UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2015-00767
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`(CLAIMS 1-2, 4-6, 16-20, 27, 40-41, 43-44, 53-55 AND 57-60
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,455,134)
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. NO REDUNDANCY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................. 2
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)): ........................................... 4
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)): ...................................................... 4
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3-4)) ................................................................................................... 5
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ...................................... 6
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND PROCEDURAL
`STATEMENTS (42.104(a))....................................................................................... 6
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE (§ 42.104(b)) .................................................... 6
`
`A.
`Prior Art Relied On ......................................................................................... 6
`
`B.
` Grounds of Unpatentability for U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 ...................... 7
`
`VI.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................... 8
`
`A.
` Overview of the ’134 Patent Family ............................................................. 8
`B.
`The Priority Issue Has Already Been Determined ...................................... 9
`
`The “At Least 2.5” Ratio Is Unsupported Before April 2, 2001 ............. 10
`C.
`
`D.
`An Insolubly Vague Incorporation By Reference Should Be
`
`Afforded No Weight ..................................................................................... 11
`
`VII. STATE OF THE ART ............................................................................................ 13
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’134 PATENT ................................................................. 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`Background .................................................................................................... 15
`Purported Invention ..................................................................................... 16
`1.
`The claimed HEV architecture and general electrical
`characteristics are old ........................................................................ 16
`The claimed voltage to current ratio of “at least 2.5” is
`old and arbitrary ................................................................................. 17
`
`2.
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(B)(3) ............................................................................................................ 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`“Start And Stop The Engine” ...................................................................... 18
`“Maximum DC Voltage” .............................................................................. 19
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`“Road Load” .................................................................................................. 20
`“Vehicle Load” .............................................................................................. 21
`
`X.
`
`THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT
`FIELD AND THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ............................................... 23
`
`XI. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ............................................................. 24
`
`A.
` Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 19, 20, 40, 41, 43, 44, 57 and 58 are
`Obvious Over the ‘455 PCT Publication In View of Severinsky
`’970 .................................................................................................................. 24
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 24
`2.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 31
`3.
`Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 19-20, 27 and 40 ................................... 34
`4.
`Independent Claim 41 ....................................................................... 38
`5.
`Dependent Claims 43, 44 and 57 ..................................................... 41
`6.
`Independent Claim 58 ....................................................................... 41
`B.
` Ground 2: Claims 16-18, 53-55 and 60 are Obvious Over the
`’455 PCT Publication and Severinsky ’970 In View of Furutani ............. 46
`1.
`Claims 16–18 ...................................................................................... 47
`2.
`Claims 53–55 ...................................................................................... 51
`3.
`Claim 60 .............................................................................................. 51
`4.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 53
`C.
` Ground 3: Claim 59 is Obvious Over the ’455 PCT
`Publication, Severinsky ’970 and Furutani In View of Sasaki .................. 55
`1.
`Claim 59 .............................................................................................. 55
`2.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 57
`
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 60
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`Ex. 1201 U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134
`Ex. 1202 Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey L. Stein
`Ex. 1203 PCT Publication No. WO00/015455
`
`Ex. 1204 Ford Motor Co v. Paice LLC, Case IPR2014-00568,
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2014) (Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review)
`Ex. 1205 U.S. Patent No. 5,495,906
`Ex. 1206 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
`Ex. 1207 S. Sasaki et al., Toyota’s Newly Developed Electric-
`Gasoline Engine Hybrid Powertrain System, 14th
`International Electric Vehicle Symposium and
`Exposition (December 1997)
`Ex. 1208 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134
`
`Ex. 1209 Ford’s letter to Paice dated September 22, 2014
`Ex. 1210 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/100,095
`
`Ex. 1211 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/122,296
`
`Ex. 1212 U.S. Patent No. 6,554,088
`Ex. 1213 U.S. Application No. 09/822,866
`
`Ex. 1214 U.S. Application No. 09/264,817
`
`Ex. 1215 U.S. Application No. 09/392,743
`
`[Not Used]
`Ex. 1216
`Ex. 1217 Kozo Yamaguchi et al., Development of a New
`Hybrid System – Dual System, SAE Technical Paper
`960231 (February 1996)(available at
`http://papers.sae.org/960231/___)
`Ex. 1218 General Electric Company, Corp. Research & Dev.,
`Near-Term Hybrid Vehicle Program, Final Report -
`
`Phase 1 (October 1979)(available at
`
`iii
`
`’134 Patent
`Stein Decl.
