UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`Patent 8,214,097
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2206
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2015-00792
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 3 
`
`III.  LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 6 
`
`IV.  DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART .............................. 9 
`
`V. 
`
`THE ’097 PATENT ....................................................................................... 10 
`
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 19 
`
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT TECHNICAL CONCEPTS ........................ 21 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Engine Operating Range ..................................................................... 21 
`
`Engine Output ...................................................................................... 22 
`
`Engine Control Strategy ...................................................................... 23 
`
`VIII.  ANALYSIS AND OPINIONS ...................................................................... 29 
`
`A. 
`
`The prior art references selected by Ford and Dr. Stein do
`not disclose using road load or torque requirements to
`determine when to operate the engine ................................................. 29 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Introduction to Severinsky ’970 ............................................... 30 
`
`Severinsky uses speed to determine when to use
`the engine .................................................................................. 34 
`
`The passages relied upon by Ford and Dr. Stein do
`not change my opinion .............................................................. 37 
`
`B. 
`
`The prior art references selected by Ford and Dr. Stein do
`not disclose a setpoint ......................................................................... 45 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Introduction to Severinsky’s sweet spot ................................... 46 
`
`Severinsky’s sweet spot is not a setpoint .................................. 49 
`
`
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Ford and Dr. Stein’s focus on output torque is
`flawed ........................................................................................ 55 
`
`Severinsky’s power range is not a setpoint ............................... 60 
`
`C. 
`
`The cited portions of the '097 patent do not change my
`opinion ................................................................................................. 61 
`
`D.  A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`combined Severinsky with Yamaguchi ............................................... 64 
`
`E. 
`
`Takaoka does not disclose the limitations related to
`limiting a rate of change of output torque or
`stoichiometry ....................................................................................... 65 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Overview of Takaoka ................................................................ 65 
`
`Takaoka fails to disclose a controller that limits
`engine output torque to maintain stoichiometry ....................... 68 
`
`Takaoka at best discloses limiting engine output
`power, not torque ...................................................................... 74 
`
`Takaoka does not disclose supplying fuel and air to
`an engine at an air-fuel ratio of no more than 1.2 of
`the stoichiometric ratio for starting the engine ......................... 79 
`
`F. 
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`combined Takaoka with Severinsky and Yamaguchi ......................... 83 
`
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 84 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`Exhibit Name
`Table of Ford’s IPR Petitions
`Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00875)
`(Mar. 3, 2015)
`Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00875)
`(May 29, 2015)
`Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00570)
`(May 8, 2015)
`Declaration of Daniel A. Tishman in Support of
`Patent Owners’ Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`Declaration of Neil Hannemann
`Neil Hannemann CV
`Gregory W. Davis Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00571
`& IPR2014-00579) (Jan. 13, 2015)
`Gregory W. Davis Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-01416)
`(June 3, 2015)
`Gregory W. Davis Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00571)
`(May 8, 2015)
`Excerpts from Neil Hannemann Deposition Tr.
`(IPR2014-00571) (April 7, 2015)
`Gregory W. Davis Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00884)
`(Feb. 25, 2015)
`Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-01415)
`(May 29, 2015)
`Jeffery L. Stein, Deposition Tr. (IPR2014-00570)
`(Jan. 12, 2015)
`Integrated Microprocessor Control of a Hybrid i.c.
