UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 to Severinsky et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 23-30, 32, AND 39-41 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,104,347)
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................ 1
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................ 1
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 1
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................. 2
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................... 2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................. 2
`
`A.
` Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................. 2
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1) ............................................... 3
`B.
`
` Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) ........................................ 3
`C.
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA) ............................... 4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3) ................................... 4
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`
`
`road load (RL) and RL .................................................................................... 4
`setpoint (SP) and SP ........................................................................................ 5
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ...................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
` Ground 1: Claims 23, 24, 28, 30, and 32 are Obvious Over Ibaraki
`’882 in View of the Knowledge of a POSA ................................................. 6
`1.
`Independent Claim 23 ......................................................................... 6
`2.
`Dependent Claim 24 .......................................................................... 28
`3.
`Dependent Claim 28 .......................................................................... 31
`4.
`Dependent Claim 30 .......................................................................... 33
`5.
`Dependent Claim 32 .......................................................................... 34
`Ground 2: Claim 29 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ’882 in View of the
`Knowledge of a POSA and the Teachings of Known Prior Art
`Systems ........................................................................................................... 36
` Ground 3: Claim 39 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ’882 in View of
`Vittone, and the Knowledge of a POSA .................................................... 38
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .......................................................................... 42
`
` Ground 4: Claim 40 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ’882 in View of D.
`Yamaguchi and the Knowledge of a POSA ............................................... 43
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .......................................................................... 43
`2.
`Dependent Claim 40 .......................................................................... 44
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`F.
`
`
`
` Ground 5: Claim 41 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ’882 in View of E.
`Ibaraki ’626 and the Knowledge of a POSA .............................................. 46
`1.
`Reason to Combine ........................................................................... 46
`2.
`Dependent Claim 41 .......................................................................... 49
`Ground 6: Claim 27 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ’882 in View of
`Lateur and the Knowledge of a POSA ....................................................... 51
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .......................................................................... 51
`2.
`Claims 27 ............................................................................................. 52
`
` Ground 7: Claims 25 and 26 are Obvious Over Ibaraki ’882 in G.
`View of Frank and the Knowledge of a POSA ......................................... 54
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .......................................................................... 54
`2.
`Dependent Claim 25 .......................................................................... 56
`3.
`Dependent Claim 26 .......................................................................... 58
`
`VII. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ......................................... 60
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1401
`1402
`1403
`1404
`1405
`1406
`
`1407
`1408
`1409
`
`1410
`
`1411
`1412
`
`1413
`1414
`1415
`
`1416
`
`1417
`1418
`1419
`
`1420
`
`1421
`1422
`1423
`
`1424
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`US Patent 7,104,347
`Ford Letter to Paice
`US Patent 5,789,882
`US Patent 5,623,104
`US Patent 4,335,429
`Automotive Electronics
`Handbook (Jurgen)
`US Patent 5,823,280
`Declaration of Gregory Davis
`US Application 60-100095
`
`Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347 File
`History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`7,237,634 File History (certified)
`
`Toyota Litigations
`Hyundai Litigation
`PTAB Decisions & Preliminary
`Response in 2014-00571
`Bosch Automotive Handbook
`(1996)
`US Patent 5,934,395
`US Patent 6,116,363
`Engineering Fundamentals of the
`Internal Combustion Engine
`Fiat Conceptual Approach to
`Hybrid Cars Design (Vittone)
`US Patent 5,865,263
`US Patent 6,003,626
`Innovations in Design: 1993 Ford
`Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge
`1996 & 1997 Future Car
`Challenge
`
`Date
`Sept. 12, 2006
`Sept. 2014
`Aug. 4, 1998
`Apr. 22, 1997
`June 15, 1982
`
`
`Oct. 20, 1998
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`n/a
`
`July 3, 2007
`n/a
`
`2005
`2013-2014
`
`
`Identifier
`’347 Patent
`Ford Letter
`Ibaraki ’882
`Suga
`Kawakatsu ’429
`Jurgen
`
`Lateur
`Davis Dec.
