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.: IPR2015-00787
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, 54, 215, 238, 241, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 259, 261,
`262, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, AND 288 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,237,634)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................ 2
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................ 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. Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) ........................................ 3
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT ................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’634 Patent ........................................................ 5
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent ................................................. 5
`Independent Claims 33, 215, 241 and 267 ................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA) ............................... 7
`
`VI.
`
`STATE OF THE ART .............................................................................................. 8
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3) ................................... 9
`
`A.
`B.
`
`road load (RL) and RL .................................................................................. 10
`setpoint (SP) and SP ...................................................................................... 10
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .................................................................... 11
`
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 33, 34, 35, 38 and 215 are Obvious over
`Ibaraki ’882 and the General Knowledge of a POSA ............................... 12
`1.
`Independent Claim 33 ....................................................................... 12
`2.
`Dependent Claim 34 .......................................................................... 35
`3.
`Dependent Claim 35 .......................................................................... 36
`4.
`Dependent Claim 38 .......................................................................... 36
`5.
`Independent Claim 215 ..................................................................... 37
`Ground 2 – Claims 53, 241, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 259, 261 and
`262 are Obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882, Vittone and the
`Knowledge of a POSA ................................................................................. 38
`1.
`Dependent Claim 53 .......................................................................... 38
`2.
`Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 41
`3.
`Independent Claim 241 ..................................................................... 43
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`Dependent Claim 252 ........................................................................ 44
`4.
`Dependent Claim 253 ........................................................................ 44
`5.
`Dependent Claim 254 ........................................................................ 44
`6.
`Dependent Claim 255 ........................................................................ 46
`7.
`Dependent Claim 256 ........................................................................ 50
`8.
`Dependent Claim 259 ........................................................................ 50
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 261 ........................................................................ 52
`11. Dependent Claim 262 ........................................................................ 53
`C. Ground 3 – Claims 54, 238, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, and 288 are
`obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882, Yamaguchi and the Knowledge
`of a POSA ...................................................................................................... 54
`1.
`Motivation to Combine ..................................................................... 54
`2.
`Dependent Claim 54 .......................................................................... 55
`3.
`Dependent Claim 238 ........................................................................ 57
`4.
`Independent Claim 267 ..................................................................... 57
`5.
`Dependent Claim 281 ........................................................................ 58
`6.
`Dependent Claim 282 ........................................................................ 59
`7.
`Dependent Claim 285 ........................................................................ 59
`8.
`Dependent Claim 287 ........................................................................ 59
`9.
`Dependent Claim 288 ........................................................................ 59
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ......................................... 60
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1750
`1751
`1752
`1753
`
`1754
`1755
`1756
`1757
`1758
`
`1759
`
`1760
`
`1761
`1762
`1763
`
`1764
`1765
`
`1766
`
`1767
`
`1768
`
`1769
`
`1770
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`Ford Letter to Paice
`U.S. Patent No. 5,789,882
`Oreste Vittone et al., FIAT
`Research Centre, Fiat Conceptual
`Approach to Hybrid Car Design,” 12th
`(International Electric Vehicle
`Symposium, 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263
`Declaration of Gregory Davis
`Toyota Litigations
`Hyundai Litigation
`PTAB Decisions & Preliminary
`Response in 2014-00571
`7,237,634 File History (certified)
`
`Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347 File
`History
`U.S. Patent No.7,104,347
`SAE 760121 (Unnewehr-1976)
`Microprocessor Design for HEV
`(Bumby-1988)
`SAE SP-1331 (1998)
`Innovations in Design: 1993 Ford
`Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge
`1996 & 1997 Future Car
`Challenge
`Introduction to Automotive
`Powertrain (Davis)
`U.S. Application 60-100095
`
`History of Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle (Wakefield-1998)
`SAE 920447 (Burke-1992)
`
`iii
`
`Date
`July 3, 2007
`Sept. 2014
`Aug. 4, 1998
`1994
`
`Identifier
`’634 Patent
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`Vittone
`
`Feb. 23, 1996
`
`2005
`2013-2014
`
`
`Yamaguchi
`Davis Dec.
