Paper 44
`
`Entered: September 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`Page 1 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”) for inter partes
`
`review of claims 30–33, 35, 36, 38, and 39 of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 B2
`
`(“the ’097 patent”), which is owned by Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Paice”). In a preliminary proceeding, we determined a
`
`reasonable likelihood existed that claims 30–33, 35, 36, and 39 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and instituted trial of those claims, but
`
`we denied review of claim 38. As to the triable claims, Paice filed a Patent
`
`Owner Response (“PO Resp.”), and Ford followed with a Reply (“Reply”).
`
`After hearing oral argument from both parties,1 and pursuant to our
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c), we conclude Ford has proven, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 30–33, 35, 36, and 39 are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The ’097 patent 2
`
`The ’097 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`
`A.
`
`
`
`combustion engine, an electric motor, and a battery bank, all controlled by a
`
`microprocessor that directs the transfer of torque from the engine and/or
`
`motor to the drive wheels of the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 17:5–45, Fig. 4. The
`
`microprocessor features a control strategy that limits the rate of increase of
`
`the engine’s output torque so that fuel combustion occurs near a
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. Id. at 37:2–42. By limiting the rate of
`
`
`1 A transcript (“Tr.”) has been entered into the record. Paper 43.
`2 The ’097 patent is also the subject of several co-pending cases, including
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:14-cv-00492 (D. Md.), filed Feb. 19,
`2014, and Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 1:12-cv-00499 (D. Md.),
`filed Feb. 16, 2012. Pet. 2.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`increasing engine torque and maintaining a near stoichiometric air-fuel
`
`mixture, the hybrid control strategy improves fuel economy and reduces
`
`undesirable emissions during starting and normal operation of the vehicle.
`
`Id. at 36:60–37:6, 38:62–39:14.
`
`B.
`
`The challenged claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 30 is the only independent claim on review. Pet. 3. Claims 31,
`
`32, 35, 36, and 39 depend directly, and claim 33 depends indirectly, from
`
`claim 30. Claim 30 recites:
`
`30. 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,
`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.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 60:4–29.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`C.
`
`The instituted grounds of unpatentability
`
`
`
`In the preliminary proceeding, we instituted trial because Ford made a
`
`threshold showing of a “reasonable likelihood” that claims 30, 31, 35, 36,
`
`and 39 were unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of
`
`Severinsky3 and Anderson;4 that claim 32 was unpatentable as obvious over
`
`the teachings of Severinsky, Anderson, and Yamaguchi;5 and that claim 33
`
`was unpatentable as obvious over the teachings of Severinsky, Anderson,
`
`Yamaguchi, and Katsuno.6 Dec. to Inst. 10–12. We now decide whether
`
`Ford has proven the unpatentability of these same claims by a
`
`“preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A.
`
`Claim construction
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Ford asks that we construe the term, “rate of change,” as used in
`
`claim 30, to mean “rate of increase” because that construction is consistent
`
`with an amendment that was requested during prosecution but “mistakenly
`
`failed” to get processed, even though the amendment was made for other
`
`occurrences of the same term, “rate of change,” found elsewhere in the
`
`claim. Pet. 22–23. Without that construction, Ford argues, the term “rate of
`
`change” in claim 30 is left with “no antecedent basis.” Id. at 23. Paice does
`
`not oppose Ford’s proposed construction, and we see merit in such a
`
`construction. Thus, we conclude that the term “rate of change” is properly
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970, iss. Sept. 6, 1994 (Ex. 1009, “Severinsky”).
`4 C. Anderson & E. Pettit, The Effects of APU Characteristics on
`the Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE
`TECHNICAL PAPER 950493 (1995) (Ex. 1006, “Anderson”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263, iss. Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1007, “Yamaguchi”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 4,707,984, iss. Nov. 24, 1987 (Ex. 1008, “Katsuno”).
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`construed to mean “rate of increase.” No other claim terms require an
`
`express construction for us to analyze the challenged claims relative to the
`
`asserted prior art.
