trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00722, Paper No. 35
` IPR2015-00784, Paper No. 34
` IPR2015-00787, Paper No. 34
` IPR2015-00790, Paper No. 33
`IPR2015-00791, Paper No. 34
` IPR2015-00794, Paper No. 30
`IPR2015-00795; Paper No. 30
`August 11, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`and IPR2015-00795
`Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`____________
`
`Held: June 28, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June
`28, 2016, commencing at 9:03 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00722, Paper No. 35
` IPR2015-00784, Paper No. 34
` IPR2015-00787, Paper No. 34
` IPR2015-00790, Paper No. 33
`IPR2015-00791, Paper No. 34
` IPR2015-00794, Paper No. 30
`IPR2015-00795; Paper No. 30
`August 11, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`and IPR2015-00795
`Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`____________
`
`Held: June 28, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, June
`28, 2016, commencing at 9:03 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FRANK ANGILERI, ESQUIRE
`JOHN RONDINI, ESQUIRE
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`22nd Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`
`BRIAN J. LIVEDALEN, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1425 K Street, NW
`11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: This is the hearing for
`IPR2015-00722, 784, 787, 790, 791, 794 and 795 between
`Petitioner Ford and Patent Owner Paice and The Abell
`Foundation, and it involves claims of U.S. Patent 7,237,634 and
`U.S. Patent 7,104,347.
`Per our May 26 order, each party will have 75 minutes
`of total time to present arguments. Petitioner, you will proceed
`first, present your case with respect to the challenged claims and
`grounds for which the Board instituted trial. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner, you will have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner's
`presentation and, Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time.
`At this time we'd like the parties to please introduce
`counsel beginning with the Petitioner.
`MR. ANGILERI: Can I introduce everyone, Your
`Honor, or --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I'm sorry?
`MR. ANGILERI: Should I introduce everyone?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Just who's going to argue is fine.
`MR. ANGILERI: Okay. Frank Angileri for Petitioner
`and also John Rondini who's behind me will argue today.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`And for Patent Owner?
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`MR. LIVEDALEN: Good morning, Your Honor.
`Brian Livedalen from the law firm of Fish & Richardson for
`Patent Owner. With me here is Linda Kordziel. I'll be handling
`all the oral arguments. With me also here is the representative
`from Patent Owner, Francis Keenan.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`We got new equipment, so bear with us for a minute.
`All right. It seems to be working.
`Okay. Petitioner, you may begin.
`MR. ANGILERI: Thank you, Your Honor. Again,
`Frank Angileri for Petitioner. At counsel table is Andy Turner
`and then also with us are Lissi Mojica, Kevin Greenleaf from the
`Dentons firm, Sangeela Shah from Brooks Kushman, our firm,
`and Matt Moore from Latham Watkins and then David Kelley
`from Ford.
`We have the hard copies of the demonstratives for today
`and tomorrow. Would you like those?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I would like a copy.
`MR. ANGILERI: As the Board knows, we are -- we
`broke this into three groups. In general there are a lot of new
`issues today, but there's also a lot of old issues. In fact, there may
`be more old issues than new issues.
`In the broad sense Group 1 relates to seven petitions
`that are all centered in part on the Ibaraki '882 patent. Group 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`tomorrow morning are two petitions that focus on the priority
`issues and the PCT and Severinsky prior art. And then Group 3,
`the primary references are Severinsky and Bumby, which the
`Board looked at in the final decisions from last year.
`The common theme for last year and this year is this
`idea of torque-based mode selection. And what I think these
`arguments today show is that that torque-based mode selection is
`very well-known in the art and was very well-known in the art
`before the Paice patents were filed.
`Again, last year it focused on Severinsky and Bumby
`and a Caraceni reference as well as a Tabata reference. This year
`the focus is -- today, anyway, is on Ibaraki.