`Toyota Litigation
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`’634 Patent File
`History
`’347 File History
`
`Sept. 12, 2006
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`’347 Patent
`Unnewehr
`Bumby 1988
`
`Feb. 1998
`Feb. 1994
`
`SAE SP-1331
`
`
`Feb. 1997 &
`Feb. 1998
`
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`1998
`
`
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`’095 Provisional
`
`Wakefield
`
`Feb. 1, 1992
`
`Burke 1992
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`Identifier
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1156
`HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`9323263
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`’672 Patent
`IEEE Eshani 1996
`
`April 3, 2001
`1996
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`IEEE Eshani 1997
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Feb. 1995
`Aug. 11, 1998
`
`SAE SP-1089
`An 1998
`
`
`July 12, 1994
`Sept. 6, 1994
`Nov. 1987
`
`
`Boll
`Severinsky ’970
`Bumby II
`
`Feb. 25, 2014
`1995
`
`
`Jurgen
`
`1997
`
`Pulkrabek
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1771
`
`1772
`
`1773
`1774
`
`Description
`Vehicle Tester for HEV (Duoba-
`1997)
`DOE Report to Congress (1994) April 1995
`
`Date
`Aug. 1, 1997
`
`SAE SP-1156 (1996)
`DOE HEV Assessment (1979)
`
`Feb. 1996
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`1775
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`WO 9323263A1 (Field)
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi-1998)
`
`Nov. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`1776
`1777
`
`1778
`1779
`
`1780
`
`1781
`
`1782
`1783
`
`1784
`1785
`1786
`1787
`
`1788
`1789
`
`1790
`
`
`
`US Patent 6,209,672
`Propulsion System for Design for
`EV (Ehsani-1996)
`Propulsion System Design for
`HEV (Ehsani-1997)
`Bosch Automotive Handbook
`(1996)
`SAE SP-1089 (Anderson-1995)
`Critical Issues in Quantifying
`HEV Emissions (An 1998)
`Gregory Davis Resume
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,992
`US Patent 5,343,970
`Bumby, J.R. et al. “Optimisation
`and control of a hybrid electric
`car” - IEE Proc. A 1987, 134(6)
`Paice Complaint
`Automotive Electronics
`Handbook (Jurgen)
`Engineering Fundamentals of the
`Internal Combustion Engine
`(Pulkrabek)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner (“Ford”) requests IPR of claims 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, 54, 215, 238, 241,
`
`252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 259, 261, 262, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, and 288 (“the ’634
`
`Patent”, Ex. 1750).
`
`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.” (Ex. 1788, Paice Complaint,
`
`p. 16, ¶43, served on 2/25/14 (p.1).) Paice’s methods of using “road load” and an
`
`engine torque “setpoint” were actually well known in the art. (Ex. 1755, [Davis],
`
`¶¶432-444.) U.S. Patent No. 5,789,882 (“Ibaraki ’882”), prior publications by Bumby,
`
`and Paice’s own U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ’970”) all 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 such 306 claims. Ford has repeatedly
`
`asked Paice to limit the asserted claims to a reasonable number (Ex. 1751, Ford
`
`Letter), 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 Ibaraki ’882 in
`
`this petition, but may rely on Severinsky ’970 or the Bumby publications in other
`
`1
`
`

`

`petitions because they address other dependent claims directed toward different
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`subject matter.
`
`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.
`
`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 petitions
`
`concerning the ’634 Patent in IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01416 and IPR2015-00606,
`
`IPR2015-00722, IPR2015-00758, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00785, and IPR2015-
`
`00791. Petitioner has also filed petitions concerning other asserted patents in
`
`IPR2014-00568, IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00579, IPR2014-00852,
`
`IPR2014-00875, IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-01415, and IPR2015-00767. Petitioner is
`
`concurrently filing related petition IPR2015-00790. This Petition is not redundant to
`
`any previously or concurrently filed petitions.
