Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 51 PageID #: 2663
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`2:04-CV-211-DF
`
`
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
` §
`
`PAICE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`CONSTRUING U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,343,970,
`
`6,209,672, & 6,554,088
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 51Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 51 PageID #: 2664
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Background…………………………………………………………………………… 1
`II. The Legal Principles of Claim Construction ……………………………………… 2
`III. The Patents-in-Suit Generally…………………………………………………….. 8
`IV. Claim Construction ……………………………………………………………… 10
`
`A. “torque”………………………………………………………… …………………...13
`B. “drive torque”…………………………………………………… ………………….14
`C. “controllable torque transfer unit” ..…………………………………………………14
`D. “input shafts”……………………………...…………………………………………17
`E. “a controller for controlling the operation of …and for controlling the relative
`contributions of…”..................................................................................................…17
`F. “output member” ......................................…...............................................................18
`G. “controller means” .....................................................................................................19
`H. “operating mode” .......................................................................................................19
`I. “solid state switching means” and “solid state switching means for converting…
`[and means] for rectifying”..........................................................................................21
`J. “means for performing the following functions responsive to input commands and
`monitored operation of said vehicle: selecting an appropriate mode of
`operation…”.......................................................................................................……..23
`K. “low speed running [mode]” .......................................................................................24
`L. “steady state running [mode]”.....................................................................................25
`M. “acceleration or hill climbing [mode]” .......................................................................25
`N. “battery charging [mode]”..........................................................................................26
`O. “braking [mode]” ........................................................................................................27
`P. “engine starting [mode]” ............................................................................................27
`Q. “solid state switching network” .................................................................................28
`R. “clutch” ……………………………………………………………………………..30
`S. “controllable clutch”...................................................................................................33
`T. “directly coupled”.......................................................................................................33
`U. “instantaneous road load,” “road load,” and “RL” .....................................................36
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 51Page 2 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 51 PageID #: 2665
`
`V. “monitoring commands provided by the vehicle operation” ......................................38
`W. “total torque available at the road wheels from said engine” .....................................39
`X. “operating said controller to control selection between a low-speed mode I, a cruising
`mode IV, and an acceleration mode V” ......................................................................39
`Y. “low-speed mode I”.....................................................................................................40
`Z. “cruising mode IV” .....................................................................................................40
`AA.
`“acceleration mode V” ..........................................................................................41
`BB.
`“monitoring the instantaneous torque requirements required for propulsion of the
`vehicle (RL)” ..............................................................................................................42
`CC.
` “operating mode” .................................................................................................42
`DD.
`“at least one traction motor being coupled to road wheels of said vehicle” .........43
`EE. “a controller for controlling operation… and controlling flow” ...............................43
`FF. “configured as a number of batteries connected by normally open switching devices,
`such that said batteries are electrically isolated from one another in the event power is
`cut off from said switching devices” .......................……...........................................44
`GG.
` “instantaneous torque demands” and “RL” …….................................................46
`HH.
`“said microprocessor controls operation… so as to operate said vehicle in a
`selected one of said operating modes in response to the instantaneous torque demands
`(RL) of said vehicle” …...............................................................................................46
`II. “operating mode” ...…….............................................................................................47
`JJ. “said selected operating mode being selected such that said engine is operated only in
`response to a load equal at least to a predetermined value of its maximum torque
`output”............................................................................ ............................................47
`V. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 48
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 51Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 4 of 51 PageID #: 2666
`
`I. Background
`
`Plaintiff Paice LLC (“Paice”) brings this cause of action against Defendants
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North American, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales,
`
`U.S.A., Inc. (“Toyota”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“the ‘970
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672 (“the ‘672 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,554,088
`
`(“the ‘088 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). These patents are entitled
`
`“Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” “Hybrid Vehicle,” and “Hybrid Vehicles,” respectively.
`
`Toyota generally denies any infringement and asserts the affirmative defenses of non-
`
`infringement and invalidity. Additionally, Toyota asserts counterclaims for declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement and of invalidity for the patents-in-suit.
`
`Now before the Court is the claim construction of the respective patents. Paice
`
`filed its claim construction brief on March 8, 2005 (Dkt. No. 21) to which Toyota
`
`responded on March 28, 2005 (Dkt. No. 28). Toyota filed its claim construction brief on
`
`March 9, 2005 (Dkt. No. 22) to which Paice responded on March 29, 2005 (Dkt. No. 27).
