torque
`
`required to operate the vehicle; and
`
`[1.3] 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, and
`
`[1.4] wherein said step of controlling the engine such that the rate of increase of
`
`output torque of the engine is limited is performed such that combustion of fuel
`
`Page 12 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`
`within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio; and
`
`[1.5] comprising the further steps of: [a] operating said internal combustion engine
`
`to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when the torque required to operate the
`
`hybrid vehicle is between a setpoint SP and a maximum torque output (MTO) of
`
`the engine, [b] wherein the engine is operable to efficiently produce torque above
`
`SP, and [c] wherein SP is substantially less than MTO;
`
`[1.6] operating both the at least one electric motor and the engine to provide torque
`
`to the hybrid vehicle when the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is
`
`more than MTO; and
`
`[1.7] operating the at least one electric motor to provide torque to the hybrid
`
`vehicle when the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is less than SP.
`
`[11.0] A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle, [a] said vehicle comprising a
`
`battery, a controller, wheels, an internal combustion engine and at least one electric
`
`motor, [b] wherein both the internal combustion engine and motor are capable of
`
`providing torque to the wheels of said vehicle, and [c] wherein said engine has an
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque, said method comprising the
`
`steps of:
`
`[11.1] operating the internal combustion engine of the hybrid vehicle to provide
`
`torque to operate the vehicle;
`
`[11.2] operating 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
`
`[11.3] employing said controller to control the engine such that a rate of increase
`
`Page 13 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`
`of output torque of the engine is limited to less than said inherent maximum rate of
`
`increase of output torque, and
`
`[11.4] such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially
`
`stoichiometric ratio; and
`
`[11.5] comprising the further steps of: [a] operating said internal combustion
`
`engine to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when the torque required to operate
`
`the hybrid vehicle is between a setpoint SP and a maximum torque output (MTO)
`
`of the engine, [b] wherein the engine is operable to efficiently produce torque
`
`above SP, and [c] wherein SP is substantially less than MTO;
`
`[11.6] operating both the at least one electric motor and the engine to provide
`
`torque to the hybrid vehicle when the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle
`
`is more than MTO; and
`
`[11.7] operating the at least one electric motor to provide torque to the hybrid
`
`vehicle when the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is less than SP.
`
`[21.0] A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle,
`
`[21.0][a] said vehicle comprising a battery, a controller, wheels, an internal
`
`combustion engine and at least one electric motor,
`
`[21.0][b] wherein both the internal combustion engine and motor are capable of
`
`providing torque to the wheels of said vehicle, and
`
`[21.0][c] wherein said engine has an inherent maximum rate of increase of output
`
`torque, comprising the steps of:
`
`[21.1] determining instantaneous road load (RL) required to propel the hybrid
`
`Page 14 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`vehicle;
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`[21.2] operating at least one electric motor to propel the hybrid vehicle when RL is
`
`less than a setpoint (SP);
`
`[21.3][a] operating an internal combustion engine of the hybrid vehicle to propel
`
`the hybrid vehicle when RL is between SP and a maximum torque output (MTO)
`
`of the engine,
`
`[21.3][b] wherein the engine is operable to efficiently produce torque above SP,
`
`and
`
`[21.3][c] wherein SP is substantially less than MTO;
`
`[21.4] operating both the at least one electric motor and the engine to propel the
`
`hybrid vehicle when RL is more than MTO; and
`
`[21.5] 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, and,
`
`[21.6] if the engine is incapable of supplying instantaneous torque required to
`
`propel the hybrid vehicle, supplying additional torque from the at least one electric
`
`motor, and
`
`[21.7] wherein said step of controlling the engine such that the rate of change of
`
`output torque of the engine is limited is performed such that combustion of fuel
`
`within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio; and
`
`[21.8] operating the engine to charge the battery responsive to the state of charge
`
`Page 15 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`of the battery,
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`[21.9][a] wherein the engine is operable to provide torque at least equal to SP to
`
`propel the hybrid vehicle, to drive the at least one electric motor to charge the
`
`battery, or both, and
`
`[21.9][b] wherein torque produced by the engine equal to RL is used to propel the
`
`hybrid vehicle, and torque produced by the engine in excess of RL is used to drive
`
`the at least one electric motor to charge the battery.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Anderson discloses “using the electric motor to provide
`additional torque when the rate of increase of engine output
`torque is limited”
`
`11. Paice argues that claims 1, 11 and 21 require the following limitation:
`
`“using the electric motor to provide additional torque when the rate of increase of
`
`engine output torque is limited.” (POR at 44, emphasis added.) Mr. Hannemann
`
`states “[t]here is also no teaching in Severinsky and Anderson of using the electric
`
`motor to provide additional torque when the rate of increase of engine output
`
`torque is limited.” (PAICE 2102 at ¶106, emphasis added.) This argument links
`
`limitations [1.2] with [1.3], [11.2] with [11.3] and [21.5] with [21.6]:
`
`12. However, the claim limitations are not linked by the word “when”:
`
`[1.2] operating said at least one electric motor to provide additional
`
`torque when the amount of torque provided by said engine is less than
`
`the amount of torque required to operate the vehicle; and
`
`Page 16 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`[1.3] 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, and
`
`* * *
`
`[11.2] operating 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
`
`[11.3] 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, and
`
`* * *
`
`[21.5] 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, and,
`
`[21.6] if the engine is incapable of supplying instantaneous torque
`
`required to propel the hybrid vehicle, supplying additional torque
`
`from the at least one electric motor, and
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`13. Mr. Hannemann stated during his deposition that the word “and” at
`
`the end of limitation [1.2] links limitations [1.2] and [1.3] such that the limitations
`
`must occur at the same time; and the word “and” at the end of limitation [11.2]
`
`Page 17 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`
`links limitations [11.2] and [11.3] such that they must occur at the same time. (Hn
`
`Tr. Ex. 1130 at 14:20-17:20; 17:8-19:6.) Mr. Hannemann also stated that
`
`limitations [21.5] and [21.6] are linked such that they occur at the same time. (Hn
`
`Tr. Ex. 1130 at 19:7-20:3.)
`
`14.
`
`I cannot find the limitation “using the electric motor to provide
`
`additional torque when the rate of increase of engine output torque is limited” in
`
`claims 1, 11 or 21 of the ’097 Patent, therefore I did not analyze it in my First
`
`Declaration.
`
`15. Regardless, in the state of the art section of my First Declaration
`
`regarding HEV controls, I did explain how Anderson teaches using the electric
`
`motor to provide additional torque while (when) the rate of increase of engine
`
`output torque is limited to reduce transient emissions:
`
`84. However, an HEV can reduce the transient emissions problem
`
`by supplementing the engine output torque with torque from another
`
`power source, namely an electric motor. The HEV can control the
`
`engine operation to only allow slow engine transients by limiting the
`
`rate of change of engine torque, while controlling the electric motor to
`
`provide supplementary torque to meet the current vehicle torque and
`
`power requirements:
`
`Some of
`
`this effect
`
`[emissions during
`
`transient
`
`conditions] can be reduced using a hybrid strategy that
`
`Page 18 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`only allows slow [engine] transients, but this places
`
`greater strain on the LLD [the battery].
`
`(Anderson, Ex. 1105 at 7, emphasis added.)
`
`A
`
`battery
`
`can
`
`change
`
`power
`
`levels
`
`almost
`
`instantaneously, unlike the APU [engine] which is
`
`limited by its mechanical inertia. When the APU [engine]
`
`cannot respond quickly enough to fluctuations in power
`
`demand, the battery must make up the difference. The
`
`battery must be able to sustain output at a peak power
`
`during these transients until the APUs [engine’s] power
`
`output reaches the commanded power.
`
`(Anderson, Ex. 1105 at 6.)
`
`For example, a generic [HEV control] strategy may begin
`
`with a focus on fuel economy. A basic strategy would
`
`drive the APU at a constant peak efficiency power level
`
`(based on the first APU efficiency estimates), similar to
`
`the
`
`thermostat APU scheme discussed previously.
`
`Bringing in aspects of battery life would push the turn
`
`down ratio up (using an approximation of the engine
`
`sweet spot) until a suitable balance point between life and
`
`fuel efficiency appears, incorporating
`
`their relative
`
`importance. Emissions characteristics may
`
`then be
`
`included by slowing down the engine transient response
`
`time. The balance between the first two factors (fuel
`
`Page 19 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`efficiency and battery life) must then be re-adjusted,
`
`resulting in a three way balance that enforces the order of
`
`priority of characteristics. This process will continue
`
`until all optimization characteristics are included, in
`
`order of their importance.
