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
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00758
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00785
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00801
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00792
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`______________
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`(GROUP 3)
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00758, -00785,
` -00801, -00792, and -00800
`
`
`
`Attached please find Ford’s demonstrative exhibits to be used at the trial
`
`hearing on June 29, 2016 at 10:45 AM in regard to Case Nos. IPR2015-
`
`00758, -00785, -00801, -00792, and -00800 (Group 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 24, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Frank A. Angileri/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`DENTONS US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00758, -00785,
` -00801, -00792, and -00800
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 24, 2016 a complete and entire
`of NOTICE OF FILING FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`copy
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS (GROUP 3), was served via electronic mail by
`serving the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Timothy W. Riffe, Reg. No. 43,881
`
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: IPR36351-0015IP4@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IP6@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IPD@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0013IP3@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IPC@fr.com;
`
`Riffe@fr.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Reg. No. 33,487
`Linda L. Kordziel, Reg. No. 39,732
`Daniel A. Tishman
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Email: : IPR36351-0015IP4@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IP6@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IPD@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0013IP3@fr.com;
`
`IPR36351-0015IPC@fr.com;
`
`Riffe@fr.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Frank A. Angileri/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421)
`Kevin Greenleaf (Reg. No. 64,062)
`Dentons US LLP
`1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
`650 798 0300
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`FORD DEMONSTRATIVES:
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER v.
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, PATENT OWNERS
`Inter Partes Review Consolidated Oral Hearing,
`Group 1 (Ibaraki ‘882): IPR2015-00722, -784, -787, -790, -791, -794, -795
`Group 2 (PCT): IPR2015-00606 and IPR2015-00799
`Group 3 (Severinsky / Bumby): IPR2015-00758, -785, -792, -800, -801
`
`Before Sally C. Medley, Kalyan K. Deshpande,
`Carl M. DeFranco and Jameson Lee
`Administrative Patent Judges
`Oral Argument: June 28-29, 2016
`
`

`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Group 3 Issues:
`
`Slide(s)
`
`Issue
`
`IPR2015-00758
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00785
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00801
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00792
`(US 8,214,097)
`
`IPR2015-00800
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`‘758, ‘785, ‘801, ‘792, ‘800
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`
`14-18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22-23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`CC / abnormal & transient conditions in
`city traffic
`Lateur discloses cruise
`Rationale to combine + Suga
`Vittone discloses limiting ROC of engine
`torque & stoich + motor supp
`Rationale to combine + Vittone and
`Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`Anderson discloses limiting ROC of engine
`torque & stoich + motor supp.
`Anderson discloses "when"
`Rationale to combine + Anderson and
`Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`Severinsky discloses RL/SP and Paice's
`admissions
`RL is related to engine output torque
`
`Severinsky + Frank disclose hysteresis
`
`Rationale to combine + Frank and Paice’s
`repeated T/A arguments
`Takaoka discloses limiting ROC . . . and
`Paice's admissions
`Rationale to combine + Takaoka and
`Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`Rationale to combine + Yamaguchi and
`Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`Bumby discloses comparing RL to SP
`
`Rationale to combine Bumby I-V
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-01416
`(Reply at 6-8.)
`Old - IPR2014-00904
`(Reply at 8-9.)
`Old - IPR2014-01416
`(Reply at 9.)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`New
`
`New
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 13-15.)
`See - IPR2014-01415
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 17-19.)
`Old - IPR2014-00904
`(Reply at 7-9.)
`Old - IPR2014-00904
`(Reply at 10.)
`Old - IPR2014-01416
`(Reply at 21.)
`Old - IPR2014-01416
`(Reply at 23.)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`New
`
`New
`New
`Old - IPR2014-00875
`(Reply at 19)
`See - IPR2014-00875
`(Reply at 20-23)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-00904
`(Reply at 6-8.)
`Old - IPR2014-00904
`(Reply at 9.)
`Old - IPR2014-01416
`(Reply at 23-24.)
`Old - IPR2014-01416
`(Reply at 24-25.)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 12-14.)
`N/A
`
`New
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 7-9.)
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 9-10.)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 14-17.)
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 18-19, 21.)
`Old - IPR2014-01415
`(Reply at 21.)
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Old - IPR2014-00579
`(Reply at 14-15.)
`Old - IPR2014-00579
`(Reply at 21-22.)
`
`page 2
`
`