`‘095 Provisional
`
`‘347 File History
`
`’634 Patent
`’634 Patent File
`History
`Toyota Litigation
`Hyundai Litigation
`Ford IPRs
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Aug. 10, 1999
`Sept. 12, 2000
`1997
`
`Koide
`Frank
`Pulkrabek
`
`Dec. 5-7, 1994
`
`Vittone
`
`Feb. 2, 1999
`Dec. 21, 1999
`Feb. 1994
`
`Yamaguchi
`Ibaraki ’626
`
`
`Feb. 1997 &
`Feb. 1998
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1425
`
`1426
`
`1427
`1428
`1429
`
`1430
`
`1431
`1432
`1433
`
`1434
`
`Date
`
`
`
`1998
`
`Description
`Introduction to Automotive
`Powertrain (Davis)
`History of Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle (Wakefield-1998)
`SAE 760121 (Unnewehr-1976)
`SAE 920447 (Burke-1992)
`Vehicle Tester for HEV (Duoba-
`1997)
`DOE Report to Congress (1994) April 1995
`
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Feb. 1, 1992
`Aug. 1, 1997
`
`SAE SP-1331 (1998)
`SAE SP-1156 (1996)
`Microprocessor Design for HEV
`(Bumby-1988)
`DOE HEV Assessment (1979)
`
`Feb. 1998
`Feb. 1996
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`1435
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Identifier
`Davis Textbook
`
`Wakefield
`
`Unnewehr
`Burke 1992
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1331
`SAE SP-1156
`Bumby/Masding
`1988
`HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`IEEE Ehsani 1996
`
`June 18, 2005
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`IEEE Ehsani 1997
`
`Aug. 11, 1998
`
`An 1998
`
`Nov. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`April 3, 2001
`Feb. 1995
`1973
`
`9323263
`Prius
`Toyota
`Yamaguchi 1998
`’672 Patent
`SAE SP-1089
`SAE 1973
`
`
`
`Oct. 4, 1983
`
`
`
`Kawakatsu ’132
`
`1436
`
`1437
`
`1438
`
`1439
`1440
`
`1441
`1442
`1443
`
`1444
`1445
`1446
`
`
`Propulsion System for Design for
`EV (Ehsani-1996)
`Propulsion System Design for
`HEV (Ehsani-1997)
`Critical Issues in Quantifying
`HEV Emissions (An 1998)
`WO 9323263A1 (Field)
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi-1998)
`
`US Patent 6,209,672
`SAE SP-1089 (Anderson-1995)
`1973 Development of the Federal
`Urban Driving Schedule (SAE
`730553)
`Gregory Davis Resume
`Gregory Davis Data
`U.S. Patent No. 4,407,132
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Petitioner Ford Motor Company (“Ford” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ’347 Patent,” Ex. 1401).
`
`The ’347 Patent has 41 claims and is one of five patents Paice has asserted
`
`against Ford in litigation. Ford has asked Paice several times to limit the asserted
`
`claims to a reasonable number. (“Ford Letter”, Ex. 1402.) Paice has refused. Due to
`
`Ford’s one-year statutory limit and page constraints on IPR petitions, Ford is filing
`
`several IPRs to address the ’347 Patent claims and is trying to group the claims in a
`
`logical fashion. This IPR focuses on claims 23-30, 32, and 39-41.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
` Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner certifies that Ford is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’347 Patent is being asserted in Paice, LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc. v.
`
`Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1-14-cv-00492 and Paice LLC and The Abell Foundation,
`
`Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America et. al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00499. Ford has filed petitions
`
`concerning the ’347 Patent in IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00579, IPR2014-00884, and
`
`has filed petitions concerning other asserted patents in the ’347 Patent’s family in
`
`IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-01415, IPR2014-00568, IPR2014-00852, IPR2014-00875,
`
`IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01416, IPR2015-00606, IPR2015-00767, IPR2015-00722,
`
`IPR2015-00758, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00785, and IPR2015-00791. Petitioner is
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`concurrently filing related petitions: IPR2015-00787, IPR2015-00790, IPR2015-00795,
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`and IPR2015-00792. This Petition is not redundant to any previously or concurrently
`
`filed petitions.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) of Brooks Kushman
`
`P.C. as lead counsel, and appoints John E. Nemazi (Reg. No. 30,876), John P.
