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
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR 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)
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................ 2
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................ 2
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 2
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................. 2
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................... 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................. 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................. 3
`B.
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) .............................................. 3
`C.
`Prior Art Relied Upon .................................................................................... 3
`D. Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ...................................... 4
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA) ............................... 4
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT ................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’634 Patent ........................................................ 4
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent ................................................. 5
`The Challenged Claims Require Only One-Motor ..................................... 6
`
`VI.
`
`STATE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................. 6
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3) ..................................... 8
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Road load (RL)” and “RL” ............................................................................ 9
`“Setpoint (SP)” and “SP” .................................................................................. 9
`“Mode I,” “low-load operation mode I,” “high-way cruising operation mode
`IV,” “acceleration operation mode V” ............................................................... 11
`“Abnormal and transient conditions” ................................................................. 11
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .................................................................... 12
`
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 241, 252-254, 256, 258, 259, 263 and 265
`are Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view of Anderson .......................... 12
`1.
`Independent Claim 241 ..................................................................... 12
`2.
`Dependent Claims 252-254, 256, 258, 259, 263 and 265 .............. 28
`3.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 38
`GROUND 2: Claims 257, 260, 261 and 262 are Obvious over
`Severinsky ’970 and Anderson in view of Lateur ...................................... 40
`1.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 44
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`C. GROUND 3: Claims 80, 91, 92, 99, 112, 114, 125, 126, 132 and
`145 are Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view Frank ............................... 47
`1.
`Independent Claim 80 ....................................................................... 47
`2.
`Independent Claim 114 ..................................................................... 51
`3.
`Dependent Claims 91, 92, 99, 112, 125, 126, 132 and 145 ........... 54
`4.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 55
`D. GROUND 4: Claims 110 and 143 are Obvious over Severinsky
`’970 and Frank in view of Anderson ........................................................... 57
`1.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 58
`E. GROUND 5: Claims 97, 107, 108, 130, 140 and 141 are Obvious
`over Severinsky ’970 and Frank in view of Lateur .................................... 58
`1.
`Dependent Claims 97, 107, 108, 130, 140 and 141 ....................... 58
`2.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 59
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ......................................... 60
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`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) Frank
`USPN 7,237,634 File History
`’634 File
`History
`Takaoka
`
`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-
`system/oclc/205516653&referer=brief_results.)
`
`Declaration of Walt Johnson and Exhibit A (Dec. 23,
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1360
`
`1361
`
`1362
`
`1363
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`’347 File
`History
`Toyota
`Litigation
`
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`Ford IPRs
`
`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.)
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`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?searchId=20
`946&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?searchId=10
`003&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=2109503.)
`
`v
`
`1364
`
`1365
`
`1366
`
`1367
`
`’347 Patent
`
`Jeff Stein
`CV
`Heywood
`
`Pulkrabek
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1368
`
`1369
`1370
`
`1371
`
`1372
`
`1373
`
`1374
`
`1375
`
`1376
`
`Description
`
`Hawley, G.G., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Van
`Nostrand Reinhold Co., 9th ed. (1977) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=21
`541&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, Third
`Edition (Prentice-Hall, 1985) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=21
`829&recCount=25&recPointer=13&bibId=4259071.)
`
`Identifier
`
`Hawley
`
`Pieper
`Duoba
`
`SP-1331
`
`Yamaguchi
`Paper
`
`Reinbeck
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Unnewehr
`
`Brown
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1377
`
`1378
`
`1379
`
`1380
`
`1381
`
`1382
`
`1383
`
`Description
`
`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=&arn
`umber=411385&queryText%3DA.+G.+Stefanopoulou+
`et+al.%2C+Engine+Air-
`Fuel+Ratio+and+Torque+Control+using+Secondary+T
`hrottles%2C+Proceedings+of+the+33rd+IEEE+Confe
`rence+on+Decision+and+Control+.LB.December+199
`4.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?searchId=10
`476&recCount=25&recPointer=0&bibId=3806292.)
