UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 to Severinsky et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00785
`
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFERY L. STEIN, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT
`OF INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ.
`AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ. (CLAIMS 80, 91, 92, 97, 99, 107,
`108, 110, 112, 114, 125, 126, 130, 132, 140, 141, 143, 145, 241, 252-254,
`256-263 and 265 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,237,634)
`
`PAGE 1 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Engagement ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Background and Qualifications ................................................................... 12
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ........................................................... 15
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered ....................................................... 15
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................. 16
`
`A. General............................................................................................................ 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter ................................................. 17
`
`Claim Construction Standard ....................................................................... 18
`
`D.
`
`Anticipation .................................................................................................... 19
`
`E. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 20
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT
`FIELD AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ........................................ 23
`
`IV.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AS OF 1998 ..................................................................... 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Engine Fundamentals ................................................................................... 25
`
`Electric Motor Fundamentals ...................................................................... 29
`
`HEV Architecture ......................................................................................... 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Series HEVs ........................................................................................ 31
`
`Parallel HEVs ..................................................................................... 33
`
`Series-Parallel HEVs .......................................................................... 34
`
`D.
`
`Controls – HEV Mode Selection ................................................................ 36
`
`PAGE 2 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Emissions ....................................................................................................... 42
`
`Electrical Characteristics ............................................................................... 59
`
`G. Hysteresis Control ......................................................................................... 61
`
`H.
`
`Cruise Control ................................................................................................ 65
`
`V.
`
`THE ’634 PATENT ................................................................................................. 67
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of the ’634 Patent .................................................................... 67
`
`Construction of Terms in the Challenged Claims ..................................... 70
`
`Priority Claim ................................................................................................. 71
`
`VI.
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .......... 72
`
`A. Overview Of The Prior Art ......................................................................... 72
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ’970”) .............................. 72
`
`Society of Automotive Engineers Pub. No. 950493
`(“Anderson”) ...................................................................................... 73
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,823,280 (“Lateur”) .............................................. 74
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534 (“Frank”) ............................................... 75
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: The Combination of Severinsky ’970 and Anderson
`Teaches all of the Limitations of Claims 241, 252-254, 256, 258,
`259, 263 and 265 ............................................................................................ 75
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 241 ..................................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claims 252-254, 256, 258, 259, 263 and 265 ............ 119
`
`Rationale for Combining Severinsky ’970 and Anderson ........... 152
`
`C. Ground 2: The Combination of Severinsky ’970, Anderson and
`Lateur Teaches all of the Limitations of Claims 257, 260, 261 and
`262 ................................................................................................................. 160
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claims 257, 260, 261 and 262 .................................... 160
`
`PAGE 3 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Rationale for Combining Lateur with Severinsky ’970 and
`Anderson ........................................................................................... 179
`
`Claims 257 and 260 - Controls ....................................................... 179
`
`Claims 261 and 262 - Structure ...................................................... 183
`
`D. Ground 3: Claims 80, 91, 92, 99, 112, 114, 125, 126, 132 and 145
`Are Obvious Over Severinsky ’970 in View of Frank ............................ 187
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 80 ..................................................................... 187
`
`Dependent Claims 91, 92, 99 and 112 ........................................... 230
`
`Independent Claim 114 ................................................................... 255
`
`Dependent Claims 125, 126, 132 and 145 .................................... 296
`
`Rationale for Combining Severinsky ’970 and Frank .................. 320
`
`E. Ground 4: The Combination of Severinsky ’970, Frank and
`Anderson Teaches all of the Limitations of Claims 110 and 143.......... 323
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 110 ...................................................................... 323
`
`Dependent Claim 143 ...................................................................... 336
`
`Rationale for Combining Anderson with Severinsky ’970
`and Frank .......................................................................................... 348
`
`F.
`
`Ground 5: The Combination of Severinsky ’970, Frank and Lateur
`Teaches all of the Limitations of Claims 97, 107, 108, 130, 140
`and 141 .......................................................................................................... 357
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Dependent Claims 97, 107 and 108 ............................................... 357
`
`Dependent Claims 130, 140 and 141 ............................................. 373
`
`Rationale for Combining Lateur with Severinsky ’970 and
`Frank .................................................................................................. 390
`
`Claims 97 and 130 - Controls ......................................................... 390
`
`Claims 107, 108, 140 and 141 - Structure ..................................... 393
`
`PAGE 4 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`VII. OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS.................................. 396
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 5 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1351
`
`1352
`1353
`
`1354
`
`1355
`
`1356
`
`1357
`
`1358
`1359
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`’634 Patent
`
`Stein
`Ford Litigation
`
`Severinsky ’970
`
`Anderson
`
`Lateur
`
`Frank
`
`’634 File History
`Takaoka
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 issued to Severinsky et
`al. (July 3, 2007)
`Declaration of Jeffery L. Stein, Ph.D.