`
`Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949) and Michael N. MacCallum (Reg. No. 63,108) of Brooks
`
`Kushman P.C., as well as Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421) and Kevin Greenleaf (Reg.
`
`No. 64,062) of Dentons US LLP, as back-up counsel. An appropriate Power of
`
`Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via hand-
`
`delivery to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor,
`
`Southfield, Michigan 48075 and Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite
`
`7800, Chicago, IL 60606-6306. Petitioner consents to service by email at
`
`FPGP0101IPR6@brookskushman.com and iptdocketchi@dentons.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
` Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’347 Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds presented.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the ’347 Patent claims 23-30, 32, and 39-41 and
`
`requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) cancel those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
` Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2)
`
`C.
`
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`References
`Ground Basis
`1
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of the Knowledge
`
`Claims
`Claim 23 and dependent
`
`of a POSA
`
`claims 24, 28, 30, and 32
`
`2
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of the Knowledge
`
`Dependent claim 29
`
`of a POSA and the Teachings of Known
`
`Prior Art Systems
`
`3
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of Vittone, and the
`
`Dependent claim 39
`
`Knowledge of a POSA
`
`4
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of Yamaguchi and
`
`Dependent Claim 40
`
`the Knowledge of a POSA
`
`5
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of Ibaraki ’626 and
`
`Dependent Claim 41
`
`the Knowledge of a POSA
`
`6
`
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of Lateur and the
`
`Dependent Claim 27
`
`Knowledge of a POSA
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`References
`Ground Basis
`7
`§ 103 Ibaraki ’882 in View of Frank and the
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Claims
`Dependent Claims 25
`
`Knowledge of a POSA
`
`and 26
`
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis. (“Davis Dec.”, Ex. 1408.)
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA)
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is provided in the declaration. (See, for
`
`example, Davis Dec., Ex. 1408 ¶¶41-42, 5-37.)
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, a claim is interpreted by applying its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Petitioner proposes the following constructions for the purposes of this IPR
`
`only. But for some of these terms, based on the specification, prosecution history, and
`
`patentee admissions, Petitioner contends that the construction under the applicable
`
`district court standards is narrower, and reserves the right to present a narrower
`
`construction in district court litigation.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`road load (RL) and RL
`
`The Eastern District of Texas and the District of Maryland courts have
`
`construed the terms “road load,” “RL,” and “road load (RL)” as “the instantaneous
`
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle, which may be positive or negative in
`
`value.” (Toyota Litigation, Ex. 1413 at 205-206; Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1414 at 16,
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`96-97.)
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`For this proceeding, Petitioner proposes that “road load” be construed as “the
`
`amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or
`
`negative.” This is consistent with a prior PTAB construction. (See Ex. 1415 at 20, 38,
`
`51, 70, 84.) Petitioner contends the construction is narrower under district court
`
`standards.
`
`
`B.
`
`setpoint (SP) and SP
`
`The Texas and Maryland courts construed “setpoint (SP)” as being “a definite,
`
`but potentially variable value at which a transition between operating modes may
`
`occur.” (Ex. 1413 at 204; Ex. 1414 at 104.) Petitioner disagrees that this is the
`
`broadest reasonable construction.
`
`The ’347 Patent claims, specification, and file history define “setpoint” as a
`
`“predetermined torque value.” All claims recite a “setpoint” or “SP” value being
`
`compared to either: (1) an engine torque value (e.g., claim [23.11]); or (2) a torque-
`
`based “road load” value (e.g., claim [23.7]). Likewise, the specification says “the
`
`microprocessor tests sensed and calculated values for system variables, such as the
`
`vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirement, i.e., the ‘road load’ RL . . . against
`
`setpoints, and uses the results of the comparisons to control the mode of vehicle
`
`operation.” (Ex. 1401, 40:20-31.) To do so (e.g., whether “RL < SP”), the “setpoint”
`
`would have to be in the same measurement units as the “road load.”
