UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00791
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00791
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List .................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a torque based line ....................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 compares road load to MTO .....................................................10
`
`A.
`
`
`Figure 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine when
`“road load” is “more than MTO” ........................................................21
`
`III. Ground 2: Claims 80, 93, 94, 96, 99, 106, 107, 108, 114, 127, 128,
`132, 139, 140, and 141 are Obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882 and Frank .......23
`
`IV. Ground 3: Claims 113 and 146 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in
`view of Ibaraki ’882, Frank and Suga ...........................................................23
`
`V. Ground 4: Claim 231 is obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882, Jurgen and
`Lateur .............................................................................................................24
`
`B.
`
`
`Rationale to combine ...........................................................................26
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................26
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1450
`1451
`1452
`1453
`1454
`1455
`1456
`1457
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`Ford Letter to Paice
`US Patent 5,789,882
`US Patent 6,003,626
`US Patent 5,623,104
`Declaration of Gregory Davis
`Toyota Litigations
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`Date
`July 3, 2007
`Sept. 2014
`Aug. 4, 1998
`Dec. 21, 1999
`Apr. 22, 1997
`
`2005
`2013-2014
`
`1458
`
`1459
`
`PTAB Decisions & Preliminary
`Response in 2014-00571
`7,237,634 File History (certified) n/a
`
`
`
`Identifier
`’634 Patent
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`Ibaraki ’626
`Suga
`Davis Dec.
`Toyota Litigation
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`Ford IPRs
`
`’634 Patent File
`History
`‘347 File History
`
`1460
`
`1461
`1462
`
`1465
`1466
`
`Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347 File
`History
`US Patent 7,104,347
`Fundamentals of Vehicle
`Dynamics (Gillespie)
`SAE 760121 (Unnewehr-1976)
`1463
`1464 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)
`US Application 60-100095
`
`1467
`
`1468
`
`1469
`
`1470
`
`1471
`
`History of Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle (Wakefield-1998)
`SAE 920447 (Burke-1992)
`
`n/a
`
`Sept. 12, 2006
`1992
`
`‘347 Patent
`Gillespie
`
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`Feb. 1998
`Feb. 1994
`
`Unnewehr
`Bumby/Masding
`1988
`SAE SP-1331
`1993 Hybrid
`Challenge
`
`Feb. 1997 &
`Feb. 1998
`
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`1998
`
`
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`‘095 Provisional
`
`Wakefield
`
`Feb. 1, 1992
`
`Burke 1992
`
`Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1472
`
`1473
`
`1474
`1475
`
`SAE SP-1156 (1996)
`DOE HEV Assessment (1979)
`
`1476
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`1477 WO 9323263A1 (Field)
`1478
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi-1998)
`
`1479
`1480
`
`1481
`
`1482
`
`1483
`1484
`
`1485
`
`1486
`1487
`1488
`1489
`1490
`1491
`
`1492
`
`1493
`1494
`
`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)
`1973 Development of the
`Federal Urban Driving Schedule
`(SAE 730553)
`Gregory Davis Resume
`Gregory Davis Data
`US Patent 4,407,132
`US Patent 6,116,363
`US Patent 5,823,280
`Automotive Electronics
`Handbook (Jurgen)
`Bumby, J.R. et al. “Optimisation
`and control of a hybrid electric
`car” - IEE Proc. A 1987, 134(6)
`US Patent 5,343,970
`Paice Complaint
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Description
`Vehicle Tester for HEV (Duoba-
`1997)
`DOE Report to Congress (1994) April 1995
`
`Date
`Aug. 1, 1997
`
`Identifier
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1156
`Feb. 1996
`Sept. 30, 1979 HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`9323263
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`‘672 Patent
`IEEE Ehsani 1996
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`Nov. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`April 3, 2001
`1996
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`IEEE Ehsani 1997
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`SAE SP-1089
`Feb. 1995
`Aug. 11, 1998 An 1998
`
`May 14-18,
`1973
`
`SAE 1973
`
`
`
`Oct. 4, 1983
`Sept. 12, 2000
`Oct. 20, 1998
`1995
`
`
`
`Kawakatsu
`Frank
`Lateur
`Jurgen
`
`Nov. 1987
`
`Bumby II
`
`Sept. 6, 1994
`Feb. 25, 2014
`
`Severinsky ‘970
`
`
`Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1495
`
`1496
`
`1497
`
`1498
`
`1499
`
`1500
`
`1501
`
`1502
`
`1503
`
`1504
`
`1505
`
`1506
`
`1507
`
`1508
`
`1509
`
`1510
`
`1511
`
`1512
`
`Description
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00904,
`Paper 41
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00571,
`Paper 44
`Final Decision, IPR2014-01416,
`Paper 26
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-01416
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00884,
`Paper 38
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00875,
`Paper 38
`Final Decision, IPR2014-01415,
`Paper 30
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00570
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00875
`Exhibit 2 from deposition of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00875
`Patent Owner’s Response,
`IPR2014-00884, Paper 19
`Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric
`and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00884
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00787
`Exhibit 12 from Deposition
`Transcript of Neil Hannemann
`(IPR2014-00884)
`Patent Owner’s Response,
`IPR2014-01416, Paper 17
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00571
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Date
`December 10,
`2015
`September 28,
`2015
`March 10, 2016
`
`Sept. 4, 2015
`
`December 10,
`2015
`November 23,
`2015
`March 10, 2016
`
`Identifier
`’904 Decision
`
`’571 Decision
`
`’1416 Decision
`
`Hannemann ’1416
`Dep.
