FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. PAICE, L.L.C., ET AL.
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015
`
`Prepared for you by
`
`Bingham Farms/Southfield • Grand Rapids
`Ann Arbor • Detroit • Flint • Jackson • Lansing • Mt. Clemens • Saginaw
`
`FORD 1450
`
`

`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015September 4, 2015
`
`Page 1
`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. 7,237,634
`12
` IPR Case No.: IPR2014-01416
`13
`
`14
` Videoconference Deposition of NEIL HANNEMANN
`15
` Washington, D.C.
`16
` Friday, September 4, 2015
`17
` 1:05 p.m.
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`Job No. 90945
`24
`Pages 1 - 29
`25
`Reported by: Karen Young
`Page 2
` Videoconference Deposition of NEIL HANNEMANN,
`held at the offices of:
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 1425 K Street, Northwest
` 11th Floor
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 783-5070
`
`
`
`
` Pursuant to notice, before Karen Young,
`Notary Public of the District of Columbia.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` ON BEHALF OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY:
` (by videoconference)
` ANDREW B. TURNER, ESQUIRE
` JOHN P. RONDINI, ESQUIRE
` FRANK A. ANGILERI, ESQUIRE
` BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
` 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
` Southfield, Michigan 48075
` (248) 358-4400
`
` ON BEHALF OF PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.:
` BRIAN J. LIVEDALEN, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 1425 K Street, Northwest
` 11th Floor
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 783-5070
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`EXAMINATION OF NEIL HANNEMANN PAGE
` By Mr. Rondini............................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` E X H I B I T S
`Exhibit 1 Declaration of Neil Hannemann...... 5
`Exhibit 2 U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634.......... 23
`Exhibit 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970.......... 27
`
` (Attached to Transcript)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages 1 to 4Pages 1 to 4
`
`FORD 1450
`
`

`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015September 4, 2015
`
`Page 5
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` (Deposition Exhibit Numbers 1 through 3
`were marked for identification.)
` NEIL HANNEMANN,
` having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR FORD MOTOR COMPANY
` - - -
`BY MR. RONDINI:
` Q For this matter, this is the deposition for
`matter IPR2014-01416. For the record, Mr. Hannemann,
`can you state your full name?
` A Neil Hannemann.
` Q And would the court reporter please hand
`Mr. Hannemann the exhibit labeled Exhibit 1? Mr.
`Hannemann, for the record, what is Exhibit Number 1?
` A This is my declaration in support of the
`patent owner's response in this matter.
` Q Mr. Hannemann, before we -- we dive into
`your declaration in detail, could you please explain
`to me what your understanding of hysteresis is?
` A You mean like the -- the Webster Dictionary
`understanding?
` Q No, in -- in your technical understanding,
`what -- as an engineer and somebody who's worked in
`the engineering field for over 20 years, what is
`Page 6
`
`hysteresis in your opinion?
` A Well, hysteresis is, as I've mostly
`encountered it, it's having a different value when
`you're increasing or decreasing some type of
`function.
` Q Okay, and -- and in your experience, is
`hysteresis a -- a form of control strategy that is
`commonly employed?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A I think hysteresis is more of a
`characteristic, and it's sometimes -- it's not
`related to a control strategy. It's sometimes
`something that can occur in a, you know, mechanical
`device, so --
` Q So within a mechanical -- I'm sorry, go
`ahead.
` A Well, I should say, for example, a shock
`absorber has hysteresis.
` Q But the hysteresis that's in a shock
`absorber, wouldn't an engineer have designed the
`shock absorber to have that hysteresis function?
` A No, there's -- sometimes hysteresis is a
`characteristic that occurs, and engineers understand
`it, but it -- it can be just a natural occurrence.
` Q Okay. Now, in your engineering experience,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 7
`you've worked on control strategies, correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay. Do you understand what hysteresis is
`with respect to control strategies?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection to form.
` A It can be -- yes, I do understand.
` Q What is your understanding of hysteresis
`with respect to control strategies?
` A It's a factor that you can -- can build
`into your controls to -- to create that, to create
`the hysteresis.
` Q Okay, let's -- let's -- you kind of did a
`circular answer there and you answered the question
`with a question. What is your understanding of
`hysteresis with respect to control strategies? Let's
`try that again.
` A Well, when you're using it in a control
`strategy, you're -- you're actually creating the
`hysteresis.
` Q What are you -- what do you mean by you're
`creating the hysteresis?
` A Well, when you're controlling something,
`it's not a naturally occurring characteristic, so the
`control has to then create that hysteresis.
` Q What is your definition of hysteresis?
`Page 8
` A Well, you know, I would probably go to the
`dictionary, which I don't have handy with me, to --
`to really define it. You know, I've -- it's a term
`that is pretty broad.
` Q But hysteresis is something that is
`commonly understood by engineers?
` A Yes, and I don't know if you -- if I --
`trying to just think if I actually define that in my
`declaration. Just going to flip through and see if I
`can -- yeah, I mean, I don't think I actually defined
`it, that generally in my declaration, so --
` Q Sitting here today though, could you
`provide me with what your understanding -- I know
`it's not going to be in the dictionary and I'm not
`going to hold you to it. I'm just trying to
`understand your understanding as a technical expert,
`what is -- what would be your definition if someone
`asked you what is hysteresis?
` A Well, I think we talked about it before,
`that it's a -- it can be a physical characteristic,
`and basically -- you know, prior to control systems,
`it was a physical characteristic, as I -- shock
`absorbers, rubber bushings. There's a lot of
`mechanical components that have hysteresis as a
`characteristic, and that's -- that's where it comes
`
`
`
`Pages 5 to 8Pages 5 to 8
`
`FORD 1450
`
`