`
`Claims 30, 31, 35, 36, and 39—Obviousness over Severinsky and
`Anderson
`
`Ford relies on Severinsky and Anderson as together teaching the
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`limitations of claims 30, 31, 35, 36, and 39. Pet. 46–54. Ford also advances
`
`a reason why a skilled artisan would have combined their teachings to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention. Id. at 50–51. Specifically, like the claimed
`
`invention, Severinsky discloses the essential components of a hybrid electric
`
`vehicle, including an internal combustion engine, an electric motor, a
`
`battery, and a microprocessor for controlling operation of the engine and
`
`motor. Compare Ex. 1009, Fig. 3 (Severinsky) with Ex. 1001, Fig. 4 (the
`
`’097 patent). Also, Severinsky teaches that “stoichiometric combustion” is
`
`important to “lower the toxic hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission”
`
`of the engine. Ex. 1009, 12:13–17.7
`
`
`
`Acknowledging that Severinsky does not disclose achieving
`
`stoichiometric combustion by limiting the “rate of increase,” or “rate of
`
`change,” of the engine’s output torque, as required by claim 30, Ford relies
`
`on Anderson as teaching this limitation. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1006, 7).
`
`Notably, Anderson discloses a hybrid control strategy that “maintains the
`
`stoichiometric air fuel ratio” of the engine by limiting “engine starts and
`
`transients,” and more specifically, by performing “slow transients” so the
`
`
`7 Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, whose testimony we credit, confirms the
`teachings of Severinsky with respect to the basic elements and functions
`recited by claim 30, i.e., the engine, motor, battery, and controller. Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 324–346.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`“speed of the transient” is not “too fast.”8 Ex. 1006, 7. The benefit of this
`
`strategy, according to Anderson, is that “[hydrocarbon and carbon
`
`monoxide] emissions are minimized.” Id. In combining Severinsky and
`
`Anderson, Ford submits that supplementing Severinsky’s engine control
`
`strategy with Anderson’s “slow transients” strategy would have been
`
`obvious to a skilled artisan because both references correlate
`
`“stoichiometric” combustion with minimizing carbon emissions. Pet. 51
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 397).
`
`
`
`Paice, in turn, argues primarily two points in response to Ford’s
`
`reliance on the combination of Severinsky and Anderson: first, the
`
`references fail to teach or suggest the “controller” and associated functions
`
`recited in the “wherein” clauses of claim 30; and, second, the references
`
`cannot be combined because Severinsky’s “parallel” hybrid control strategy
`
`“teaches away” from Anderson’s “series” hybrid control strategy. PO Resp.
`
`2, 8–9. We are not persuaded by either of Paice’s arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The “controller” element of claim 30
`
`Paice argues that “Ford has failed to prove that the combination of
`
`Severinsky and Anderson disclose[s] or suggest[s] a controller, responsive to
`
`an operator command, that controls both the electric motor and engine,” as
`
`required by claim 30. PO Resp. 23. This argument lacks merit for the
`
`simple reason that Severinsky discloses a controller in much the same way
`
`as claim 30 requires.
`
`
`8 The term “transients” is used to describe relatively short-term events
`between steady-state conditions. The engine “transients” disclosed in
`Anderson refer to the relatively rapid changes in the output torque of the
`engine due to a change in the amount of torque requested. The speed of the
`transient refers to its rate of change. Ex. 1002 ¶ 348.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`
`First, and foremost, Severinsky discloses that “microprocessor 48
`
`controls the flow of torque between the motor 20, the engine 40, and the
`
`wheels 34 responsive to the mode of operation of the vehicle.” Ex. 1009,
`
`10:27–30. Severinsky further discloses that the microprocessor (i.e.,
`
`controller) “responds to operator commands.” Id. at 12:60–64, Fig. 3
`
`(inputting “Operator Commands” to “µP Controller”). Those disclosures are
`
`virtually identical to the language of claim 30, which requires “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.” See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 340–343. Thus, we
`
`find that Severinsky teaches the “controller” element of claim 30.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The first “wherein” clause of claim 30
`
`Paice next argues that, with respect to the combination of Severinsky
`
`and Anderson, “[t]here is no disclosure that the motor provides additional
`
`torque when the amount of torque being provided by the engine is less than
`
`the capabilities of the engine,” as required by claim 30. PO Resp. 22. We
`
`disagree. Severinsky discloses this limitation, which requires that the
`
`controller activate the electric motor “to provide additional torque” when the
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle exceeds the torque output of the engine.