`Engine/Battery-Electric Automotive Power Train,”
`P.W. Masding, J.R. Bumby, Jan. 1990
`Masding, Philip Wilson (1988) “Some drive train
`control problems in hybrid i.c engine/battery
`electric vehicles,” Durham theses, Durham
`University
`Excerpt from McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific
`and Technical Terms, Sixth Ed., 2003.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`Ex. 2201
`Ex. 2202
`
`Ex. 2203
`
`Ex. 2204
`Ex. 2205
`
`Ex. 2206
`Ex. 2207
`Ex. 2208
`
`Ex. 2209
`
`Ex. 2210
`
`Ex. 2211
`
`Ex. 2212
`
`Ex. 2213
`
`Ex. 2214
`
`Ex. 2215
`
`Ex. 2216
`
`Ex. 2217
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`I, Neil Hannemann, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Paice LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation (collectively, “Paice” or “Patent Owner”) to investigate and analyze
`
`certain issues relating to the validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“the
`
`’097 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Petitioner”) in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’097 patent, Case No. IPR2015-00792. I
`
`have reviewed Ford’s petition, along with the declaration of Ford’s expert, Dr. Stein,
`
`and the documents cited therein. I have reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s (“the Board”) decision to institute, as well as the Board’s claim
`
`constructions. My analysis is based on the Board’s claim constructions, unless I
`
`specifically note otherwise.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following claims
`
`of the ’097 patent (the “challenged claims”): 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23,
`
`24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 37 and 38.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Ford and Dr. Stein argue that the challenged claims
`
`are obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky”) in combination with one
`
`or more of A High-Expansion Ratio Gasoline Engine for the Toyota Hybrid System,
`
`
`
`1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`Toyota Technical Review Vol. 47, No. 2 (“Takaoka”), U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263
`
`(“Yamaguchi”).
`
`5. My opinions are based on my review of the ’097 patent and each of the
`
`references on which Ford’s petition relies. Additionally, I have also reviewed the
`
`documents listed as exhibits to this declaration. Finally, my opinions are also based
`
`on my experience and work in the field of automotive engineering (as detailed
`
`further below). For the reasons discussed herein, I disagree with Ford and Dr. Stein.
`
`As I explain below, none of the prior art that Ford and Dr. Stein rely upon disclose
`
`using road load or torque requirements and setpoint to decide when to move between
`
`operating modes to maximize efficiency. This is a requirement of each challenged
`
`claim. Moreover, none of the cited references discloses “control[ling] the engine
`
`such that a rate of increase of output torque of the engine is limited to less than said
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque,” as required by independent
`
`claims 1, 11, 21, and 30, and all claims that depend from those claims.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $525 for each hour of service that
`
`I provide in connection with this matter. This compensation is not contingent upon
`
`my performance, upon the outcome of this matter, or upon any issues involved in or
`
`related to this matter.
`
`
`
`2
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`7. My curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2207, and
`
`contains a description of my work history, education, and accomplishments. I am an
`
`automotive engineer with over 25 years of experience in road and race vehicle
`
`engineering and design.
`
`8.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering,
`
`Automotive option, from the General Motors Institute (now known as Kettering
`
`University) in 1981. My college thesis was entitled “Design of an Emissions
`
`Laboratory”, dated May 15, 1981.
`
`9.
`
`I worked for almost 20 years for Chrysler (then DaimlerChrysler).
`
`During my assignment as the vehicle development engineer for the Dodge Viper I
`
`was responsible for certain aspects of emissions development and certification. This
`
`included scheduling and monitoring the durability cycle, coordinating emissions
`
`calibration and development. The Dodge Viper utilized a metal monolith catalytic
`
`converter. While a product development engineer at Chrysler, I also performed
`
`calibrations to Engine Control Modules (ECM).
`
`10.
`
`I spent two years as a Chief Engineer at Saleen Inc. While there, I was
`
`responsible for all vehicle design, design analysis and vehicle development. I was
`
`also responsible for emissions certification for all Saleen models. Additionally, I
`
`
`
`3
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`was responsible for powertrain calibrations. I personally approved every final
`
`calibration that the engineers performed.
`
`11.
`
`I was the Chief Engineer for the Ford GT, initially produced as a 2005
`
`model. In this role, I was responsible for all aspects of the performance of the Ford
`
`GT. This included drafting and approving the plan for all safety and certification
`
`testing, including emissions development and testing. I was also responsible for the
`
`decision on which engine to use for the vehicle. I also was the architect for the main
`
`structure of the vehicle and was responsible for all structural design, analysis, testing
`
`and development.
`
`12. As Chief Engineer responsible for design, design analysis and
`
`development for the Ford GT I was involved in the emissions strategy, and the design
`
`of the emissions related components. Ford had yet to utilize a metal monolith
`
`catalytic converter and my experience at Chrysler with the Dodge Viper was a factor
`
`in convincing Ford to use this new (for them) technology.
`
`13.
`
`I worked as an Executive Director of Engineering for McLaren
`
`Automotive. While there, I was responsible for all aspects of engineering and
`
`technical integrity for their current and future products. My focus was on mid-engine
`
`sports cars for Mercedes-Benz, FMVSS 208 compliance for Mercedes-McLaren
`
`SLR and future variants.
`
`
`
`4
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`I was a Senior Vice President at Aptera Motors, Inc. While at Aptera,
`
`14.
`
`I was involved in the development and testing of regenerative braking calibrations.
`
`I have also done this type of work for other consulting clients. These clients include
`
`those developing hybrid-electric vehicles.
`
`15.
`
`In 1994 I performed a “Fresh eyes” review of the Chrysler Patriot
`
`concept vehicle, which was a turbine-electric hybrid sports-prototype racing car
`
`utilizing flywheel energy storage. My work included an overall design review and
`
`review of the testing plans. The Chrysler Patriot was a series hybrid configuration.
`
`16.
`
`In 2003 I designed the architecture for hybrid configurations for the
`
`MP4/12C sports car for McLaren Automotive. The architecture design included
`
`consideration of the hybrid topology including the layout and packaging of the major
`
`components, motors, batteries, inverter, and controller. This process included the
`
`design of numerous hybrid concepts and consideration of different components such
`
`as the motors. The McLaren concepts were parallel hybrid configurations.
`
`17.
`
`In 2009 I was also the program manager of a project for Kepler Motors.
`
`I was responsible for program management for a hybrid sports car. As program
`
`manager, I was involved with the building and testing of hybrid prototypes. The
`
`testing included both testing on dynamometer test beds and testing of completed
`
`vehicles. A patent was awarded for the transaxle designed for this concept. The
`
`Kepler Motion is a parallel “through the road” hybrid configuration.
`
`
`
`5
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`I have consulted on various electric and hybrid-electric vehicle projects.
`
`18.
`
`In 2008 I performed testing and development of the regenerative braking
`
`characteristics for an electric vehicle. I was also responsible for the overall design
`
`of the entire electric vehicle. In 2010 I provided safety consulting for a hybrid
`
`vehicle manufacturer. In 2010 I consulted for a start-up electric car company, where
`
`I was responsible for the design of a two seat NEV (Neighborhood electric vehicle).
`
`I was also the program manager for many systems on the vehicle. As the program
`
`manager I considered various batteries, including lithium ion and lead acid.
`
`19.
`
`In 2012 I analyzed the regenerative braking system performance
`
`characteristics of an existing hybrid vehicle. My analysis included vehicle testing.
`
`In 2013, I performed vehicle testing for handling stability of a hybrid vehicle being
`
`designed specifically for utility companies. The different modes of hybrid operation
`
`were considered for the effect of the stability of the vehicle, along with the effect of
`
`the battery placement.
`
`20.
`
` I am a named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,276,693 B2, October 2,
`
`2012, entitled “Powertrain, Vehicle, and Method with Electric Motors and Dual Belt
`
`Drive”, direct to a transaxle.
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`21.
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`
`
`6
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`below, as provided to me by counsel for Patent Owner and as I understand them.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`patent claim is unpatentable as “anticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if it is
`
`determined that the claimed invention was previously known, and that all the
`
`limitations of the claim are described in a single prior art reference. I am informed
`
`by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that, to anticipate a claim, a prior
`
`art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation
`
`of that claim and enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and
`
`understand that obviousness may be based upon a combination of references. I am
`
`informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. However, I am informed by counsel for the
`
`Patent Owner and understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is
`
`
`
`7
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`when a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I
`
`am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that identifying a
`
`reason those elements would be combined can be important because inventions in
`
`many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`already known. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent's claims
`
`should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that an
`
`26.
`
`obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure
`
`of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that all prior art
`
`references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Furthermore, obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`27. Based on my review of the ’097 patent, the documents cited by Ford
`
`and Dr. Stein, and my own knowledge and skill based on my experience in the
`
`automotive industry and with the design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, it is
`
`my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art in September of 19981 is a person
`
`who would have a combination of experience and education in the design and
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’097 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed
`
`on September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’097
`
`patent, that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`
`
`9
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`development of mechanical systems or control systems, typically a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or similar field
`
`plus at least three years of experience in designing, implementing, testing, teaching,
`
`or otherwise working with automotive systems, control system logic, or a related
`
`field. I note that the differences between the level of skill above and the level of
`
`skill defined by Dr. Stein are minor and do not affect my opinions set forth below.
`
`V. THE ’097 PATENT
`28. The ’097 patent (Ex. 1201), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on July
`
`3, 2012 from an application that claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 14, 1998. The ’097 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with control
`
`methods that are directed to reducing emissions during start, as well as operation of
`
`the hybrid vehicle. Ex. 1201, col. 1:24-32, col. 29:63-30:12. For example, the ’097
`
`patent describes control methods that provide for starting the engine at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The ’097 patent also describes control
`
`methods for limiting the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation of
`
`the hybrid vehicle such that the combustion of fuel occurs at a substantially
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel ratio and using the electric motor to meet any shortfall in
`
`torque required to operate the vehicle in response to the operator’s command. Id.,
`
`col. 27:31-35, col. 29:63-30:12, col. 37:2-6, col. 37:39-42, and col. 38:62-39:14.
`
`
`
`10
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`The methods of control described the ’097 patent result in the reduction of emissions
`
`and improve fuel economy.
`
`29. The ’097 patent discloses embodiments of hybrid vehicles with an
`
`internal combustion engine, at least one electric motor, and a battery coupled to the
`
`electric motor. The internal combustion engine, electric motor, or both the engine
`
`and electric motor, can be used to propel the hybrid vehicle. A microprocessor is
`
`used to control the operation of the components, as well as select different operating
`
`modes based on the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements, the state of charge
`
`of the battery bank, and other variables.
`
`30. An embodiment of the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the ’097 patent is
`
`shown in Figure 3, which is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3.
`
`31. As shown in Figure 3, a traction motor 25 and an internal combustion
`
`engine 40 (through clutch 51) are mechanically connected with the road wheels 34
`
`through a differential 32. A starter motor 21 is connected to the internal combustion
`
`engine 40. The motors 21 and 25 are functional as either motors or generators,
`
`depending on the operation of the corresponding inverter/charger units 23 and 27,
`
`which connect the motors to the battery bank 22. Id. at 26:13-24.
`
`32. These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48 capable of
`
`examining input parameters and signals and controlling the flow of electrical and
`
`mechanical power between the engine, the electric motor, and the wheels. Id., col.
`
`26:44-27:12. For example, control of engine 40 is accomplished by way of control
`
`signals provided by the microprocessor to the electronic fuel injection (EFI) unit 56
`
`and electronic engine management (EEM) unit 55. Control of (1) starting of the
`
`engine 40; (2) use of motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or (3) use of
`
`motors as generators to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is
`
`accomplished through control signals provided by the microprocessor to the
`
`inverter/charger units 23 and 27. Id., col. 25:46-27:22; 27:59-28:15; 29:8-18.
`
`33.
`
`In conventional engines, a rich air-fuel mixture on the order of 6-7 times
`
`the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is provided during the engine startup process to
`
`ensure that some fraction of the fuel is in the vapor phase, since only fuel in the
`
`
`
`12
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`vapor phase can be ignited by a spark. See, e.g., id., col. 29:64-67. Most of the
`
`excess fuel condenses as liquid on the cold cylinder walls and is emitted unburned.
`
`See, e.g., id., col. 29:67-30:3. During operation of conventional engines, when the
`
`operator depresses the accelerator pedal, additional fuel is injected into the engine
`
`to meet the operator’s command and thus, may result in a non-stoichiometric and
`
`inefficient combustion. See, e.g., id., col. 39:1-14.
`
`34. By contrast, the control methods disclosed in the ’097 patent allow for
`
`starting the engine at high speeds, creating turbulence in the combustion chamber
`
`that is sufficient to ensure the presence of vapor so that a substantially stoichiometric
`
`air-fuel mixture can be provided to the engine during the startup phase. See, e.g.,
`
`id., col. 30:3-12. The ’097 patent also describes control methods that allow for
`
`limiting the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation to reduce
`
`emissions and using the electric motor to meet any shortfall in torque required to
`
`operate the vehicle. See, e.g., id., col. 37:39-42. An example of the hybrid control
`
`method disclosed by the ’097 patent is illustrated in Figure 7(a) (annotated):
`
`
`
`13
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`
`
`35. The solid line of the graph in Figure 7(a) depicts the vehicle’s
`
`instantaneous torque requirement (road load), whereas the dashed line of the graph
`
`depicts the engine’s instantaneous output torque. See, e.g., id., col. 37:51-63. As
`
`shown in Figure 7(a) starting at point D, the rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric combustion. See, e.g.,
`
`id., col. 38:62-65. When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet the
`
`road load, and thus, the electric motor is used to provide the balance of the torque to
`
`propel the vehicle (see red cross-hatched annotation in Fig. 7(a)).
`
`36. By contrast, a conventional vehicle does not have an electric motor to
`
`provide additional torque and cannot limit the rate of increase of the engine’s output
`
`torque to maintain stoichiometric combustion. Instead, when the operator depresses
`
`the accelerator pedal, the operator’s command must be met entirely by the engine in
`
`
`
`14
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`the conventional vehicle, even if this results in a non-stoichiometric and inefficient
`
`combustion when additional fuel is injected into the engine.
`
`37. The claimed inventions of the ’097 patent control the operation of the
`
`engine and electric motor in response to the operator’s command such that
`
`combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`For example, independent claim 30 of the ’097 patent recites a hybrid vehicle
`
`comprising:
`
`
`
`one or more wheels;
`
`an internal combustion engine operable to propel the
`
`hybrid vehicle by providing torque to the one or more wheels,
`wherein said engine has an inherent maximum rate of increase of
`output torque;
`
`at least one electric motor operable to propel the hybrid
`
`vehicle by providing torque to the one or more wheels;
`
`a battery coupled to the at least one electric motor,
`
`operable to provide electrical power to the at least one electric
`motor; and
`
`a controller, operable to control the flow of electrical and
`
`mechanical power between the engine, the at least one electric
`motor, and the one or more wheels, responsive to an operator
`command;
`
`wherein said controller controls said at least one electric
`
`motor to provide additional torque when the amount of torque
`being provided by said engine is less than the amount of torque
`required to operate the vehicle; and
`
`wherein said controller controls said engine such that a
`
`rate of increase of output torque of said engine is limited to less
`than said inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque,
`
`
`
`15
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`and wherein the controller is operable to limit the rate of change
`of torque produced by the engine such that combustion of fuel
`within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`38. The “stoichiometric” features of the claimed invention are set forth in
`
`the limitations relating to the controller. Claim 30 requires a controller operable to
`
`control the flow of electrical and mechanical power between the engine, the electric
`
`motor, and the wheels, responsive to an operator command. The wherein clauses set
`
`forth how the controller controls both the electric motor and engine in response to
`
`the operator’s command. In particular, the controller controls (1) the electric motor
`
`to provide additional torque when the amount of torque being provided by the engine
`
`is less than the amount of torque required to operate the vehicle, and (2) the engine
`
`such that a rate of increase of the engine’s output torque is limited to less than the
`
`inherent maximum rate of increase of output torque, and wherein the controller is
`
`operable to limit the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque such that
`
`combustion of fuel within the engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.
`
`39. As discussed above, this is consistent with the specification. Figure
`
`7(a) starting at point D shows that the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque
`
`is limited so as to maintain substantially stoichiometric combustion. See, e.g., id.,
`
`col. 38:62-65. When this occurs, the engine’s output torque does not meet the road
`
`load, and the electric motor provides the balance of the torque to propel the vehicle
`
`(see red cross-hatched annotation in Fig. 7(a)).
`
`
`
`16
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`I also note that during the prosecution of the ’097 patent, the patentee
`
`40.
`
`explained that while substantially stoichiometric combustion is to be maintained,
`
`“drivability – that is, rapid increase in the torque provided to the wheels in response
`
`to the operator’s command – is nonetheless essential to a commercially viable
`
`vehicle. The at least one electric ‘traction’ motor of the hybrid vehicle is instead
`
`employed to provide a rapid increase in the torque to be provided to the wheels of
`
`the vehicle, providing drivability.” See Ex. 1210 at 232-233. The patentee further
`
`explained that: “the rate of increase of torque output by the ICE [internal combustion
`
`engine] is limited by the controller to less than the inherent maximum rate of increase
`
`in output torque of the ICE, and any shortfall in the torque required to meet the
`
`operator’s requirements – that is, to provide drivability – is supplied by torque from
`
`the traction motor.” Id. at 234.
`
`41. The hybrid vehicle may also be operated in a number of modes based
`
`on comparing the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements (i.e. the “road load”),
`
`the engine’s maximum torque output, the state of charge of the battery, and other
`
`operating parameters. In an implementation of the ’097 patent, the microprocessor
`
`causes the vehicle to operate in various operating modes pursuant to its control
`
`strategy.
`
`42. For example, in mode I, the hybrid vehicle is operated as an electric car,
`
`with the traction motor providing all torque to propel the vehicle. Ex. 1201 at 35:14-
`
`
`
`17
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`21. As the vehicle continues to be propelled in electric only mode, the state of charge
`
`of the battery may become depleted, and need to be recharged. In this case, the
`
`hybrid vehicle may transition to mode II to recharge the battery, in which the vehicle
`
`operates as in mode I, with the addition of the engine running the starter/generator
`
`motor to provide electrical energy to operate the traction motor and recharge the
`
`battery. Ex. 1201 at 35:22-36. When the internal combustion engine can operate in
`
`its fuel efficient range based on an evaluation of the road load, the hybrid vehicle
`
`operates in mode IV, with the engine providing torque to propel the vehicle. Ex.
`
`1201 at 35:48-53. In this mode, the motor may also provide torque in order to, for
`
`example, limit the rate of increase of engine output torque during operation to reduce
`
`emissions. Ex. 1201 at 37:39-42; 38:8-52. If the vehicle requires additional torque,
`
`such as for acceleration or passing, the vehicle may enter mode V, where the traction
`
`motor provides additional torque to propel the vehicle beyond that provided by
`
`engine 40. Id. The algorithm implemented by embodiments of the ’097 patent is
`
`illustrated in Fig. 9 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`
`See Ex. 1201 at 41:1 – 42:33
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`43.
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, the claims of a
`
`patent are to be given their broadest reasonable meaning as they would be understood
`
`
`
`19
`
`23
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00792
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, consistent with the specification of the patent. I
`
`understand that Board has construed the following terms. I have used these
`
`constructions in my analysis, which the Board adopted:
`
`Board’s construction
`
`“the amount of instantaneous torque
`required to propel the vehicle, be it
`positive or negative.”
`
`“predetermined torque value that may or
`may not be reset.”
`
`
`
`Claim term
`
`“road load (RL)”
`
`“setpoint (SP)”
`
`
`
`44.
`
`In addition, counsel for Patent Owner has asked that in addition to
`
`applying the Board-adopted constructions that I a