In The Matter Of:
`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Neil Hannemann
`
`September 4, 2015
`
`Original File HANNEMANN (415)_NEIL.txt
`
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 1
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 3
`
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` 2 __________________________
` 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 4 __________________________
` 5 FORD MOTOR COMPANY
` 6 Petitioner,
` 7 v.
` 8 PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
` 9 Patent Owner
`10 __________________________
`11 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097
`12 IPR Case No.: IPR2014-01415
`13
`14 Videoconference Deposition of NEIL HANNEMANN
`15 Washington, D.C.
`16 Friday, September 4, 2015
`17 10:42 a.m.
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23 Job No. 90944
`24 Pages 1 - 57
`25 Reported by: Karen Young
`
` 1 A P P E A R A N C E S
` 2 ON BEHALF OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY:
` 3 (by videoconference)
` 4 ANDREW B. TURNER, ESQUIRE
` 5 JOHN P. RONDINI, ESQUIRE
` 6 FRANK A. ANGILERI, ESQUIRE
` 7 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
` 8 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
` 9 Southfield, Michigan 48075
`10 (248) 358-4400
`11
`12 ON BEHALF OF PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.:
`13 BRIAN J. LIVEDALEN, ESQUIRE
`14 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`15 1425 K Street, Northwest
`16 11th Floor
`17 Washington, D.C. 20005
`18 (202) 783-5070
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` 1 Videoconference Deposition of NEIL HANNEMANN,
` 2 held at the offices of:
` 3 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 4 1425 K Street, Northwest
` 5 11th Floor
` 6 Washington, D.C. 20005
` 7 (202) 783-5070
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12 Pursuant to notice, before Karen Young,
`13 Notary Public of the District of Columbia.
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 1 C O N T E N T S
` 2 EXAMINATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN PAGE
` 3 By Mr. Turner.............................. 5
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11 E X H I B I T S
`12 (Attached to Transcript)
`13 Exhibit 1 Declaration of Neil Hannemann...... 7
`14 Exhibit 2 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097.......... 11
`15 Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970.......... 22
`16 Exhibit 4 SAE Technical Paper by Anderson
`17 and Pettit................................ 24
`18 Exhibit 5 Paper by Takaoka et al............. 30
`19 Exhibit 6 Supplemental Information
`20 Disclosure Statement...................... 33
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(1) Pages 1 - 4
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 5
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 7
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
` 2 (Deposition Exhibit Numbers 1 through 6
` 3 were marked for identification.)
` 4 MR. TURNER: This is a deposition for
` 5 IPR2014-01415. I'd like to ask the court reporter to
` 6 please swear in the witness.
` 7 NEIL HANNEMANN,
` 8 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` 9 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`10 - - -
`11 BY MR. TURNER:
`12 Q. All right, thank you. Now, I ask the
`13 witness, please state your -- your full name for the
`14 record.
`15 A. Neil Hannemann.
`16 Q. Okay, Mr. Hannemann, has your experience
`17 changed since the last depositions that we've -- that
`18 we had on these -- these IPRs?
`19 A. Well, I try to think I learn something
`20 every day, so I'm sure I've gained some types of
`21 knowledge and experience, but I wouldn't say in a
`22 substantial manner that would affect my background
`23 that's been discussed in prior depositions.
`24 Q. Okay, so nothing relevant to your technical
`25 expertise related to these hybrid vehicles?
`
` 1 A. No, I did not.
` 2 Q. Okay, all right, so the court reporter
` 3 marked as Exhibit 1, will you please give Exhibit 1
` 4 to the witness? Could you please tell us, what is
` 5 Exhibit 1?
` 6 A. This is my declaration in support of patent
` 7 owner's response for this particular case.
` 8 Q. Okay. Mr. Hannemann, can you tell us how
` 9 much time you spent preparing this document?
`10 A. Probably not. I probably couldn't. Not
`11 with any degree of certainty, no.
`12 Q. Think it was more than 20 hours?
`13 A. For this particular one, a lot of the
`14 material had been gone over before, so I would say
`15 less than 20 hours for this particular one.
`16 Q. Okay. And who did you work with in
`17 preparing this Exhibit 1?