`
`Abnormal & Transient Conditions Limitations
`
`‘785 (G1, 3), ‘792 (G1), ‘801 (G1)
`
`Severinsky discloses the “abnormal and transient
`conditions” limitations.
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶293-303
`
`Claim 7 (‘097 Patent):
`“. . . operating the engine at
`torque output levels less than SP
`under abnormal and transient
`conditions.”
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1201 (’097 Patent) claim 7
`See also claims 17, 27 and 37
`
`Claim 290 (‘634 Patent):
`
`“. . . operating the engine at
`torque output levels less than the
`SP under abnormal and transient
`conditions to satisfy drivability
`and/or safety considerations.”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (’634 Patent) claim 290
`See also claims 112, 145 and 265
`
`The Boards construction of “abnormal and transient
`conditions as including “starting the engine and
`stopping the engine” should be maintained.
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Reply at 4-6
`Institution Decision at 13-14, 22
`
`Severinsky:
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 18:23-33
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶301-302
`
`page 3
`
`

`
`Issue 1 – CC / Abnormal & Transient conditions in “city traffic”
`
`‘785 (G1, 3), ‘792 (G1), ‘801 (G1)
`
`“Abnormal and transient conditions” may occur in city traffic.
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Reply at 4-6; 9-11
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶16-22
`
`POR quoting ‘097 FH:
`
`PTAB:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`POR at 11 quoting Ex. 2801 (‘097 File History) at 238
`See Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶19
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Institution Decision at 13
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Institution Decision at 9
`
`page 4
`
`

`
`Issue 2 –Lateur discloses cruise control
`
`‘785(G2, 5), ‘801(G2)
`
`Lateur discloses the “cruise control” limitations.
`
`Claim 283 (‘634 Patent):
`
`[283.1] “. . . receiving operator
`input specifying a desired
`cruising speed;”
`
`[283.2] “controlling instantaneous
`engine torque output and
`operation of the at least one
`electric motor in accordance with
`variation in the RL to maintain
`the speed of the hybrid vehicle
`according to the desired cruising
`speed.”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 283
`See also claims 97, 130, 257
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶317-335
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶32-38
`
`Lateur:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1856 (Lateur) Figure 1 (annotated)
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶320-321
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1856 (Lateur) at 10:36-43
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶332-334
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶37-38
`
`page 5
`
`

`
`Issue 3 – Rationale to combine + Suga
`
`‘801(G3,6)
`
`A POSA would have been motivated to combine Severinsky and
`Suga, e.g., to target a ZEV classification
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Petition at 42
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶398-403,382-397
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶43-45
`
`Claim 291 (‘634 Patent):
`[291] “. . . wherein the at least one
`electric motor is sufficiently powerful
`to provide acceleration of said
`vehicle sufficient to conform to the
`Federal urban cycle driving fuel
`mileage test without use of torque
`from the engine to propel the
`vehicle.”
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 291;
`See also claim 266
`
`Dr. Stein (Decl.):
`A POSA “would have understood that these
`tests [Suga] would assess whether the
`motor’s power performance was sufficient for
`a hybrid-vehicle during times that the vehicle
`is being propelled by the motor alone without
`the use of torque form the engine, i.e., within
`Severinsky ’970’s low speed mode.”
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶395
`See also Ex. 1857 (Suga) at 4:6-17, Fig. 1, 3
`
`Severinsky:
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 10:52-68; 14:35-36
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶393-394
`
`page 6
`
`