`
`During prosecution of the ’347 Patent, patentee added the following limitation
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`to pending claims 1 and 82 to overcome a prior art rejection: “wherein the torque
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`produced by said engine when operated at said setpoint (SP) is substantially less than
`
`the maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine.” (’347 File History, Ex. 1410 at 8-
`
`20.) Patentee then argued the engine was operated only “when it is loaded . . . in
`
`excess of SP [setpoint], which is now defined to be ‘substantially less than the
`
`maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine.’” (’347 File History, Ex. 1410 at 21.)
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with recent PTAB constructions.
`
`(Ford IPRs, Ex. 1415 at 21, 40, 72, 86.) Accordingly the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “setpoint (SP)” and “SP” as used in the challenged claims is a
`
`“predetermined torque value.”
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`A.
`
` Ground 1: Claims 23, 24, 28, 30, and 32 are Obvious Over
`Ibaraki ’882 in View of the Knowledge of a POSA
`
`As provided below and by the accompanying declaration of Dr. Davis, claims
`
`23, 24, 28, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Ibaraki ’882 (Ex. 1403) and the general knowledge of a POSA.
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 23
`
`… [23.0] A method of control of a hybrid vehicle,
`
`Ibaraki ’882 states that the “present invention” pertains to a “drive control
`
`apparatus” for controlling a “hybrid vehicle” that may be propelled by an internal
`
`combustion (IC) engine and an electric motor. (Ex. 1403, 1:9-14; Ex. 1408, ¶¶169-
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`170.) As illustrated below, Ibaraki ’882 generally discloses a hybrid vehicle including a
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`controller (128) that is used to control an internal combustion engine (112) and an
`
`electric motor (114) (Ex. 1403, 19:11-54.)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1403 at Figure and 8
`
`
`
`Figure 10 below illustrates a control routine that is implemented by the
`
`controller 26, 118 to select: 1) a MOTOR DRIVE mode (step “Q12”) where the
`
`electric motor propels the vehicle; (2) an ENGINE DRIVE mode (step “Q11”)
`
`where the engine propels the vehicle; and (3) an ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode
`
`(step “Q10”) where both the electric motor and engine propel the vehicle. (Id. 11:58-
`
`67, 20:43-49, 26:25-33; Ex. 1408, ¶¶174-175.) To select the MOTOR DRIVE mode,
`
`ENGINE DRIVE mode, or ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode, a data map (as
`
`exemplified by Fig. 11) is used. As annotated below, the data map determines the
`
`three operating modes as a function of “VEHICLE DRIVE TORQUE,” and
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`“VEHICLE SPEED.” (Ex. 1403, 20:38-21:2; Ex. 1408, ¶¶176-177.)
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 10
`
`
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`
`
`… [23.1] said vehicle comprising an internal combustion
`
`engine capable of efficiently producing torque at loads between a
`
`lower level SP and a maximum torque output MTO,
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses an engine efficiency map (annotated below), which
`
`includes a threshold boundary line along “0.7 ηICEmax,” i.e., 70% of the maximum
`
`efficiency, also known as 70% relative efficiency. This threshold includes multiple
`
`setpoints that vary along the 0.7 ηICEmax boundary line depending upon the given
`
`engine speed (NE). As illustrated, a setpoint (annotated as SP) exists at engine speed
`
`(NE1) along the 0.7 ηICEmax boundary line. This setpoint (SP) represents the point where
`
`the hybrid vehicle would transition from MOTOR DRIVE mode to ENGINE
`
`DRIVE mode at engine speed (NE1). (Ex. 1403, 25:46-54; Ex. 1408, ¶¶185-187.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Specifically, when the Engine Torque (TE) is above setpoint (SP) at a particular Engine
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Speed (NE) the vehicle is operated in the ENGINE DRIVE mode. Additional
`
`description of this mode is provided in [23.8].
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses that less fuel is consumed when the engine operates
`
`above setpoint (SP) along the 0.7 ηICEmax boundary line than below. That is, at and
`
`above SP, torque produced by the engine (in ENGINE DRIVE mode) is fuel
`
`efficient. (Ex. 1403, 25:36-26:8; Ex. 1408, ¶185.) Therefore, a POSA would have
`
`understood that at a given engine speed, an engine torque along the 0.7 ηICEmax
`
`boundary line is a setpoint above which the engine is efficiently producing torque. (Id.
`
`¶¶185-187.)