`18 MR. LIVEDALEN: Again, I'd counsel the
`19 witness not to reveal any protected communications.
`20 A. This one was -- was Mr. Guarnieri.
`21 Q. Okay. So this declaration concerns patent
`22 8,214,097. Now, have you -- have you analyzed the --
`23 we sometimes refer to this as the '097 patent. Have
`24 you analyzed the '097 patent for any other matters
`25 outside of these IPRs?
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
` 1 A. I would say nothing significant, no.
` 2 Q. Okay, all right, and what did you do to --
` 3 to prepare for this deposition?
` 4 A. Well --
` 5 MR. LIVEDALEN: I counsel the witness not
` 6 to reveal any protected communications between he and
` 7 counsel.
` 8 A. Okay, basically I -- I read through my
` 9 declaration, the patents and some of the supporting
`10 material and met with -- met with the counsel here at
`11 their office yesterday and the day before.
`12 Q. Okay, so the -- and with -- with whom did
`13 you meet? You meet with --
`14 A. Yeah, Mr. Livedalen and Mr. Guarnieri. I
`15 never get the --
`16 Q. Okay.
`17 A. -- pronunciation right.
`18 Q. Anyone else?
`19 A. No.
`20 Q. Okay. And so the documents -- so you
`21 mentioned you reviewed some of the documents. These
`22 were ones that were cited in your declaration?
`23 A. Yes.
`24 Q. Is that -- okay. Did you review any
`25 documents outside of those cited in your declaration?
`
` 1 A. Not outside these IPRs, no.
` 2 Q. Okay. Please turn to paragraph 162 of
` 3 Exhibit 1.
` 4 A. Okay.
` 5 Q. All right. So 162 -- included in paragraph
` 6 162, you -- you have some claim limitations from
` 7 claim 1, claim 11 and claim 21. For the record,
` 8 could you -- could you read the limitations of claim
` 9 1 please?
`10 A. Sure. "Operating said internal combustion
`11 engine to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when
`12 the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is
`13 between a setpoint, SP, and a maximum torque output,
`14 MTO, of the engine, wherein the engine is operable to
`15 efficiently produce torque above SP and wherein SP is
`16 substantially less than MTO."
`17 Q. Now, Mr. Hannemann, in your opinion, does
`18 this claim limitation require starting or stopping
`19 the engine?
`20 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`21 A. Well, it -- it says operating the engine,
`22 and my interpretation of operating is running the
`23 engine. If it's not running when you're supposed to
`24 operate it, then you'd need to start it, but if it's
`25 already running when you need to operate it, then you
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(2) Pages 5 - 8
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 9
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 11
`
` 1 just continue operating it.
` 2 Q. So you -- you're interpreting operating --
` 3 so you're operating an engine, it is your opinion
` 4 that operating the engine means combusting fuel.
` 5 You're -- the engine is operating to provide torque.
` 6 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form, compound.
` 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I mean, combusting fuel
` 8 is -- is one of the requirements, just to compare it
` 9 to if you're just motoring the engine without
`10 supplying it fuel, even though the engine might be
`11 moving, I wouldn't consider that operating the engine
`12 because it's not -- not supplying torque.
`13 MR. TURNER: Okay, so -- all right, can we
`14 go off the record for a minute?
`15 MR. LIVEDALEN: Sure.
`16 - - -
`17 (Discussion off the record)
`18 - - -
`19 BY MR. TURNER:
`20 Q. All right, so Mr. Hannemann, I'm just going
`21 back through -- let's see. So again, Mr. Hannemann,
`22 do these claims require -- actually require starting
`23 the engine?
`24 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`25 A. If it were not running, then yes, it would
`
` 1 operating the engine within these limitations?
` 2 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` 3 A. Well, they may not be always the same time.
` 4 You may enter this mode from a condition where the
` 5 engine's not running or operating and you may enter
` 6 this mode from a condition where the engine is
` 7 operating, so it really depends on how you're
` 8 entering a particular mode.
` 9 Q. Okay. Does this claim require entering the
`10 mode?
`11 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`12 BY MR. TURNER:
`13 Q. Again, sorry, this is -- by this claim, I'm
`14 referring back to the claim limitation from paragraph
`15 162.