`
`Claim construction of “RL”
`PTAB: “[W]e decline to import ‘external torque
`requirements’ into our interpretation of ‘road load,’. . . ”
`
`‘801(G4)
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1894 (‘875 Final Decision) at 10-11; Paper 23 (Resp. to Obs.) at 2
`See also Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶49-50
`
`Undisputed “Road load” claim construction: “the amount of instantaneous
`torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative.”
`Institution Decision at 7-8
`
`Paice:
`
`Dr. Stein:
`“[T]he challenged claims do not
`require determining ‘the
`amount of instantaneous
`torque required to propel the
`vehicle’ based on rolling
`resistance or wind resistance,
`but not based on accelerator
`pedal, as argued by Mr.
`Hannemann.”
`
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶50
`
`Ex. 1900 (Oral Hearing Tr. 2015) at 41:10-14
`Paper 23 (Resp. to Obs.) at 2-3
`
`page 7
`
`

`
`Vittone discloses “RL”
`‘801(G4)
`PTAB: “[W]e are persuaded by Petitioner that ‘driveability torque
`requirement’ and ‘total traction torque’ represent the
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle and,
`therefore, Vittone discloses ‘road load.’ ”
`Vittone:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1894 (‘875 Final Decision) at 11, emphasis added
`Paper 23 (Resp. to Obs.) at 2
`See also Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶483-486
`
`Ex. 1858 (Vittone) at 32, Fig. 5 (annotated)
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶483
`
`driveability
`torque requirement
`
`=
`
`instantaneous torque required
`to propel the vehicle
`
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶486
`
`page 8
`
`

`
`Issue 4 – Vittone discloses limiting ROC of engine torque & stoich + motor supp.
`
`‘801(G4)
`
`PTAB: A POSA “would have understood that Vittone’s ‘steady state
`management’ of the thermal engine meets the limitation of the ‘rate of change of
`torque output of said engine is limited to a threshold value.’ ” IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1894 (‘875 Final Decision) at 12; Reply at 19
`Vittone:
`See also Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶483-493; 501-506
`
`Claim 241 (‘634 Patent):
`
`[241.5] “. . . wherein said
`controlling the engine
`comprises limiting a rate of
`change of torque output of the
`engine;”
`
`[241.6] “. . . supplying
`additional torque from
`the at least one electric
`motor.”
`
`[241.5] “. . . controlling said engine
`such that combustion of fuel within
`the engine occurs substantially at
`a stoichiometric ratio. . .”
`
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 241
`
`Ex. 1858 (Vittone) at 33 (annotated), Fig. 8; Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶489-491
`
`Ex. 1858 (Vittone) at 29; Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶501
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1858 (Vittone) at 28; Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶487-488
`
`page 9
`
`

`
`Issue 5 – Rationale to combine + Vittone and Paice’s repeated teach away arguments
`
`‘801(G4)
`
`Severinsky and Vittone do not “Teach Away.”
`
`Severinsky:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶510-520
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶84-104
`
`Vittone:
`
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 12:13-33
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶99-100
`
`Mr. Hannemann:
`
`Ex. 1858 (Vittone) at 32, Fig. 5 (annotated)
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶87-88
`
`Bosch Handbook:
`
`Ex. 1896 (Hannemann Tr. IPR2014-00570 ) at 54:19-23
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶100
`
`Ex. 1897 (Bosch) at 11 (annotated)
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶95
`
`page 10
`
`

`
`Issue 6 – Anderson discloses limiting ROC of engine torque & stoich + motor supp.
`
`‘785(G1, 4)
`
`PTAB: “Anderson’s ‘slow transients’ strategy would have suggested to a skilled
`artisan a hybrid control strategy that limits the engine’s output torque ‘to less than
`[its] inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque.’”
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1388 (‘1415 Final Dec.) at 17; Reply at 14
`See also Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶¶199-218
`
`Anderson:
`
`Claim 241 (‘634 Patent):
`[241.5] “. . . controlling said engine
`such that combustion of fuel within
`the engine occurs substantially at
`a stoichiometric ratio. . .”
`
`[241.5] “. . . wherein said
`controlling the engine comprises
`limiting a rate of change of torque
`output of the engine;”
`
`[241.6] “. . . supplying additional
`torque from the at least one electric
`motor.”
`
`Ex. 1351 (‘634 Patent) claim 241
`
`Ex. 1355 (Anderson) at 11
`Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶¶199; 203-204; 216-217
`
`page 11
`
`