`
`The Court conducted a claim construction hearing on April 19, 2005. The parties
`
`provided the Court with copies of slides used during the hearing. Additionally, on May
`
`4, 2005, the parties submitted a letter to the Court restating each party’s proposed claim
`
`construction and reflecting that the parties had reached agreement on several previously
`
`disputed terms. 5/4/05 Letter from N. Patton to the Court (“5/4/05 Letter”); see also
`
`5/13/05 letter from A. Davis to the Court regarding the same (“5/13/05 Letter”). After
`
`considering the patents, the parties’ submissions, arguments of counsel, and all other
`
`relevant pleadings and papers, the Court finds that the claims of the patents-in-suit should
`
`be construed as set forth herein.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 51Page 4 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 5 of 51 PageID #: 2667
`
`II. The Legal Principles of Claim Construction
`
`A determination of patent infringement involves two steps. First, the patent
`
`claims are construed, and, second, the claims are compared to the allegedly infringing
`
`device. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
`
`The legal principles of claim construction were recently reexamined by the
`
`Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`Reversing a summary judgment of non-infringement, an en banc panel specifically
`
`identified the question before it as: “the extent to which [the court] should resort to and
`
`rely on a patent’s specification in seeking to ascertain the proper scope of its claims.” Id.
`
`at 1312. Addressing this question, the Federal Circuit specifically focused on the
`
`confusion that had amassed from its recent decisions on the weight afforded dictionaries
`
`and related extrinsic evidence as compared to intrinsic evidence. Ultimately, the court
`
`found that the specification, “informed, as needed, by the prosecution history,” is the
`
`“best source for understanding a technical term.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Multiform
`
`Dessicants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). However, the
`
`court was mindful of its decision and quick to point out that Phillips is not the swan song
`
`of extrinsic evidence, stating:
`
`[W]e recognized that there is no magic formula or catechism for
`conducting claim construction. Nor is the court barred from considering
`any particular sources or required to analyze sources in any specific
`sequence, as long as those sources are not used to contradict claim
`meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324 (citations omitted). Consequently, this Court’s reading of
`
`Phillips is that the Federal Circuit has returned to the state of the law prior to its decision
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 51Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 6 of 51 PageID #: 2668
`
`in Texas Digital Sys. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002), allotting far
`
`greater deference to the intrinsic record than to extrinsic evidence.
`
`Additionally, the Federal Circuit in Phillips expressly reaffirmed the principles of
`
`claim construction as set forth in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996), Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
`
`Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, the law of claim construction
`
`remains intact. Claim construction is a legal question for the courts. Markman, 52 F.3d at
`
`979. The claims of a patent define that which “the patentee is entitled the right to
`
`exclude.” Innova, 381 F.3d at 1115. And the claims are “generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning” as understood by “a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`application.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. However, the Federal Circuit stressed the
`
`importance of recognizing that the person of ordinary skill in the art “is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term
`
`appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1313.
`
`Advancing the emphasis on the intrinsic evidence, the Phillips decision explains
`
`how each source, the claims, the specification as a whole, and the prosecution history,
`
`should be used by courts in determining how a skilled artesian would understand the
`
`disputed claim term. See, generally, id. at 1314-17. The court noted that the claims
`
`themselves can provide substantial guidance, particularly through claim differentiation.
`
`Using an example taken from the claim language at issue in Phillips, the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 51Page 6 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 7 of 51 PageID #: 2669
`
`observed that “the claim in this case refers to ‘steel baffles,’ which strongly implies that
`
`the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects made of steel.” Id. at 1314. Thus, the
`
`“context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can often illuminate the meaning of
`
`the same term in other claims.” Id. Likewise, other claims of the asserted patent can be
`
`enlightening, for example, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
`
`limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
`
`independent claim.” Id. at 1315 (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Still, the claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are
`
`part.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 978. In Phillips, the Federal Circuit reiterated the importance
`
`of the specification, noting that “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
`
`of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). To
`
`emphasize this position, the court cited extensive case law, as well as “the statutory
`
`directive that the inventor provide a ‘full’ and ‘exact’ description of the claimed
`
`invention.” Id. at 1316 (citing Merck & Co., v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)), see also 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Consistent with these principles,
`
`the court reaffirmed that an inventor’s own lexicography and any express disavowal of
`
`claim scope is dispositive. Id. at 1316. Concluding this point, the court noted the
`
`consistency with this approach and the issuance of a patent from the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office and found that “[i]t is therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when
`
`conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as
`
`to the meaning of the claims.” Id. at 1317.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 51Page 7 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 8 of 51 PageID #: 2670
`
`Additionally, the Phillips decision provides a terse explanation of the prosecution
`
`history’s utility in construing claim terms. The court simply reaffirmed that “the
`
`prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating
`
`how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention
`
`in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise
`
`be.” Id. (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83). It is a significant source for evidencing
`
`how the patent office and the inventor understood the invention. Id.