`16 A. I'd probably have to look at the claim in
`17 the context of the entire patent to be able to answer
`18 that question.
`19 Q. Okay. Maybe it will be helpful if we
`20 looked at the patent. We marked another patent as
`21 Exhibit 4. Can you give Exhibit 4 to the witness
`22 please? Or sorry -- not -- Exhibit 2. Pardon me.
`23 Exhibit 2. All right, Mr. Hannemann, do you
`24 recognize Exhibit 2?
`25 A. Yes, I do.
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
` 1 require starting the engine.
` 2 Q. So if the -- so if the engine was running,
` 3 okay, strike that. So Mr. Hannemann, what is -- what
` 4 is your opinion if the engine was running?
` 5 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` 6 A. I mean, if the engine were already running,
` 7 then it would -- I mean, it would fit into the -- the
` 8 claim construction and -- and it would be operated to
` 9 efficiently produce torque above the setpoint.
`10 Q. Okay. All right, so Mr. Hannemann, can you
`11 turn to paragraph 189 please?
`12 A. Okay.
`13 Q. So now, this is a paragraph at the end of
`14 the same section of your declaration, but now if you
`15 could read the third sentence here starting with
`16 "Neither" into the record please?
`17 A. "Neither Ford nor Dr. Stein have provided
`18 any evidence of any teaching or suggestion of a
`19 system that evaluates the amount of instantaneous
`20 torque required to propel or operate the vehicle and
`21 uses that evaluation to determine when to start and
`22 operate the engine."
`23 Q. So based on your statement here -- sorry,
`24 strike that. So Mr. Hannemann, is it your opinion
`25 that the references need to teach both starting and
`
` 1 Q. Okay, this -- this is patent number
` 2 8,214,097. It's the challenged patent. We also
` 3 refer to it as the '097 patent or '097 patent. Can
` 4 you please turn to the end of the patent to the
` 5 claims, specifically claim number 1 that starts at
` 6 column 56? So here's the full claim 1, and I'd like
` 7 to -- if you could take a look at the limitations
` 8 that start at the top of column 57? All right, so
` 9 the first -- first limitation that's -- could you --
`10 could you read the first limitation starting with
`11 "Operating"?
`12 A. Yeah, "Operating said internal combustion
`13 engine to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when
`14 the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is
`15 between a setpoint, SP, and a maximum torque output,
`16 MTO, of the engine wherein the engine is operable to
`17 efficiently produce torque above SP and wherein SP is
`18 substantially less than MTO."
`19 Q. So this is -- is this the limitation, the
`20 same one that's reproduced in paragraph 162 of your
`21 declaration?
`22 A. Yes.
`23 Q. Okay. So now, the next limitation, could
`24 you read the next limitation please?
`25 A. "Operating both the at least one electric
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(3) Pages 9 - 12
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 13
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 15
`
` 1 motor and the engine to provide torque to the hybrid
` 2 vehicle when the torque required to operate the
` 3 hybrid vehicle is more than MTO."
` 4 Q. All right, and then the following
` 5 limitation, the last limitation please.
` 6 A. "And operating the at least one electric
` 7 motor to provide torque to the hybrid vehicle when
` 8 the torque required to operate the hybrid vehicle is
` 9 less than SP."
`10 Q. Okay. So now, do you see the words start
`11 or stop the engine in any of these limitations that
`12 you just read?
`13 A. No.
`14 Q. Okay. Is it your opinion that the engine
`15 starts and stops -- that these -- any of these
`16 limitations require starting and stopping the engine?
`17 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, vague.
`18 BY MR. TURNER:
`19 Q. Sorry. Let me rephrase that. Strike that.
`20 Okay, Mr. Hannemann, is it your opinion that any of
`21 these three limitations, these three clauses that we
`22 just read -- that you just read require starting or
`23 stopping the engine?
`24 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form, asked and
`25 answered.
`
` 1 A. Yeah, I'll say it depends upon if the
` 2 engine is already operating or not when any of these
` 3 conditions are met.
` 4 Q. Now, each one of these conditions, do these
` 5 correspond to modes within? Is that your
` 6 understanding?