`
`Put simply, the electric motor helps the engine drive the vehicle when the
`
`engine cannot do it alone.
`
`
`
`As Severinsky expressly teaches, the “[m]icroprocessor 48 monitors
`
`the operator’s inputs and the vehicle’s performance, and activates electric
`
`motor 20 when torque in excess of the capabilities of engine 40 is required.”
`
`Ex. 1009, 14:15–18 (emphases added). For example, “[i]f the vehicle then
`
`starts to climb a hill, the motor 20 is used to supplement the output torque of
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`engine 40.” Id. at 10:36–38 (emphasis added). Likewise, Severinsky
`
`specifies “a highspeed acceleration and/or hill climbing mode, wherein both
`
`internal combustion engine 40 and electric motor 20 provide torque to road
`
`wheels 34.” Id. at 14:22–25 (emphasis added). Those express disclosures
`
`by Severinsky are no different than what claim 30 requires—that the
`
`controller activate the motor to provide supplemental torque when the torque
`
`provided by the engine is insufficient to drive the vehicle. See Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 344–346. We find that Severinsky’s disclosure of supplementing the
`
`torque of the engine with that of the motor meets squarely the language in
`
`the first “wherein” clause of claim 30.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The second and third “wherein” clauses of claim 30
`
`Ford relies on the combined disclosures of Severinsky and Anderson
`
`for teaching the second and third “wherein” clauses of claim 30. Pet. 49–51.
`
`These clauses require that the controller limit the “rate of increase” of the
`
`engine’s output torque “to less than [its] inherent maximum rate of increase
`
`of output torque” and “such that combustion of fuel within the engine occurs
`
`at a substantially stoichiometric ratio.” Ex. 1001, 60:23–29.
`
`
`
`To begin, Severinsky teaches that the “microprocessor controller 48
`
`controls the rate of supply of fuel to the engine.” Ex. 1009, 10:4–6.
`
`According to Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, that teaching by Severinsky “is one
`
`way the microprocessor 48 limits the rate of increase of output torque of the
`
`engine 40.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 351–352; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 49–53. With that foundation
`
`in mind, Ford proffers Anderson as teaching an additional way of limiting
`
`the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque. Pet. 49. Specifically, Ford
`
`submits that Anderson teaches a hybrid strategy that limits the rate of
`
`increase of the engine’s output torque to less than the engine’s inherent
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`maximum rate “by only allowing slow engine transients.” Id. at 49
`
`(emphasis added). We agree.
`
`
`
`Anderson is clearly focused on a hybrid control strategy that slows
`
`engine transients in an effort to reduce the carbon emissions associated with
`
`engine combustion. For instance, in describing an optimum control strategy
`
`for the engine (or “APU”), Anderson explains that “slower transients are
`
`desirable for reducing emissions.” Ex. 1006, 7. This is because:
`
`[t]ransients present an emissions problem that is largely related
`to the speed of the transient. . . . If the transient is too fast, the
`engine may run rich, increasing CO and HC emissions, or lean,
`increasing NOx emissions. Some of this effect can be reduced
`using a hybrid strategy that only allows slow transients, but this
`places greater strain on the LLD [battery].9
`
`
`
`
`9 We also do not find persuasive Paice’s argument that Anderson’s
`recognition of certain tradeoffs (such as strain on the battery) would have
`discouraged a skilled artisan from using her “slow transients” strategy. See
`PO Resp. 37–38. Recognizing that her “slow transients” strategy comes
`with certain tradeoffs, Anderson emphasizes that “[t]he development of a
`system’s powertrain components and the design of an optimum control
`strategy for that system should be concurrent to allow tradeoffs to be made
`while the designs are still fluid. An efficient optimization process must
`involve all aspects of the system . . . from the beginning.” Ex. 1006, 1.