`
`Finally, the Federal Circuit curtailed the role of extrinsic evidence in construing
`
`claims. In pointing out the less reliable nature of extrinsic evidence, the court reasoned
`
`that such evidence (1) is by definition not part of the patent, (2) does not necessarily
`
`reflect the views or understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, (3) is
`
`often produced specifically for litigation, (4) is far reaching to the extent that it may
`
`encompass several views, and (5) may distort the true meaning intended by the inventor.
`
`See id. at 1318. Consequently, the Federal Circuit expressly disclaimed the approach
`
`taken in Texas Digital. While noting the Texas Digital court’s concern with regard to
`
`importing limitations from the written description, “one of the cardinal sins of patent
`
`law,” the Federal Circuit found that “the methodology it adopted placed too much
`
`reliance on extrinsic sources such as dictionaries, treatises, and encyclopedias and too
`
`little on intrinsic sources, in particular the specification and prosecution history.” Id. at
`
`1320. Thus, the court renewed its emphasis on the specification’s role in claims
`
`construction.
`
`Many other principles of claims construction, though not addressed in Phillips,
`
`remain significant in guiding this Court’s charge in claim construction. The Court is
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 51Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 9 of 51 PageID #: 2671
`
`mindful that there is a “heavy presumption” in favor of construing claim language as it
`
`would be plainly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Johnson Worldwide
`
`Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Words in patent claims
`
`are given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text
`
`of the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning. See Multiform
`
`Desiccants, Inc., 133 F.3d at 1477. Though a patentee may choose to act as his own
`
`lexicographer, the intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim
`
`term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to
`
`so redefine the claim term. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communs. Group,
`
`Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Claim construction is not meant to change the scope of the claims but only to
`
`clarify their meaning. Embrex, Inc. v. Service Eng’g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000) (“In claim construction the words of the claims are construed independent of
`
`the accused product, in light of the specification, the prosecution history, and the prior
`
`art. . . . The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse
`
`claim language[] in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the
`
`claims.”)(citations and internal quotations omitted).
`
`During claim construction, a court may be required to determine whether 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies to any claim limitations. Under this section, an element in a
`
`claim may be expressed as a “means” for performing a specified function without the
`
`recital of structure, material, or an act in support:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or
`step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure,
`material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 51Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 10 of 51 PageID #: 2672
`
`cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`To determine whether a § 112, ¶ 6 applies to a claim limitation, the court must first look
`
`to the claim limitation itself to see if the word “means” is used. Use of the word “means”
`
`gives rise to a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, and the absence of the word “means”
`
`gives rise to a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. York Prods., Inc. v. Cen.
`
`Tractor, 99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Personalized Media Comm’n, LLC v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d
`
`1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The presumptions can be overcome by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence. Apex, Inc., 325 F.3d at 1372.
`
`In order to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6, a claim element need not define a
`
`structure so specific as to imply an actual implementation of the structure. The question
`
`is whether the phrase “connotes sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`perform the functions identified by the limitation.” Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery,
`
`Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Where a court determines that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, the means-plus-function claim
`
`elements are construed by first “determining what the claimed function is” and then
`
`determining what “structures disclosed in the written specification correspond to the
`
`‘means’ for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d
`
`1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d
`
`1106, 1113-14 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “A means-plus-function claim encompasses all structure
`
`in a specification corresponding to that element and equivalent structures.” Micro Chem.,
`
`Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., Inc.,194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether or
`
`not a disclosed structure can be construed as “corresponding structure” depends upon
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 51Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 11 of 51 PageID #: 2673
`
`whether one of ordinary skill in the art would associate the structure in the specification
`
`with the claimed functions and whether the associated structure performs the claimed
`
`functions. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 296 F.3d at 1113-14. Only where disclosed
`
`structure is both associated with and performs the claimed functions can it be
`
`corresponding structure under the requirements of §112, ¶6.
`
`III. The Patents-in-Suit Generally
`
`The patents at issue are directed to particular features of electric/combustion
`
`engine hybrid drive systems. The ‘970 patent issued on September 6, 1994 from an
`
`application filed on September 21, 1992. The patent generally discloses and claims a
`
`hybrid vehicle, including an internal combustion engine and one electric motor, both of
`
`which can provide torque to the wheels of the vehicle through a controllable torque
`
`transfer unit, and that can recharge storage batteries for the motor. The direction of
`
`torque transfer is controlled by a microprocessor responsive to the mode of operation of
`
`the vehicle.