`Ronald K. Jurgen, Automotive Electronics Handbook,
`(McGraw-Hill 1995) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=10
`485&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=1598658.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,898 issued to Cullen et al. (Jan. 2,
`1996)
`
`Identifier
`
`Engh
`
`Stefanopoul
`ou
`
`Vittone
`
`GE Final
`Report
`
`Palm III
`
`Jurgen
`
`Cullen
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner (“Ford”) requests inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`(“’634 Patent”, Ex. 1351) through this Petition. The Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey L.
`
`Stein in support of this Petition, is filed as Exhibit 1352 (“Stein”, Ex. 1352).
`
`The ’634 patent is one of five patents that Patent Owner (“Patentee” or
`
`“Paice”) has asserted against Ford in litigation. Paice contends that these patents teach
`
`an allegedly “fundamental” method of “mode control using road load” and “engine
`
`control under which engine torque is above a setpoint.” (Ford Litigation, Ex. 1353 at
`
`16, served on Feb. 25, 2014, id. at 1.) Paice’s methods of using “road load” and an
`
`engine torque “setpoint” were actually well known in the art. (Stein, Ex. 1352, ¶¶ 63-
`
`68.) U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429 to Kawakatsu (Ex. 1374) and Paice’s own U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ’970”, Ex. 1354) disclose use of “road load” and
`
`“setpoint” for mode switching in a hybrid vehicle. (Id.)
`
`Paice’s patent claims start with this well-known control strategy and then add
`
`other common features. The ’634 patent has 306 such claims. Ford has repeatedly
`
`asked Paice to limit the asserted claims to a reasonable number (Ford Litigation, Ex.
`
`1353 at 52), but Paice has refused. Accordingly, Ford is filing several IPR’s to address
`
`the ’634 Patent claims and is trying to group the claims according to claimed subject
`
`matter. Due to page limitations, and the voluminous number of dependent claims,
`
`Ford addresses independent claims in multiple petitions. Ford relies on Severinsky
`
`’970 in this petition, but may rely on other references in other petitions because they
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`address other dependent claims directed toward different subject matter. This IPR
`
`focuses on claims directed to limiting a rate of change of torque output of an engine
`
`and controlling the engine to operate at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner certifies that Ford is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’634 Patent is being asserted in Paice, LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc. v.
`
`Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1-14-cv-00492, and Paice LLC and The Abell Foundation,
`
`Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America, et al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00499. Ford has filed related
`
`petitions
`
`in IPR2014-00568, IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00579,
`
`IPR2014-00852, IPR2014-00875, IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415,
`
`IPR2014-01416, IPR2015-00606, and IPR2015-00767. Ford is concurrently filing
`
`IPR2015-00758, IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00784, and IPR2015-00768. This Petition
`
`is not redundant to any such petitions.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Ford appoints Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) of Brooks Kushman P.C. as
`
`lead counsel, and appoints Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759), Andrew B. Turner (Reg.
`
`No. 63,121), and John P. Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949) 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
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`herewith.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Hand-delivery service can be made to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town
`
`Center, Twenty-Second Floor, Southfield, MI 48075 and Dentons US LLP, 233 South
`
`Wacker Drive, Suite 7800, Chicago, IL 60606-6306. Ford consents to email service at
`
`FPGP0104IPR7@brookskushman.com and iptdocketchi@dentons.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’634 Patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging
`
`the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of ’634 Patent 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, and
`
`requests these claims be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 to Severinsky (“Severinsky ’970,” Ex. 1354),
`
`filed on Sept. 21, 1992 and issued on Sept. 6, 1994, is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`2.
`
`Catherine Anderson and Erin Pettit, The Effects of APU Characteristics on
`
`the Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE 950493 (February
`
`1995) (“Anderson,” Ex. 1355), published in Feb. 1995, is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,823,280 to Lateur (“Lateur,” Ex. 1356), filed on Jan.
`
`12, 1995 and issued on October 20, 1998, is at least § 102(e) prior art.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534 to Frank (“Frank,” Ex. 1357), filed on Nov. 3,
`
`1997 and issued on Dec. 1, 1998, is at least § 102(e) prior art.
