throbber
Paper 12
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 26, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Ford Motor Company, filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, 54, 215, 238, 241, 252–256, 259,
`
`261, 262, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, and 288 of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 B2
`
`(Ex. 1750, “the ’634 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Paice LLC &
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`The Abell Foundation, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response in both unredacted
`
`and redacted forms. Papers 9, 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Patent Owner also
`
`filed a Motion to Seal. Paper 11 (“Mot. to Seal.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`
`not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition
`
`. . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 215, 238, 241, 252–256, 259, 261, 262, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, and
`
`288 of the ’634 patent. We do not institute an inter partes review of claims
`
`33, 34, 35, 38, 53, and 54 of the ’634 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’634 patent is involved in Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-
`
`14-cv-00492, filed on February 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
`
`for the District of Maryland. Pet. 2. Petitioner twice filed an earlier Petition
`
`for inter partes review of the ’634 patent, and we instituted trial in both
`
`proceedings. Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2014-00904 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2014) (Paper 13), and Ford Motor
`
`Co. v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc., Case IPR2014-01416
`
`(PTAB Mar. 12, 2015) (Paper 9). Petitioner filed eleven additional petitions,
`
`including the instant Petition, challenging various claims of the ’634 patent.2
`
`
`
`1 Citations are to the redacted version of Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`2 See IPR2015-00606 (Paper 10, Appendix), for a complete listing of the
`eleven cases.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`B. The ’634 Patent (Ex. 1750)
`
`The ’634 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`
`combustion engine, at least one electric motor, and a battery bank, all
`
`controlled by a microprocessor that directs torque transfer between the
`
`engine, the motor, and the drive wheels of the vehicle. Ex. 1750, 17:17–56,
`
`Fig. 4. The microprocessor compares the vehicle’s torque requirements and
`
`the engine’s torque output against a predefined setpoint and uses the results
`
`of the comparison to control the vehicle’s mode of operation, e.g., straight-
`
`electric, engine-only, or hybrid. Id. at 40:16–49. The microprocessor
`
`utilizes a hybrid control strategy that operates the engine only in a range of
`
`high fuel efficiency, which occurs when the instantaneous torque required to
`
`drive the vehicle, or road load (RL), reaches a setpoint (SP) of
`
`approximately 30% of the engine’s maximum torque output (MTO). Id. at
`
`20:61–67; see also id. at 13:64–65 (“the engine is never operated at less than
`
`30% of MTO, and is thus never operated inefficiently”). Operating the
`
`engine in a range above the setpoint but substantially less than the maximum
`
`torque output maximizes fuel efficiency and reduces pollutant emissions of
`
`the vehicle. Id. at 15:55–58.
`
`C. Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges independent claim 33 and dependent claims 34,
`
`35, 38, 53, and 54, which depend directly from claim 33. Petitioner also
`
`challenges independent claim 215 and directly dependent claim 238.
`
`Petitioner also challenges independent claim 241 and dependent claims 252–
`
`256, 259, 261, and 262, which depend directly from claim 241. Petitioner
`
`also challenges independent claim 267 and dependent claims 281, 282, 285,
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`287, and 288, which depend directly from claim 267. Claims 33 and 241 are
`
`illustrative:
`
`33. A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle,
`
`comprising:
`
`determining instantaneous road load (RL) required to
`propel the hybrid vehicle responsive to an operator command;
`
`operating at least one electric motor to propel the hybrid
`vehicle when the RL required to do so is less than a setpoint
`(SP);
`operating an internal combustion engine of the hybrid
`
`vehicle to propel the hybrid vehicle when the RL required to do
`so is between the SP and a maximum torque output (MTO) of
`the engine, wherein the engine is operable to efficiently produce
`torque above the SP, and wherein the SP is substantially less
`than the MTO;
`
`operating both the at least one electric motor and the
`engine to propel the hybrid vehicle when the torque RL
`required to do so is more than the MTO; and
`
`monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time and
`varying the SP accordingly.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1750, 60:58–61:8.