`Today we'll also look at the fact that the claims at issue
`add a number of well-known features. These were -- they don't
`really change the fact that the torque-based mode selection is old
`and the well-known features don't add much to these claims.
`What we've tried to do to organize this in both the
`presentation today and tomorrow, we've got two things that we've
`tried to do to organize these issues.
`First, in slide 2 on the left we have the various issues
`that are addressed in these seven petitions and then across the top
`we try to explain where in each of these petitions these issues
`arise.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`Up at the top we have two claim construction issues.
`One is something that the Board looked at last year, which deals
`with this definition of setpoint. The other has to do with Paice
`looking to interpret claims to require comparison language. And
`after those two claim construction issues, there are a number of
`factual issues, many turn on road load to setpoint. Again, these
`are things that the Board has looked at. The issues today are
`similar to issues that the Board has already considered.
`Can you go to slide 37?
`The second thing we've done is at the back of these
`presentations what we've done is try to correlate the evidence. So
`in our slides we're going to cite representative evidence, but of
`course there are seven petitions. Because there are so many
`claims in these patents, we had to file a lot of petitions.
`So what we tried to do is correlate for the Board how
`the evidence that's cited on the various slides maps over to the
`other petitions, so that way the slides aren't cluttered and the
`Board has all the citations at hand.
`Can you go back to slide 2?
`Okay. The first claim construction issue is setpoint.
`The Board construed this last year. We think the Board's
`construction is correct. There's an issue raised in these petitions
`about whether a setpoint must trigger a transition. The Board
`addressed this. And unless the Board has any other questions, we
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`think the Board's rationale from the final decisions last year is
`correct.
`
`Slide 4 is the second claim construction issue that Paice
`has raised in these Ibaraki petitions and it concerns adding
`comparison language to the various claims.
`The three highlighted limitations in slide 4 relate to
`what we've called the motor mode, the engine mode and the
`motor plus engine mode in prior petitions. So the first two, once
`again, I think it's a very familiar limitation, operating the electric
`motor when the road load is less than setpoint. The second
`highlighted limitation is operating the engine when the road load
`is above a setpoint. Then the bottom highlighted limitation is
`operating both when you're above MTO, maximum torque output.
`In our briefs and in the Board decisions there was
`discussion of a comparison involved in the first two limitations,
`comparing road load to setpoint, and we stand by that. In order to
`decide whether road load is above or below setpoint, which is
`what those two limitations address, there's a comparison. Paice
`has asked that the comparison language be read into the bottom
`limitation and we don't think that's at all required under a
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
`That last limitation merely states that you operate the
`motor and the engine when road load is above MTO. You can
`meet that limitation regardless of whether you start that process
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`right at MTO or below MTO. So, for example, you could have a
`control algorithm that says we're going to operate our engine and
`motor any time we're above 90 percent of MTO. That means
`you're going to operate the electric motor and engine when you're
`above MTO and you're going to meet that limitation.
`So this limitation does not require any sort of
`comparison with MTO, so we don't think that's a proper claim
`construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard.
`Unless the Board has any questions, that's all I've got on
`the claim construction issues.
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Is that last limitation the
`operating both the engine and the motor, is that just the power
`boost mode?
`MR. ANGILERI: It sometimes is described as power
`boost mode, yes. At some level it's one of the fundamental ideas
`of the hybrid, which is just that you can use the motor to add
`power or torque when you're beyond the engine's capabilities,
`which is fundamental to most hybrids I would say, if not all.
`Okay. The next issue or the first big factual issue -- I
`call it factual issue because it's a question of whether Ibaraki
`discloses certain claim limitations, and the issue here is whether
`Ibaraki discloses comparing road load to setpoint. We've got
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`some representative limitations on slide 5. Again, these are very
`familiar to the Board.
`Claim 1 of the '347 patent is an apparatus claim. It's
`representative. Claim 80, the '637 patent, is a method claim.
`And, again, these limitations relate to operating the motor below
`setpoint and operating the engine above setpoint.