`And, she later emphasizes that “[t]he APU control strategy must be robust,
`such that no combination of driver actions will result in damage” to any
`component, despite “[t]radeoffs . . . made between engine complexity, cost,
`fuel efficiency, and battery lifetime.” Id. at 7. Thus, by identifying certain
`tradeoffs, Anderson is merely describing an optimum design process that
`accounts for those tradeoffs, not one that dictates avoiding “slow transients”
`altogether. Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 84–85.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`Id. (emphasis added). That disclosure of slowing engine transients suggests
`
`limiting the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 347–
`
`350.
`
`
`
`Importantly, Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, testifies that “a skilled artisan
`
`would understand that slowing engine transients means slowing the rate of
`
`increase of engine output torque to something less than the engine’s
`
`maximum rate of increase.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 353. We find that testimony
`
`persuasive. Based on that testimony, as well as the express teachings of
`
`Severinksy and Anderson, we conclude that supplementing Severinsky’s
`
`microprocessor strategy, which limits the rate of increase of the engine’s
`
`output torque by controlling the rate of fuel supply to the engine, with an
`
`additional “slow transients” strategy for controlling the same rate of
`
`increase, as taught by Anderson, would have suggested to a skilled artisan a
`
`hybrid control strategy that limits the “rate of increase” of the engine’s
`
`output torque “to less than [its] inherent maximum rate of increase of output
`
`torque,” as required by the second “wherein” clause of claim 30.
`
`
`
`With respect to the third “wherein” clause of claim 30—limiting the
`
`“rate of change” (i.e., rate of increase) of the engine’s output torque to
`
`achieve combustion at “a substantially stoichiometric ratio,” Anderson
`
`explains that engine transients make it “difficult” to maintain a
`
`“stoichiometric air fuel ratio”—the ratio at which complete combustion
`
`occurs. Ex. 1006, 7. On that point, Anderson elaborates as follows:
`
`Frequently, one of the principle aims of a hybrid vehicle is to
`reduce vehicle emissions to ULEV (Ultra Low Emission
`Vehicle) levels. Consequently, APU [engine] emissions are
`very important for system success. In general, emissions are
`minimized when a stoichiometric air to fuel ratio is maintained
`by a closed loop feedback system (using an oxygen sensor for
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`feedback). In some operating regimes, such as engine starts
`and transients, the stoichiometric ratio is very difficult to
`maintain resulting in an increase in emissions.
`
`
`Id. (emphases added).
`
`
`
`As a result, to resolve this difficulty, Anderson’s control strategy
`
`“maintains the stoichiometric air fuel ratio” by slowing “the speed of the
`
`transient” so it is not “too fast.” Id. Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, confirms as
`
`much, testifying that Anderson’s disclosure of “slowing transients (i.e.,
`
`limiting ‘the rate of change of engine torque produced by the engine’) helps
`
`the vehicle’s closed loop feedback system maintain operation near the
`
`stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, thereby reducing emissions.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 357.
`
`Dr. Stein further testifies that “the slower transients provide more time for
`
`the closed loop feedback system to react to sensed oxygen levels and adjust
`
`the fuel feed so that stoichiometric combustion can occur.” Id.
`
`
`
`Based on the express disclosures of Severinsky and Anderson, as well
`
`as the testimony of Dr. Stein, we are persuaded the combined teachings of
`
`Severinsky and Anderson would have suggested to a skilled artisan a hybrid
`
`control strategy that limits the rate of increase of the engine’s output torque
`
`so that fuel combustion occurs “at a substantially stoichiometric ratio,” as
`
`required by the third “wherein” clause of claim 30. This is nothing more
`
`than applying a known technique from the prior art (slowing the rate of
`
`increase of the engine’s output torque) for the same purpose (maintaining
`
`stoichiometric combustion) to achieving the same benefit (improving fuel
`
`economy and reducing carbon emissions). See Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 40–46.