`
`Issue 7 – Anderson discloses limiting ROC of engine torque “when” motor supp.
`
`‘785(G1)
`
`Claim 241 (‘634 Patent):
`
`Anderson:
`
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶24-28
`
`Ex. 1355 (Anderson) at 10, 11
`Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶¶216-217
`Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶26-27
`
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 241
`
`page 12
`
`

`
`Issue 8 – Rationale to combine + Anderson and Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`
`‘785(G1, 4)
`
`PTAB: Paice’s argument that Anderson’s teachings are limited to series “would
`require us to ignore Anderson’s clear indication to the reader that her ensuing
`discussion of the optimum control strategy applies equally to both parallel and
`series-type vehicles.”
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1388 (‘1415 Final Dec.) at 27; Reply at 18
`See also Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶¶314-325, Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶41-81
`Anderson:
`
`Ex. 1355 (Anderson) at 7
`Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶324, Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶43
`
`Severinsky:
`
`Ex. 1355 (Anderson) at 8-9
`Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶317, Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶48
`Ex. 1392 (Stein Tr.) at 179:22-182:14
`
`Ex. 1354 (Severinsky) at 14:15-18
`
`Ex. 1354 (Severinsky) at 12:13-17
`Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶79-81
`See also Ex. 1391 (Hannemann Tr.) at 54:10-23
`
`Ex. 1355 (Anderson) at 9
`Ex. 1384 (Reply Decl.) ¶71
`
`page 13
`
`

`
`Issues 9-10 – Claimed control strategy
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ’801(G1-6, 8)
`
`The Claimed Control Strategy
`Claim 80 (‘634 Patent)
`Claim 1 (‘097 Patent)
`(w/RL):
`(w/o RL):
`
`* * *
`
`Low – Speed / Load Operation Mode I (“Motor mode”)
`IPR2015-00801 - Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) at 35:63-36:1; 43:29-35
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Highway Cruising Operation Mode IV (“Engine mode”)
`IPR2015-00801 - Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) at 36:31-36; 37:42-44
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Acceleration Operation Mode V (“Engine-motor mode”)
`IPR2015-00801 - Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) at 36:37-43
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 80;
`See also claims 114, 241 and 267
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) claim 1;
`See also claims 11 and 21
`
`page 14
`
`

`
`Issue 9 - RL/SP – Severinsky discloses “RL”
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ‘801(G1-6, 8)
`
`PTAB: “Although Severinsky describes the use of ‘speed’ as a factor considered
`by the microprocessor, Severinsky makes clear that the microprocessor also
`uses the vehicle’s ‘torque’ requirements in determining when to run the engine.”
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1892 (‘904 Final Decision) at 13-14, citing Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 17:11-15; Reply at 7
`See also Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶134-152
`
`Undisputed “Road load” claim construction: “the amount of instantaneous
`torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative.”
`IPR2015-00801
`Institution Decision at 7-8
`
`Claim [80.1] (‘634 Patent):
`[80.1]: “. . . determining
`instantaneous road load
`(RL) . . . ”
`
`Severinsky:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 80
`See also claims 114, 241 and 267
`
`See also IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) claim 21
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 17:11-15
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶136
`
`page 15
`
`

`
`Issue 9 - RL/SP – Severinsky discloses “SP”
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ‘801(G1-6, 8)
`
`PTAB: “Severinsky’s disclosure of an ‘operational point’ for the engine is no
`different than the claimed ‘setpoint.’ ”
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1892 (‘904 Final Decision) at 14-15; Reply at 8
`See also Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶153-192
`Claim 80 (‘634 Patent):
`[80.4]: “operating an . . .
`engine . . . to propel the
`hybrid vehicle when the RL
`required to do so is
`between the SP and a . . .
`(MTO) of the engine . . .”
`
`Severinsky ‘970:
`
`[80.3]: “operating at least
`one electric motor to propel
`the hybrid vehicle when the
`RL required to do so is less
`than a setpoint (SP)”
`[80.4]: “. . . wherein the
`engine is operable to
`efficiently produce torque
`above the SP, and
`wherein the SP is
`substantially less than the
`MTO”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 80
`See also claims 114, 241 and 267
`
`See also IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) claims 1, 11 and 21
`
`* * *
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 7:8-16; 20:63-67
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶159-160
`
`page 16
`
`