` 7 A. Well, the patent discusses modes
` 8 definitely, and this claim does not specifically tie
` 9 to a given mode, so yeah, I think they relate to
`10 modes, but it's not real specific. It doesn't
`11 specify, you know, particular mode.
`12 Q. Okay. So in the last limitation, operating
`13 the motor to provide the torque, paraphrasing there,
`14 what -- what is the engine doing when the motor is
`15 providing the torque? Is there any requirements on
`16 what the engine is doing?
`17 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`18 A. It would depend upon your mode, the mode
`19 you're in.
`20 Q. Okay, Mr. Hannemann, let's go back to
`21 column 56. Also within claim 1, this is still within
`22 the '097 patent. So the two limitations at the
`23 bottom of column 57, could you read these into the
`24 record starting with, "Operating said at least one
`25 electric motor"?
`
` 1 A. Sure. "Operating said at least one
` 2 electric motor to provide additional torque when the
` 3 amount of torque provided by said engine is less than
` 4 the amount of torque required to operate the vehicle,
` 5 and employing said controller to control the engine
` 6 such that a rate of increase of output torque of the
` 7 engine is limited to less than said inherent maximum
` 8 rate of increase of output torque, and wherein said
` 9 step of controlling the engine such that the rate of
`10 increase of output torque of the engine is limited is
`11 performed such that combustion of fuel within the
`12 engine occurs at a substantially stoichiometric ratio
`13 and comprising the further steps of" --
`14 Q. Thank you, that's -- so for these
`15 limitations, is it your opinion that these -- these
`16 two steps must happen at the same time?
`17 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`18 BY MR. TURNER:
`19 Q. Mr. Hannemann, let me rephrase that I
`20 guess. Is it your opinion that a prior art reference
`21 must teach using the electric motor to provide
`22 additional torque when the rate of increase of engine
`23 output torque is limited, they must happen at the
`24 same time, we must -- it must teach using the motor
`25 to supplement when the rate of increase of engine
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
` 1 output torque is limited?
` 2 MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objection.
` 3 A. Yeah, I guess I'd need to know what -- what
` 4 prior art teaching you're referring to.
` 5 Q. Any -- any prior art. I mean, is it your
` 6 opinion that these two limitations are linked, that
` 7 they must happen at the same time?
` 8 MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objection.
` 9 A. Well, so I guess there's a technical and a
`10 legal answer, and I think that the -- the word "and"
`11 would link those two together.
`12 Q. So Mr. Hannemann, so let's say -- so the
`13 first limitation, operating said at least one
`14 electric motor to provide additional torque when the
`15 amount of torque -- when the amount of torque
`16 provided by said engine is less than the amount of
`17 torque required to operate the vehicle, so that's the
`18 first limitation. Now, the second limitation,
`19 employing said controller to control the engine such
`20 that a rate of increase of output torque of the
`21 engine is limited, is it your opinion that those two
`22 limitations must happen at the same time to meet this
`23 claim?
`24 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form, asked and
`25 answered.
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(4) Pages 13 - 16
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 17
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 19
`
` 1 A. Yeah, and I think I just -- just said that
` 2 the -- the "and," word "and" would link those two
` 3 together.
` 4 Q. Okay. Just to make it clear, that was
` 5 claim 1. We were just reading the limitations from
` 6 claim 1, correct?
` 7 A. Yes.
` 8 Q. Okay, let's -- let's take a look at claim
` 9 11 please. Now, claim 11 has similar limitations, if
`10 you could look at the top of column 58?
`11 A. Okay.
`12 Q. All right, so if we have the first
`13 limitation, operating said at least one electric
`14 motor to provide additional torque when the amount of
`15 torque being provided by said engine is less than the
`16 amount of torque required to operate the vehicle, and
`17 the second limitation, employing said controller to
`18 control the engine such that a rate of increase of
`19 output torque of the engine is limited to less than
`20 said inherent maximum rate of increase of output
`21 torque, so is it your opinion that a prior art
`22 reference must teach both of those limitations
`23 occurring at the same time to meet this claim?
`24 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`25 A. Yeah, I guess I'd need to know what -- what
`
` 1 particular prior art reference you're referring to.
` 2 Q. Is it your opinion that any prior art
` 3 reference must teach both of these limitations
` 4 occurring at the same time to meet the limitations of
` 5 claim 11?