`
`241. A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle,
`
`comprising:
`determining instantaneous road load (RL) required to propel the
`hybrid vehicle responsive to an operator command;
`operating at least one electric motor to propel the hybrid vehicle
`when the RL required to do so is less than a setpoint (SP);
`operating an internal combustion engine of the hybrid vehicle to
`propel the hybrid vehicle when the RL required to do so is
`between the SP and a maximum torque output (MTO) of the
`engine, wherein the engine is operable to efficiently produce
`torque above the SP, and wherein the SP is substantially less
`than the MTO; and
`operating both the at least one electric motor and the engine to
`propel the hybrid vehicle when the torque RL required to do
`so is more than the MTO;
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`controlling said engine such that combustion of fuel within the
`engine occurs substantially at a stoichiometric ratio, wherein
`said controlling the engine comprises limiting a rate of
`change of torque output of the engine; and
`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.
`
`Id. at 81:33–58.
`
`Independent claim 215 is similar in scope to claim 33 except it does
`
`not include the “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time and
`
`varying the SP accordingly” language. Instead, that claim adds
`
`“regeneratively charging a battery of the hybrid vehicle when instantaneous
`
`torque output of the engine > the RL, when RL is negative, and/or when
`
`braking is initiated by an operator of the hybrid vehicle.” Id. at 79:10–32.
`
`Independent claim 267 is similar in scope to claim 33 except it does not
`
`include the “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time and varying
`
`the SP accordingly” language. Instead, that claim adds “rotating the engine
`
`before starting the engine such that its cylinders are heated by compression
`
`of air therein.” Id. at 84:10–11.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, 54, 215, 238, 241,
`
`252–256, 259, 261, 262, 267, 281, 282, 285, 287, and 288 of the ’634 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following specific
`
`grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Ibaraki ’882 3 and the general
`knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art (“POSA”)
`Ibaraki ’882, Vittone,4 and the
`general knowledge of a POSA
`
`Ibaraki ’882, Yamaguchi,5 and the
`general knowledge of a POSA
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`33, 34, 35, 38, and
`215
`
`53, 241, 252–256,
`259, 261, and 262
`54, 238, 267, 281,
`282, 285, 287, and
`288
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,789,882, issued Aug. 4, 1998 (Ex. 1752) (“Ibaraki
`’882”).
`4 Oreste Vittone, Fiat Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Car Design, 12th
`International Electric Vehicle Symposium (1994) (Ex. 1753) (“Vittone”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1754) (“Yamaguchi”).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Monitoring Patterns of Vehicle Operation Over Time
`
`
`
`Independent claim 33 recites operating at least one electric motor
`
`when the road load (RL) is less than a setpoint (SP); operating the engine
`
`when the RL is between the SP and the maximum torque output (MTO) of
`
`the engine; and operating both the motor and engine when the RL is more
`
`than the MTO. In addition, claim 33 recites “monitoring patterns of vehicle
`
`operation over time and varying the SP accordingly” (emphasis added). Ex.
`
`1750, 61:7–8. Patent Owner argues that we should construe the italicized
`
`phrase to mean “track and record the driver’s repeated driving operations
`
`over time.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Petitioner does not provide an explicit
`
`construction for the phrase.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Specification of the ’634 patent’s
`
`description of monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time refers to
`
`how the operator actually drives the car over some period of time, as
`
`opposed to monitoring an internal data point of the vehicle. Id. at 13–15. In
`
`support of its construction, Patent Owner directs attention to the following
`
`descriptions in the Specification:
`
`Examples of this practice—amounting in many circumstances
`to modifying certain specific values depending on other data
`items not discussed in detail, or by monitoring the vehicle’s
`actual usage patterns over time—are given below.
`
`Ex. 1750, 35:51–55.
`
`
`It is also within the scope of the invention for the
`microprocessor to monitor the vehicle’s operation over a period
`of days or weeks and reset this important setpoint in response to
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`a repetitive driving pattern. For example, suppose the operator
`drives the same route from a congested suburban development
`to a workplace about the same time every morning; typically
`the road load might remain under 20% of MTO for the first few
`minutes of each day, then vary between 0 and 50% of MTO for
`another few minutes as the operator passes through a few traffic
`lights, and then suddenly increase to 150% of MTO as the
`operator accelerates onto a highway. It is within the skill of the
`art to program a microprocessor to record and analyze such
`daily patterns, and to adapt the control strategy accordingly.