`
`The ‘970 patent abstract:
`An improved hybrid electric vehicle includes an internal combustion
`engine and an electric motor. Both the motor and the engine provide
`torque to drive the vehicle directly through a controllable torque transfer
`unit. Typically at low speeds or in traffic, the electric motor alone drives
`the vehicle, using power stored in batteries; under acceleration and during
`hill climbing both the engine and the motor provide torque to drive the
`vehicle; and in steady state highway cruising, the internal combustion
`engine alone drives the vehicle. The internal combustion engine is sized
`to operate at or near its maximum fuel efficiency during highway cruising.
`The motor is operable as a generator to charge the batteries as needed and
`also for regenerative braking. No transmission is employed. The motor
`operates at significantly lower currents and higher voltages than
`conventionally and has a rated power at least equal to that of the internal
`combustion engine. In this manner a cost efficient vehicle is provided,
`suffering no performance disadvantage compared
`to conventional
`vehicles.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 51Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 12 of 51 PageID #: 2674
`
`The ‘672 patent issued on April 3, 2001 from an application with a priority date of
`
`September 14, 1998. Although the ‘672 patent is not related to the ‘970 patent, it builds
`
`substantially on the teachings of the ‘970 patent. The ‘672 patent claims further
`
`improvements over the parallel hybrid electric vehicle claimed in the ‘970 patent. It
`
`discloses a “topology” for a hybrid vehicle, wherein an internal combustion engine and a
`
`first electric “starting” motor are connected to the road wheels of the vehicle through a
`
`clutch. A second “traction” motor is connected to the road wheels to propel the vehicle.
`
`The vehicle operating mode is determined by a microprocessor responsive to the “road
`
`load.”
`
`The ‘672 patent abstract:
`A hybrid vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine controllably
`coupled to road wheels of the vehicle by a clutch, a traction motor coupled
`to road wheels of said vehicle, a starting motor coupled to the engine, both
`motors being operable as generators, a battery bank for providing
`electrical energy to and accepting energy from said motors, and a
`microprocessor for controlling these components is operated in different
`modes, depending on its instantaneous torque requirements, the state of
`charge of the battery bank, and other operating parameters. The mode of
`operation is selected by the microprocessor in response to a control
`strategy.
`
`The ‘088 patent issued on April 29, 2003, and claims priority to two provisional
`
`applications dated March 1, 1999, and September 14, 1998, respectively. The ‘088 patent
`
`is a continuation-in-part of the application from which the ‘672 patent issued and claims
`
`several distinct improvements over the hybrid vehicles claimed in the '970 and ‘672
`
`patents. The only asserted claim in the ‘088 patent, claim 1, does not involve any matter
`
`not included in the ‘672 patent. The patent discloses the determination of the vehicle’s
`
`operating mode as a function of the determined “road load” at a given time.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 51Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 13 of 51 PageID #: 2675
`
`The ‘088 patent abstract:
`A hybrid vehicle comprises an internal combustion engine, a traction
`motor, a starter motor, and a battery bank, all controlled by a
`microprocessor in accordance with the vehicle’s instantaneous torque
`demands so that the engine is run only under conditions of high efficiency,
`typically only when the load is at least equal to 30% of the engine’s
`maximum torque output. In some embodiments, a turbocharger may be
`provided, activated only when the load exceeds the engine’s maximum
`torque output for an extended period; a two- speed transmission may
`further be provided, to further broaden the vehicle’s load range. A hybrid
`brake system provides regenerative braking, with mechanical braking
`available in the event the battery bank is fully charged, in emergencies, or
`at rest; a control mechanism is provided to control the brake system to
`provide linear brake feel under varying circumstances.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`The parties request the Court to construe a number of terms appearing in the
`
`patents-in-suit. In their respective briefing and during the claims construction hearing,
`
`the parties focused their arguments on claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 32, and 38 of the ‘970 patent,
`
`claims 1-3, 13, 15, and 30 of the ‘672 patent, and claim 1 of the ‘088 patent. The asserted
`
`claims are repeated below, patent by patent, followed by their respective construction:
`
`The ‘970 Patent, Claim 1:
`A hybrid electric vehicle, comprising:
`two or more drive wheels receiving torque for propelling said vehicle from an output
`shaft, and a power unit supplying drive torque to said output shaft, said power unit
`comprising:
`a controllable torque transfer unit adapted to receive torque from two sources via first
`and second input shafts and transmit said torque to said output shaft;
`an engine adapted to consume combustible fuel and supply torque to said torque
`transfer unit;
`an electric motor adapted to receive electricity from a battery and supply torque to
`said torque transfer unit, said motor also being adapted to be operated as a generator,
`whereupon said motor receives torque and generates electric energy;
`a battery for supply of stored electric energy to said motor, and for receiving and
`storing electric energy from said motor when operated as a generator; and
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 51Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 14 of 51 PageID #: 2676
`
`a controller for controlling the operation of said engine, said electric motor, and said
`torque transfer unit, such that said torque transfer unit receives torque from either or
`both of said internal combustion engine and said electric motor via said first and
`second input shafts and transmits torque therefrom to said drive wheels by way of
`said output shaft, and for controlling the relative contributions of the internal
`combustion engine and electric motor to the torque driving the wheels;
`wherein the relative ratios of the rates of rotation of said engine and said electric
`motor to said input shafts, and the relative ratio of the rate of rotation of an output
`member of said torque transfer unit to the rate of rotation of said driven wheels, are
`fixed.