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
`1:14-cv-00492, District of MD, Baltimore Div.,
`Complaint (Feb. 19, 2014) (Ex. 1353 at 2-51.)
`
`Service (Feb. 25, 2014) (Ex. 1353 at 1.)
`
`Letter from Ford to Paice (Sept. 22, 2014) (Ex.
`1353 at 52.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 issued to Severinsky
`(Sept. 6, 1994)
`Catherine Anderson & Erin Pettit, The Effects of
`APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control
`Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE Technical
`Paper 950493, published as part of Society of
`Automotive Engineers Special Publication,
`DESIGN INNOVATIONS IN Electric AND
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE SP-1089 (February,
`1995) (available at
`http://papers.sae.org/950493/.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,823,280 issued to Lateur (Oct.
`20, 1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534 issued to Frank (Dec. 1,
`1998)
`USPN 7,237,634 File History
`Toshifumi Takaoka et al., A High-Expansion Ratio
`Gasoline Engine for the Toyota Hybrid System,
`published as part of Toyota Technical Review,
`Prevention of Global Warming, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Toyota
`Motor Corporation, April 1998) (Ex. 1359 at 1-8)
`(available at: https://www.worldcat.org/title/a-
`high-expansion-ratio-gasoline-engine-for-the-
`toyota-hybrid-
`
`PAGE 6 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`1360
`1361
`
`1362
`
`1363
`
`system/oclc/205516653&referer=brief_results.)
`
`Declaration of Walt Johnson and Exhibit A (Dec.
`23, 2014) (Ex. 1359 at 9-19.)
`USPN 7,104,347 File History Excerpts
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`2:04-cv-211, E.D. Texas, Paice Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (Mar. 8, 2005) (Ex. 1361 at 1-
`40.)
`
`Paice Claim Construction Reply Brief (Mar. 29,
`2005) (Ex. 1361 at 41-79.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (Sept. 28, 2005) (Ex.
`1361 at 80-130.)
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`2:07-cv-180 (Paice Opening Claim Construction
`Brief (June 25, 2008) (Ex. 1361 at 131-165.)
`
`Paice Claim Construction Reply Brief (Aug. 1,
`2008) (Ex.1361 at 166-191.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (Dec. 5, 2008) (Ex.
`1361 at 192-220.)
`Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor Corp. et al., Case
`No. 1:12-cv-0499, District of MD, Baltimore Div.,
`Paice Opening Claim Construction Brief (Nov. 14,
`2013) (Ex. 1362 at 1-37.)
`
`Paice Responsive Brief on Claim Construction
`(Dec. 16, 2013) (Ex. 1362 at 38-81.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (Ex. 1362 at 82-122.)
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00570, Paper 10
`(Sept. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1363 at 1-13.)
`
`
`Excerpts from Public Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, IPR2014-00571, Paper 11, (July 11,
`2014) (Ex. 1363 at 14-23.)
`
`’347 File History
`Toyota Litigation
`
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`Ford IPRs
`
`PAGE 7 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`
`Excerpts from Public Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, IPR2014-00579, Paper 11, (July 11,
`2014) (Ex. 1363 at 24-33.)
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00571, Paper 12,
`(Sept. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1363 at 34-50.)
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00579, Paper 12,
`(Sept. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1363 at 51-64.)
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00904, Paper 13,
`(Dec. 12, 2014) (Ex. 1363 at 65-78.)
`
`Excerpts from Public Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, IPR2014-01415, Paper 9, (Dec. 16,
`2014) (Ex. 1363 at 79-96.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2014-00571, Paper
`20 (January 21, 2015) (Ex. 1363 at 97-162.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2014-00579, Paper
`20 (January 21, 2015) (Ex. 1363 at 163-226.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2014-00570, Paper
`22 (January 21, 2015) (Ex. 1363 at 227-292.)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 issued to Severinsky et
`al. (Sep. 12, 2006)
`Curriculum Vitae of Jeffery L. Stein
`John B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine
`Fundamentals (McGraw-Hill 1988) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searc
`hId=20946&recCount=25&recPointer=4&bibId=
`2421798.)