` 6 MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objection.
` 7 A. Yeah, I can -- I can really only tell you
` 8 what the patent says and analyze the patent. I can't
` 9 conjecture on what a prior art reference may or may
`10 not say.
`11 Q. So does the claim -- the claim itself
`12 require that these two limitations happen at the same
`13 time?
`14 A. Well, that may be a legal question and --
`15 but like I said before, I think because of the and
`16 clause, that it does imply that these two are linked
`17 together.
`18 Q. So just to be clear, in your expert
`19 opinion, the limitation operating said at least one
`20 electric motor to provide additional torque when the
`21 amount of torque required -- being provided by said
`22 engine is less than the amount of torque required to
`23 operate the vehicle and employing said controller to
`24 control the engine such that a rate of increase of
`25 output torque of the engine is limited to less than
`
` 1 said inherent maximum rate of increase of output
` 2 torque occurs at the same time?
` 3 A. Well, I guess occurs at the same time to me
` 4 sort of implies operation, and -- and yeah, I think
` 5 looking at it even from my -- from a legal standpoint
` 6 and a technical standpoint, I would agree with that.
` 7 Q. Okay. Okay, claim 21 includes similar
` 8 limitations, which I'm going to phrase a little
` 9 differently, but it's -- if you can go to column 59,
`10 starting with "Employing said controller," "Employing
`11 said controller to control the engine such that a
`12 rate of increase of output torque of the engine is
`13 limited to less than said inherent maximum rate of
`14 increase of output torque, and if the engine isn't
`15 capable of supplying instantaneous torque required to
`16 propel the hybrid vehicle, supplying additional
`17 torque from the at least one electric motor."
`18 So it's -- is your analysis the same for
`19 claim 21, that these two limitations that I just read
`20 would -- would happen at the same time?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. Okay. So this -- in your opinion, Mr.
`23 Hannemann, do both of these limitations, they must
`24 happen at the same time to meet the claim
`25 limitations?
`
`Page 18
`
`Page 20
`
` 1 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form, asked and
` 2 answered.
` 3 A. Yes.
` 4 Q. Mr. Hannemann, what is an algorithm?
` 5 A. An algorithm is a description of -- of a,
` 6 you know, method of calculating or operating. I
` 7 guess I'm not sure what the Webster Dictionary
` 8 definition may be as I sit here.
` 9 Q. Okay. In your opinion, is -- is algorithm
`10 -- is this tied to software?
`11 A. It's most typically used in reference to
`12 software, yes.
`13 Q. Okay. So you still have your -- your
`14 declaration. I think we numbered this Exhibit 1.
`15 Please turn to paragraph 43. Okay, now, the last
`16 sentence of paragraph 43, you use the term
`17 "algorithm." "The algorithm implemented by
`18 embodiments of the '097 patent is illustrated in
`19 figure 9." So now, on the following page, figure 9,
`20 this is from the '097 patent, correct?
`21 A. Yes.
`22 Q. So could you -- could you explain what the
`23 -- the algorithm is of the '097 patent?
`24 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`25 A. Well, I mean, it's described as -- I would
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(5) Pages 17 - 20
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 21
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 23
`
` 1 call this a flow chart as a way of describing an
` 2 algorithm.
` 3 Q. And what does the flow chart represent?
` 4 A. Okay, and the patent refers to figure 9 as
` 5 a simplified flow chart of the algorithm employed by
` 6 the microprocessor to implement the control
` 7 strategies provided by the vehicle according to the
` 8 invention.
` 9 Q. Okay, so it's employed by the
`10 microprocessor. Does that mean this is implemented
`11 using software?
`12 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`13 A. Yeah, I would imagine there's software
`14 involved, yes.
`15 Q. And now, this -- so this algorithm -- what
`16 does this algorithm describe?
`17 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, asked and
`18 answered.
`19 A. Well, it's -- it's -- as the patent says,
`20 it's -- it's a flow chart of the algorithm employed
`21 by the microprocessor to implement the control
`22 strategies provided by the vehicle according to the
`23 invention.
`24 Q. Okay, so these control strategies do what?
`25 What do they -- what do the control strategies do?