`’884 Decision
`
`’875 Decision
`
`’1415 Decision
`
`April 8, 2015
`
`Hannemann ’570
`Dep.
`April 30, 2015 Hannemann ’875
`Dep.
`’875 Dep. Exhibit
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`March 10, 2015
`
`’884 POR
`
`2005
`
`Ehsani
`
`1976
`
`Bosch Handbook
`1976
`April 30, 2015 Hannemann ’884
`Dep.
`April 27, 2016 Hannemann ’787
`Dep.
`’884 Dep. Exhibit
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`June 17, 2015
`
`’1416 POR
`
`April 7, 2015
`
`Hannemann ’571
`Dep.
`
`Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Reply Declaration of Dr.
`Gregory Davis
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`Davis Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`I, Gregory Davis, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration on February 22, 2015 at the
`
`request of Ford Motor Company in the matter of Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,237,634 (“the ’634 Patent”) to Severinsky et al.
`
`2.
`
`I provide this supplemental declaration in response to arguments
`
`presented by the Patent Owner.
`
`I.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a torque based line
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Paice argues that boundary line B in Figure 11 of
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 is a “power curve.” (see e.g., Ex. 2407, Hannemann Declaration at
`
`¶53.) But I disagree as the curved portion Mr. Hannemann relies upon is only a
`
`segment of the entire “boundary line B.”
`
`4. When looking at the entire “boundary line B” I understand it to be the
`
`“vehicle drive torque” (as the y-axis states) at all “vehicle speeds.”
`
`5.
`
`For instance, “boundary line B” includes (1) a hyperbolic curved
`
`portion that I have highlighted in red; and (2) a flat (constant) portion which I have
`
`highlighted in blue.
`
`Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Ex. 1452, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`
`
`6.
`
`This is important as it appears that Mr. Hannemann (and Paice) are
`
`solely relying on the hyperbolic curved portion to argue that “boundary line B” is a
`
`line of constant power.
`
`7.
`
`But I do not believe this to be an accurate statement as demonstrated
`
`by Ex. 2411 that I understand was introduced by the Patent Owner with its
`
`response. Specifically, Ex. 2411 confirms that a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand the below graph to be the ideal characteristics of what an
`
`engine (or electric motor) would output at the drive wheels.
`
`Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Ex. 2411 at 14, Fig. 2.10
`
`
`
`8.
`
`As shown two curves are illustrated. The first curve labeled “torque”
`
`includes a flat portion at low vehicle speeds and then a segment where the “torque
`
`varies with speed hyperbolically.” (Ex. 2411 at 14.) This hyperbolically varying
`
`portion would be a torque line indicating a constant power value.
`
`9.
`
`In fact, the above graph illustrates this fact by also including a power
`
`output line. As is shown, when the “torque varies with speed hyperbolically” the
`
`power line is constant (flat).
`
`10. Likewise, as shown by Fig. 2.10, when the torque is constant (flat) the
`
`power line increases rapidly up to its constant (flat) value. This graph simply
`
`further illustrates the well-known relationships between torque and power with
`
`respect to speed.
`
`Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`
`11. But simply because a hyperbolically varying torque line might be
`
`understood as representing a constant power curve, does not mean the line is a
`
`power curve.
`
`12. Again, Fig. 11 is expressly labeled in terms of “vehicle drive torque”
`
`and “vehicle speed.” This alone should confirm that “boundary line B” is a torque
`
`line.