`’455 PCT
`Publication
`IPR 2014-
`00568 Decision
`
`Furutani
`Severinsky ’970
`Sasaki
`
`’134 File
`History
`Ford Letter
`’095 Provisional
`Application
`’296 Provisional
`Application
`’088 CIP Patent
`’866 CIP
`Application
`’817
`Application
`’743
`Application
`
`Yamaguchi
`Paper
`
`GE Final
`Report
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19800017707)
`Ex. 1219 Paice, LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`2:04-cv-211, E.D. Texas, Claim Construction Order
`(Sept. 28, 2005)
`Ex. 1220 Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`2:12-cv-0499, District of MD, Baltimore Div., Paice
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (Nov. 14, 2013)
`(Ex. 1220 at 1-37.)
`
`Paice Responsive Brief on Claim Construction (Dec.
`16, 2013) (Ex.1220 at 38-81.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (July 24, 2014) (Ex. 1220 at
`82-122.)
`Ex. 1221 Ford Motor Co v. Paice LLC, Case IPR2014-00571,
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) (Decision
`Institution of Inter Partes Review)
`Ex. 1222 Ford Motor Co v. Paice LLC, Case IPR2014-00579,
`Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) (Decision
`Institution of Inter Partes Review)
`Ex. 1223 Cimline, Inc. v. Crafco. Inc., No. 2010-1348 (Fed.
`Cir. Opinion March 2, 2011)
`Ex. 1224 U.S. Patent No. 913,846
`Ex. 1225 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)
`(available at
`http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/516019.)
`Ex. 1226 Society of Automotive Engineers Special Publication,
`Technology for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, SAE
`SP-1331 (February 1998)(available at
`http://www.worldcat.org/title/technology-for-
`electric-and-hybrid-vehicles/oclc/39802642.)
`Ex. 1227 Catherine Anderson & Erin Pettit, The Effects of APU
`
`Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control
`
`Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE
`
`Toyota
`Litigation
`
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Decision
`
`IPR2014-00579
`Decision
`
`Cimline
`
`Pieper
`Duoba
`
`SAE SP-1331
`
`Anderson
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`Technical Paper 950493 (1995)(available at
`http://papers.sae.org/950493/.)
`Ex. 1228 U.S. Patent No. 3,888,325
`Ex. 1229 U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429
`Ex. 1230 L. E. Unnewehr et al., Hybrid Vehicle for Fuel
`Economy, SAE Technical Paper 760121 (1976)
`(available at http://papers.sae.org/760121/.)
`Ex. 1231 Ford Motor Co v. Paice LLC, Case IPR2014-00568,
`Paper 8(P.T.A.B. July 11, 2014) (Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response)
`
`Ex. 1232 U.S. Patent Application No. 11/429,457
`
`Ex. 1233 U.S. Patent 5,865,263
`Ex. 1234 The ’134 Patent Family Chart
`
`Ex. 1235 U.S. Patent Application No. 10/382,577
`
`Ex. 1236 U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672
`Ex. 1237 U.S. Patent No. 6,338,391
`Ex. 1238 U.S. Application No. 11/229,762
`
`Ex. 1239 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Ex. 1240 Comparison of ’455 PCT Publication and ‘134 Patent
`Descriptions
`
`Ex. 1241 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jeffrey L. Stein
`Ex. 1242
`[Not Used]
`Ex. 1243 Performance Characterization Chevrolet S-10
`Electric, Panasonic Lead-Acid Battery, Southern
`California Edison Electrical Transportation Division
`(December 1999).
`http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/sce_rpt/s10pbareport.p
`df
`Ex. 1244 Tesla Motors Website,
`www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs, retrieved
`October 31, 2014.
`
`v
`
`Reinbeck
`Kawakatsu
`Unnewehr
`
`IPR2014-00568
`Redacted PO
`Prelim.