`
`Similarly, in Figure 11, Ibaraki ’882 discloses a drive source selecting data map
`
`(annotated below), which includes a threshold “boundary line B.” This threshold
`
`includes multiple setpoints that vary along “boundary line B” depending upon the given
`
`vehicle speed. As illustrated, a setpoint (annotated as SP) exists at a vehicle speed (V1)
`
`along “boundary line B.” This setpoint (SP) at vehicle speed (V1) represents the point
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`where the hybrid vehicle would transition from MOTOR DRIVE mode to ENGINE
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`DRIVE mode. (Ex. 1403, 24:6-26.) Specifically, when the vehicle drive torque
`
`(annotated as TL2) is between setpoint (SP) and a torque point along boundary line C
`
`(annotated as C1) the vehicle is operated in an ENGINE DRIVE mode.
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses that when operated at torques between a setpoint (SP) and
`
`the vehicle drive torque point (C1), the engine consumes less fuel than when the
`
`engine is operated at torques below the setpoint (SP). (Id. at 20:49-21:20.) That is, at
`
`and above SP, torque produced by the engine (in ENGINE DRIVE mode) is fuel
`
`efficient. (Ex. 1408 at ¶¶188-190.) A POSA would have understood that at a given
`
`speed, a torque along boundary line “B” is a setpoint above which torque produced by the
`
`engine is efficiently produced. (Id. ¶193.)
`
`Because the engine propels the vehicle throughout the ENGINE DRIVE
`
`mode (shaded green), the maximum torque output (MTO) of the engine is at least equal to
`
`or greater than the torque point C1 at the vehicle speed (V1). The engine therefore
`
`efficiently produc[es] torque at loads between a lower level SP and a maximum torque output MTO.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`(Id. at ¶¶191-197.)
`
`… [23.2] a battery,
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses an “electric energy storage device 136” which can be “in
`
`the form of a battery or condenser.” (Ex. 1403, 19:55-57, emphasis added; Ex. 1408,
`
`¶¶198-199.)
`
`… [23.3] and one or more electric motors being capable of
`
`providing output torque responsive to supplied current, and of
`
`generating electrical current responsive to applied torque,
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a “dynamo-electric motor” 114 which is capable of being
`
`operated in a “DRIVE state,” “CHARGING state,” or “NON-LOAD state.” (Ex.
`
`1403, 11:32-36 and 19:55-20:1.)
`
`“In the DRIVE state, the motor 114 is driven by an electric energy supplied
`
`from the electric energy storage device 136.” (Id. at 19:55-63.) A POSA would
`
`understand that when “electric energy” is supplied from the battery to the electric
`
`motor, the battery is supplying current to the electric motor. (Ex. 1408, ¶¶200-203.) As
`
`will be described below in [23.7], the electric motor 114 can be operated by the
`
`supplied current in a MOTOR DRIVE mode in which the motor alone propels the
`
`vehicle. (Id. ¶203.)
`
`Further, Ibaraki ’882 expressly discloses that the “power of the motor [is]
`
`selectively transferred to. . . right and left drive wheels.” (Ex. 1408 at 11:12-15 and
`
`19:24-28.) A POSA would have understood that when power is transferred from the
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`motor 114 to the transmission 116 and to the drive wheels 120, the power is
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`transferred by the torque from the output shaft of the electric motor, which is applied
`
`to the drive shaft and ultimately the wheels. (Ex. 1408 at ¶204.) Indeed, a POSA
`
`would understand that power and torque are related as a function of speed (Power =
`
`Torque * Speed). Id.
`
`“In the CHARGING state, the motor 114 functions as an electric generator or
`
`dynamo, with regenerative braking (braking torque electrically generated by the motor
`
`114 itself), for storing an electric energy in the electric energy storage device 136.”
`
`(Ex. 1403, 19:61-67.) Again, the “electric energy” generated would include current.