`For example, in response to recognition of a regular pattern as
`above, the transition point might be adjusted to 60% of MTO;
`this would prevent repetitive engine starts as the road load
`exceeded 30% of MTO for a few hundred yards at a time, as
`might often occur in suburban traffic. Similarly, the engine
`starting routine might be initiated after the same total distance
`had been covered each day.
`
`Id. at 40:50–41:3 (emphasis added).
`
`In addition, Patent Owner, directing attention to external evidence,
`
`argues that the word pattern means a regular and repeated course of conduct
`
`or behavior. Prelim. Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2703.
`
`Although Petitioner does not provide an explicit construction for the
`
`phrase “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time,” Petitioner
`
`implicitly construes the phrase to encompass monitoring an internal data
`
`point of the vehicle, e.g., a sum regenerative charging amount that exceeds a
`
`threshold as described in Ibaraki ’882. Pet. 34–35.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s implicit construction is
`
`not in light of the written description of the Specification of the ’634 patent
`
`which describes changing a setpoint in response to monitored vehicle
`
`operation patterns. In particular, the description in the Specification
`
`regarding patterns, clearly describes that the patterns are in connection with
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`the driving patterns of the operator of the vehicle. Ex. 1750, 40:50–41:3.
`
`The Specification does not describe monitoring “patterns” of a battery state
`
`of charge, for example. Moreover, the plain words of the phrase require
`
`monitoring patterns over time. It is not enough to monitor a single value of
`
`a vehicle component, for instance. Rather, the plain meaning of the words
`
`require monitoring patterns, where a pattern is defined as a regular or logical
`
`form, order, etc. Ex. 2703. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that a pattern
`
`is a regular and repeated course of conduct or behavior and that the phrase
`
`“monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time” requires monitoring a
`
`driver’s repeated driving operations over time.
`
`Because the prior art, as applied by Petitioner, does not describe
`
`monitoring a driver’s repeated driving operations over time as explained
`
`below, we need not resolve whether monitoring patterns of vehicle operation
`
`over time also requires recording and storing. Accordingly, for purposes of
`
`this decision, we interpret “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over
`
`time” to require monitoring a driver’s repeated driving operations over time.
`
`Road Load (RL)
`
`The term “road load” or “RL” is recited in each of independent claims
`
`33, 215, 241, and 267. The Specification of the ’634 patent defines “road
`
`load” as “the vehicle’s instantaneous torque demands, i.e., that amount of
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle at a desired speed,” and further notes
`
`that it “can be positive or negative, i.e., when decelerating or descending a
`
`hill, in which case the negative road load . . . is usually employed to charge
`
`the battery.” Ex. 1750, 12:42–61. Accordingly, we construe “road load”
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`and “RL” as “the amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle, be it positive or negative.”6
`
`Setpoint (SP)
`
`
`
`The term “setpoint” or “SP” is recited in each of independent claims
`
`33, 215, 241, and 267. Petitioner proposes that “setpoint” or “SP” be
`
`construed, in the context of these claims, as “predetermined torque value.”
`
`Pet. 10–11. In that regard, Petitioner correctly notes that the claims compare
`
`the setpoint either to an engine torque value or a torque based “road load”
`
`value. Id. Each of claims 33, 215, 241, and 267 recites a condition “when
`
`the RL required to do so is less than a setpoint (SP).” Ex. 1750, 60:63–64,
`
`79:16–17, 81:39–40, 83:66–67. Each of claims 33, 215, 241, and 267
`
`further recite a range established by the setpoint at one end, and the
`
`maximum torque output of the engine at the other end, by the language
`
`“when the RL required to do so is between the SP and a maximum torque
`
`output (MTO) of the engine.” Id. at 60:66–61:1, 79:19–21, 81:42–44, 84:2–
`
`4. Although Patent Owner correctly notes that the Specification outside of
`
`the claims refers to two items being measurable against respective setpoints,
`
`i.e., the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirement and the state of charge of
`
`the battery bank (Prelim. Resp. 12), the setpoint in these claims relates to
`
`torque and not battery charge.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that “setpoint” or “SP” is not simply a numerical
`
`value divorced from the context of the rest of the vehicle’s control system,
`
`and that a “setpoint” serves the crucial function of marking the transition
`
`
`
`6 This construction is the same as that proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 10.