`
`Issue 9 - Paice’s admissions re RL/SP
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ‘801(G1-6, 8)
`
`Paice’s admissions are binding for determinations of anticipation and
`obviousness. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc.
`
`IPR2015-00785
`Reply at 12
`
`Mode selection based on
`the engine’s sweet spot:
`
`Engine mode
`
`Motor mode
`
`Engine + motor mode
`
`Mode selection based on
`the “torque required”:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) at 25:11-24; Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶162
`
`Motor + engine when “RL” > MTO:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) at 35:3-9
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶151
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) at 44:65-45:2
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶151
`
`page 17
`
`

`
`Issue 9 – Case Law
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ‘801(G1-6, 8)
`
`Clearwater Systems Corp. v. Evapco, Inc., is not on point
`
`IPR2015-00785
`Reply at 12-13
`
`• Clearwater:
`(cid:1)The Federal Circuit reversed a district court that found inherency by
`anticipation at summary judgment.
`
`(cid:1)The district court found that the claimed method was anticipated by a
`prior art device based solely on disclosure in the patent in suit stating
`that the prior art device could be used to practice the claimed method.
`
`• Here:
`(cid:1)Inherency by anticipation is not at issue.
`
`(cid:1)Ford relies on Severinsky.
`IPR2015-00785
`Reply at 12-13
`
`page 18
`
`

`
`Issue 10 – RL is related to engine output torque
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ‘801(G1-6, 8)
`
`PTAB: Paice’s “argument fails for the simple reason that, like
`Severinsky, the claims themselves express ‘road load’ as a
`torque output, not an input.”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1892 (‘904 Final Decision) at 18,
`citing claim 16 of the ‘634 Patent
`Reply at 9
`
`Claim 16 (‘634 Patent):
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 16
`
`PTAB: “[W]e disagree with Paice’s attempt to characterize the
`claimed ‘road load’ as a torque ‘input’ when the ’097 patent itself
`expressly states otherwise.”
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1238 (‘1415 Final Decision) at 25,
`citing the ‘097 Patent at 37:57-58; 36:25-27
`Reply at 10
`
`The ‘097 Patent:
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) at 37:57-58
`
`page 19
`
`

`
`Issue 11 – Severinsky + Frank disclose the hysteresis limitations
`
`‘758(G2), ‘785(G3), ‘801(G8)
`
`PTAB: “Severinsky’s disclosure of a torque-based setpoint for starting and stopping the
`engine, when combined with Frank’s teaching of a time-delay with an on-off threshold for
`an engine, would have suggested to a skilled artisan the features of claims 80 and 114.”
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1386 (‘1416 Final Decision) at 22
`Reply at 21
`See also Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶¶469-486; 615-624
`
`Claim [114.4] (‘634 Patent):
`“operating the at least one
`electric motor to propel the
`hybrid vehicle is performed
`when the RL < the SP for at
`least a predetermined amount
`of time”
`
`Frank:
`
`Claim [80.5] (‘634 Patent):
`[80.5] “. . . wherein said
`operating the internal
`combustion engine to propel
`the hybrid vehicle is
`performed when:
`[a] the RL>the SP for at least
`a predetermined time; or
`[b] the RL>a second setpoint
`(SP2) . . . .”
`
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1351 (’634 Patent) claims 80 and 114
`
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1357 (Frank) 7:66-8:11; Fig. 4
`Ex. 1352 (Stein) ¶¶475, 484
`
`page 20
`
`

`
`Issue 12 – Rationale to combine + Frank and Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`
`‘758 (G2), ‘785(G3), ‘801(G8)
`
`PTAB: “[t]hat Severinsky also may disclose this ‘hysteresis’ time-delay as
`being ‘speed-responsive’ does not negate or detract from its overall
`teaching of applying a time delay to an on-off setpoint to prevent frequent
`cycling between the engine and motor in a hybrid vehicle.”
`IPR2015-00785
`Ex. 1386 (‘1416 Final Decision) at 21
`Reply at 23
`See also Ex. 1352 (Stein) at ¶¶734-740
`
`Severinsky:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 18:34-42
`
`page 21
`
`