`
`… [23.4] said engine being controllably connected to wheels of
`
`said vehicle for applying propulsive torque thereto and to said at
`
`least one motor for applying torque thereto, said method
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`Regarding said engine being controllably connected to wheels of said vehicle for applying
`
`propulsive torque thereto, Fig. 8 of Ibaraki ’882 (annotated below) illustrates the engine
`
`112 (green) is controllably coupled to drive wheels 120 (red) via a “clutch 130”
`
`(yellow). The clutch 130 is controlled by a “clutch control actuator 132” to couple and
`
`decouple (i.e., connect and disconnect) the engine to and from the transmission 116
`
`which transfers torque to the wheels 120. (Ex. 1403, 19:50-54; Ex. 1408, ¶¶208-210.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Ex. 1403 at Figure 8 (annotated)
`
`
`
`As is clear in Fig. 8 above, the clutch 130 (yellow) also controllably connects the
`
`engine to the electric motor 114. As will further be discussed in [23.10], the controller
`
`can command an “ELECTRICITY GENERATING DRIVE mode” in which the
`
`engine will supply an output beyond the drive power (PL) required to propel the
`
`vehicle provide excess output to drive the electric motor as a generator to charge the
`
`battery. (Ex. 1408, ¶¶210-218.)
`
`… [23.5] determining the instantaneous torque RL required to
`
`propel said vehicle responsive to an operator command;
`
`In order to determine which drive mode to operate in, Ibaraki ’882 states that a
`
`point corresponding to the current “vehicle running condition” is plotted onto the
`
`data map of Fig. 11. (Ex. 1403, 20:58-21:1; Ex. 1408, ¶¶221-223.) This point
`
`“correspond[s] to the required drive power PL” for the vehicle and is “determined by
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`the current vehicle drive torque and vehicle speed V.”1 (Ex. 1403, 23:66-24:21, 20:39-
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`43; Ex. 1408, ¶¶223-224.)
`
`Figure 11 (annotated below) highlights the mode selection when three points of
`
`“required drive power” (annotated as PL1, PL2, PL3) are plotted, “as determined by the
`
`current vehicle drive torque” (annotated as TL1, TL2, TL3) “and vehicle speed”
`
`(annotated as V1). The MOTOR DRIVE mode (shaded red) is selected when the
`
`“vehicle drive torque” (TL1) at vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL1) is located below a first
`
`boundary line B. Likewise, the ENGINE DRIVE mode (shaded green) is selected
`
`when the “vehicle drive torque” (TL2) at the vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL2) is above
`
`the first boundary line B but on or below a second boundary line C. Finally, the
`
`ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode (shaded blue) is selected when the “vehicle drive
`
`torque” (TL3) at the vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL3) is above the second boundary
`
`line C. (Ex. 1403, 23:66-24:30; Ex. 1408, ¶¶224-226.)
`
`
`1 A POSA would have known that power and torque are related by speed (i.e., Power
`
`= Torque * Speed). (Ex. 1408 at ¶190.) Figure 11 is expressed in graphical format as
`
`“vehicle drive torque” vs. “vehicle speed,” and any point on the graph would
`
`represent a related power value. (Id. at ¶190.)
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Ex. 1403 at
`
`Figure 11 (annotated)
`
`
`
`The “points” of “required drive power PL” (PL1, PL2, PL3) are disclosed as being
`
`the “instantaneous drive power required for running the vehicle, which power
`
`includes components for overcoming the air resistance experienced by the vehicle and
`
`the rolling resistance of each vehicle wheel.” (Ex. 1403, 12:50-54 (emphasis added);
`
`Ex. 1408, ¶¶227-230.) A POSA would have understood that the corresponding
`
`“vehicle drive torque” values (TL1, TL2, TL3) at the same vehicle speed (V1) are the
`
`instantaneous torque (RL) required to propel the hybrid vehicle. (Id. ¶230.) Because each point
`
`of “required drive power PL” (PL1, PL2, PL3) is also determined on the basis of
`
`accelerator pedal “operating amount θA,” and “rate of change,” each corresponding
`
`“vehicle drive torque” (TL1, TL2, TL3) is likewise determined on the basis of the
`
`accelerator pedal operating amount and rate of change. (Ex. 1403, 22:66-23:6, 12:54-
`
`59; Ex. 1408, ¶¶229-230.) Ibaraki ’882 therefore discloses determining the instantaneous
`
`torque (RL) required to propel the hybrid vehicle (i.e., “vehicle drive torque”) responsive to an
`
`operator command (i.e., sensed accelerator pedal operating amount and rate of change).