`Patent Owner does not propose a different construction.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`from one claimed mode to another, and in particular, the transition from
`
`propelling the vehicle with the motor to propelling the vehicle with the
`
`engine. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Citing the Specification, Patent Owner further
`
`states that the Specification uses “setpoint” synonymously with “transition
`
`point.” Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner urges that the construction of
`
`“setpoint” or “SP” must include an indication that it is a point at which a
`
`transition between different operating modes may occur. Id. at 11.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are misplaced. The Specification outside
`
`of the claims sometimes uses “setpoint” interchangeably with “transition
`
`point,” because the disclosure describes the particular transitions between
`
`operative modes, at the setpoints. If the multiple transitions between modes
`
`are not described, it would be without meaning to refer to a “setpoint” as a
`
`transition point between modes. A transition does not spring solely from the
`
`term “setpoint” or “SP.” It would be improper to read into a claim all of the
`
`disclosed operational modes and all disclosed transitions between modes
`
`simply because the claim recites the “setpoint” or “SP.”
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not urge that “setpoint” or “SP” requires any
`
`particular transition from mode to mode. Instead, Patent Owner merely
`
`desires to add that a “setpoint” is where a transition between operating
`
`modes “may occur.” Id. Nothing of significance is added by that proposed
`
`construction. If a transition is specified by other limitations in the claim, at
`
`the setpoint, then a transition is required at the setpoint. If no transition is
`
`specified by other limitations in the claim, then no transition is required at a
`
`setpoint. A transition may or may not occur at a setpoint, depending on
`
`what else is recited in the claim. It is not necessary to include such “may
`
`occur” language in the construction of “setpoint” and “SP.” A multitude of
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`events “may occur” at a setpoint, but they are not necessary for setting forth
`
`the meaning of “setpoint” or “SP” in a claim. The rest of the claim sets forth
`
`what is required to occur at a setpoint.
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, we do regard as meaningful to note that nothing in the
`
`Specification precludes a setpoint from being reset, after it has been set. A
`
`setpoint for however short a period of time still is a setpoint.
`
`
`
`We construe “setpoint” and “SP” as “predetermined torque value that
`
`may or may not be reset.”
`
`Mode I,
`Low-load Operation Mode I,
`High-way Cruising Operation Mode IV,
`Acceleration Operation Mode V
`
`
`
`Two of the challenged claims recite the above italicized limitations.
`
`For example, dependent claim 259, recites “low-load operation mode I,”
`
`“high-way cruising operation mode IV,” and “acceleration operation mode
`
`V.” The Specification of the ’634 patent sets forth a definition for these
`
`modes.
`
`
`
`With regard to “mode I,” the Specification states:
`
`As noted, during low-speed operation, such as in city
`
`traffic, the vehicle is operated as a simple electric car, where all
`torque is provided to road wheels 34 by traction motor 25
`operating on electrical energy supplied from battery bank 22.
`This is referred to as “mode I” operation (see FIG. 6), and is
`illustrated in FIG. 8(a).
`
`Ex. 1750, 35:63–36:1 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`We construe “mode I,” in accordance with the above-quoted
`
`description in the Specification, as “a mode of operation of the vehicle, in
`
`which all torque provided to the wheels is supplied by an electric motor.”
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`We construe “low-load operation mode I” the same as we do “mode I,”
`
`because it is evident that “low-load operation mode I” is another name for
`
`“mode I.”
`
`
`
`With regard to “high-way cruising operation mode IV,” the
`
`Specification states:
`
`When the operator releases pressure on the accelerator pedal,
`indicating that a desired cruising speed has been reached,
`traction motor 25 is accordingly depowered. The highway
`cruising mode is referred to as “mode IV” operation, and the
`flow of energy and torque are as illustrated in FIG. 8(c).
`
`Id. at 36:31–36. Figure 8(c) shows that all power to the wheels is supplied
`
`from the internal combustion engine. Additionally, the Specification states:
`
`“[d]uring highway cruising, region IV, where the road load is between about
`
`30% and 100% of the engine’s maximum torque output, the engine alone is
`
`used to propel the vehicle.” Id. at 37:42–44. We construe “high-way
`
`cruising mode” as “a mode of operation in which all torque provided to the
`
`wheels is supplied by the internal combustion engine.”