`Ibaraki very clearly discloses these limitations and the
`whole idea of torque-based mode selection.
`The yellow language talks about the concept of
`determining a demand power, PL. It says required drive power,
`which Ibaraki expressly states is determined by the current
`vehicle drive torque and speed.
`Now, this Ibaraki line is related to one of the Board's
`earlier final decisions in the 1416 IPR last year, 2014-1416, and
`there the Board considered a Tabata reference which used similar
`-- uses a similar flow chart as shown in the upper right-hand
`corner of slide 6.
`Tabata has a similar assignee as Ibaraki, similar
`inventors. What's different between Ibaraki and Tabata and the
`Board held that the torque-based mode selection or the claims at
`issue here were obvious in view of that Tabata reference based on
`a disclosure very similar to what's shown in the upper right-hand
`portion of slide 6.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`What's different about Ibaraki is that it's far more
`express about torque-based mode selection and what it means,
`what that flow chart means when the references talk about, for
`example, comparing PL to B. And in the pink language it says
`very clearly that if this point drive power is below, located below
`the first boundary line B, you use the motor. If it's located above
`boundary line B, you use the engine. And if it's located above
`boundary line C, you use the engine and the motor.
`So in colors, we use the motor when the point is in red,
`we use the engine when the point is in green and we use the
`engine and motor when the point is in blue.
`And very significantly, of course, Figure 11 is written in
`terms of torque. The Y axis is vehicle drive torque. So when the
`Ibaraki disclosure expressly discusses whether that point is above
`or below, the above or below means torque value. That slides up
`and down, up and down is torque.
`So Figure 11 expressly discloses the motor mode, the
`engine mode, the engine plus motor mode all based on demand
`torque.
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Why are we assuming that
`speed is not variable here?
`MR. ANGILERI: We're not assuming. I'm sorry, if I
`suggested that, I didn't mean to suggest that. We've shown
`obviously of torque varying at the same speed, but the speed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`could vary obviously as the -- over the course of running your
`vehicle, every time the controller cycles through, the speed could
`be different.
`But what's significant about that, though, is at any given
`moment in time the speed is what it is. You can't change
`instantaneously the vehicle's speed. You can change
`instantaneously the demand torque, hence the notion of the dot
`moving up and down, if suddenly depressing the accelerator, but
`the speed is not changing.
`So Paice, for example, has shown some drawings
`created by their expert where the speed dot moves left to right
`and that's really not realistic. It's not realistic because you never
`go from 20 to 40 miles an hour. You might press the pedal
`because you want to get to 40, but you're telling the controller I
`want more torque and that's shown on this drawing as moving,
`say for example from the pink dot to the green dot or blue dot.
`So speed is an input. Speed determines where left to
`right. In Ibaraki you're going to make this comparison and Figure
`11 shows a setpoint that varies with speed, but it's very clear from
`the basic physics and the way vehicles operate that torque is the
`driving factor and you don't need me to tell you because Ibaraki
`does.
`
`It says if it's above or below the line, then that's a torque
`variance. Above is a higher torque. On Figure 11 below is lower
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`torque. So Ibaraki clearly teaches torque-based mode selection in
`Figure 11 and the accompanying text.
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: If Ibaraki is saying torque and
`speed, right, is there a point where Ibaraki says it's just limited to
`torque?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: It doesn't say it's limited to torque. It
`doesn't have to be. I mean, the claims cover if speed -- speed can
`mean input into these claims and it would still read on Ibaraki.
`So this is Ibaraki's mode selection based on vehicle
`torque and vehicle speed.
`Slide 7 is a very similar concept at the engine level
`where you're looking at engine torque instead of vehicle torque
`and, again, the Y axis -- on slide 7 we have Figure 5 from Ibaraki.
`The Y axis now is engine torque and the X axis is engine speed.
`In Figure 11 they are both vehicle based.
`And, again, the language -- it shows up as sort of
`brown-orange on this reproduction when it talks about selecting
`motor drive when the fuel efficiency is below that .7 line and
`selecting the engine when you're above. So that's the green zone.
`Again, red is motor, green is engine and then on the lower left we
`have an excerpt from Ibaraki.
`These two excerpts are separated in the specification
`where it talks about running the engine and the motor when the
`vehicle load is comparatively high. So it doesn't expressly say
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`running it above MTO, but a person of skill would understand
`based on the basic notion of hybrids that you run both when you
`need more torque than the engine can offer you and Ibaraki says
`run the engine in green. So when you're talking about
`comparatively high, a person of skill would understand that
`means engine and motor above the threshold.
`Paice has made the argument that this is in terms of
`efficiency and not torque, but I think that confuses how this
`Figure 5 graph is calculated versus how it's implemented. They
`determine -- again, the Y axis is very clearly torque, so you have
`a torque value above which you turn on the engine.
`They determine where that setpoint threshold is based
`on when the engine is 70 percent efficient, but Ibaraki describes
`that you could calculate that efficiency all the time in real time or
`at the end it discusses rather than calculating it every time as
`you're driving down the road, just create this table. It's a data
`map, you can look it up and it's a torque value at that point, it's a
`torque threshold.
`Now, the next slide deals with Paice's principal
`argument in these IPRs, which is the notion that Ibaraki is power
`based and not torque based.
`And Paice presents -- the two graphs on the left are
`created by Paice's expert. Again, I'm on slide 8. So Paice's
`expert created the graph in the upper left and said this is what
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`Ibaraki is and then he created the graph on the lower left and said
`this is what the '347 and '634 patents are.
`And he admitted in his deposition in the 787 IPR -- it's
`Exhibit 1605, page 74, line 21 through 77, line 8, that these were
`created for a different IPR involving different prior art where
`Ibaraki was not even at issue and maybe that's why he
`unfortunately represented Ibaraki inaccurately.
`These are both -- both these graphics created by Paice's
`expert are labeled engine torque and engine speed. So they
`purport to represent the engine, what's going on in the engine.
`And, again, the upper left is what he says is Ibaraki. In the lower
`left is what he says is the patent. Well, Ibaraki actually has an
`engine graph and that's shown in the lower right. And Ibaraki's
`actual engine graph looks exactly like the engine graph that
`Paice's expert says represents the invention of these patents.
`The upper left graph is labeled an engine graph and
`there's nothing in Ibaraki labeled engine graph that looks anything
`like that. It is simply not an accurate representation of Ibaraki.
`Ibaraki has a graph with similar hyperbolic curves, but that's a
`vehicle torque graph. It's not the engine.
`And the reason they look different, the reason the two
`graphs in Ibaraki look different is because one is at the vehicle
`and one is at the engine and Ibaraki has a transmission. And
`when you have a transmission, the torque at the engine and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`torque at the vehicle are different. That's the whole point of a
`transmission.
`Just for a moment on that, the whole point of a
`transmission is to change the torque profile, essentially to amplify
`torque. So, for example, the basic transmission idea, if you have
`the power, the power is the same in and the same out, but the
`torque is different in and out and that's why that vehicle torque
`profile looks different for Ibaraki than the engine torque profile.
`That's discussed at length in Dr. Davis' reply declarations.
`If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to answer
`them, but at the end of the day that whole discussion doesn't
`matter to this analysis. Ibaraki shows torque-based control at the
`vehicle and torque-based control at the engine.
`Can you go to slide 11?
`Again, Ibaraki expressly describes torque-based control.
`But even if Paice was correct that Ibaraki was power based, the
`Board in the 1416 decision already addressed in the context of the
`Tabata reference a power-based disclosure and held that it was an
`obvious variation of the claims.