`
`B.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) of Brooks Kushman
`
`P.C. as lead counsel, and appoints John E. Nemazi (Reg. No. 30,876), John P.
`
`Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949) and Erin K. Bowles (Reg. No. 64,705) 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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`C.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via hand-
`
`delivery to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor,
`
`Southfield, Michigan 48075 and Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite
`
`7800, Chicago, IL 60606-6306. Petitioner consents to service by email at
`
`FPGP0104IPR5@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 IPR and that Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds in this
`
`Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the ’634 Patent claims 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, 54, 215,
`
`238, 241, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 255, 261, 262, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, and 288 and
`
`requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) cancel those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art for the grounds of unpatentability:
`
`(i)
`
`Ibaraki ’882 – U.S. Patent No. 5,789,882 to Ibaraki et al. (hereinafter “Ibaraki
`
`’882”) was filed on July 22, 1996, issued on August 4, 1998, and qualifies as prior art
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) & (e). (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882].)
`
`(ii) Vittone - Oreste Vittone et al., FIAT Research Centre, Fiat Conceptual Approach
`
`to Hybrid Car Design, 12th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (1994) (hereinafter
`
`“Vittone,”) which was published in December, 1994 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). (Ex. 1753 [Vittone])
`
`(iii) Yamaguchi - U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263
`
`to Yamaguchi
`
`(hereinafter
`
`“Yamaguchi,”), which was filed in the U.S. on February 23, 1996 and issued on
`
`February 2, 1999, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (Ex. 1754 [Yamaguchi])
`
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`References
`Ground Basis
`1
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 and the general
`
`Claims
`33, 34, 35, 38 and 215
`
`knowledge of a POSA
`
`2
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882, Vittone and the general
`
`53, 241, 252, 253, 254, 255,
`
`knowledge of a POSA
`
`256, 259, 261 and 262
`
`3
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882, Yamaguchi and the
`
`54, 238, 267, 281, 282, 285,
`
`general knowledge of a POSA
`
`287, and 288
`
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis. (“Davis” at Ex. 1755.)
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT
`
`The ’634 Patent is a divisional in a patent family chain that ultimately claims
`
`priority back to two separate Provisional Applications—Provisional Application No.
`4
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`60/100,095, filed September 14, 1998, and 60/122,296, filed March 1, 1999.The ’634
`
`Patent is a direct divisional of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ’347 Patent,” Ex.
`
`1761).
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent was accorded a filing date of January 13, 2006. (’634 File
`
`History, Ex. 1759 at 162.) As filed, the ’634 Patent included 16 claims. Id. at 126-
`
`131. On May 5, 2006, the Patentee filed a preliminary amendment cancelling originally
`
`filed claims 1-16 and adding new claims 17-75. Id. at 166-181. On October 24, 2006,
`
`the patentee responded to a non-final office action by cancelling some of the
`
`previously submitted claims and adding 261 new claims. Id. at 344. On February 8,
`
`2007, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance. Id. at 493.
`
`B.
`
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent identifies a purportedly “new ‘topology’ for a hybrid vehicle”
`
`that requires “a first electric ‘starting’ motor” and “[a] second ‘traction’ motor []
`
`directly connected to the road wheels to propel the vehicle.” (Ex. 1750 [’634 Patent] at
`
`11:50-61.) The purported “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 patentee’s earliest priority date of September 1998. (Ex. 1755 [Davis]
`
`at ¶¶ 87-107.)