`Response
`’457
`Application
`Yamaguchi
`The ’134 Patent
`Family Chart
`’577
`Application
`’672 Patent
`’391 Patent
`’762
`Application
`’634 File
`History
`’455/’134
`Description
`Comparison
`Dr. Stein CV
`
`S10
`Performance
`Report
`
`Tesla Roadster
`Performance
`Specs
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`Ex. 1245 GM Press Release, Corvette Stingray: 3.8 seconds
`from 0 to 60 mph, GM News Website,
`http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.
`html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jun/0620-
`corvette-performance.html (June 20, 2013), retrieved
`November 1, 2014.
`Ex. 1246 Gene Berdichevsky et al., The Tesla Roadster Battery
`System, Tesla Motors, Inc. (August 16, 2006).
`http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/referenc
`es/docs/tesla.pdf
`Ex. 1247 Will Dron, Roadster 2.5 Sport – Road Test, The
`Charging Point Website,
`http://www.thechargingpoint.com/manufacturers/te
`sla/roadster-2.5-sport-roadtest.html#roadTest (July
`18, 2011), retrieved November 1, 2014.
`Ford Motor Co v. Paice LLC, Case IPR2014-00852,
`Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014) (Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review)
` Paice, LLC et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
`1:14-cv-00492, District of MD, Baltimore Div.,
`Memorandum Opinion (Nov. 6, 2014)
`Ex. 1250 U.S. Patent No. 7,520,353
`
`Ex. 1249
`
`Ex. 1248
`
`GM Press
`Release
`
`Tesla Roadster
`Battery
`
`Tesla Roadster
`Road Test
`
`IPR 2014-
`00852 Decision
`
`MD Ct. Stay
`Order
`
`’353 Patent
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“Petitioner” or “FORD”) petitions for inter
`
`partes review, seeking cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-6, 16-20, 27, 40-41, 43-44, 53-55
`
`and 57-60 (collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,455,134 to
`
`Severinsky et al. (“the ’134 Patent,” Ex. 1201), which is owned by PAICE, LLC et al.
`
`Ford filed IPR 2014-00568 seeking review of a subset of the claims challenged
`
`now. (“the ’568 Petition”). The Board denied that petition, but agreed that the ’134
`
`Patent has priority only to April 2, 2001, the filing date of CIP Appl. No. 09/822,866
`
`(“the ’866 CIP Application,” Ex. 1213); thus, the PCT Pub. No. WO 00/015455 (“the
`
`’455 PCT Publication,” Ex. 1203) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (“IPR 2014-
`
`00568 Decision,” Ex. 1204 at 10).
`
`The Board denied the ’568 Petition stating that the claimed “at least 2.5” ratio
`
`“could [not] be arrived at with the parameters solely from the ’455 PCT publication
`
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art [POSA].” (Id. at 13.) The
`
`Board found impermissible Petitioner’s use of examples in the priority ‘866 CIP
`
`Application as a basis to calculate voltage drop for the ’455 PCT publication, to satisfy
`
`the “at least 2.5” ratio of maximum voltage-to-current supplied limitation. Id.
`
`This petition is directed to a new set of claims and new art grounds which
`
`render moot the issue of how a voltage drop should be calculated.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`II. NO REDUNDANCY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`It would be just for the Board to consider this petition on its merits rather than
`
`deny it under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) for several reasons. First, this Petition is directed to a
`
`different set of claims including 14 new claims. Second, this Petition relies on three
`
`new prior art references and presents three new prior-art-based obviousness grounds.
`
`Third, one of the new prior art references, Severinsky ’970, is being relied on to teach
`
`the “at least 2.5” ratio limitation eliminating the need to calculate voltage drop to
`
`obtain the ratio. The new grounds are thus not a mere substitution of different art
`
`predicated on the same underlying argument.
`
`Fourth, due to the rejection of Petitioner’s use of the ’866 CIP Application
`
`examples, the Board did not have the opportunity to fully consider the impact of the
`
`’455 PCT Publication on patentability. Because the denial in the IPR2014-00568
`
`Decision was based on the approach taken to calculating the ratio limitation and not
`
`the prior art relied on, the inclusion of the ’455 PCT Publication in this Petition and
`
`the resulting overlap is permissible. Moreover, the existence of an overlap does not
`
`trigger a per se denial, rather where the arguments are persuasive, the PTAB has
`
`declined to exercise their discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Wavemarket Inc. v.