`
`Issue 13 – Takaoka discloses limiting ROC of engine torque & stoich + motor supp.
`
`‘792(G1)
`
`PTAB: “[W]e find that the combination of Severinsky and Takaoka teaches
`‘limit[ing] the rate of change of torque produced by the engine’ so that fuel
`combustion ‘occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio,’ as required by claim 30.”
`IPR2015-00792
`Claim 21 (‘097 Patent):
`Ex. 1238 (‘1415 Final Dec.) at 35; Reply at 14-16
`See also Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶¶204-239, Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶27-38
`[21.6] “if the engine is incapable of
`supplying instantaneous torque
`required to propel the hybrid vehicle,
`supplying additional torque from the
`at least one electric motor, and”
`
`Takaoka:
`
`Ex. 1206 (Takaoka) at 8
`Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶451; Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶28
`
`[21.5] “employing said controller to
`control the engine such that a rate
`of increase of output torque of the
`engine is limited to less than said
`inherent maximum rate of increase
`of output torque, and,”
`
`[21.7] “wherein said step of
`controlling the engine . . . is
`performed such that combustion of
`fuel within the engine occurs at a
`substantially stoichiometric ratio; and”
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) claim 21, see also claims 1, 11, 30
`
`Ex. 1206 (Takaoka) at 6
`Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶¶205, 227, 233
`Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶29
`
`Ex. 1206 (Takaoka) at 2
`Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶234
`
`page 22
`
`

`
`Issue 13 – Paice’s admissions re Takaoka’s disclosure
`
`‘792(G1)
`
`Paice’s admissions regarding Takaoka are binding.
`
`Claim 21 (‘097 Patent):
`
`[21.5] “employing said controller
`to control the engine such that a
`rate of increase of output torque
`of the engine is limited to less
`than said inherent maximum rate
`of increase of output torque,
`and,”
`
`[21.7] “wherein said step of
`controlling the engine . . . is
`performed such that combustion
`of fuel within the engine occurs
`at a substantially stoichiometric
`ratio; and”
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) claim 21,
`see also claims 1, 11, 30
`
`Takaoka:
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Petition at 48, Reply at 17-18
`
`Ex. 1206 (Takaoka) at 6
`Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶¶205, 227, 233; Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶29
`
`Paice re Takaoka:
`
`Ex. 1212 (‘347 FH) at 23
`Petition at 48, Reply at 17-18
`
`page 23
`
`

`
`Issue 14 – Rationale to combine + Takaoka and Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`
`‘792(G1)
`
`PTAB: “[W]e conclude that modifying the hybrid control strategy of Severinsky to
`incorporate the additional strategy of reducing quick transients in engine load, as
`taught by Takaoka, would have been obvious to a skilled artisan because both
`Severinsky and Takaoka are concerned with improving fuel economy and
`reducing emissions in hybrid vehicles, as argued by Ford.”
`IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1238 (‘1415 Final Dec.) at 35; Reply at 18-20
`See also Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶¶444-456, Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶39-49
`
`Severinsky:
`
`Ex. 1205 (Severinsky) at 12:13-33
`Ex. 1202 (Stein) ¶¶ 453-454, Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶40-41
`
`Mr. Hannemann:
`
`Ex. 1244 (Hannemann Tr.) at 54:10-23
`Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶43
`
`Dr. Stein: “Severinsky ’970 teaches that
`stoichiometric combustion is important to lower
`emissions and provides a balanced view of the
`tradeoffs associated with a lean burn strategy.”
`Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶40
`
`Dr. Stein: “It was well known to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art that hybrid vehicles
`typically used smaller engines than
`conventional vehicles. . . . Even if Takaoka’s
`engine is ‘underpowered’ as compared to
`conventional vehicles, it is comparable to the
`engine disclosed by Severinsky ’970.”
`
`Ex. 1237 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶48-49
`
`page 24
`
`