`And we also have shown on slide 11 some testimony
`from Paice's expert, Mr. Hannemann, where he drew various
`setpoints that varied with speed and these would be engine-based
`setpoints and one of them, number 4, was somewhat hyperbolic.
`The bottom line is Ibaraki discloses torque-based mode selection.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`But even if it didn't, the Board has already addressed this power
`argument in the 1416 IPR.
`The second big issue that Paice raises has to do with
`whether Ibaraki discloses a setpoint that's substantially less than
`MTO. I'm on slide 12 right now. And, again, these claims talk
`about the setpoint being substantially less than the maximum
`torque output of the engine. We've got Claim 1 of the '347 patent
`and Claim 80 of the '634 patent here for representative samples of
`these claim limitations on slide 12.
`Slide 13 shows two Ibaraki torque-control figures,
`Figure 5 which is the engine and Figure 11 which is the vehicle,
`and both of those graphically show a setpoint curve, if you will,
`or a setpoint that varies the speed that's substantially below the
`maximum torque output.
`Paice has said, you know, that this isn't disclosed, but in
`the prosecution history of the '347 patents, for example that's
`Exhibit 1562 in the 784 IPR at 22, they emphasize that some
`imprecision is permissible here in view of the fact that such
`minimum values are stated in the specification to be at least
`typically 30 percent. So the bottom line is Paice argued to the
`Board, to the Patent Office, that the substantially less is an
`imprecise term. This clearly shows the concept.
`The other thing that it's mapped on to this notion is that
`the whole concept of setpoint in Ibaraki is that it's going to be a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`point of efficiency and persons of skill understand that those --
`that maximum efficiency area is going to be or the bound of the
`efficient operation of the engine is going to be substantially
`below MTO.
`So Ibaraki graphically shows it and it substantively
`shows it, if you will, when it discusses the fact that setpoint is
`determined for efficiency purposes.
`The third limitation that's the focus of all these IPRs is
`whether Ibaraki operates the electric motor and engine above the
`engine's MTO.
`On slide 14 we have a very clear statement from Paice's
`expert that admits this limitation. The question is, so it's your
`opinion that Ibaraki '882, the engine plus power mode would
`operate above the engine's MTO? Is that correct? Answer, yes.
`Paice has made some arguments to the effect that
`Ibaraki '882 doesn't disclose operating the engine and motor only
`above MTO, that we aren't sure that that line C in Figure 11 is
`exactly the MTO. This gets back to that comparison claim
`construction argument. That limitation doesn't require operating
`only above MTO. It's met if you start operating the engine and
`motor right at MTO. It's met if you start operating the engine
`motor at 90 percent of the MTO. This admission is dispositive.
`The admission on slide 14 is dispositive and Ibaraki discloses
`these claim limitations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`That's all that we have for the Board at this moment on
`the Ibaraki general features. Mr. Rondini is going to talk about
`some of the specific arguments and then we'll reserve the rest of
`our time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Counsel, what does Ibaraki add
`to Tabata? Why are we here with Ibaraki when we've already
`dealt with Tabata?
`MR. ANGILERI: We're here with Ibaraki for two
`reasons. One is there's a lot of claims in this patent, so we had to
`file a lot of IPRs, but it's also here -- it's even more clear than
`Tabata of a disclosure of torque-based mode selection.
`So we're here with Ibaraki because it is everything
`Tabata is and more, specifically Figure 11 and Figure 5 and the
`accompanying text expressly describe the fact that that logic
`disclosed in Tabata is implemented at a torque level. It expressly
`describes operating the engine or rather the motor when the
`torque is below the threshold, the motor above the threshold and
`then both above an even higher threshold, which is effectively
`MTO.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: So it's Petitioner's position that
`Ibaraki is a stronger reference than Tabata?
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes, not to take anything away from
`
` 18
`
`Tabata.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Because they are both listed as
`inventors on two patents.