`
` 1 of the maximum output power of the internal
` 2 combustion engine versus that of the electric motor,
` 3 three, the energy capacity of the battery, four, the
` 4 function of the power converter used to convert
` 5 mechanical energy to electrical energy for storage
` 6 and vice versa, five, the availability of power to
` 7 recharge the battery at any time, six, the
` 8 optimization of the control algorithm, and seven,
` 9 appropriate mechanical linkage between the engine,
`10 the motor and the drive wheels."
`11 Q. Okay, thank you. That's good. So now,
`12 point -- point 6 here, the optimization of the
`13 control algorithm, do you know what -- could you tell
`14 me what Severinsky is referring to as this control
`15 algorithm?
`16 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, vague, calls for
`17 speculation.
`18 BY MR. TURNER:
`19 Q. Mr. Hannemann, in your -- in your expert
`20 opinion, what is the control algorithm described by
`21 Severinsky?
`22 MR. LIVEDALEN: Same objection.
`23 A. Yeah, I'm just looking through the patent
`24 to see if he has any algorithms described, and it
`25 doesn't look like he has at least -- he doesn't have
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 24
`
` 1 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` 2 A. Well, they're controlling the operation of
` 3 the vehicle.
` 4 Q. Okay, so this -- this flow chart includes a
` 5 variety of different modes, so is it correct, in your
` 6 opinion, does this flow chart describe how the
` 7 microprocessor selects different operating modes?
` 8 A. Yes, it does.
` 9 Q. Okay, all right. All right, could the
`10 court reporter please hand the witness the exhibit we
`11 marked as Number 3? Mr. Hannemann, what is Exhibit
`12 3?
`13 A. It's U.S. patent 5,343,970, which is a
`14 prior art patent that's referenced in the '097
`15 patent.
`16 Q. So you're familiar with this patent.
`17 A. Yes, I am.
`18 Q. Okay. Could you please turn to column 21,
`19 the paragraph starting at line 22, and could you read
`20 this paragraph into the record please, just starting
`21 at the top?
`22 A. You want the whole paragraph? "The
`23 following parameters are relevant to the performance
`24 of a parallel hybrid vehicle, one, the total maximum
`25 power available to drive the vehicle, two, the ratio
`
` 1 at least a diagram of a -- of a algorithm.
` 2 Q. There's no flow chart? Are you looking for
` 3 a flow chart?
` 4 A. Yeah. I mean, some of these figures could
` 5 be used to describe algorithms.
` 6 Q. But in your -- in your opinion, this
` 7 reference to an algorithm, is this referring to some
` 8 type of control strategy?
` 9 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, calls for
`10 speculation.
`11 A. Yeah, this wording doesn't really -- it's
`12 not really any more specific other than the patent
`13 does identify a couple of microprocessor controllers,
`14 but it's not specific enough to -- to really give any
`15 more detail about the optimization of the control --
`16 control algorithm.
`17 Q. Okay, so in your opinion, the control
`18 algorithm would be employed by these
`19 microcontrollers. Sorry, microprocessors.
`20 A. Yeah, I would assume that's what he's
`21 discussing.
`22 Q. Okay. Okay, could the court reporter
`23 please hand the witness Exhibit -- Exhibit 4 please?
`24 Mr. Hannemann, are you familiar with Exhibit 4?
`25 A. Yes, I am.
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(6) Pages 21 - 24
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 25
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 27
`
` 1 Q. And what is Exhibit 4?
` 2 A. It's an SAE paper entitled "The Effects of
` 3 APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control
` 4 Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles."
` 5 Q. And this paper, we also refer to it as the
` 6 Anderson paper, or Anderson as one of the named
` 7 authors in here?
` 8 A. Yes, it -- yes, we do.
` 9 Q. Okay. Could you turn to page 3, the
`10 section that's labeled abstract? All right, Mr.
`11 Hannemann, could you read the first sentence of the
`12 abstract please?
`13 A. "A hybrid control strategy is an algorithm
`14 that determines when and at what power level to run a
`15 hybrid electric vehicle's auxiliary power unit, APU,
`16 as a function of the power demand at the wheels, the
`17 state of charge of the battery and the current power
`18 level of the APU."