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`The data map of Fig. 11 of Ibaraki ’882 illustrates positive road load (RL)
`
`“vehicle drive torque” values. (Id. ¶231.)
`
`… [23.6] monitoring the state of charge of said battery;
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses that the controller receives a “charging amount SOC”
`
`(i.e., state of charge) of the “electric energy storage device 136” (i.e., battery). (Ex.
`
`1403, 20:10-23; Ex. 1408, ¶¶223-225.) In one embodiment, this SOC is used to adjust
`
`the setpoint along boundary line B of Fig. 11 to increase the “MOTOR DRIVE mode”
`
`region to “prevent excessive charging” of the battery. (Ex. 1403, 24:39-60, emphasis
`
`added; see also 7:47-52; Ex. 1408, ¶237.) Steps Q4 and Q5 of the control strategy
`
`illustrated in Fig. 10 show the battery SOC being compared to thresholds. (Ex. 1403
`
`at Fig. 10.)
`
`… [23.7] employing said at least one electric motor to propel
`
`said vehicle when the torque RL required to do so is less than said
`
`lower level SP;
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses at least one electric motor (“electric motor 114” in Fig. 8) that
`
`may operate in a “DRIVE state” to propel the hybrid vehicle during a “MOTOR DRIVE
`
`mode in which the motor 114 is selected as the drive power source.” (Ex. 1403, 19:55-
`
`20:9, 20:43-53; Ex. 1408, ¶¶242-245.)
`
`The “controller 128” is disclosed as using the data map of Fig. 11 to select “the
`
`MOTOR DRIVE mode when the vehicle running condition as represented by the
`
`current vehicle drive torque and speed V is held within the range below the first
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`boundary line B” (highlighted in red). (Ex. 1403, 20:58-62 (emphasis added); Ex. 1408,
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`¶¶244-248.) As annotated below, a torque setpoint (annotated as SP) along “boundary
`
`line B” would be known at the current vehicle speed (annotated as V1). This setpoint
`
`(SP) marks the transition point between the MOTOR DRIVE mode and the
`
`ENGINE DRIVE mode. Also, a “required drive power PL” point (annotated as PL1)
`
`within the MOTOR DRIVE mode is illustrated. This point also marks “the vehicle
`
`running condition as represented by the current vehicle drive torque [annotated as
`
`TL1] and speed [V1].” (Ex. 1403, 20:58-63, 23:66-24:2.) If the “current vehicle drive
`
`torque” (TL1) and “vehicle speed” (V1) result in a point (PL1) below the setpoint (SP),
`
`the MOTOR DRIVE mode is selected. In other words, the controller would operate
`
`the vehicle in the MOTOR DRIVE mode because the required “vehicle drive torque”
`
`(TL1) or road load at vehicle speed (V1) is less than the setpoint (SP) (Ex. 1408, ¶¶249-
`
`250.)
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`… [23.8] employing said engine to propel said vehicle when the
`
`torque RL required to do so is between said lower level SP and
`
`MTO;
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses an engine 112 that may be operated to propel the hybrid
`
`vehicle during an “ENGINE DRIVE mode in which the engine 112 is selected as the
`
`drive power source.” (Ex. 1403. 20:43-53; 19:18-27; Ex. 1408. ¶¶253-256.)
`
`As illustrated below, Ibaraki ’882 discloses that the controller uses the data map
`
`of Fig. 11 to select this ENGINE DRIVE mode when the vehicle running condition
`
`“as represented by the current vehicle drive torque and speed V” is “held within the
`
`range between the first and second boundary lines B and C” (highlighted in green).
`
`(Ex. 1403, 20:18-63, Ex. 1408, ¶¶257-258.) At a given vehicle speed (annotated as V1),
`
`a given setpoint (annotated as SP) along boundary line B is known. This setpoint (SP)
`
`marks the transition between the MOTOR DRIVE mode and the ENGINE DRIVE
`
`mode. A torque point (annotated as C1) along boundary line C would also be known
`
`at the same vehicle speed (V1). This torq