`
`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
`5
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`demands so that the engine is run only under conditions of high efficiency.” (Ex. 1750
`
`[’634 Patent] at 1, Abstract.) The ’634 Patent states that the control strategy operates
`
`“the internal combustion engine only under circumstances providing a significant
`
`load, thus ensuring efficient operation.” (Ex. 1750 [’634 Patent] at 35:10-12; see also
`
`19:45-50 and 20:61-21:2.) Efficient engine operation is accomplished by using a set of
`
`operating modes that determine when to operate the engine or motors “depending on
`
`the torque required, the state of charge of the battery and other variables.” (Id. at 35:3-
`
`9.) Specifically, the ’634 Patent discloses: (1) operating the traction motor to provide
`
`“the torque required to propel the vehicle” when engine torque would be inefficiently
`
`produced (i.e., “mode I”); (2) operating the engine to provide “the torque required to
`
`propel the vehicle” when engine torque is efficiently produced (i.e., “mode IV”); (3)
`
`operating both the engine and motor when the “torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle” is above the maximum operating torque of the engine (i.e., “mode V”). (Id. at
`
`35:63-36:4; 36:20-43; Figs. 8(a), (c), (d).)
`
`The ’634 Patent control strategy was also known in the prior art. (Ex. 1755,
`
`[Davis] ¶¶108-134.) In fact, the ’634 Patent itself acknowledges that “the inventive
`
`control strategy 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.” (Ex. 1750 [’634 Patent] at 35:3-9, see also 25:4-24.)
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claims 33, 215, 241 and 267
`
`Independent claims 33, 215, 241 and 267 recite a “method for controlling a
`6
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`hybrid vehicle” using an engine and a single electric motor. These independent claims
`
`include significant overlap and generally recite: (1) “monitoring road load [RL] over time;”
`
`(2) operating “at least one electric motor” when RL < a “setpoint (SP)”; (3) operating the
`
`engine when SP < RL < engine’s maximum torque output (MTO); and (4) operating
`
`both the engine and electric motor when RL > MTO.
`
`Claim 33 further requires monitoring a pattern of vehicle operation over time
`
`and adjusting the setpoint accordingly. Claim 215 further requires regeneratively
`
`charging the battery using the engine or during braking. Claim 241 further requires
`
`controlling the engine for combustion at the stoichiometric ratio by limiting the rate
`
`of change of torque output during rapid acceleration demands. Claim 267 further
`
`requires preheating the engine before starting by rotating the engine.
`
`V.
`
`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). A POSA would have either: (1) a
`
`graduate degree in mechanical, electrical or automotive engineering with experience in
`
`the design and control of combustion engines, electric or hybrid electric propulsion
`
`systems, or automotive transmissions, or (2) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical,
`
`electrical or automotive engineering with at least five years of experience in the design
`
`and control of combustion engines, electric or hybrid electric propulsion systems, or
`
`automotive transmissions. (Ex. 1755 [Davis] ¶¶41-42, see also ¶¶5-37.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`VI. STATE OF THE ART
`
`Hybrid vehicles date back over 100 years to the infancy of the automobile. (Ex.
`
`1755 [Davis] ¶¶43-47.) Over this time span, numerous hybrid architectures had been
`
`examined to achieve design “goals” that included efficient engine operation, improved
`
`fuel economy and reduced emissions. (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶48.)
`
`By September 1998, the development of the hybrid vehicle had advanced to a
`
`state where numerous different hybrid vehicle architectures were generally known and
`
`had even been successfully built and tested on public roads. (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶¶49-
`
`60.) These hybrid vehicle architectures typically employed electric motors to maintain
`
`operation of the internal combustion engine within the engine’s most efficient
`
`operating region, commonly referred as the engine’s “sweet spot.” (Ex.1755 [Davis]
`
`¶¶59, 108-133.) Some hybrid vehicles could accomplish efficient engine operation by
`
`employing “one-motor” architectures while other designs found operational benefits
`
`by employing “two-motor” architectures. (Ex.1755 [Davis], see discussion regarding
`
`“series” hybrid vehicles at ¶¶61-69; “parallel” hybrid vehicles at ¶¶70-86; and “series-
`
`parallel” hybrid vehicles ¶¶ 87-107.)