`
`
`
`With regard to “acceleration operation mode V,” the Specification
`
`states:
`
`If extra torque is needed during highway cruising, e.g.,
`
`for acceleration or hill-climbing, either or both of motors 21
`and 25 can be powered. This “mode V” operation is illustrated
`in FIG. 8(d); energy flows from tank 38 to engine 40, and from
`battery bank 22 to traction motor 25, and possibly also to
`starting motor 21; torque flows from either or both motors and
`engine to wheels 34.
`
`Id. at 36:37–43. The Specification further states:
`
`If the operator then calls for additional power, e.g., for
`
`acceleration or passing, region V is entered; that is, when the
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`microprocessor detects that the road load exceeds 100% of the
`engine’s maximum torque output, it controls inverter/charger
`27 so that energy flows from battery bank 22 to traction motor
`25, providing torque propelling the vehicle in addition to that
`provided by engine 40. Starting motor 21 can similarly be
`controlled to provide propulsive torque.
`
`Id. at 38:1–8. We construe “acceleration operation mode V” as “a mode of
`
`operation in which torque provided to the wheels is supplied by the internal
`
`combustion engine and at least one electric motor.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Obviousness Grounds – Claims 33, 34, 35, 38, 53, and 54
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 33, 34, 35, and 38 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ibaraki ’882 and the general
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”); claim 53 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ibaraki ’882,
`
`Vittone, and POSA; and claim 54 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as obvious over Ibaraki ’882, Yamaguchi, and POSA. Pet. 12, 38, and 54.
`
`As explained above in the claim construction section, we interpret the
`
`independent claim 33 phrase “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over
`
`time” to require monitoring a driver’s repeated driving operations over time.
`
`As a result, Petitioner has not shown how any of the relied upon references
`
`disclose monitoring a driver’s repeated driving operations over time as
`
`required by independent claim 33, nor has Petitioner shown that a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`
`known of the claimed feature. Petitioner’s reliance (Pet. 34–35) on the
`
`Ibaraki ’882 disclosure, for example, of monitoring a sum regenerative
`
`charging amount (SOCRT) that is acquired while the vehicle is operated in
`
`the regenerative charging mode and determining if that amount exceeds a
`
`threshold is insufficient to show “monitoring patterns of vehicle operations
`
`over time.” The monitoring, in that regard, is not based on a driver’s
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`repeated driving operations over time. Indeed, Petitioner has not shown that
`
`Ibaraki ’882 monitors for a pattern, e.g., a regular and repeated course of
`
`conduct or behavior. Ibaraki ’882 monitors the sum regenerative charging
`
`amount. The sum is a total of regenerative charges, not based on any
`
`monitored pattern of charges, and importantly, the monitoring has not been
`
`shown to be based on a driver’s repeated driving operations over time.
`
`For these reasons, the information presented does not show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that
`
`claims 33, 34, 35, and 38 would have been obvious over Ibaraki ’882 and
`
`POSA; claim 53 would have been obvious over Ibaraki ’882, Vittone, and
`
`POSA; or claim 54 would have been obvious over Ibaraki ’882, Yamaguchi,
`
`and POSA.
`
`D. Claim 215
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 215 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Ibaraki ’882 and POSA. Pet. 37–38. To support
`
`its contention, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how the prior
`
`art meets each claim limitation of claim 215. Id. Petitioner also relies upon
`
`a Declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis, who has been retained as an expert
`
`witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1755. Unlike
`
`independent claim 33, independent claim 215 does not include the
`
`“monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time” phrase.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 describes a drive control apparatus and method for a
`
`hybrid vehicle equipped with two drive power sources consisting of an
`
`electric motor and engine such as an internal combustion engine. Ex. 1752,
`
`1:9–14. Drive control apparatus includes controller 128 that includes a drive
`
`source selecting means 160. Drive source selecting means is adapted to
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`select one or both of engine 112 and motor 114 as the drive power source or
`
`sources according to a drive source selecting data map stored in memory
`
`means 162. Id. at 20:38–43, Figs. 8 and 9. In particular, controller 128 has
`
`a MOTOR DRIVE mode in which motor 114 is selected as the drive power
`
`source, an ENGINE DRIVE mode in which the engine 112 is selected as the
`
`drive power mode source, and an ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode in which
`
`both the engine 112 and the motor 114 are selected as the drive power
`
`sources. Id. at 20:43–49.