`
`D. Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Anderson
`
`241, 252-254, 256, 258,
`259, 263 and 265
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky
`Lateur
`
`’970, Anderson and
`
`257, 260, 261 and 262
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Frank
`
`80, 91, 92, 99, 112, 114,
`125, 126, 132, 145
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky
`Anderson
`
`’970, Frank,
`
`and
`
`110, 143
`
`Severinsky ’970, Frank, and Lateur 97, 107, 108, 130, 140,
`141
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA)
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and is also set forth in the declaration
`
`of Dr. Stein. (Stein, Ex. 1352, ¶¶39-43, see also ¶¶2-11.)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent was filed with 16 claims and was accorded a filing date of
`
`January 13, 2006. (’634 File History, Ex. 1351 at 162.) During prosecution, as part of a
`
`preliminary amendment, the Patentee cancelled the 16 originally filed claims, and
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`added 59 new claims. (Id. at 166-182.) The Office issued a first office action, which
`
`included a provisional double patenting rejection of claims 17-72 over a co-pending
`
`application that ultimately issued as the ’347 Patent, the parent of the ’634 Patent. (Id.
`
`at 290-296.) In Response, Patentee filed an amendment converting certain claims into
`
`independent form, adding 261 new claims, and filing a terminal disclaimer with
`
`respect to the ’347 Patent. (Id. at 422-491, emphasis added.) The Office allowed all
`
`pending claims (i.e., claims 17-54, 56-72 and 76-326) without further action. (Id. at
`
`493-498.)
`
`B.
`
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent identifies a purported “new ‘topology’ for a hybrid vehicle”
`
`requiring “a first electric ‘starting’ motor” and “[a] second ‘traction’ motor . . . directly
`
`connected to the road wheels to propel the vehicle.” (’634 Patent, Ex. 1351, 11:50-61.)
`
`The “new ‘topology’” is disclosed as a two-motor “series-parallel” hybrid. (Id. at 16:5-
`
`11.) Two-motor “series-parallel” hybrids were well-known long before the earliest
`
`priority date of September 1998. (Stein, Ex. 1352, ¶¶58-59.)
`
`The ’634 Patent also identifies a control strategy to operate the engine, traction
`
`motor, and starter motor “in accordance with the vehicle’s instantaneous torque
`
`demands so that the engine is run only under conditions of high efficiency” i.e., at
`
`higher speeds. (’634 Patent, Ex. 1351, 1-Abstract, see also 19:45-50 and 20:61-21:2.)
`
`The control strategy of the ’634 Patent was known in the prior art. (See e.g., Stein, Ex.
`
`1352, ¶¶60-68.) In fact, the ’634 Patent acknowledges “the inventive control strategy
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`according to which the hybrid vehicles of the [’634 Patent] invention are operated” is
`
`the same “as in the case of the hybrid vehicle system shown in the [prior art
`
`Severinsky] ’970 patent.” (’634 Patent, Ex. 1351, 35:3-9, see also 25:4-24.)
`
`C. The Challenged Claims Require Only One-Motor
`
`The challenged independent claims 241, 80 and 114 each recite “at least one
`
`electric motor.” Accordingly, a hybrid vehicle having only one electric motor satisfies this
`
`limitation; i.e., the challenged claims do not recite the allegedly “novel” hybrid
`
`topology having two-motors disclosed in the ’634 Patent.
`
`VI. STATE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`Environmental regulations in the 20th century resulted in the development of
`
`catalysts to increase the rate of fuel combustion to reduce the formation of undesired
`
`emissions. (Id. at ¶¶69-70.) Since at least 1988, “three-way” catalysts have been widely
`
`used to control hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)
`
`emissions. (Id. at ¶79.) To efficiently convert all three gases, the engine must operate
`
`at a substantially stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. (Id.) A stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is
`
`the ideal quantity of air (oxygen) and fuel reactants required to achieve a complete
`
`combustion reaction – wherein all of the hydrocarbon fuel reacts with oxygen to form
`
`carbon dioxide and water. (Id. at ¶¶71-73.) Outside of the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio,
`
`HC, CO and NOx conversion efficiencies rapidly drop. (Id. at ¶¶79-80.) Because fuel
`
`is completely burned at the stoichiometric ratio, fuel economy is also maximized. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶47, 71 and 73.)