`
`It was known before September 1998 that engines in conventional vehicles
`
`operate inefficiently at low torque loads and vehicle speeds. (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶¶108-
`
`123, 125-126.) Hybrid vehicles could overcome the inefficiency of conventional
`
`vehicles by including an electric motor (i.e., “traction motor”) with sufficient power to
`
`propel the vehicle at low speeds and low loads. (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶¶108-123.) By using
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`a powerful enough motor, hybrid vehicles could restrict engine operation solely to
`
`areas of high efficiency. (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶¶59, 108-123.) As the vehicle speed and
`
`load increased, operation of the engine was permitted when the speed and load were
`
`determined to be in a region where engine torque is most efficiently produced—i.e.,
`
`the engine’s “sweet spot.” (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶¶59, 109-133.)
`
`For hybrid vehicles it was further known prior to September 1998 that engine
`
`operation could be restricted to its “sweet spot” using a control strategy that typically
`
`included: (1) an all-electric mode where only the motor propels the vehicle when
`
`engine operation is inefficient (i.e., at low loads or vehicle speeds); (2) an engine-only
`
`mode where the engine propels the vehicle when engine operation is efficient, such as
`
`highway cruising at higher loads and speeds; and (3) an acceleration mode where the
`
`both engine and motor are used to propel the vehicle when the demand is beyond the
`
`maximum torque capabilities of the engine, such as during acceleration, passing, hill-
`
`climbing. (Ex.1755 [Davis] ¶¶84, 124-131.)
`
`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).
`
`Petitioner proposes the following constructions for the purposes of this IPR
`
`only. But for some of these terms, based on the specification, prosecution history, and
`
`patentee admissions, Petitioner contends that the construction under the applicable
`
`district court standards is narrower, and reserves the right to present a narrower
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`construction in district court litigation.
`
`A.
`
`road load (RL) and RL
`
`The Eastern District of Texas and the District of 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. 1756 at 205-206; Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1757 at 16,
`
`96-97.)
`
`For this proceeding, Petitioner 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 a prior PTAB construction. (See Ford v. Paice IPR
`
`Decisions, Ex. 1758 at 20, 38, 51, 70, 84.) Petitioner 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. 1756 at 204, Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1757 at 104),
`
`Petitioner disagrees that this 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
`
`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
`10
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`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. 1750,
`
`40:16-26, emphasis added.) To do so (e.g., whether “RL < SP”), the “setpoint” would
`
`have to be in the same measurement units as the “road load.”
`
`During prosecution of the ’347 Patent – the parent of the ’634 Patent (See Ex.
`
`1760) – patentee added the following limitation to pending claims 1 and 82 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.” (’347 File History, Ex. 1760 at 9-20.) Patentee then argued the
`
`engine was operated only “when it is loaded . . . in excess of SP [setpoint], which is
`
`now defined to be ‘substantially less than the maximum torque output (MTO) of said
`
`engine.’” (’347 File History, Ex. 1760 at 21.)
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with recent PTAB constructions.
`
`(Ford IPRs, Ex. 1758 at 21, 40, 72, 86.) Accordingly the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “setpoint (SP)” and “SP” as used in the challenged claims is a
`
`“predetermined torque value.”
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`The references below render the claimed subject matter invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 and the Petitioner therefore has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to each
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`of the following grounds of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. §314(a); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4).
`
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 33, 34, 35, 38 and 215 are Obvious over Ibaraki
`’882 and the General Knowledge of a POSA
`
`As provided below and by the accompanying declaration of Dr. Davis, claims
`
`33, 34, 35, 38 and 215 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Ibaraki ’882 (Ex. 1752) and the general knowledge of a POSA. Ibaraki ’882 is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 33
`
`… [33.0] A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`
`Ibaraki ’882 states that the “present invention” pertains to a “drive control
`
`apparatus” for controlling a “hybrid vehicle” that may be propelled by an internal
`
`combustion (IC) engine and an electric motor. (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at 1:9-14; Ex.