`
`(Anderson, Ex. 1105 at 8, emphasis added.)
`
`(Stein Decl., Ex. 1102, ¶84, emphasis added.)
`
`16. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Anderson’s statements: “[s]ome of this effect can be reduced using a hybrid
`
`strategy that only allows slow transients, but this places greater strain on the LLD,”
`
`and “[e]missions characteristics may then be included by slowing down the engine
`
`transient response time” simply mean that a parallel HEV can reduce the transient
`
`emissions problem by supplementing the engine output torque with torque from
`
`another power source, namely an electric motor which receives electric power
`
`from the battery. (See e.g., Stein Decl., Ex. 1102, ¶¶81-85, 153-156.) A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would also have understood that the HEV can control the
`
`engine operation to only allow slow engine transients (i.e., limit the rate of increase
`
`of engine torque), while controlling the electric motor to provide additional torque
`
`to meet the current vehicle torque and power requirements, but this will strain the
`
`battery by cycling it more often than it would otherwise.
`
`Page 20 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Thus, Anderson discloses “using the electric motor to provide
`
`additional torque when the rate of increase of engine output torque is limited.”
`
`
`2.
`
`Severinsky ’970 teaches starting and stopping the engine
`based on road load or torque required to operate the vehicle
`
`18. Paice argues that claim limitations [1.5], [1.7], [11.5], [11.7] [21.2]
`
`and [21.3] require the fundamental concept of starting and stopping the engine
`
`based on road load or torque required to operate the vehicle: “[t]hese claims
`
`require that the system start and stop the engine based on road load or torque
`
`required to operate the vehicle, and this fundamental concept is simply not shown
`
`in Severinsky [’970].” (POR at 21, emphasis added.) Mr. Hannemann states:
`
`162. I understand that Ford alleges that claims 1, 11, and 21 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view the proposed combination
`
`of Severinsky and Anderson. Claims 1, 11, and 21 require, among
`
`other things, a mode of operation in which the engine propels the
`
`vehicle:
`
`Claim 1 [1.5]: “operating said internal combustion engine
`
`to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when the torque
`
`required to operate the hybrid vehicle is between a
`
`setpoint SP and a maximum torque output (MTO) of the
`
`engine, wherein the engine is operable to efficiently
`
`produce torque above SP, and wherein SP is substantially
`
`less than MTO”
`
`Page 21 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`Claim 11 [11.5]: “operating said internal combustion
`
`engine to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when the
`
`torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is between a
`
`setpoint SP and a maximum torque output (MTO) of the
`
`engine, wherein the engine is operable to efficiently
`
`produce torque above SP, and wherein SP is substantially
`
`less than MTO”
`
`Claim 21 [21.3]: “operating an internal combustion
`
`engine of the hybrid vehicle to propel the hybrid vehicle
`
`when RL is between SP and a maximum torque output
`
`(MTO) of the engine, wherein the engine is operable to
`
`efficiently produce torque above SP, and wherein SP is
`
`substantially less than MTO”
`
`163. As I explain above, Severinsky starts and operates the engine
`
`based on the speed of the vehicle and not road load or a torque
`
`demand. Severinsky teaches that the motor alone propels the vehicle
`
`in the “low speed” or “traffic” mode that is employed at low speeds
`
`while the “highway cruising mode” is employed at moderate speeds
`
`(between 35 and 65 mph). As I also explain above, Severinsky plainly
`
`states that it employs the engine based on speed. Ex. 1104 at col. 6:26-
`
`43; 10:52-53; 13:65 – 14:3; 18:34-42. Moreover, Severinsky’s use of
`
`“speed-responsive hysteresis” (Ex. 1104 at 18:40-42) is further
`
`indicative that its control system uses speed not road load to control
`
`engine starts and stops. Severinsky does not once disclose using
`
`Page 22 of 79
`
`
`
`FORD 1129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0110IPR2
`
`
`
`road load to determine when to employ the engine. In fact, Severinsky
`
`does not discl