`
`Locationet Systems Ltd, IPR2014-00920 (Paper 11 at 10); Valeo North America, Inc.
`
`v. Magna Electronics, Inc. IPR2014-01208 (Paper 13 at 14-15).
`
`Fifth, Petitioner could not have foreseen the denial. Petitioner did not rely on
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`the ’866 CIP Application as prior art, but rather used the examples as an admission by
`
`the Patent Owner of how voltage drop could be calculated for a related system.
`
`Petitioner therefore could not have foreseen that its reliance on the ’866 CIP
`
`application examples would be impermissible for an anticipation ground. See MPEP
`
`§ 2131.01 (anticipation using multiple references can be proper). Petitioner applied the
`
`same voltage drop admission for its petition in IPR2014-00852 (“the ’852 Petition,”),
`
`challenging a subset of the claims from the ’568 petition on different grounds—which
`
`also led to the denial of that petition. (IPR2014-00852 Decision, Ex. 1248). Sixth, as
`
`the Board denied the ’568 and ’852 Petitions in their entirety, this petition is not
`
`duplicative of any arguments currently being tried.
`
` Seventh, the new claims and new grounds could not have been previously
`
`presented. Per the Board’s direction, petitioners should consider filing multiple
`
`petitions on the same patent if it is difficult to meet the page limit requirements,
`
`which is the case here because the ’134 Patent has 62 claims. 77 Fed. Reg. 157, 48612,
`
`48635 (Rules of Practice before the PTAB). Eighth, the Patent Owner charged Ford
`
`with infringing five patents containing over two hundred and seventy-five claims,
`
`thereby requiring Ford to seek IPR of hundreds of claims within one year or be
`
`forever barred from doing so. Thus, the Patent Owner does not face harassment, but
`
`instead faces the consequences of asserting several patents with hundreds of claims.
`
`Ninth, this petition has a filing date within the one-year period, thus joinder is
`
`3
`
`

`
`unnecessary.
`
`
`
`Finally, this petition is distinguishable from the informative decisions and every
`
`§ 325(d) denial to date. Never before have new claims filed on new grounds and new
`
`arguments been denied review under § 325(d). Such a denial in this case would
`
`prevent an entire patent from receiving a full merits review. A calculation
`
`methodology - not called for in the claims and unnecessary under the new grounds –
`
`should not thwart a merits based review of the intervening, commonly-owned ’455
`
`PCT publication, which closely mirrors the ’134 claims.
`
`In sum, this petition presents a compelling case for the Board to allow
`
`institution over 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
` Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)):
`A.
`
`Ford certifies that it is the real party-in-interest.
`
` Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)):
`B.
`
`Petitioner identifies the following judicial matters:
`
`1) Paice, LLC et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case Number 1-14-cv-00492
`
`filed February 19, 2014 in the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division. The ’134
`
`Patent is being asserted in this proceeding, along with four other patents within the
`
`same patent family as the ’134 Patent—namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,104,347, 7,237,634,
`
`7,559,388 and 8,214,097. Paice currently asserts more than 250 claims from these five
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`patents. Ford has asked Paice to reduce the number of asserted claims and to date,
`
`Paice has refused. (Ford Letter, Ex. 1209.) The Maryland District Court granted
`
`Ford’s motion to stay the litigation pending the IPRs of the ’134 Patent and of its
`
`related patent family members. (MD Ct. Stay Order, Ex. 1249 at 1, 10-17, 30.)
`
`2) Paice LLC et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, et al., Case Number
`
`1:2012cv00499 filed on February 16, 2012 in the District of Maryland, Baltimore
`
`Division. The ’134 Patent has not been asserted in that proceeding, however, it is part
`
`of the same family of patents that have been asserted.
`
`Additionally, the following IPR petitions have been filed on patents that are
`
`included in the above litigation proceedings and part of the same family of patents —
`
`specifically,
`
`IPR2014-00568,
`
`IPR2014-00570,
`
`IPR2014-00571,
`
`IPR2014-00579,
`
`IPR2014-00852, IPR2014-00875, IPR2014-0884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415,
`
`IPR2014-01416, and IPR 2015-00606.
`
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service
`
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4))
`
`Ford appoints Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) of Brooks Kushman P.C. as
`
`lead counsel, and appoints Sangeeta G. Shah (Reg. No. 38,614), and Michael D.
`
`Cushion (Reg. No. 55,094) of Brooks Kushman P.C., as well as Lissi Mojica (Reg. No.
`
`63,421) and Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062) of Dentons US LLP, as back-up
`
`counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Hand-delivery service can be made to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town
`
`Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, Michigan 48075 and Dentons US LLP, 1530 Page Mill
`
`Road, Suite 200 Palo Alto, California 94304-1125. Petitioner consents to service by
`
`email at FPGP0106IPR3@brookskushman.com and iptdocketchi@dentons.com.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND PROCEDURAL
`STATEMENTS (42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’134 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims of the ’134 Patent on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE (§ 42.104(b))
`
`Inter partes review of the ’134 Patent’s Challenged Claims is requested on the
`
`grounds listed in the table below, based on the identified prior art.
`
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Relied On
`
`1.
`
`The ’455 PCT Publication, which published on March 23, 2000, is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (IPR 2014-00568 Decision, Ex. 1204 at 10.) The ’455
`
`PCT Publication published more than one year before the April 2, 2001 effective
`
`filing date of the Challenged Claims. Id. (See also Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶118-127.)
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 to Severinsky (“Severinsky ’970,” Ex. 1206),
`
`which issued on September 6, 1994, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Although
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 and the ’134 Patent share a common inventor, Severinsky ’970 is not
`
`part of the ’134 Patent Family. (See Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶128.)
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,495,906 to Furutani (“Furutani”, Ex. 1205) which
`
`issued on March 5, 1996, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See Stein Decl., Ex.
`
`1202, ¶129.)
`
`4.
`
`The Sasaki et al. paper, entitled “Toyota’s Newly Developed Electric-
`
`Gasoline Engine Hybrid Powertrain System,” which published on December 15, 1997
`
`as part of the 14th International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exposition (“Sasaki,”
`
`Ex. 1207), is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (See Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶130-
`
`131.)
`
` Grounds of Unpatentability for U.S. Patent No.
`B.
`7,455,134
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`’455 PCT Publication and
`
`§ 103
`
`1-2, 4-6, 19-20, 27, 40-41, 43-
`
`Severinsky ’970
`
`44, and 57-58
`
`’455 PCT Publication,
`
`§ 103
`
`16-18, 53-55 and 60
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Furutani
`
`’455 PCT Publication,
`
`§ 103
`
`59
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Sasaki
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`VI. PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
` Overview of the ’134 Patent Family
`A.
`
`As shown in the diagram below, the ’134 Patent (highlighted in blue) is a
`
`divisional in an extensive chain of filings that claims priority to two separate
`
`provisional applications—Provisional Appl. No. 60/100,095 (“the ’095 Provisional
`
`Application,” Ex. 1210), filed September 14, 1998, and Provisional Appl. No.
`
`60/122,296 (“the ’296 Provisional Application,” Ex. 1211), filed March 1, 1999.
`
`
`
`Significant to this Petition, the ’134 Patent’s priority claim extends through
`
`continuation-in-part (“CIP”) U.S. Patent No. 6,554,088 (“the ’088 CIP Patent,” Ex.
`
`1212 (highlighted in yellow), which issued from CIP Application No. 09/822,866
`
`(“the ’866 CIP Application,” Ex. 1213). The ’088 CIP Patent is a CIP of two
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`applications, U.S. Application No. 09/264,817 (“the ’817 Application,” Ex. 1214) and
`
`U.S. Application No. 09/392,743 (“the ’743 Application,” Ex. 1215). (See Stein Decl.,
`
`Ex. 1202, ¶¶88-96.)
`
`
`B.