`
`1755 [Davis] at ¶¶148-150.) As illustrated below, Ibaraki ’882 discloses a hybrid
`
`vehicle including a “controller 128” that is used to control an “internal combustion
`
`engine 112” and an “electric motor 114.” (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at 19:11-54.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at Fig. 8
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses that the hybrid vehicle implements control strategies that
`
`operate the IC engine and electric motor to “effective[ly] reduc[e]. . . the fuel
`
`consumption amount or exhaust gas amount of the engine.” (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882]
`
`at 2:55-56, 3:15-53, 6:14-23, 25:62-26:8; Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶¶150-153, 158-159.) For
`
`instance, Fig. 10 below illustrates a control routine that is implemented by the
`
`controller to select: 1) a MOTOR DRIVE mode (step “Q12”) where the electric
`
`motor propels the vehicle; (2) an ENGINE DRIVE mode (step “Q11”) where the
`
`engine propels the vehicle; and (3) an ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode (step
`
`“Q10”) where both the electric motor and engine propel the vehicle. (Ex. 1752
`
`[Ibaraki ’882] at 11:58-67, 20:43-49, 26:25-33; Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶153-154.)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at Fig. 10
`
`
`
`To select the MOTOR DRIVE mode, ENGINE DRIVE mode, or ENGINE-
`
`MOTOR DRIVE mode, a data map (as exemplified by Fig. 11) is used. As annotated
`
`below, the data map determines the three operating modes as a function of
`
`“VEHICLE DRIVE TORQUE,” and “VEHICLE SPEED.” (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882]
`
`at 20:38-21:2; Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶¶154-156, 162-163.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at Fig. 11 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`… [33.1] determining instantaneous road load (RL) required to
`
`propel the hybrid vehicle responsive to an operator command;
`
`The disclosed “controller 128” is stated as including a “drive source selecting
`
`means 160 illustrated in the block diagram of FIG. 9.” (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at
`
`20:38-39.) This “drive source selecting means” is “adapted to select one or both of the
`
`engine 112 and the motor 114 as the drive power source or sources, according to a
`
`drive source selecting data map stored in memory means 162.” (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki
`
`’882] at 20:39-43, emphasis added.) Again, the “data map” (e.g., Fig. 11 annotated
`
`above) is used to select one of the three operating modes as a function of “VEHICLE
`
`DRIVE TORQUE,” and “VEHICLE SPEED.”
`
`In order to determine which drive mode to operate in, Ibaraki ’882 states that a
`
`point corresponding to the current “vehicle running condition” is plotted onto the
`
`data map of Fig. 11. (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki ’882] at 20:58-21:1; Ex. 1755 [Davis] at ¶¶162-
`
`164.) This point “correspond[s] to the required drive power PL” for the vehicle and is
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`“determined by the current vehicle drive torque and vehicle speed V.”1 (Ex. 1752
`
`[Ibaraki ’882] at 23:66-24:2, 20:39-43; Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶¶165-169.)
`
`Figure 11 below highlights the mode selection when three points of “required
`
`drive power” (annotated as PL1, PL2, PL3) are plotted, “as determined by the current
`
`vehicle drive torque” (annotated as TL1, TL2, TL3) “and vehicle speed” (annotated as
`
`V1). The MOTOR DRIVE mode (shaded red) is selected when the “vehicle drive
`
`torque” (TL1) at vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL1) is located below a first boundary line
`
`B. Likewise, the ENGINE DRIVE mode (shaded green) is selected when the “vehicle
`
`drive torque” (TL2) at the vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL2) is above the first boundary
`
`line B but on or below a second boundary line C. Finally, the ENGINE-MOTOR
`
`DRIVE mode (shaded blue) is selected when the “vehicle drive torque” (TL3) at the
`
`vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., PL3) is above the second boundary line C. (Ex. 1752 [Ibaraki
`
`’882] at 23:66-24:30; Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶¶165-169.)
`
`
`1 A POSA would have known that power and torque are related by speed (i.e., Power
`
`= Torque * Speed). (Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶166.) Figure 11 is expressed in graphical
`
`format as “vehicle drive torque” vs. “vehicle speed,” and any point on the graph
`
`would represent a related power value. (Ex.1755 [Davis] at ¶166.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No: IPR2015-00787
`Attorney