`
`13. Further, Ex. 2411 illustrates a person having ordinary skill would
`
`understand that the torque at the wheels is constant (flat) at low vehicle speeds, and
`
`then the “torque varies with speed hyperbolically.”
`
`14. A person having ordinary skill would therefore have understood the
`
`entire portion of boundary line B as being a “vehicle drive torque” line (as the
`
`graph expressly is labeled) which is constant (flat) at low “vehicle speeds,” and
`
`then which “varies with speed hyperbolically.”
`
`II.
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 compares road load to MTO
`
`15.
`
`I understand that Paice argues that boundary line C in Figure 11 of
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 does not use or disclose the use of MTO in its mode control strategy. I
`
`disagree.
`
`16. As I stated in my original declaration, a person having ordinary skill
`
`would have understood “boundary line C” as being equal to or possibly less than
`
`the MTO of an engine. (Ex. 1455, Davis Dec. at ¶238.)
`
`Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Again, it is my understanding that Paice has introduced Ex. 2411 with
`
`its current response to explain the MTO graph illustrated on page 15, Fig. 2.11. It
`
`is also my understanding that Mr. Hannemann has overlayed what he states is
`
`“boundary line C” onto an engine graph having an MTO line. (Ex. 2407,
`
`Hannemann Declaration at ¶85.)
`
`18. But it is my opinion that Ex. 2411 illustrates that Mr. Hannemann’s
`
`overlay graph is not accurate with respect to Figure 11’s data map.
`
`19.
`
` Mr. Hannemann uses the overlayed curves to explain that the
`
`engine’s MTO curve is a hyperbolic curve that looks different than boundary line C
`
`in Figure 11. But there are several reasons for the difference in appearance, even
`
`though both lines are based on the engine’s MTO.
`
`20. First, the drawing generated by Mr. Hannemann is a graph of engine
`
`torque (y-axis) versus engine speed (x-axis). In other words, it is an engine graph
`
`like the one shown by Figure 5 of Ibaraki ’882. Figure 11, however, is a “data
`
`map” illustrating the vehicle torque versus vehicle speed, as highlighted below.
`
`Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`21. And below is Mr. Hannemann’s generated figure where he overlays
`
`what he alleges is “boundary line C” onto the above engine graph. (Ex. 2407,
`
`
`
`Hannemann Declaration at ¶¶84-85.)
`
`Ex. 2407, Hannemann Declaration at ¶85
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`
`22. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Mr.
`
`Hannemann’s graph as being incorrect is because Ibaraki ’882 discloses a
`
`“transmission 116” being included between the engine and drive wheels. (Ex.
`
`1452, Ibaraki ’882 at 19:24-33.)
`
`Ex. 1452, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 8
`
`
`
`23.
`
` A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand
`
`that the engine’s torque and speed would be modified by the “transmission 116”
`
`and the corresponding “vehicle drive torque” and “vehicle speed” would be based
`
`on the particular gear ratio of the transmission.
`
`24. Ex. 2411 even explains that it was known to use a “multigear
`
`transmission... to modify” the “torque-speed profile” shown in Figure 2.11. (Ex.
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`2411 at 15.) Ex. 2411 further states that how a transmission modifies the “torque-
`
`speed profile” is shown in “Figure 2.13.” (Ex. 2411 at 15.)
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding however, that Paice did not include the portion
`
`of the textbook including Figure. 2.13. I have acquired a copy of this textbook and
`
`included chapter 2 in its entirety. (Ex. 15061, Ehsani.)
`
`26. Shown below is “Figure 2.13” which was discussed on page 15 of Ex.
`
`2411. (Ex. 1506, Ehsani at 39.) As shown below, Figure 2.13 illustrates that each
`
`gear in the transmission has a different gear ratio that modifies the single torque vs
`
`speed curve of the engine to map to various torque vs speed curves for the vehicle.2
`
`For instance, in first (1st) gear, the engine provides the greatest torque to the wheels
`
`at a low vehicle speed. On the other hand, in fourth (4th) gear the engine torque
`
`
`1 Ex. 1506 (Ehsani) is a true and accurate copy of excerpts from a textbook titled
`
`“Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles Fundamentals, Theory,
`
`and Design” that was published by CRC Press in 2005 and authored by Hehrdad
`
`Ehsani et al.