`
`The Priority Issue Has Already Been Determined
`
`All of the claims of the ’134 Patent include a “ratio of maximum DC
`
`voltage . . . to current supplied . . . when maximum current is so supplied”1 (the
`
`“maximum voltage-to-current ratio”) of “at least 2.5.” In the ’568 Petition, the Board
`
`determined that the “at least 2.5” maximum voltage-to-current ratio limitation was
`
`not explicitly, implicitly or inherently disclosed prior to the April 2, 2001 filing date of
`
`the ’866 CIP Application. (IPR 2014-00568 Decision, Ex. 1204 at 10). Per the Board,
`
`the effective priority date for the Challenged Claims is April 2, 2001 and thus the
`
`“intervening” ’455 PCT Publication is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Id. A
`
`related patent publication may be prior art to a subsequent CIP if the written
`
`description requirement is not satisfied by the priority application. Tronzo v. Biomet,
`
`Inc., 156 F.3d 1143 (Fed.Cir. 1998). The arguments that informed the Board’s
`
`findings are presented below.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` In this Petition, quoted claim language is italicized for ease of reference. Petitioner
`
`will occasionally add boldface or underlining to certain claim language for emphasis.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
` The “At Least 2.5” Ratio Is Unsupported Before
`C.
`April 2, 2001
`
`Under a section entitled “Further Improvements According to the
`
`Continuation-in-Part,” the ’866 CIP Application added new matter not disclosed in
`
`either of its immediate parents—the ’817 and ’743 Applications. (’866 CIP
`
`Application, Ex. 1213 at 91-105.) The “at least 2.5” maximum voltage-to-current
`
`ratio is disclosed for the first time in this CIP section. (Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶97-
`
`100.) Prior to the ’866 CIP Application, there is no suggestion that the ratio of
`
`maximum voltage-to-current supplied is a relevant parameter, let alone that the ratio
`
`should be “at least 2.5.” (Id. at ¶¶101-108.) The ’817 Application’s vague preference
`
`for “relatively high voltage and relatively low current” is insufficient to lead one skilled
`
`in the art to the “at least 2.5” ratio. (See ’817 Application, Ex. 1214 at 20:1-4; Stein
`
`Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶109-112.) Such imprecise language cannot constitute a defined
`
`genus. MPEP §2163; In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971).
`
`As the filings prior to the ’866 CIP Application fail to reasonably convey to
`
`those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the “at least 2.5” maximum
`
`voltage-to-current ratio, the claims of the ’134 Patent are entitled to a priority date no
`
`earlier than April 2, 2001 —the filing date of the ’866 CIP Application. Ariad
`
`Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
` An Insolubly Vague Incorporation By Reference
`D.
`Should Be Afforded No Weight
`
`Despite the lack of explicit, implicit or inherent support for the claimed “at
`
`least 2.5” maximum voltage-to-current ratio, Patentee may argue that its incorporation
`
`by reference clause allows it to selectively reach back into Severinsky ’970 to fill the
`
`void. The incorporation by reference clause is, however, fatally ambiguous.
`
`First, to incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify
`
`with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates, “using the one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art standard.” Zenon Environmental, Inc. v. United States Filter
`
`Corp., 506 F.3rd 1370, 1378-9 (Fed. Cir. 2007, emphasis added). The relevant
`
`language in the ’134 Patent, and each ancestor application, is as follows: “[1] This
`
`application discloses a number of improvements over and enhancements to the
`
`hybrid vehicles disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,343,970 (‘the ’970 patent’), to one of the
`
`present inventors, which is incorporated herein by this reference. [2] Where
`
`differences are not mentioned, it is to be understood that the specifics of the
`
`vehicle design shown in the ’970 patent are, applicable to the vehicles shown herein as
`
`well.” (’134 Patent, Ex. 1201, 10:24-30, reference numerals and emphasis added.) This
`
`seemingly inconsistent, negative provision, fails to describe with detailed particularity
`
`the scope of the incorporation.
`
`To give meaning to the second, more specific clause, the incorporation must be
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`limited to exclude any “differences” between Severinsky ’970 and the ’134 Patent.
`
`Because the term “differences” is not explained, it is impossible for one skilled in the
`
`art to ascertain the scope of the incorporation. (Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶113-114.) For
`
`example, where differences are not explicitly articulated but the subject matter
`
`between the two disclosures differs, it is unclear whether the incorporation by
`
`reference applies. Id. An insolubly ambiguous incorporation clause is afforded no
`
`weight. Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, any attempt
`
`to utilize the incorporation by reference clause to salvage an earlier effective filing date
`
`should fail.