`
`
`
`We have considered Paice’s arguments and evidence in protest of
`
`Anderson, but do not find them persuasive. For example, Paice argues that
`
`Anderson’s disclosure of “slow transients” is linked to “speed,” not torque
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`output. PO Resp. 29. But Paice fails to account for Anderson’s description
`
`of the engine’s “transient capabilities” in terms of “power output” and
`
`“combinations of speed and torque” for greater optimization of the hybrid
`
`control strategy. Ex. 1006, 7 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 348–
`
`350; Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 30–31. When viewed properly in the context of the skilled
`
`artisan, Anderson teaches a hybrid strategy that limits the rate of increase of
`
`the engine by controlling engine transients and their effect on stoichiometric
`
`combustion. See Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 47–54. We are not persuaded by Paice’s
`
`attempt to focus on isolated passages in Anderson, to the exclusion of its
`
`import as a whole. Doing so glosses over the overall teaching of the
`
`reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The reason to combine
`
`As discussed above, Ford argues that a skilled artisan would have
`
`been led to combine the basic hybrid control strategy of Severinsky with the
`
`known technique of slowing the engine transient, as taught by Anderson,
`
`because both references share the same fundamental goals of reducing
`
`carbon emissions by maintaining a stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio. Pet. 50–
`
`51; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 397; Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 37–46. Paice argues, however, that
`
`Severinsky and Anderson cannot be combined because they “are directed to
`
`very different hybrid architectures and control strategies.” PO Resp. 32. At
`
`the heart of Paice’s argument is that “the series hybrid engine control
`
`strategies of Anderson would not work with the parallel hybrid architecture
`
`and control strategies of Severinsky.” Id. (emphases added); see also id. at
`
`35, 42 (same).
`
`
`
`In making this distinction, Paice contends that Anderson’s control
`
`strategy of using “slow transients” is limited to a series hybrid system,
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`whereas Severinsky’s control strategy requires “fast transients” because it is
`
`a parallel system. PO Resp. 32–33. As support, Paice points to a single
`
`reference in Anderson to “fast transients,” and argues, repeatedly so, that
`
`Anderson itself proves that “the engine in a parallel hybrid system must
`
`perform fast transients.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5); see also id. at 35, 36,
`
`47 (same). And, according to Paice, “[n]owhere does Anderson suggest that
`
`the [slow transients] hybrid control strategies articulated for a series hybrid
`
`can be applied to a parallel hybrid.” Id. at 14.
`
`
`
`A close review of Anderson, however, does not support Paice’s
`
`position. Specifically, Anderson speaks of “fast power transients” only
`
`when discussing “two distinct extremes,” not the optimum strategy for a
`
`hybrid vehicle. Ex. 1006, 5. Indeed, later in the same passage, Anderson
`
`points out that “neither of these [extreme] strategies would be the optimum
`
`strategy” for the hybrid vehicles “under consideration.” Id. And, when
`
`speaking of the “optimum” strategy being considered (later described to be
`
`“slow transients”), Anderson makes clear that it applies equally to both
`
`series-type and parallel-type hybrid vehicles.
`
`
`
`More specifically, in beginning her discussion of “the design of an
`
`optimum control strategy,” Anderson describes both types of hybrid
`
`vehicles—“Series System” and “Parallel System.” Ex. 1006, 3–5.
`
`Immediately following that description of series-type and parallel-type
`
`vehicles, Anderson makes the following important observation: “[t]he
`
`thought processes presented in this paper are sufficiently general that they
`
`can be applied to any type of vehicle.” Id. at 5. Paice’s argument to the
`
`contrary would require us to ignore Anderson’s clear indication to the reader
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`that her ensuing discussion of the optimum control strategy applies equally
`
`to both parallel and series-type vehicles.