`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015September 4, 2015
`
`Page 9
`from. Now, lately control systems have -- you know,
`you program controlling hysteresis, and that's in a
`way artificially creating this characteristic that
`occurs in mechanical components.
` Q So let's I guess maybe take a look at a
`couple of examples of, you know, control systems that
`might incorporate some type of hysteresis. You're
`familiar with thermostats, correct?
` A Like in the house?
` Q Sure, in a house.
` A Sure.
` Q Yeah, would -- would a thermostat in your
`house, would that have some type of a hysteresis
`built into the control system if it's electronic?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, calls for
`speculation.
` A Yeah, this is something I could never even
`explain to my ex-wife because she didn't -- she
`didn't get it, but you could -- I mean, these days a
`lot of thermostats are electronic and you'd program
`that in. In the older days it was a mercury switch
`that would, you know, physically give you the
`hysteresis characteristic in a thermostat. So that's
`an example of a -- of a component that has the same
`function but it's -- it's changed how it arrives at
`Page 10
`
`that function.
` Q Right, so -- so moving from the mercury
`switch mechanical systems to the electronic systems
`that are commonly found in houses today, how would --
`how would the hysteresis be implemented in a control
`strategy?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A Yeah, you know, I haven't really analyzed a
`thermostat in enough detail, at least an electronic
`one, to -- to tell you how they would do it, but I
`would think they're, you know, somehow emulating what
`a mercury switch did, and maybe with electronics,
`you've got an opportunity to improve on that.
` Q Well, in electronics, would you -- would
`you have some type of a setpoint where you would set
`the temperature, and the hysteresis would ensure your
`heater or your air conditioning doesn't turn on and
`off rapidly if the temperature is fluctuating around
`that setpoint?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form, calls for
`speculation.
` A Well, that's, you know, both the electrical
`and mechanical ones, you know, that's the purpose of
`the -- the switch in the mechanical system. That's
`-- that's what it did, and then you could emulate
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 11
`that electronically and, you know, even -- likely
`even have it calibrateable, if that's a word, or a
`user could have some input into those criteria, and
`with a mechanical system, you wouldn't.
` Q So with electronic control systems, if I'm
`understanding your testimony correct, hysteresis is a
`form of control strategy where you would have some
`type of a set threshold or a setpoint, and the
`hysteresis would be used to not have fluctuations
`around that setpoint. Is that an accurate assessment
`of what your understanding of hysteresis is?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A Well, using the word "setpoint," which is
`very specific to this -- this matter, and I don't
`know if the thermostat designers used the terminology
`"setpoint," but I think that the -- in a thermostat,
`there's actually two points. There's a high and a
`low, so it -- it basically fluctuates between a high
`and a low point.
` Q Around the threshold, so getting around
`from the use of "setpoint" as it's used in the -- in
`the patents, let's use the "threshold." It's not
`used in the patent claims. So it's your
`understanding that you would have a threshold value,
`and then you would have -- the hysteresis would be
`Page 12
`some band above and below that threshold value to
`ensure your furnace doesn't turn on and off if the
`temperature's fluctuating around that threshold; is
`that correct?
` A Yeah, and again, I don't know the exact
`terms that somebody designing a thermostat might use,
`but you know, as a general description, I can agree
`with -- with -- with your statement.
` Q Sure. Well, let's take it in terms or, you
`know, constructs of, you know, automotive technology.
`You understand what a cruise control system is,
`correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Would a automotive engineer implementing a
`control strategy for cruise control, would they
`implement some type of hysteresis into the cruise
`control?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, calls for
`speculation.
` A I think it's likely that you could do that.
` Q How would they do that?
` A You know, it depends -- depends upon how
`the system works. You have to -- you can only work
`with the parameters you've got involved in -- in the
`system.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Pages 9 to 12Pages 9 to 12
`
`FORD 1450
`
`