`
`2 One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that Tractive Effort at the wheel (kN)
`
`(shown on the y-axis of Fig. 2.13) is simply the Tractive Torque at the wheel (kN-
`
`m) divided by the rolling radius of the wheel. (See Ex. 1482, Bosch Handbook at
`
`6-7.)
`
`Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`provided at the wheels has a relatively flat curve and can only provide a low torque
`
`but can do so up to a much higher vehicle speed. (Ex. 1506, Ehsani at 39.)
`
`
`
`27. The above figure illustrates what was commonly known to a person
`
`having ordinary skill. For instance, a person driving a manual-transmission vehicle
`
`would have understood that 1st gear cannot be used to drive vehicles at higher
`
`speeds (e.g., driving on the freeway). Likewise, a person driving a manual-
`
`transmission vehicle in 1998 would have also understood that higher gears cannot
`
`be used when attempting to climb a very steep hill or tow a heavy load at low
`
`speed. This is because higher gears (e.g., 4th gear) cannot produce the torque
`
`necessary to meet these vehicle demands. Therefore, lower gears (and lower
`
`vehicle speeds) are used to operate the vehicle under these situations.
`
`Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`It was also well-known to a person having ordinary skill that
`
`transmissions were used not only to improve the performance of an engine, but
`
`also to improve the efficiency. For instance, Ex. 1506 describes that the gear ratios
`
`of a transmission are “selected in such a way that the engine can operate in the
`
`same speed range for all the gears. This approach would benefit the fuel economy
`
`and performance of the vehicle.” (Ex. 1506, Ehsani at 40.)
`
`29. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Figure 2.13
`
`(Ex. 1506, Ehsani at 39) illustrates the engine’s MTO at each gear, as provided at
`
`the wheels of the vehicle. As annotated below, the engine’s MTO (as modified by
`
`each gear of the transmission) is limited by a hyperbolic curve.
`
`Ex. 1506, Ehsani at Fig. 2.11 and 2.13 (see also Ex. 2411 at 15)
`
`30. As is further illustrated below, Figure 2.13 (Ex. 1506, Ehsani at 39)
`
`
`
`includes a dashed line (highlighted in yellow) that is the upper bound of each
`
`Page 16 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`individual MTO curve that has been modified by the transmission and provided at
`
`the drive wheels. This upper bound represents the maximum power that could be
`
`provided to the drive wheels by the engine at any vehicle speed. In other words,
`
`the dashed line represents the maximum torque output of the engine that can be
`
`provided to the wheels at any given vehicle speed.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1506, Ehsani at 39, Fig. 2.13 (annotated)
`
`31.
`
`
`It was further known by a person having ordinary skill that if an
`
`“infinitely variable transmission” was used, the hyperbolic curve highlighted above
`
`in yellow could be attained over a range of gear ratios. (Ex. 1507, Bosch Handbook
`
`Page 17 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`1976 at 3.3) In other words, the dashed line would be the engine’s MTO as seen at
`
`the vehicle wheels when using an infinitely variable transmission. This concept is
`
`illustrated somewhat by the 4 gear transmission shown in Figure 2.13. Specifically,
`
`it can be seen that each gear follows the hyperbolic curves for at least a portion.
`
`With the infinitely variable transmission, there would not be any “steps” or gaps
`
`between gears; thus the engine MTO at the wheels of the vehicle would follow the
`
`hyperbolic curve highlighted in yellow.
`
`32. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that boundary
`
`line C in Fig. 11 of Ibaraki ‘882 represents the upper bound of the engine’s MTO
`
`as seen at the output of the “transmission 116” (i.e., at the drive wheels) in any
`
`gear represented on a graph of vehicle torque versus speed, as described by Dr.
`
`Ehsani in Ex. 2411. A comparison of Ex. 2411 (below left) and Ibaraki ’882
`
`(below right) is shown below.
`
`
`3 Ex. 1507 (Bosch Handbook 1976) is a true and accurate copy of excerpts from
`
`the 1976 Bosch Automotive Handbook that was published by Robert Bosch GmbH
`
`in 1976.
`
`Page 18 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ehsani (Ex. 2411)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`
`33. While Ex. 2411 is not prior art, illustrating the transmission output for
`
`each gear of the engine’s MTO was well-known as shown and described in the
`
`Bosch Handbook in 1976. (Ex. 15074, Bosch Handbook 1976.) Ex. 1507 also
`
`explains that it was well known that without a transmission, the engine could
`
`“provide only little acceleration and exhibit unsatisfactory climbing ability.” (Ex.