`
`
`
`Although Anderson describes her strategy of “slow transients” in
`
`terms of a series-type vehicle, she does so because it permits versatility in
`
`the design process, explaining that: “[t]o fully explore the flexibility
`
`allowed by the hybrid system, we focus on the design of a strategy for the
`
`most versatile layout: the power assist [series-type] hybrid.” Ex. 1006, 4–5.
`
`As for what a skilled artisan would understand from Anderson’s utilization
`
`of a series-type vehicle over a parallel-type vehicle in describing her control
`
`strategy, Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, testifies:
`
`[in] thinking about optimizing the design of the vehicle, hybrid
`electric vehicle, it’s important to understand the tradeoffs
`between the different components. And she [Anderson] feels
`that she can illustrate this trade-off by—perhaps more
`dramatically, in the short amount of space she has here—by
`focusing on the series system. But she makes it clear that
`looking at these trade-offs are the same things you do in both
`the series and parallel configurations.
`
`
`* * *
`by virtue of what the statement says and my own technical
`expertise that she’s providing a design methodology that she
`[Anderson] primarily illustrates on a series system, but is quite
`clear in showing that it is applicable to a parallel system, as
`well.
`
`
`Ex. 2004, 179:22–182:14.
`
`
`
`Based on Dr. Stein’s testimony of how a skilled artisan would have
`
`understood Anderson’s disclosure as a whole, including Anderson’s
`
`recognition of applying her control strategy equally to series-type and
`
`parallel-type hybrid vehicles, we are persuaded a skilled artisan would have
`
`understood from reading Anderson as a whole that “slow engine transients”
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`are the optimum strategy for both series-type and parallel-type hybrid
`
`vehicles. See Ex. 1043 ¶¶ 41, 79.
`
`
`
`In sum, we conclude that a skilled artisan would have been led to
`
`combine Anderson’s known strategy of slowing engine transients with
`
`Severinsky’s base, parallel-type control system in order to better maintain
`
`stoichiometric combustion and, thereby, reduce carbon emissions. Ex. 1043
`
`¶¶ 44–49, 88. We have considered Paice’s evidence and arguments to the
`
`contrary, but we find more persuasive Ford’s rationale for combining
`
`Severinsky and Anderson.
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Conclusion
`
`We conclude that Ford has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence, that independent claim 30 would have been obvious over the
`
`combined teachings of Severinsky and Anderson. Paice does not argue
`
`dependent claims 31, 35, 36, and 39 separately, but instead relies on the
`
`same arguments it made for claim 30. PO Resp. 9. Based on our review of
`
`the arguments and evidence presented, we determine that Ford also has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claims 31,
`
`35, 36, and 39 would have been obvious over Severinsky and Anderson. See
`
`Pet. 51–57
`
`B.
`
`Claim 32—Obviousness over Severinsky, Anderson, and Yamaguchi
`
`Claim 32 depends from claim 30 and recites that, “the engine is
`
`
`
`heated, prior to supply of fuel for starting the engine,” by rotating the engine
`
`at “at least 300 rpm.” Ford relies on Yamaguchi, in combination with
`
`Severinsky and Anderson, as teaching this limitation. Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶ 398–407). Yamaguchi discloses rotating an engine to 600 rpm
`
`before starting it, and then starting the engine once it reaches a
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`predetermined temperature. Ex. 1007, 8:62–9:5, 11:27–33, Figs. 3, 8, 11.
`
`Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, testifies that this process amounts to heating the
`
`engine before igniting it. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 402–406.
`
`
`
`Paice argues, in turn, that because Severinsky discloses operating the
`
`engine at a “lower temperature,” it “teaches away” from heating the engine
`
`as taught by Yamaguchi. PO Resp. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1009, 12:18–21). We
`
`are not persuaded for two reasons. First, Severinsky refers to a “lower
`
`temperature” in terms of operating the engine, not “starting the engine,” as
`
`claim 32 requires. Ex. 1009, 12:13–21 (“the engine will be operated in lean
`
`burn mode . . . at a lower temperature . . . than is a conventional engine”).