`MR. ANGILERI: I think they switched the order. One
`is first on one and then they're second on the other, which it
`explains the common logic which was that figure that -- the
`counterflow charts in both, but, again, Ibaraki adds significant
`disclosure in figures regarding the torque-based nature of the
`analysis.
`MR. RONDINI: So to further emphasize, one of the
`other reasons we brought Ibaraki into play was with respect to the
`monitoring of patents would be cooperation over time. It was our
`opinion and the Board's position that Ibaraki did teach that.
`Ibaraki does talk about adjusting the threshold, which is the dash
`line in Figure 11, which is one of the other reasons we used
`Ibaraki as opposed to Tabata.
`So real quickly I'm just going to go through two of these
`subissues and then save the rest for rebuttal.
`The first issue I wanted to talk about was with respect to
`the combination of Ibaraki plus Suga, and we focused on a couple
`of dependent claims where it had to do with the sizing of the
`motor and the sizing of the engine.
`Now, Ibaraki discloses a motor drive mode. It discloses
`that you need an electric motor to operate this motor drive mode.
`However, Ibaraki is silent onto the size of the motor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`So in our petition Ford presented a combination of
`Ibaraki plus Suga. Suga is a test bench for testing electric motors.
`It describes testing the electric motor using a well-known
`standard called the FUDS standard. And the FUDS standard, as
`Dr. Davis testified, was well-known in the art. It was commonly
`used for conventional vehicles, but Suga describes using it for
`electric motors.
`And since Ibaraki '882 requires an electric motor, it
`requires the electric motor for the electric mode operation, we
`presented this evidence and said that one of skill in the art would
`use Suga's teachings of testing the electric motor to test the
`performance and efficiency of the electric motor and test the
`electric motor for use in the Ibaraki '882.
`And Dr. Davis concluded that a person of skill in the art
`would have recognized the benefits of testing the electric motor
`as described in Suga so that you could have an electric motor that
`meets the FUDS standard and is operable in performance
`characteristics to operate in the Ibaraki '882 electric mode
`operation.
`The only other issue that I wanted to talk about real
`quickly is the other combination -- it's on slide 27 -- the
`combination of Ibaraki '882 plus Kawakatsu. And here it's
`another sizing set of dependent claims where the motor has a
`torque up capability that's greater than the engine.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`Now, again, Ibaraki does not expressly disclose the size
`of the motor and the size of the engine. It says that it has a motor.
`It says that it has an engine. It says that it can operate in a motor
`mode, it can operate in the engine mode and can operate in engine
`plus motor mode.
`So essentially as Dr. Davis testified, there's two choices
`here. Either you have a motor that can provide more torque than
`the engine or you have an engine that can provide more torque
`than the motor. Those are the only two choices in a parallel
`hybrid vehicle such as Ibaraki '882.
`So with those two choices, you know, you're going to
`have to go with one or the other. So Dr. Davis explained that
`Kawakatsu shows a parallel hybrid vehicle, much like the parallel
`hybrid vehicle of the Ibaraki '882 patent where the motor profile
`provides more torque output at the wheels than that of the engine.
`And Dr. Davis testified and explained why you would
`go with such a configuration where the motor can provide more
`torque than the engine. Specifically he testified that it was known
`at the time in 1998 that not only here in the U.S., but overseas in
`Europe there was a zero emission vehicle standard where you'd
`want to operate in city driving and use the motor more than the
`engine.
`
`In order to do that, you would want to have a motor
`torque output that is greater than that of the engine, so that at low
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00787,
`IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00794,
`IPR2015-00795; Patents 7,237,634 B2 and 7,104,347 B2
`
`speeds where the engine typically can't operate or is very
`inefficient for operation, you could use the motor. So you drive
`around the city using the motor and that's what Kawakatsu
`describes and expressly discloses.
`So Dr. Davis testified and explained that it was
`well-known in the art that not only would you want to have that,
`there was benefits to having that. It was one of the choices that
`was known. Like I said, there was only two choices, but he
`explained how you w
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