`
`1507 at 3.) This is shown below by the dashed line labeled “direct drive.” In other
`
`words, with a direct drive gear ratio the engine’s MTO is not modified and will be
`
`
`4 Just as before with Ehsani, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the
`
`Tractive force at the wheel (shown on the y-axis of Ex. 1507 at 3) is simply the
`
`Tractive Torque at the wheel divided by the rolling radius of the wheel. (see Ex.
`
`1482, Bosch Handbook at 6-7; See also Ex. 1507, Bosch Handbook 1976 at 3;
`
`explaining that “M = F*r,” where M = torque, F = force, r = radius.)
`
`Page 19 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`below the hyperbolic “ideal tractive force hyperbola” curve illustrated below at
`
`most vehicle speeds.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1507, Bosch Handbook 1976 at 3
`
`34. The direct drive illustration just further demonstrates that a person
`
`having ordinary skill would have understood that the hyperbolic “boundary line C”
`
`curve is at or possibly below the engine’s MTO at all points. The “direct drive”
`
`curve shows that without a transmission, the MTO of the engine at the wheels is
`
`below the engine MTO curve at the wheels for each gear ratio of the transmission
`
`that follows the hyperbolic “ideal tractive force” curve.
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`Figure 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine when “road
`load” is “more than MTO”
`
`35. As I explained in my opening declaration, Figure 5 describes how an
`
`engine map can be modified to embody the data map shown by Figure 11. (Ex.
`
`1455, Davis at ¶¶218-219; Ex. 1452, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:46-65.)
`
`36. Aside from describing using Figure 5 for selecting just the “ENGINE-
`
`DRIVE” mode and “MOTOR-DRIVE” mode, Ibaraki ’882 also contemplates the
`
`engine graph of Figure 5 could be used for selecting the “ENGINE-MOTOR
`
`DRIVE” mode.
`
`Ex. 1452, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`37. Specifically, Ibaraki ’882 described the modification as applying to
`
`
`
`the “first embodiment.” Then, Ibaraki ’882 also explains that the first embodiment
`
`may be further “modified to have the ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode... which is
`
`Page 21 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`selected when the vehicle load is comparatively high.” (Ex. 1452, Ibaraki ’882 at
`
`26:29-33.)
`
`38. Based on this disclosure, it is my opinion that a person having
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that Figure 5 could further include a
`
`“ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE” mode. A person having ordinary skill would have
`
`further understood that high “vehicle loads” means loads that exceed the MTO of
`
`an engine. For instance, as I described above, a “direct drive” vehicle (i.e., vehicle
`
`without transmission) is limited as to how much tractive effort (load) that the
`
`engine can provide at the drive wheels. In conventional vehicles, a transmission is
`
`used to increase the torque (load) output at low vehicle speeds.
`
`39. However, in hybrid vehicles, it was understood that at high load
`
`demands the electric motor can also provide the extra torque (or power) needed to
`
`propel the vehicle. (see e.g., Ex. 1455, Davis Dec. at ¶¶240-243, 129-134; Ex.
`
`1463, Unnewehr at 5.)
`
`40. This would allow the engine the capability of providing a certain
`
`amount of torque (as modified by the transmission) to the drive wheels. And then
`
`beyond the engine’s MTO, additional torque (again as modified by the
`
`transmission) could be provided using a combination of the engine and the electric
`
`motor. This torque which is modified by the transmission would be above
`
`“boundary line C” which I discussed above.
`
`Page 22 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`III. Ground 2: Claims 80, 93, 94, 96, 99, 106, 107, 108, 114, 127, 128, 132,
`139, 140, and 141 are Obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882 and Frank
`
`41.
`
`See ¶¶305-431 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1455, Davis Dec.)
`
`IV. Ground 3: Claims 113 and 146 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view
`of Ibaraki ’882, Frank and Suga
`
`42.
`
`I explained the reasons to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Frank with Suga
`
`in ¶¶433-451 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1455, Davis Dec.)
`
`43. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been further
`
`motivated to combine the base architecture and control strategy of Ibaraki ’882
`
`with Suga’s known technique for evaluating an electric motor that is used for
`
`propelling a vehicle, to design a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV). In September 1990
`
`the California Air Resource Board (CARB) enacted the Clear Air Act, which
`
`required that 52% of all vehicles sold in California be either low-emission vehicles
`
`(LEV’s)—48%, ultralow-emission vehicles (ULEV’s)—2%, or zero-emission
`
`vehicles (ZEV’s)—2%, by 1998. (Ex. 1481, IEEE Ehsani 1997 at 1.) Ehsani also
`
`notes that other states and nations were considering similar requirements. Id.