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Since 1977, a closed-loop feedback system has been used with one or more
`
`oxygen (lambda) sensors to monitor the oxygen content in the exhaust stream from
`
`the engine to help maintain the stoichiometric ratio. This monitored oxygen content is
`
`used to determine whether the air/fuel ratio is “rich” (i.e., excess fuel) or “lean” (i.e.,
`
`excess air). (Id. at ¶¶81-83.) For conventional vehicles, engines typically run rich
`
`(excess fuel) during engine starting conditions and during transient conditions (i.e.,
`
`when the vehicle is accelerating under load); and during such conditions, vehicles emit
`
`more HC and CO pollutants than during normal operation. (Id. at ¶¶84-89.)
`
`As of the earliest claimed priority date of the ’634 Patent, limiting the rate of
`
`change of engine torque/load during transient conditions, such that the combustion
`
`of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio, was known. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶90-91.) The Patentee admitted as much in their characterization of Takaoka1 (Ex.
`
`
`1 Paice challenged the public accessibility of Takaoka in their preliminary response to
`
`IPR2014-01415, and stated that “Takaoka is a document designated as ‘Toyota
`
`Technical Review Vol. 47 No. 2 Apr. 1998.’ While this may seem to indicate that
`
`Takaoka was part of a periodical, nothing indicates that this is a periodical commonly
`
`circulated to the relevant public.” (Ford IPRs, Ex. 1363, 88-89, emphasis added.)
`
`Although Petitioner thinks it is excessive to acquire a declaration from a librarian to
`
`prove public accessibility for publications that admittedly “seem to indicate that [they
`
`are] part of a periodical,” especially at the pre-institution stage, Petitioner has done so.
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`1359) during the prosecution of the ’347 Patent. Patentee characterized Takaoka as
`
`teaching that “stoichiometric combustion can be more nearly obtained if the engine’s
`
`speed and/or load is varied as slowly as possible.” (’347 File History, Ex. 1360 at 23;
`
`Stein, Ex. 1352, ¶208, 759, 786.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, a claim is interpreted by applying its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Certain terms recited in the claims of the ’634 Patent were argued by the
`
`patentee with respect to the ’634 Patent and other patents in the ’634 Patent family,
`
`and construed by a court in the Eastern District of Texas in the prior litigation with
`
`Toyota (Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-211, and Paice LLC v.
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-180, (“Toyota Litigation,” Ex. 1361.)
`
`Certain terms recited in the claims of the ’634 Patent were also argued by the
`
`patentee and construed by a Maryland district court in Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-0499, on July 24, 2014. (“Hyundai Litigation,” Ex. 1362.)
`
`Petitioner proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes of this
`
`IPR only. But for some terms, based on the specification, file history, and patentee
`
`
`Therefore, attached to Takaoka is a declaration from a librarian, establishing that
`
`Takaoka was in fact publically accessible as of September 1998. (See Takaoka, Ex.
`
`1359 at 9-19.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`admissions, Ford contends that construction under applicable district court standards
`
`is narrower, and reserves the right to present a narrower construction in district court
`
`litigation.
`
`A.
`
`“Road load (RL)” and “RL”
`
`The Eastern District of Texas and Maryland courts have construed the terms
`
`“road load,” “RL,” and “road load (RL)” as “the instantaneous torque required for
`
`propulsion of the vehicle, which may be positive or negative in value.” (Toyota
`
`Litigation, Ex. 1361 at 205-206; Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1362 at 16, 96-100.)
`
`For this proceeding only, Ford proposes that “road load” be construed as “the
`
`amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or
`
`negative.” This is consistent with the PTAB’s construction. (See Ford IPRs, Ex. 1363
`
`at 40 (IPR2014-00571, Paper 12, p. 7); 57-58 (IPR2014-00579, Paper 12, pp. 7-8); and
`
`70 (IPR2014-00904, Paper 13, p. 6.)) Ford contends the construction is narrower
`
`under district court standards.