`
`Yamaguchi discloses the Preheat Limitations
`
`‘792(G2), ‘801(G1, 5, 8)
`
`PTAB: “Yamaguchi discloses rotating an engine to 600 rpm before starting it,
`and then starting the engine once it reaches a predetermined temperature. . . .
`[and] Dr. Stein, testifies that this process amounts to heating the engine before
`igniting it.”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1893 (‘1415 Final Decision) at 30
`See also Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶203-208
`
`Claim 3 (‘097 Patent):
`
`[3] “. . . wherein when it is desired
`to start said engine, said engine is
`rotated at at least 300 rpm,
`whereby the engine is heated prior
`to supply of fuel for starting the
`engine.”
`
`IPR2015-00792
`Ex. 1201 (‘097 Patent) claim 3,
`see also claims 13, 23, 32
`
`Claim 267 (‘634 Patent):
`[267.5] “. . . rotating the engine
`before starting the engine such
`that its cylinders are heated by
`compression of air therein.”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1851 (‘634 Patent) claim 267,
`see also claims 264, 111, 144
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1855 (Yamaguchi) Fig. 8 (annotated), 8:62-67
`page 25
`Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶203-204
`
`

`
`Issue 15 – Rationale to combine + Yamaguchi and Paice’s repeated T/A arguments
`
`‘792(G2), ‘801(G1,5,8)
`
`PTAB: “[W]e are persuaded that Severinsky’s modified control strategy
`would not have been viewed by a skilled artisan as ‘teaching away’
`from being combined with Yamaguchi’s teaching of heating the engine
`prior to starting it.”
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1893 (‘1415 Final Decision) at 31; Reply at 13
`See also Ex. 1852 (Stein) ¶¶304-316, Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶25-31, 106-111
`
`Severinsky:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1854 (Severinsky) at 12:13-24
`Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶30-31
`
`Vittone:
`
`IPR2015-00801
`Ex. 1858 (Vittone) at 29; Ex. 1889 (Reply Decl.) ¶¶107-110
`
`page 26
`
`

`
`Issue 16 – compare “road load” to ”setpoint”
`‘800(G2)
`The Bumby references disclose comparing a predetermined torque value
`(“setpoint”) to the instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be it
`positive or negative (“road load”)
`
`Petition 23-31
`Ex. 1903 (Davis Decl.) ¶¶247-277
`Ex. 1951 (Davis Reply Decl.) ¶¶33-39
`
`Ex. 1906 (Bumby II) at 10-11
`See also, Ex. 1907 (Bumby III) at 7-8
`
`Ex. 1906 (Bumby II) at 11, Fig. 16
`See also, Ex. 1907 (Bumby III) at 8, Fig. 8
`
`page 27
`
`

`
`Issue 17 – Reason to combine Bumby I-V
`
`‘800(G2)
`
`The Board has held that Ford adequately provided a motivation to combine
`as Bumby I - Bumby V expressly cross-cite and chronologically detail a
`hybrid project developed at the University of Durham in the 1980’s
`
`IPR2015-00800
`Petition at 12-21
`Reply at 21-22
`
`IPR2015-00800, Ex. 1945 (‘579 Decision) at 19
`
`IPR2015-00800, Institution Decision (Paper 13) at 18
`
`page 28
`
`

`
`Issue 17 – Reason to combine Bumby I-V
`
`‘800(G2)
`
`Bumby II does not show results of a hybrid car with worse fuel consumption than
`a conventional non-hybrid car
`
`IPR2015-00800
`Reply at 24
`Ex. 1951 (Davis Reply) ¶¶38-42
`
`Ex. 1906 (Bumby II) at 12, Table 3A and 3B
`
`page 29
`
`

`
`Issue 17 – Reason to combine Bumby I-V
`
`‘800(G2)
`
`Bumby V states the “arbitrary [speed-based] strategy is intended purely to demonstrate
`that the fully integrated control system is capable of following the dictates” of the sub-
`optimal control strategy
`
`IPR2015-00800, Reply at 23
`Ex. 1951 (Davis Reply) ¶¶57-60
`
`Ex. 1909 (Bumby V) at 15 (highlighted)
`
`Ex. 1909 (Bumby V) at 13-Fig. 16 & 15-Fig. 18
`
`page 30
`
`