`
`Electric vehicles were often classified as such “ZEVs.” (Ex. 1481, IEEE Ehsani
`
`1997 at 1.) However, a HEV that was capable of operating entirely in electric-
`
`mode (i.e., the APU is not used) was referred to as “ZEV-operation-capable.” (Ex.
`
`1484, An 1998 at 8.)
`
`Page 23 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`
`44. An 1998 further explains that HEVs have various operational
`
`strategies, including: charge-sustaining, charge-depleting and zero emission
`
`vehicle (ZEV) capability. (Ex. 1484, An 1998 at 8.) An also discloses that the
`
`sizing of the electric motor determines whether or not the HEV is capable of ZEV
`
`Operation. Id.
`
`45. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art, who wanted to design a
`
`HEV to target such a ZEV classification, would have sized the motor so that the
`
`vehicle was capable of operating entirely in electric-mode. Further, such ZEV
`
`operation capability would require a battery that was large enough to provide the
`
`desired ZEV range without needing a recharge. Also, such a modification might
`
`also require modifications to Ibaraki ’882’s mode selection strategy, e.g.,
`
`increasing the setpoint/Boundaries. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known that modifying the base-control strategy in Ibaraki ’882 to implement such
`
`ZEV capability would have been a simple software modification; and a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable and knowledgeable to
`
`make such a software change.
`
`V. Ground 4: Claim 231 is obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882, Jurgen and
`Lateur
`
`46.
`
`I understand that Paice argues that Lateur’s disclosure is unrelated to
`
`controlling the engine output. (Ex. 2407, Hannemann Declaration at ¶104.) Mr.
`
`Hannemann states:
`
`Page 24 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`104. Lateur’s disclosure of “determin[ing] whether the speed control
`
`switch is producing a ‘cruise control on’ signal or a ‘cruise control
`
`off’ signal,” Ex. 1490 (“Lateur”) at 9:47-50, does not relate to
`
`controlling the engine output torque in accordance with variation in
`
`RL. Likewise, Jurgen’s disclosure of a “closed-loop speed control,”
`
`Ex. 1491 (“Jurgen”) at 47, is unrelated to controlling engine output
`
`torque in accordance with variation in RL. Claim 231 requires more
`
`than just cruise control.
`
`(Ex. 2407, Hannemann Declaration at ¶104.)
`
`47. Paice appears to be asserting that prior art must teach separately
`
`varying the engine torque output to meet the claim. But the claim does not require
`
`separately controlling/varying the engine output to maintain the desired cruising
`
`speed. Rather the claims require “wherein the controller . . . controlling
`
`instantaneous engine torque output and operation of the at least one electric
`
`motor” collectively to maintain the desired cruising speed.
`
`48.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses that the engine is operated to drive the vehicle
`
`when the “road load” varies between the “setpoint,” i.e., boundary line B and the
`
`“MTO” i.e., boundary line C. (Ex. 1455, Davis Dec. at ¶¶196-207.) And, Lateur
`
`discloses controlling the second motor/generator to change the torque applied to
`
`the output shaft in response to “variation in RL” due to external conditions (e.g., a
`
`hill), or operator commands (Ex. 1490, Lateur at 10:36-60.) Therefore, even if the
`
`Page 25 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`
`claim did require separately controlling the engine output torque to maintain the
`
`desired cruising speed, it would have been obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882, Jurgen
`
`and Lateur.
`
` Rationale to combine
`B.
`
`49.
`
`I described the rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Jurgen and
`
`Lateur in ¶¶466-473 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1455, Davis Dec.)
`
`50. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that modifying
`
`the base-control strategy in Ibaraki ’882 to implement Lateur’s cruise control
`
`strategy would have been a simple software modification without having to modify
`
`the hybrid vehicle architecture disclosed by Ibaraki ’882. And a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been capable and knowledgeable to make such
`
`a software change.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, all the elements of the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable in view of the references discussed above. For the reasons presented
`
`above, it is my opinion that the applied references support instituted Grounds 1-3
`
`as set forth in the Petition for inter partes review and in my Declarations (First and
`
`Second).
`
`Page 26 of 27
`
`
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00791
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR11
`
`
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that comes
`
`to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate to
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_____ ________________
`Gregory W. Davis, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`FORD 1513
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the best of my ability.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2016
`
`Page 27 of 27
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