`
`Figure 11, reproduced below, shows a graph which represents a
`
`predetermined relationship between the vehicle drive torque and running
`
`speed V and the three drive modes. Id. at 20:50–53.
`
`
`
`Figure 11 shows a graph which represents a predetermined
`
`relationship between the vehicle drive torque and running speed.
`
`Drive source selecting means 160 (Fig. 9) selects the MOTOR
`
`DRIVE mode when the vehicle running condition as represented by the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`current vehicle drive torque and speed V is held within the range below the
`
`first boundary line B. When the vehicle running condition is held within the
`
`range between the first and second boundary lines B and C, the drive source
`
`selecting means 160 selects the ENGINE DRIVE mode. When the vehicle
`
`running condition is in the range above the second boundary line C, the
`
`drive source selecting means 160 selects the ENGINE-DRIVE mode. Id. at
`
`20:59–21:1. Ibaraki ’882 describes that the boundary line B may be adjusted
`
`from B1 to B2 so as to enlarge the range in which the MOTOR DRIVE mode
`
`is selected. Id. at 21:2–4. Ibaraki ’882 further describes an ELECTRICITY
`
`GENERATING DRIVE mode where the engine provides surplus power that
`
`is greater than the vehicle drive torque. The surplus power from the engine
`
`is used to operate the electric motor as a generator to regeneratively charge
`
`the battery. Id. at 23:1–30.
`
`Petitioner contends, with supporting evidence, that a POSA would
`
`have understood that the “vehicle drive torque” values described in Ibaraki
`
`’882 represent instantaneous road load (torque) required to propel the
`
`vehicle. Pet. 17, 37; Ex. 1755 ¶¶ 161–173, 281. Petitioner further contends,
`
`with supporting evidence, that a POSA would have recognized that an IC
`
`engine, like that described in Ibaraki ’882, necessarily has a maximum
`
`torque output (MTO), above which the IC engine cannot produce additional
`
`torque. Pet. 22–23, 37; Ex. 1755 ¶¶ 192–203, 281. Petitioner further
`
`contends, with supporting evidence, that a POSA would have understood
`
`that the IC engine described in Ibaraki ’882 can operate to efficiently
`
`produce torque when the road load is above the setpoint during the
`
`“ENGINE DRIVE mode.” Pet. 24, 37; Ex. 1755 ¶¶ 215–225, 281.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00787
`Patent 7,237,634 B2
`
`
`Lastly, Petitioner contends, with supporting evidence, that a POSA would
`
`have understood that the ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode would operate
`
`both the IC engine and electric motor when the torque RL required to do so
`
`is more than the maximum torque output (MTO) of the engine. Pet. 29–30,
`
`37; Ex. 1755 ¶¶ 226–244, 281.
`
`The present record supports the contention that Ibaraki ’882, based on
`
`the knowledge of a POSA, describes a method for determining instantaneous
`
`RL required to propel a hybrid vehicle responsive to a command; operating a
`
`motor to propel the vehicle when the RL is less than a setpoint; operating an
`
`engine of the vehicle when the RL required to propel the vehicle is between
`
`a setpoint (SP) and a MTO of the engine, where the engine is operated to
`
`efficiently produce torque above SP and where SP is substantially less than
`
`the MTO; and operating both the motor and engine when the torque RL is
`
`more than the MTO. Pet. 37; Ex. 1755 ¶ 281. The present record also
`
`supports the contention that Ibaraki ’882, based on the knowledge of a
`
`POSA, describes regeneratively charging a battery at least when RL is
`
`negative (Pet. 38; Ex. 1755 ¶¶ 286–294).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has failed to establish, through its
`
`annotations of Figure 11, that Ibaraki ’882 describes “transitions between
`
`operating modes based on the instantaneous torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle.” Prelim. Resp. 42. The argument is misplaced as none of the
`
`challenged claims require “transitions between operating modes based on the
`
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.” The argument is based
`
`on Patent Owner’s proposed construction for setpoint, which we have not
`
`adopted for the reasons provided above in the claim construction

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket