Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: September 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: September 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23, and 36 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,104,347 B2 (“the ’347 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The owner of the ’347
`patent, Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc. (“Paice”), filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.” ).1 We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may
`not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response,
`we conclude that Ford has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing unpatentability of all the challenged claims. Thus,
`we authorize institution of an inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21,
`23, and 36 of the ’347 patent.
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’347 Patent 2
`A.
`The ’347 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`
`combustion engine, two electric motors (a starter motor and a traction
`motor), and a battery bank, all controlled by a microprocessor that directs
`
`
`1 Paice filed both redacted and unredacted versions of its Preliminary
`
`Response. Papers 7, 11. Our decision cites to the redacted version, i.e.,
`Paper 11, which is marked “Public.”
`2 The ’347 patent is also the subject of a co-pending case, Paice, LLC
`v. Ford Motor Company, No. 1-14-cv-00492, filed Feb. 19, 2014, in the U.S.
`District Court for the District of Maryland. Pet. 1.
`2
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`torque transfer between the engine, the motors, and the drive wheels of the
`vehicle. Ex. 1001, 17:5–45, Fig. 4. The hybrid vehicle features a hybrid
`control strategy that runs the engine only under conditions of high
`efficiency, typically when the vehicle’s instantaneous torque demand (i.e.,
`the amount of torque required to propel the vehicle at a desired speed) is at
`least equal to 30% of the engine’s maximum torque output (“MTO”)
`capability. Id. at 20:52–60, 35:5–14; see also id. at 13:47–61 (“the engine is
`never operated at less than 30% of MTO, and is thus never operated
`inefficiently”).
`
`Running the engine only under efficient operating conditions leads to
`improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. Id. at 13:47–51. To achieve
`such efficiency, the hybrid vehicle includes different operating modes that
`depend on the vehicle’s instantaneous torque demand, the battery’s state of
`charge, and other operating parameters. Id. at 19:53–55. For example, the
`hybrid vehicle operates in: (1) an all-electric mode, where only the traction
`motor provides the torque to propel the vehicle, whenever operation of the
`engine would be inefficient (i.e., stop-and-go city driving); (2) an engine-
`only mode, where only the engine provides the torque to propel the vehicle,
`whenever the engine can run at an efficient level (i.e., highway cruising);
`(3) a dual-operation mode, where the traction motor provides additional
`torque to propel the vehicle beyond that already provided by the engine,
`whenever the instantaneous torque demand exceeds the maximum torque
`output of the engine (i.e., while accelerating, passing, and climbing hills);
`and (4) a battery recharge mode where the engine operates a generator to
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`recharge the battery while the traction motor drives the vehicle. Id. at
`35:66–36:58, 37:26–38:55.
`B.
`Challenged Claims
`Ford challenges independent claims 1 and 23. It also challenges
`dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 15, and 21, which depend directly or indirectly
`from claim 1, and dependent claim 36, which depends from claim 23.
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`1.
`A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`
`an internal combustion engine controllably coupled to
`road wheels of said vehicle;
`
`a first electric motor connected to said engine [a]nd
`operable to start the engine responsive to a control signal;
`
`a second electric motor connected to road wheels of said
`vehicle, and operable as a motor, to apply torque to said wheels
`to propel said vehicle, and as a generator, for accepting torque
`from at least said wheels for generating current;
`
`a battery, for providing current to said motors and
`accepting charging current from at least said second motor; and
`
`a controller for controlling the flow of electrical and
`mechanical power between said engine, first and second
`motors, and wheels,
`
`wherein said controller starts and operates said engine
`when torque require[d] to be produced by said engine to propel
`the vehicle and/or to drive either one or both said electric
`motor(s) to charge said battery is at least equal to a setpoint
`(SP) above which said engine torque is efficiently produced,
`and wherein the torque produced by said engine when operated
`at said setpoint (SP) is substantially less than the maximum
`torque output (MTO) of said engine.
`
`Ex. 1001, 58:13–37.
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`Independent claim 23 is directed to a “method” of controlling a hybrid
`
`vehicle. Id. at 60:22. Like claim 1, it requires an “internal combustion
`engine capable of efficiently producing torque at loads between a lower level
`[setpoint] SP and a maximum torque output MTO.” Id. at 60:23–25. Unlike
`claim 1, however, claim 23 does not require two motors. Claim 23 simply
`requires “one or more electric motors” for providing output torque and
`generating electrical current. Id. at 60:25–27 (emphasis added).
`C.
`Evidence of Record
`
`Ford relies upon the following prior art as its basis for challenging the
`claims of the ’347 patent, and it also proffers the Declaration of Dr. Gregory
`W. Davis (Ex. 1005).
`
`Patents/Printed Publications
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
`U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613
`
`Exhibit
`Date
`1003
`Sept. 6, 1994
`Dec. 24, 1996 1004
`
`References
`Severinsky
`Ehsani
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Ford challenges the patentability of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23, and
`36 of the ’347 patent based on the following specific grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Severinsky
`
`23 and 36
`
`Severinsky and Ehsani
`
`1, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 21
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Standing
`A.
`Paice contends that Ford is “barred or estopped” under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(a) from requesting inter partes review of the ’347 patent due to an
`alleged breach of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Prelim.
`Resp. 5–12. According to Paice, the arbitration agreement includes
`“unambiguous terms” that purportedly limit Ford’s ability to “challeng[e]
`the patent claims of the ’347 patent.” Id. at 7, 9–10. Postulating that Ford is
`in breach of those terms, Paice asserts that Ford has failed to demonstrate the
`requisite standing to file the instant petition. Id. at 11.
`
`The purported “standing” argument raised by Paice, however, relates
`to a disputed contractual matter that falls outside the purview of our
`authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011). Indeed, the question of whether Ford has breached the
`arbitration agreement by requesting inter partes review of the ’347 patent is
`currently the subject of a preliminary injunction motion filed by Paice in the
`co-pending district court action, and yet to be decided. Prelim. Resp. 11 n.4.
`As such, we reject Paice’s attempt to frame this unresolved breach-of-
`contract issue as a standing issue ripe for our review. Based on the current
`record, Paice has not demonstrated that Ford is barred or estopped from
`challenging the ’347 patent.
`B.
`Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in the context of the patent in which
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Ford contends that five claim
`limitations are in need of construction, namely, “road load (RL),” “setpoint
`(SP),” “low-load mode I,” “highway cruising mode IV,” and “acceleration
`mode V.” Pet. 13–17. We construe the relevant limitations as follows.
`1.
`“road load (RL)”
`The term “road load” or “RL” is found in independent claim 23 and
`dependent claims 7, 9, 15, and 36. The specification 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. 1001, 12:40–57. We see no reason to deviate from the
`specification’s express definition. Thus, consistent with the specification,
`we construe “road load” as “the amount of instantaneous torque required to
`propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative.”
`2.
`“setpoint (SP)”
`Independent claims 1 and 23 recite that the internal combustion
`
`engine efficiently produces torque at loads between a “setpoint (SP)” and a
`“maximum torque output (MTO).” Paice seeks to construe the term
`“setpoint” as “a definite, but potentially variable value at which a transition
`between operating modes may occur.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Ford, on the other
`hand, asserts that “setpoint” means a “predetermined torque value.” Pet. 16.
`
`The specification of the ’347 patent states that the value of a setpoint
`“may vary somewhat” or be “reset” in response to repetitive driving patterns
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`or other monitored variables. Ex. 1001, 40:37–59. But, just because a
`setpoint may change under certain circumstances does not foreclose it from
`being “set” or “determined” at a prior point in time. Any other construction
`would defeat the purpose of it being “set,” which the ’347 patent admits is
`for comparison sake. For instance, the specification states that “the
`microprocessor tests sensed and calculated values for system variables [such
`as road load (RL)] . . . against setpoints, and uses the results of the
`comparisons to control the mode of vehicle operation.” Ex. 1001, 40:22–31
`(emphasis added). That description makes clear that the microprocessor is
`comparing a just-derived value against a previously-defined value. As such,
`we construe the term “setpoint” to mean at least a “predetermined value that
`may or may not be reset.” The inquiry does not end there, however.
`
`Next, Paice takes issue with Ford’s construction of “setpoint” as being
`limited to a “torque value.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15. According to Paice, the
`specification describes setpoint as both a “torque value” and a “battery
`charge status.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1115 at 10). We agree that the
`specification provides that either “torque output” or “state of charge of the
`battery bank” can be compared against setpoints. Ex. 1001, 40:28–31. The
`claim language, however, is not so broad. Although the specification is an
`important tool in claim construction, it is the claim language itself—and the
`manner in which a disputed term is used in the context of the claim—that
`controls the ultimate determination.
`Here, contrary to Paice’s assertion, the claim language consistently
`refers to a “setpoint” in terms of a “torque” value. For example, claim 1
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`recites that the “torque require[d] . . . is at least equal to a setpoint (SP)
`above which said engine torque is efficiently produced, and wherein the
`torque produced by said engine when operated at said setpoint (SP) is
`substantially less than the maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine.”
`Nowhere does the claim refer to “setpoint” or “SP” in the context of a
`battery’s “state of charge.” Likewise, although claim 23 includes the step of
`“monitoring the state of charge of said battery,” the claim never makes a
`comparison between the battery’s “state of charge” and a “setpoint.”
`Instead, claim 23 consistently references a “setpoint” or “SP” in terms of
`“torque,” e.g., “producing torque at loads between a lower level SP and a
`maximum torque output”; “when the torque RL required to do so is less than
`said lower level SP”; “using the torque between RL and SP to drive said at
`least one electric motor”; and “the torque produced by said engine when
`operated at said setpoint (SP) is substantially less than the maximum torque
`output.” Ex. 1001, 60:22–54 (emphasis added). Thus, given the claim
`language’s clear correlation of a “setpoint” or “SP” to a torque value, we
`construe the terms “setpoint” and “SP” to mean “a predetermined torque
`value that may or may not be reset.”
`3.
`“low-load mode I,” “highway cruising mode IV,” and
`
`
`
`“acceleration mode V”
`
`
`Claim 7 expressly defines the terms “low-load mode I,” “highway
`cruising mode IV,” and “acceleration mode V,” within the body of the claim.
`Ex. 1001, 58:58–59:8. As such, for purposes of institution, no further
`construction of these terms is necessary at this time.
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`C.
`
`
`Asserted Grounds
`1.
`Claims 23 and 36 – Obviousness over Severinsky
`Ford challenges claims 23 and 36 on the ground that the claimed
`invention would have been obvious over Severinsky. Pet. 17–19. In support
`of this ground, Ford provides a detailed claim chart explaining how each
`limitation of claims 23 and 36 is met by Severinsky and why a skilled artisan
`would have found the claimed invention obvious in view of the teachings of
`Severinsky and the general knowledge of skilled artisans. Id. at 19–32.
`Claim 23 recites a method of controlling a hybrid vehicle having an
`engine “capable of efficiently producing torque at loads between a lower
`level SP [i.e., setpoint] and a maximum torque output MTO.” Ex. 1001,
`60:22–25 (emphasis added). First, Paice asserts that Severinsky does not
`teach “efficiently” producing engine torque at “a lower level SP,” as
`required by claim 23. Prelim. Resp. 17. But Severinsky expressly defines
`the engine’s “most efficient operational point” to be in the range of “60–
`90% of its maximum torque.” Ex. 1003, 20:63–67. Crediting the testimony
`of Ford’s declarant, Dr. Davis, we are persuaded that a skilled artisan would
`have understood the low end of Severinsky’s range, i.e., 60%, to be a “lower
`level setpoint.” See Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 201–204).
`Although Paice appears not to dispute that the lower end of
`Severinsky’s “60-90%” range is a torque value, it nonetheless takes issue
`with Severinsky’s failure to indicate how such torque value “can be varied”
`or is “potentially variable.” Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Paice’s argument,
`however, is premised on an incorrect construction of “setpoint.” As properly
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`construed above, “setpoint” simply requires that the torque value be
`“predetermined,” not that it be variable. Although the claim language does
`not preclude the “setpoint” from being reset (e.g., based on driver
`tendencies), nothing in the claim language requires that it be “variable,” as
`Paice contends.
`Next, Paice contends that Severinsky fails to disclose that the engine
`“efficiently” produces torque up to a “maximum torque output.” Prelim.
`Resp. 18. According to Paice, Severinsky’s disclosure of maintaining
`engine efficiency “up to 90% of its maximum torque” does not equate to
`“the full maximum torque as recited in claim 23.” Id. at 18–19. Paice
`mischaracterizes Severinsky, which merely discloses the “most efficient”
`operation to be at 90% of maximum torque. That disclosure of an ideal
`upper limit does not preclude the engine’s operation above the 90% limit
`from still being “efficient,” which is all claim 23 requires. Indeed, the ’347
`patent admits that Severinsky’s engine can operate at “100% of its maximum
`torque output, for efficient charging of the battery bank.” Ex. 1001, 11:2–7;
`see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 211. Thus, we are persuaded that Severinsky teaches a
`hybrid engine that efficiently produces torque “at a maximum torque
`output.”
`
`Paice also disputes Ford’s position that Severinsky discloses the
`battery charge limitation of claim 23, namely,
`employing said engine to propel said vehicle when the torque
`RL required to do so is less than said lower level SP and using
`the torque between RL and SP to drive said at least one electric
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`
`motor to charge said battery when the state of charge of said
`battery indicates the desirability of doing so.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 20–22. As described in Severinsky, the microprocessor
`monitors vehicle performance to determine if “excess engine torque is
`available . . . [that] can be transformed into electrical energy in motor 20 and
`stored by battery 22.” Ex. 1003, 13:65–14:21 (emphasis added). Severinsky
`further discloses that “when the vehicle starts down a hill, and the operator
`lifts his foot from the accelerator pedal, the kinetic energy of the vehicle and
`the engine’s excess torque may be used to drive the motor 20 as a generator
`so as to charge the batteries.” Id. at 10:32–36 (emphasis added). Those
`disclosures by Severinsky are similar to the specification support for claim
`23 that “excess engine torque is used to charge the batteries” when the
`vehicle’s torque requirements “are less than the torque then being produced
`by the engine, e.g., during coasting, on downhills or during braking.” Ex.
`1001, 38:22–28. Nonetheless, Paice argues that Severinsky does not use
`engine torque to propel the vehicle when the battery is being recharged.
`Prelim. Resp. 21–22. But Ford’s declarant, Dr. Davis, points to Figure 9 of
`Severinsky as illustrating a mode “where the engine provides torque to the
`wheels to propel the vehicle and motor for battery recharging.” Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 301–304. We are persuaded by Dr. Davis’s testimony that Severinsky
`teaches the battery charge limitation of claim 23.
`
`Having considered the information presented in the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Ford has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of showing that a skilled artisan would have found the
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`subject matter of claim 23 obvious over Severinsky. Also, we have
`considered Ford’s challenge of dependent claim 36. Pet. 33–34. Paice does
`not argue this dependent claim separately from independent claim 23. See
`Prelim. Resp. 16–22. Based on our review of the detailed claim chart and
`reasoning presented in the petition, we are persuaded that Ford has shown
`sufficiently that the dependent limitation of claim 36 also would have been
`obvious over Severinsky.
`2.
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 21 – Obviousness Over Severinsky
`
`
`
`and Ehsani
`
`Ford challenges independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 6,
`7, 9, 15, and 21, on the ground that the claimed invention would have been
`obvious over the combined teachings of Severinsky and Ehsani. Pet. 34–51.
`Claim 1 recites a hybrid vehicle having two electric motors, one acting as a
`starter motor for the engine and another acting as a generator for the battery.
`Ex. 1001, 58:16–22. Acknowledging that Severinsky discloses simply a
`single electric motor having the dual functionality of both a starter motor
`and a generator, Ford points to the long history of starter motors in the
`automotive industry (dating back to 1912) as evidence that equipping
`Severinsky with a separate starter motor would have been nothing more than
`an obvious design choice in the eyes of skilled artisans at the time of the
`claimed invention. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 329–333). Indeed,
`Severinsky recognizes as much, explaining that the decision to eliminate a
`separate starter motor was a function of “convenience” in terms of “cost,
`weight, and manufacturing.” Ex. 1003, 21:39–55; see also id. at 6:36–39.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`Additionally, Ford points to Ehsani as teaching the use of two electric
`
`motors in a hybrid vehicle, namely, starter/generator motor 50 and electric
`propulsion motor 51. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 5, 3:24–25, 8:32–34).
`We are persuaded by Dr. Davis’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have
`known (and been able) to modify the “one motor” hybrid vehicle of
`Severinsky to add a separate starter motor, as taught by Ehsani, so that
`“noise vibration and harshness (NVH) issues would be greatly minimized.”
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 366–68. We do not find credible Paice’s argument that “adding
`back a feature that was intentionally removed” by Severinsky evinces a lack
`of motivation to combine with Ehsani. See Prelim. Resp. 22–24.
`
`Paice also faults the combination of Severinsky and Ehsani as failing
`to suggest “a setpoint (SP) above which said engine torque is efficiently
`produced,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 25. As discussed above,
`Severinsky discloses that the engine runs at “its most efficient operational
`point [when] it produces 60-90% of its maximum torque whenever
`operated.” Ex. 1003, 20:63–66 (emphasis added). That disclosure evinces
`that a skilled artisan would have understood Severinsky’s lower limit of 60%
`to be the “setpoint” for efficient operation. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 398–402.
`Again, however, Paice faults Severinsky for failing to indicate how its lower
`limit of 60% “may be varied in any way.” Prelim. Resp. 25. As discussed
`above, Paice misconstrues “setpoint” to require variation when nothing in
`the claim language suggests such a construction. Thus, we are persuaded
`that Severinsky’s lower limit of 60% of maximum torque for achieving
`efficient operation of the engine meets the “setpoint” language of claim 1.
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`Also, we have considered Ford’s challenge of dependent claims 6, 7,
`
`9, 15, and 21. Pet. 44–51. Based on our review of the information presented
`in the Petition, we are persuaded that Ford has shown sufficiently that these
`dependent limitations are taught by Severinsky and Ehsani. See id. (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 410–506). For instance, Paice argues that the combination of
`Severinsky and Ehsani fails to suggest the limitation of claim 9, which
`recites a “low-speed battery charging mode II” in which the engine and a
`first electric motor are disengaged from the wheels and the vehicle is
`propelled by a second electric motor. Prelim. Resp. 25–26. Although
`Severinsky discloses a single motor for charging the battery, Ehsani teaches
`utilizing two electric motors in which generator 50 (i.e., first electric motor)
`charges battery 24 while the engine is “disengaged from the drive shaft 21
`by clutch 51” and electric motor 51 (i.e., the second motor) is used to propel
`the vehicle. Ex. 1004, 8:28–34. We are persuaded that it would have been
`obvious to modify Severinsky’s single-motor battery charging mode with
`Ehsani’s dual-motor battery charging mode so that the engine can be
`operated at its most efficient range while still allowing the second motor to
`drive the vehicle. See Ex. 1003, 2:43–54; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 486–489.
`3.
`Ford’s Purported Additional Ground
`
`Ford further contends that claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 21 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over “Ehsani and
`Severinsky.” Pet. 51–59. As part of this challenge, Ford elaborates on
`Ehsani’s teaching of “alternative control techniques” to assert that a skilled
`artisan would have been motivated to combine the hybrid control strategies
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`of Ehsani and Severinsky to arrive at a hybrid vehicle that adjusts the output
`of the engine based on torque requirements.3 Pet. 53–54. But that additional
`discussion of Ehsani does not rise to the level of a meaningfully distinct
`ground. Rather, it simply amounts to additional support for combining the
`two references. As such, we exercise our discretion under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108 to view Ford’s challenge based on “Ehsani and Severinsky” not as
`a different ground, but simply as additional support for the ground of
`“Severinsky and Ehsani” on which we institute trial.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition, we
`determine that Ford has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23,
`and 36 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`V. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review
`of challenged claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 21, 23, and 36 of the ’347 patent is
`instituted on the asserted ground of obviousness over Severinsky and
`Ehsani;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, inter partes review of the ’347 patent shall commence on
`
`
`
`
`3 Ford also repeats many of the same points it made with respect to the
`
`ground based on “Severinsky and Ehsani.” See, e.g., Pet. 56–59.
`16
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00571
`Patent 7,104,347 B2
`
`the entry date of this Order, and notice is hereby given of the institution of a
`trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds presented in Ford’s
`Petition are denied, and no ground other than that specifically listed above is
`authorized for inter partes review of the ’347 patent.
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Frank Angileri
`John Nemazi
`John Rondini
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`FPGP010IPR2@brookskushman.com
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`
`Kevin Greenleaf
`Lissi Mojica
`DENTONS US LLP
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Kevin E. Greene
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`riffe@fr.com
`IPR36351-0011IP1@fr.com
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`FORD 1215
`
`
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