`
`Issue 1 – Abnormal & Transient conditions in “city traffic”
`
`‘785 (G1, 3), ‘792 (G1), ‘801 (G1)
`
`Issue 1 – Cross-reference for other Group 3 IPRs
`
`page 31
`
`

`
`Issue 2 - Cruise
`
`‘785(G2, 5), ‘801(G2)
`
`Issue 2 – Cross-reference for other Group 3 IPRs
`
`page 32
`
`

`
`Issue 9-10- RL / SP Severinsky
`
`‘758 (G1-3), ‘785(G1-5), ‘792(G1-2), ‘801(G1-6, 8)
`
`Issues 9-10 – Cross-reference for other Group 3 IPRs
`
`page 33
`
`

`
`Issues 11-12 - Hysteresis and Rationale to combine + Frank
`
`‘758, ‘785(G3), ‘801(G8)
`
`Issues 11-12 – Cross-reference for other Group 3 IPRs
`
`Slide(s)
`
`Paper/Exhibit
`
`IPR2015-00758
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00785
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00801
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00792
`(US 8,214,097)
`
`IPR2015-00800
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`Ex. 1890 at 22
`N/A
`Paper 17 at 24
`Ex. 1852 ¶¶652-670, 728-737 N/A
`
`Ex. 1859 at 7:66-8:11, Fig. 4
`Ex. 1852 ¶¶659, 668
`
`Ex. 1890 at 21
`Paper 17 at 25
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`Ex. 1386 at 22
`Paper 19 at 21
`Ex. 1352 ¶¶469-486,
`615-624
`Ex. 1357 at 7:66-8:11,
`Fig. 4
`Ex. 1352 ¶¶475,484
`Ex. 1386 at 21
`Paper 19 at 23
`
`Ex. 1256 at 22
`Paper 18 at 9
`Ex. 1207 ¶¶362-376, 415-
`416
`Ex. 1204 at 7:66-8:11, Fig.
`
`4 E
`
`x. 1207 ¶¶347, 415
`Ex. 1256 at 21
`Paper 18 at 10
`
`1416 Final Decision
`Reply
`Ford Expert Decl.
`
`Frank
`
`1416 Final Decision
`Reply
`
`Ford Expert Decl.
`Severinsky
`
`Ex. 1207 ¶¶345-349
`Ex. 1203 at 18:34-42
`
`Ex. 1352 ¶¶734-740
`Ex. 1354 at 18:34-42
`
`Ex. 1852 ¶¶807-820, 776-782 N/A
`Ex. 1854 at 18:34-42
`N/A
`
`20
`20
`20
`
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`21
`21
`
`page 34
`
`

`
`Issue 15 – Rationale to combine + Yamaguchi
`
`‘792(G2), ‘801(G1,5,8)
`
`Issue 15 - Cross-reference for other Group 3 IPRs
`
`Slide(s)
`
`Paper/Exhibit
`
`IPR2015-00758
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00785
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00801
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`IPR2015-00792
`(US 8,214,097)
`
`IPR2015-00800
`(US 7,237,634)
`
`25
`25
`25
`
`26
`26
`26
`
`26
`26
`
`26
`
`1415 Final Decision
`Ford Expert Decl.
`Yamaguchi
`
`1415 Final Decision
`Ford Expert Decl.
`Ford Expert Reply Decl.
`
`Reply
`Severinsky
`
`Vittone
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Ex. 1893 at 30
`Ex. 1852 ¶¶203-208
`Ex. 1855 at 8:62-67, Fig. 8
`Ex. 1852 ¶¶203-204
`
`Ex. 1238 at 30
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶461-466
`Ex. 1209 at 8:62-65, Fig. 8
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶461-462
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`Ex. 1893 at 31
`Ex. 1852 ¶¶304-316
`Ex. 1889 ¶¶25-31, 106-111
`
`Ex. 1238 at 31
`Ex. 1202 ¶¶457-466
`N/A
`
`Paper 17 at 13
`Ex. 1854 at 12:13-24
`Ex. 1889 ¶¶30-31
`Ex. 1858 at 29
`Ex. 1889 ¶¶107-110
`
`N/A
`Ex. 1205 at 12:13-24
`
`Ex. 1233 at 29
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`page 35