`19 Q. Mr. Hannemann, is it your opinion that this
`20 -- what is this algorithm -- strike that. Mr.
`21 Hannemann, do you agree that the algorithm is --
`22 would be implemented by software as described by
`23 Anderson?
`24 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`25 A. You know, I think based on this statement
`
` 1 would the power train include -- sorry, strike that.
` 2 Mr. Hannemann, what does the power train include?
` 3 A. Are you speaking in context of this paper
` 4 or --
` 5 Q. Yes.
` 6 A. Yeah, the -- okay, well, in the paper,
` 7 there's a couple of figures, figure 1 and 3 that are
` 8 both titled -- they both have vehicle component
` 9 configuration, but the block -- the blocks in these
`10 diagrams show what I would consider the power train,
`11 you know, as proposed in this paper.
`12 Q. The block, so basically in figure 1 -- you
`13 said figure 1 and 3; is that correct?
`14 A. Yes.
`15 Q. So the blocks, we have the motor, the APU,
`16 which is the engine in this paper, converter,
`17 alternator, all these -- all these components are
`18 part of the power train.
`19 A. Yeah, and she's got slightly different
`20 wording for the two figures, and she includes a
`21 optional transmission for figure 3.
`22 Q. All right. So in the last sentence of the
`23 abstract again, would a person understand that
`24 Anderson is teaching the design of a power train and
`25 the corresponding control algorithm, which we said
`
`Page 26
`
`Page 28
`
` 1 in the abstract, that it's, you know, based on the --
` 2 the time of the paper and the technology, that it's
` 3 likely that it's referring to some type of controller
` 4 in software.
` 5 Q. Is that a reference -- a hybrid control
` 6 strategy is an algorithm, you agree that that would
` 7 be referring to an algorithm implemented by the
` 8 microcontroller using software?
` 9 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
`10 A. I would think that that's a likely
`11 assumption somebody could make from this -- this
`12 statement in an abstract.
`13 Q. Okay. It's also not -- now, if you could
`14 take a look at the last paragraph in the abstract,
`15 could you read this last paragraph?
`16 A. Sure. "In this paper, we explore the
`17 methodology behind the design of a hybrid control
`18 strategy. We also discuss the APU and battery design
`19 characteristics that are crucial to the strategy
`20 design, focusing on the interdependence of these
`21 design characteristics within the entire system.
`22 Finally, we propose a process for the development of
`23 an optimized hybrid power train and the corresponding
`24 control algorithm."
`25 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Hannemann, would the --
`
` 1 was a hybrid control strategy and software, based on
` 2 this last sentence, are we talking about two
` 3 different things?
` 4 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` 5 A. I guess could you repeat the question
` 6 please?
` 7 Q. Based on this last sentence of the
` 8 abstract, do you agree that the design of the power
` 9 train and the control algorithm are two different
`10 things?
`11 A. Well, I suppose you could design a power
`12 train without designing the algorithms or controls,
`13 and I think the other way around, if you're designing
`14 a control algorithm, you would need to understand the
`15 power train, or whatever you're controlling.
`16 Q. So are they different?
`17 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, asked and
`18 answered.
`19 A. Yeah, I don't think I can -- I think
`20 there's too many variables to even give that a yes or
`21 no answer.
`22 Q. So in the context of the Anderson paper,
`23 when she describes a process for the development of
`24 an optimized hybrid power train and a corresponding
`25 control algorithm, is the design -- the development
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`Bienenstock Court Reporting & Video
`Ph: 248.644.8888 Toll Free: 888.644.8080
`
`(7) Pages 25 - 28
`
`FORD 1243
`
`

`
`Ford Motor Company vs.
`Paice, L.L.C., et al.
`
`Page 29
`
`Neil Hannemann
`September 4, 2015
`
`Page 31
`
` 1 of the power train and the control algorithm, is she
` 2 talking about one thing or two different things?
` 3 MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form, asked and
` 4 answered.
` 5 A. Okay, expanding it to the way she
` 6 approached it in her paper, I would say that the
` 7 algorithm goes with the power train, that they're --
` 8 they're interrelated.
` 9 Q. So you agree that the power train -- the
`10 design of the power train and the control algorithm
`11 are related but they're two separate things?
`12