`Willard W. Pulkrabek, Engineering Fundamentals
`of the Internal Combustion Engine (Prentice Hall,
`1997) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searc
`hId=10003&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=
`2109503.)
`
`1364
`
`1365
`1366
`
`1367
`
`’347 Patent
`
`Jeff Stein CV
`Heywood
`
`Pulkrabek
`
`PAGE 8 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Hawley
`
`Pieper
`
`Duoba
`
`SP-1331
`
`Hawley, G.G., The Condensed Chemical
`Dictionary, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 9th ed.
`(1977) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searc
`hId=21541&recCount=25&recPointer=14&bibId
`=1289584.)
`U.S. Patent No. 913,846 issued to Pieper (Mar. 2,
`1909)
`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.)
`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.)
`Yamaguchi et al., Development of a New Hybrid System
`– Dual System, SAE Technical Paper 960231,
`published as part of Society of Automotive
`Engineers Special Publication, Strategies in
`Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Design, SAE SP-1156,
`(February 1996) (available at
`http://www.worldcat.org/title/strategies-in-
`electric-and-hybrid-vehicle-design-sae-special-
`publication-sp-1156-a-collection-of-papers-
`presented-for-sessions-at-the-1996-sae-
`international-congress-and-
`exposition/oclc/312822989?ht=edition&referer=
`di; and http://papers.sae.org/960231/.)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,888,325 issued to Reinbeck
`(June 10, 1975)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429 issued to Kawakatsu
`(June 15, 1982)
`L. E. Unnewehr et al., Hybrid Vehicle for Fuel
`Economy, SAE Technical Paper 760121 (1976)
`(available at http://papers.sae.org/760121/.)
`Brown, T.L. et al., Chemistry, The Central Science, Brown
`
`Yamaguchi Paper
`
`Reinbeck
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Unnewehr
`
`1368
`
`1369
`
`1370
`
`1371
`
`1372
`
`1373
`
`1374
`
`1375
`
`1376
`
`PAGE 9 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Third Edition (Prentice-Hall, 1985) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searc
`hId=21829&recCount=25&recPointer=13&bibId
`=4259071.)
`Grunde T. Engh & Stephen Wallman, Development
`of the Volvo Lambda-Sond System, SAE Technical
`Paper 770295 (1977) (available at
`http://papers.sae.org/770295/.)
`A.G. Stefanopoulou et al., Engine Air-Fuel Ratio
`and Torque Control using Secondary Throttles,
`Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on
`Decision and Control, (December 1994) (available
`at
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp
`=&arnumber=411385&queryText%3DA.+G.+Ste
`fanopoulou+et+al.%2C+Engine+Air-
`Fuel+Ratio+and+Torque+Control+using+Secon
`dary+Throttles%2C+Proceedings+of+the+33rd+
`IEEE+Conference+on+Decision+and+Control+
`.LB.December+1994.RB.)
`Oreste Vittone et al., FIAT Research Centre, Fiat
`Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Car Design, 12th
`International Electric Vehicle Symposium, Volume
`2 (1994), (available at
`https://www.worldcat.org/title/symposium-
`proceedings-12th-international-electric-vehicle-
`symposium-december-5-7-1994-disneyland-hotel-
`and-convention-center-anaheim-
`california/oclc/32209857&referer=brief_results.)
`General Electric Company, Corp. Research &
`Dev., Near-Term Hybrid Vehicle Program, Final
`Report - Phase 1 (October 1979) (available at
`http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19800017707.)
`William J. Palm III, Control Systems Engineering
`(John Wiley & Sons, 1986) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searc
`hId=10476&recCount=25&recPointer=0&bibId=
`3806292.)
`Ronald K. Jurgen, Automotive Electronics Handbook,
`(McGraw-Hill 1995) (available at
`
`Engh
`
`Stefanopoulou
`
`Vittone
`
`GE Final Report
`
`Palm III
`
`Jurgen
`
`1377
`
`1378
`
`1379
`
`1380
`
`1381
`
`1382
`
`PAGE 10 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searc
`hId=10485&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=
`1598658.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,898 issued to Cullen et al.
`(Jan. 2, 1996)
`
`Cullen
`
`
`
`1383
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 11 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`
`
` My name is Jeffrey L. Stein. I have been retained by counsel for Ford 1.
`
`Motor Company (“Ford”) as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I
`
`have been asked to provide analysis and my opinion about the state of the art of the
`
`technology described in U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (“the ’634 Patent,” Ex. 1351) and
`
`on the patentability of claims 80, 91, 92, 97, 99, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114, 125, 126, 130,
`
`132, 140, 141, 143, 145, 241, 252-254, 256-263 and 265 (“the challenged claims”) of
`
`the ’634 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am currently a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University
`
`of Michigan, Ann Arbor Campus, and the former Associate Director of the
`
`Automotive Research Center at the University of Michigan. I have studied, taught
`
`and/or practiced in the relevant hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) control technology for
`
`over 20 years.
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I received my Ph.D. degree
`
`in Mechanical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. I received a Masters of Science degree
`
`in Mechanical Engineering and a Bachelors of Science degree in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976.
`
`
`4.
`
`In my capacity as a Professor, I teach undergraduate and graduate
`
`courses in mechanical design, dynamics, systems and control engineering. In my
`
`PAGE 12 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`capacity as a Professor, I also do research in the area of automotive system design and
`
`control as well as machine design and control. In several of my research projects, my
`
`students and I discovered unique ways to model, design and control automotive
`
`powertrains including hybrid powertrains.
`
`
`5.
`
` In addition to being the former Associate Director of the Automotive
`
`Research Center at the University of Michigan, I am also the former Principle
`
`Investigator (PI) of the project “A Multi-Scale Design and Control Framework for
`
`Dynamically Coupled Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructures, with Application to
`
`Vehicle-to-Grid Integration.” I am currently the PI of a project “Sustainable
`
`Transportation for a 3rd Century: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Addressing the
`
`Last Mile Problem for Enhanced Accessibility.” In my work at the Automotive
`
`Research Center, and on these projects, I have developed computer–based methods
`
`for facilitating the design evaluation of automotive powertrains including hybrid
`
`powertrains.
`
`
`6.
`
` From 1983 through 1987 and 1991 through the present, I have also
`
`worked as an Independent Consultant concentrating in the area of design and risk
`
`analysis of mechanical systems and manufacturing machines. Much of this work is
`
`particularly germane to the area of automotive powertrains. Some examples include:
`
`hybrid electric vehicles, automated mechanical transmissions and transfer cases for
`
`on-demand four-wheel drive.
`
`PAGE 13 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`
`7.
`
`From 1988 through 1991, I was also employed as an Independent
`
`Consultant for Failure Analysis Associates in San Francisco, California, focusing on
`
`the design and risk analysis of mechanical systems and manufacturing machines.
`
`
`8.
`
`I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Michigan, and am
`
`a member of several professional engineering organizations including the Society of
`
`Automotive Engineers, National Society of Professional Engineers, the American
`
`Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and the
`
`American Society for Engineering Education.
`
`
`9.
`
`In my work, I have had a number of opportunities to deal with U.S.
`
`Patents. This work has included infringement and validity analysis in the areas of
`
`hybrid electric vehicle powertrain design, CNC machine tool control, automotive
`
`transfer case design and control, automotive interior lighted mirror design, automated
`
`mechanical transmissions, agricultural seed meters, automotive shipping containers,
`
`medical beds and automated chemical immunoassay machines.
`
`
`10.
`
`I have authored over 65 journal articles, including at least 13 articles that
`
`are related to hybrid electric vehicles. I have also contributed to over 115 refereed
`
`conference papers, including at least 18 papers that are related to hybrid electric
`
`vehicles.
`
`
`
` My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1365 (“Jeff Stein 11.
`
`CV”), and provides a listing of all publications on which I am a named author.
`
`PAGE 14 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`C.
`
`
`12.
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $425 per hour to provide analysis
`
`and testimony in this inter partes review proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of any matter or the specifics of my testimony. I have no
`
`financial interest in the Petition.
`
`
`13.
`
`I have previously provided expert testimony in over 15 patent-related
`
`matters. My Curriculum Vitae identifies some of the areas in which I have previously
`
`provided expert testimony. (Jeff Stein CV, Ex. 1365.)
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered
`
`
`
` My findings, as explained below, are based on my years of education, 14.
`
`research, experience, and background in the fields discussed above, as well as my
`
`investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I have studied
`
`and considered the materials identified in the Exhibit List shown at the beginning of
`
`my report. Each of the exhibits listed are true and accurate copies. The Exhibit List
`
`includes citations for each exhibit I have reviewed including a weblink where
`
`appropriate or applicable.
`
`
`
` Additionally, I am aware of information generally available to, and relied 15.