`
`B. “Setpoint (SP)” and “SP”
`
`The Texas and Maryland courts construed “setpoint (SP)” as being “a definite,
`
`but potentially variable value at which a transition between operating modes may
`
`occur.” (Toyota Litigation, Ex. 1361 at 203-204, Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1362 at 100-
`
`104.) Ford disagrees that this construction is the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`The ’634 Patent claims, specification, and file history define “setpoint” as a
`
`“predetermined torque value.” All claims recite a “setpoint” or “SP” value being
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`compared to either: (1) an engine torque value (e.g., claim 1); or (2) a torque-based
`
`“road load” value (e.g., claim 33). No claims recite a “setpoint” or “SP” in comparison
`
`to any other system variable. Likewise, the specification says “the microprocessor tests
`
`sensed and calculated values for system variables, such as the vehicle’s instantaneous
`
`torque requirement, i.e., the “road load” RL . . . against setpoints, and uses the results of
`
`the comparisons to control the mode of vehicle operation.” (’634 Patent, Ex. 1351,
`
`40:16-26, emphasis added.) To do so (e.g., compare whether “RL < SP”), the “setpoint”
`
`must be in the same measurement units as the “road load.”
`
`During prosecution of the ’347 Patent (Ex. 1364) – the parent of the ’634
`
`Patent – patentee added the following limitation to pending claims 82 and 104, to
`
`overcome a prior art rejection: “wherein the torque produced by said engine when
`
`operated at said setpoint (SP) is substantially less than the maximum torque output
`
`(MTO) of said engine.” Patentee then argued the engine was operated only “when it is
`
`loaded . . . in excess of a setpoint SP, which is now defined to be ‘substantially less
`
`than the maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine.’” (’347 File History, Ex.
`
`1360 at 37-38, 43-44, 49, emphasis added.)
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with the PTAB’s recent construction.
`
`(Ford IPRs, Ex. 1363 at 40-42 (IPR2014-00571, Paper 12, pp. 7-9); see also at 58-60,
`
`(IPR2014-00579, Paper 12, pp. 8-10).) Accordingly the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “setpoint (SP)” and “SP” as used in the challenged claims is a
`
`“predetermined torque value.”
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`C.
`
`“Mode I,” “low-load operation mode I,” “high-way cruising
`operation mode IV,” “acceleration operation mode V”
`
`During the Toyota suit, the court construed similar terms2 of the parent ’347
`
`Patent as follows: (1) low-load mode I as “the mode of operation in which energy
`
`from the battery bank flows to the traction motor and torque (rotary force) flows
`
`from the traction motor to the road wheels”; (2) highway cruising mode IV as “the
`
`mode of operation in which energy flows from the fuel tank into the engine and
`
`torque (rotary force) flows from the engine to the road wheels”; and (3) acceleration
`
`mode V as “the mode of operation in which energy flows from the fuel tank to the
`
`engine and from the battery bank to at least one motor and torque (rotary force) flows
`
`from the engine and at least one motor to the road wheels.” (Toyota Litigation, Ex.
`
`1361 at 219.) Ford agrees with these constructions for this IPR but reserves the right
`
`to offer narrower constructions in litigation.
`
`D.
`
`“Abnormal and transient conditions”
`
`The ’634 Patent does not define “abnormal and transient conditions,” nor describe
`
`its full scope with reasonable certainty. Claim 22 of the ’347 Patent, the parent of the
`
`’634 Patent, defines “abnormal and transient conditions” as “comprising starting and
`
`stopping of the engine and provision of torque to satisfy drivability or safety
`
`considerations.” (’347 Patent, Ex. 1364, Claim 22.)
`
`
`2 The similar terms of the ’347 Patent do not include the word “operation,” however
`
`the addition of the term does not alter the proposed construction.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00785
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR7
`
`Thus, although Petitioner does not admit that the term “abnormal and transient
`
`conditions” satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112, the limitation appears to include “starting and
`
`stopping of the engine and pro