`
`Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, confirms as much, explaining that Severinsky’s
`
`“lower temperature” relates to “engine coolant temperature [around 200
`
`degrees F] during operating conditions,” and not “the temperature of a cold
`
`engine” in need of heating. Ex. 1043 ¶ 94 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Second, Ford’s challenge of claim 32 is predicated on Severinsky, as
`
`modified by Anderson’s stoichiometric control strategy. As Paice’s
`
`declarant, Mr. Hannemann, testifies, “if you employ a stoichiometric
`
`strategy, then you don’t really need to worry about a lower temperature.”
`
`Ex. 1044, 68:8–23. Because the combination of Severinsky and Anderson
`
`incorporates Anderson’s control strategy (of operating the engine at a
`
`stoichiometric air-fuel ratio) into Severinsky’s control strategy, Ford’s
`
`declarant, Dr. Stein, testifies that a skilled artisan would have understood
`
`Severinsky’s modified control strategy does not apply to low temperature
`
`engine starts, and thus, would not teach away from claim 32. Ex. 1043 ¶ 93.
`
`
`
`Based on the testimony of both parties’ declarants, we are persuaded
`
`that Severinsky’s modified control strategy would not have been viewed by
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`a skilled artisan as “teaching away” from being combined with Yamaguchi’s
`
`teaching of heating the engine prior to starting it. Rather, we conclude that
`
`Ford has presented prima facie evidence of a rationale to combine the
`
`teachings of Yamaguchi with Severinsky and Anderson. Thus, after
`
`considering the evidence and arguments, we conclude that Ford has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 32
`
`is unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Severinsky,
`
`Anderson, and Yamaguchi.
`
`Claim 33—Obviousness over Severinsky, Anderson, Yamaguchi,
`and Katsuno
`
`Claim 33, which depends from claim 32, recites that fuel and air are
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`supplied to the engine “at a fuel:air ratio of no more than 1.2 of the
`
`stoichiometric ratio for starting the engine.” Ford relies primarily on
`
`Katsuno for teaching this limitation, in combination with Severinsky,
`
`Anderson, and Yamaguchi. Pet. 56–57. Katsuno teaches the importance of
`
`maintaining an air-fuel ratio between 0.8 and 1.2 of the stoichiometric ratio
`
`during normal operation of the engine and at 1.0 of the stoichiometric ratio
`
`(and thus no more than 1.2 of the stoichiometric ratio) during starting
`
`conditions. Ex. 1008, 7:1–5; see also Ex. 2004, 261:20–263:8 (explaining
`
`the intent of Katsuno’s ratio), and Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 410–414 (same).
`
`
`
`Paice disputes Ford’s application of Katsuno. The sum of Paice’s
`
`argument is that Katsuno teaches only an air-fuel correction amount, not an
`
`actual air-fuel ratio for starting the engine. PO Resp. 51–54 (citing Ex. 2002
`
`¶¶ 125–134). But the claim only speaks of “a fuel:air ratio,” without
`
`specifying whether it is an actual ratio or a correction ratio. In any event,
`
`Ford’s declarant, Dr. Stein, explains that Katsuno’s algorithm for
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 20
`
`FORD 1241
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`determining the air-fuel ratio considers a lot of “conditions; for example, the
`
`sensors degrading, running when the engine is hot, the engine is cold, [and]
`
`starting the engine,” but if these conditions are “out of the picture,” then
`
`Katsuno’s correction amount [or “FAF1”] “has the effect of appearing as . . .
`
`acting like a factor which will create a 1.2 stoichiometric ratio in the — the
`
`combustion process.” Ex. 2004, 261:20–263:8. In other words, Dr. Stein
`
`testifies that Katsuno’s correction amount correlates to a 1.2 fuel:air ratio.
`
`Given that correlation, we are persuaded that Katsuno’s disclosed
`
`“maximum value of 1.2” corresponds to the claimed “no more than 1.2 of
`
`the stoichiometric ratio” required by claim 32.
`
`
`
`Also, we have considered but are not persuaded by Paice’s argument
`
`that Katsuno cannot be combined with the hybrid sys