`
`upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including technical
`
`dictionaries and technical reference materials (including textbooks, manuals, technical
`
`papers and articles); some of my statements below are expressly based on such
`
`awareness.
`
`PAGE 15 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`
`
` Due to procedural limitations for inter partes reviews, the grounds of 16.
`
`unpatentability discussed herein are based solely on prior patents and other printed
`
`publications. I understand that Petitioner reserves all rights to assert other grounds for
`
`unpatentability or invalidity, not addressed herein, at a later time. Thus, the absence of
`
`discussion of such matters here should not be taken as indicating that there are no
`
`such additional grounds for unpatentability and invalidity of the ’634 Patent.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. General
`
`
`17.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’634 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles
`
`that have been provided and/or explained to me.
`
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Ford has the burden of proving that
`
`the challenged claims of the ’634 Patent are unpatentable by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. I understand that under “a preponderance of the evidence” standard, Ford
`
`must show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`
`19.
`
` I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether a claimed
`
`invention is patentable is generally referred to as “prior art” and includes patents and
`
`PAGE 16 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles on websites, product
`
`manuals, etc.).
`
`
`21.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, I understand the prior art can be shown to
`
`“anticipate” the claim. Second, I understand the prior art can be shown to have made
`
`the claim “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the
`
`two legal standards is set forth below.
`
`B.
`
`
`22.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter
`
`I understand that in order to be considered “prior art,” patents or
`
`printed publications must predate the pertinent priority dates for the subject matter
`
`claimed in the ’634 Patent.
`
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a patent is only entitled to a priority date
`
`based on an earlier filed application if the earlier filed application meets the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112. Specifically, I have been informed that 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification of a patent or patent application must “contain
`
`a written description of the invention, and the manner and process of making and
`
`using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in
`
`the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and
`
`use the [invention] . . . .” I understand that the requirements of this provision are
`
`commonly called
`
`the written description requirement and
`
`the enablement
`
`requirement.
`
`PAGE 17 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that compliance with both the written description
`
`requirement and enablement requirement must be determined as of the effective filing
`
`date of the application for which priority is sought.
`
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that to satisfy the written description requirement
`
`a patent’s specification should reasonably convey to a person of skill in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date of the
`
`application.
`
`C.
`
`
`26.
`
`Claim Construction Standard
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. I have been
`
`informed that the claims, after being construed in this manner, are then to be
`
`compared to the information in the prior art, which for this proceeding is limited to
`
`patents and printed publications. I also understand that, at the same time, absent
`
`some reason to the contrary, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that in other forums, such as in federal courts, different
`
`standards of proof and claim interpretation control, which are not applied by the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review. Accordingly, I understand that any
`
`interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in this proceeding, either
`
`implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as constituting, in whole or in part,
`
`PAGE 18 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Petitioner’s own interpretation or construction, except as regards the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the claims presented.
`
`D. Anticipation
`
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, for a patent to be “anticipated” by the prior art, each
`
`and every limitation of the claim must be found, expressly, implicitly or inherently, in
`
`a single prior art reference. I further understand that the requirement of strict identity
`
`between the claim and the reference is not met if a single element or limitation
`
`required by the claim is missing from the applied reference.
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly described in a
`
`prior art reference may still be there if they are implicit or inherent to the thing or
`
`process being described in the prior art. I have been informed that to establish
`
`inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter
`
`is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so
`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that inherency
`
`cannot be established just because a certain thing may result from a given set of
`
`circumstances.
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is necessarily
`
`present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`PAGE 19 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`E. Obviousness
`
`
`32.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references to
`
`render obvious a claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art must have
`
`been able to arrive at the claimed invention by altering or combining the applied
`
`references.
`
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter taught to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question involves a consideration of:
`
`a) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`c) the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`d) whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case – referred to as “secondary
`
`considerations.”
`
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that such secondary considerations include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unmet need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution
`
`provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others;
`
`(e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by others
`
`PAGE 20 OF 396
`
`
`
`FORD 1352
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`skilled in the art; (g) the taking of licenses under the patent by others and (h) the
`
`patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I understand
`
`that secondary considerations are relevant where there is a connection, or nexus,
`
`between the evidence and the claimed invention.
`
`
`35.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rationale for combining cited references as proposed.
`
`
`37.
`
` I understand that obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that
`
`it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. I understand that obviousness may be shown by
`
`establishing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than
`
`one item of prior art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, I have been informed the following are examples of
`
`approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`a) Combining pri