`The ‘970 Patent, Claim 2:
`The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said controller means controls flow of combustible
`fuel to said engine and of electrical energy to said motor, whereby said vehicle may
`be operated in a variety of operating modes selected dependent on desired vehicle
`performance.
`
`The ‘970 Patent, Claim 71:
`A hybrid electric vehicle comprising:
`two or more drive wheels receiving torque for propelling said vehicle from an output
`shaft, and a power unit supplying drive torque to said output shaft, said power unit
`comprising:
`a controllable torque transfer unit adapted to receive torque from two sources and
`transfer said torque to said output shaft;
`an engine adapted to consume combustible fuel and supply torque to said torque
`transfer unit;
`an electric motor adapted to receive electricity from a battery and supply torque to
`said torque transfer unit, said motor also being adapted to be operable as a generator;
`a battery for supply of stored electric energy to said motor, and for receiving and
`storing electric energy from said motor when operated as a generator; and
`a controller for controlling the operation of such engine, said electric motor, and said
`torque transfer unit such that said torque transfer unit receives torque from either or
`both of said internal combustion engine and said electric motor and transmits and for
`controlling the relative contributions of the internal combustion engine and electric
`motor to the torque driving the wheels, and
`wherein said battery provides a maximum current of no more than about 75 amperes
`at a voltage selected responsive to the characteristics of said motor.
`
`The ‘970 Patent, Claim 9:
`
`
`1 Although the parties have not requested construction of any term in claim 7, the claim is set forth as claim
`9, for which claim construction has been requested, depends from claim 7.
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 51Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1112FORD 1219
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 91 Filed 09/28/05 Page 15 of 51 PageID #: 2677
`
`The vehicle of claim 7, wherein said electric motor is an AC motor, said vehicle
`further comprises solid state switching means, and said battery provides DC to said
`switching means, said switching means comprising means for converting said DC
`supplied by said battery to AC for supply to said electric motor, and further
`comprising means for rectifying AC generated by said motor when operated in a
`regenerative mode to provide DC to charge said battery.
`
`The ‘970 Patent, Claim 11:
`A hybrid electric vehicle, comprising:
`two or more drive wheels receiving torque for propelling said vehicle from an output
`shaft, and a power unit supplying drive torque to said output shaft, said power unit
`comprising:
`a controllable torque transfer unit adapted to receive torque from two sources and
`transfer said torque to said output shaft;
`an engine adapted to consume combustible fuel and supply torque to said torque
`transfer unit;
`an AC electric motor adapted to receive electric energy from a battery and supply
`torque to said torque transfer unit, said motor being further adapted to be operable as
`a generator;
`a battery for supply of stored electric energy to said motor, and for receiving and
`storing electric energy from said motor when operated as a generator;
`solid state switching means for converting DC supplied by said battery to AC for
`supply to said electric motor, and for rectifying AC generated by said motor when
`operated in a regenerative mode to provide DC to charge said battery; and
`
`a controller for controlling the operation of said engine, said electric motor, said solid
`state switching means, and said torque transfer unit, such that said torque transfer unit
`receives torque from either or both of said internal combustion engine and said
`electric motor and transmits torque therefrom to said drive wheels by way of said
`output shaft, and for controlling the relative contributions of the internal combustion
`engine and electric motor to the torque driving the wheels.
`
`The ‘970 Patent, Claim 32:
`A hybrid electric vehicle, comprising:
`a controllable torque transfer unit, operable to transfer torque in three modes: (a) from
`either or both of two input shafts to an output member, said output member
`transmitting torque to drive wheels of said vehicle; (b) between said inpu