`
`Second, even if the entire Severinsky ’970 prior art patent were incorporated
`
`into the ’134 Patent, written description support for the claimed “at least 2.5”
`
`maximum voltage-to-current ratio is lacking. Nothing in Severinsky ’970 teaches the
`
`claimed ratio boundary of “at least 2.5.” (Stein Decl., Ex. 1202 at ¶115.) On the
`
`contrary, if a ratio is calculated from the single set of maximum voltage and maximum
`
`current values supplied in Severinsky ‘970, 1400 volts and 50 amperes respectively,
`
`that ratio would be 28:1, which is an order of magnitude from 2.5:1. Id.
`
`Fundamentally, Severinsky ’970 lacks the disclosure required to support the claimed
`
`ratio’s lower limit of 2.5, not to mention a sufficient number of embodiments to
`
`support an unbounded range. Ariad Pharm. 598 F. 3d at 1351; In re Wertheim 541
`
`F. 2d 257, 263-264 (CCPA 1976).
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Finally, by Patentee’s own admission, the “at least 2.5” ratio was deemed a
`
`“further improvement” in the ’866 CIP Application, when it was introduced as new
`
`matter, more than eight years after the Severinsky ’970 filing date. (Stein Decl., Ex.
`
`1202, ¶¶99-100.) In sum, under any set of arguments, the Challenged Claims are only
`
`entitled to priority as of April 2, 2001, i.e., the filing date of the ’866 CIP Application.
`
`(Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶116-117.)
`
`VII. STATE OF THE ART
`
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) were conceived over 100 years back to utilize
`
`the unique power capabilities of engines and motors to increase vehicle efficiency. By
`
`September 1998, three architectures were well known: “series” HEVs that
`
`mechanically connected and used the motor to supply all propulsive torque to the
`
`wheels; (2) “parallel” HEVs, like that discussed in Severinsky ’970, that used an engine
`
`and motor either separately or in combination to provide the required torque to the
`
`wheels; and (3) “series-parallel” HEVs like the ’134 Patent architecture that have a
`
`second motor/generator that can operate in both a parallel mode and a series mode.
`
`(Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶44-53.)
`
`It was also known before September, 1998 that engines operated inefficiently at
`
`low vehicle speeds and low torque levels (Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶54-56.) HEVs
`
`overcame these inefficiencies through engine control strategies that limited operation
`
`of the engine to its most efficient operating range—to minimize noxious emissions
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`and energy consumption. Id. Indeed, the control strategy presented in Severinsky
`
`’970 is similar to the strategy set forth in the Challenged Claims. According to both
`
`Severinsky ’970 and the ’134 Patent, the internal combustion engine is operated only
`
`under the most efficient conditions of output power and speed. (Id. at ¶¶57-58.)
`
`Likewise, the desired electrical characteristics of HEV systems - high voltage
`
`and low current - were known at least as early as 1979. (Id. at ¶59.) This preference
`
`for high voltage/low current hybrid systems is also articulated in Severinsky ’970.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1206, 5:60-6:17; Stein Decl., Ex. 1202, ¶¶61-63.) Severinsky ’970
`
`in fact discloses specific high voltage “under load” and maximum current supplied
`
`values—which amount to a maximum DC voltage to maximum current supplied ratio
`
`of 28 (1400V/50A = 28):
`
`As indicated above, for minimum cost and minimum losses the electrical
`
`circuits connecting the battery and the motor via the controller should
`
`operate at low current and relatively high voltage. The current should be
`
`less than 75 amperes and is preferably in the 30-50 ampere range; in the
`
`example given above of a 60-80 horsepower motor operating at 50
`
`amperes maximum current to power a 3,300 pound vehicle, the DC
`
`voltage will be 1,000 to 1,400 volts.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1206 at 19:39-49, emphasis added.)
`
`Eight years after the Severinsky ’970 filing, Patentee filed the ’866 CIP
`
`Application with its “Further Improvements” section disclosing ratios of DC voltages
`
`an