`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015September 4, 2015
`
`Page 13
` Q Well, how about why would an engineer
`implement hysteresis into a cruise control system?
` A It would be for customer acceptance, so you
`have a system that the vehicle drives as the customer
`might expect it to.
` Q What do you mean, customer acceptance? Why
`would the customer not be happy having a cruise
`control system without hysteresis?
` A Well, you know, having not evaluated every
`cruise control system, but typically customers like a
`vehicle that has a, you know, smooth steady operation
`without abrupt changes, so if you put some hysteresis
`in the system, you can -- you can achieve that.
` Q So let's -- so we have maybe an example.
`So if I'm understanding your testimony correctly,
`what you're saying is cruise control, an operator
`would set the cruise control let's say at 55 miles
`per hour, and as a vehicle is driving down the road
`at 55 miles an hour, the vehicle experiences a
`headwind and the vehicle which was set at 55 miles an
`hour, now the speed drops down to 53 miles an hour,
`and if I'm understanding you correctly, the
`hysteresis is used to ensure that the vehicle doesn't
`abruptly try to stop the vehicle to get it down to 53
`miles an hour because the headwind might go away and
`Page 14
`the vehicle within three seconds might get back up to
`55 miles an hour. Is that a correct example of why
`you're saying customer acceptance drives hysteresis
`in a cruise control?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A Not -- I mean, I think as a general sense,
`and the point in what you said is it's -- it is
`related to speed, and you know, speed is all a cruise
`control system's looking at, or if we assume a cruise
`control system that's only looking at speed would
`make its determinations based on speed, that's
`correct. Now, a system can't take other factors into
`consideration, such as load. The vehicle speed
`control system's not looking at load. It's looking
`at speed, so it would make its decision based on
`speed.
` Q I'm sorry, did you say now the system can
`take other factors such as load or cannot?
` A If you -- well, the system takes into
`consideration whatever you design it to, so in -- in
`my hypothetical, a speed control system that's just
`looking at speed would not be able to use other
`factors.
` Q Why?
` A Because those just aren't inputs into its
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 15
`
`system.
` Q Why do you say those aren't inputs?
` A That's how I defined it. I defined a speed
`control system that's using speed as its input, and
`it's developing a hysteresis characteristic around
`the speed, and then that's what it works with.
` Q So it's your opinion that anything that
`deals with speed doesn't take into consideration any
`other inputs besides speed.
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, mischaracterizes
`previous testimony.
` A I would say any system designed to operate
`with certain inputs doesn't consider other inputs.
`So going back to a thermostat, a thermostat considers
`temperature, not speed or not load, and the speed
`control system that I gave the balance to, I was
`looking at speed, would only look at speed.
` Q But in a -- in a vehicle, I mean, I
`understand your analysis with respect to, you know, a
`thermostat not looking at speed and only looking at
`temperature. I wouldn't disagree with that, but in a
`vehicle setting where there's hundreds if not
`thousands of inputs to a -- you know, the ECU, one of
`them possibly being speed, you're saying that the
`system would not consider anything else but the
`Page 16
`
`speed?
` A It's only going to consider what it's
`programmed to consider. Just because the inputs or
`characteristics are somewhere in the vehicle, if it's
`not programmed to use those, it's not going to use
`those.
` Q But it could be programmed to -- strike
`that. A POSA would understand that you could use
`those other inputs that are being received in
`addition to speed, correct?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A You know, I haven't considered what --
`we're talking about cruise control systems, which
`wasn't something I considered in this -- in this
`matter, so I really wouldn't be able to give you an
`opinion on that.
` Q Well, I'm just asking in general for
`hysteresis, you know, an engineer in designing a
`system, if he wanted to implement hysteresis, could
`implement it with whatever inputs he's provided; is
`that correct?
` A If those inputs correctly give you the --
`the end result.
` Q And the end result, as you stated earlier,
`would be customer satisfaction. Is that one end
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Pages 13 to 16Pages 13 to 16
`
`FORD 1450
`
`

`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015September 4, 2015
`
`Page 17
`
`result?
` A Yeah, a system that operates to satisfy the
`customer.
` Q So Mr. Hannemann, would you agree that any
`-- any system, any control system or any device that
`turns on or off the system would be capable of being
`programmed to include some type of hysteresis
`control?
` A You know, that's probably too -- too vague
`to answer, just turning something on and off. I'd
`need to know a little more about it I think.
` Q Well, let's go back to the example of the
`-- the furnace and temperature, and like I said, we
`had a -- we have some type of a threshold value and
`the -- the furnace would turn on and off around that
`threshold value. Would that be a type of a control
`system that one would understand is capable of
`turning on and off and would be programmed to include
`some type of hysteresis control?
` A Well, again, if the furnace thermostat
`could be a mechanical device, then its -- its only
`programming is what the designer built into it when
`he designed it.
` Q Yeah, but I'm talking more along the lines
`of electrical control systems, so let's skip the
`Page 18
`mechanical example and go right to the electrical
`thermostat example.
` A Yeah, so --
` Q Would that be a type of -- I'm sorry, go
`ahead.
` A Well, if I'm recalling your question
`correctly, that that's a system that someone could
`program, but only to the extent of using the
`parameters that it's -- it's given as inputs.
` Q Sorry, let's turn to paragraph 160 of your
`report. Let me know when you're there.
` A Yeah, I'm here.
` Q All right. Well, actually, you want to
`flip back to the previous page probably. Paragraph
`159 on page 90 of your report is the beginning of
`your analysis with respect to ground 3 of Ford's
`petition, analyzing claims 215, 228, 233, 235 and
`236. Do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q Okay, and you see right there in paragraph
`159, you have at least a portion of claim 215. You
`have the clause that begins with "Determining
`instantaneous road load," and then you have two
`operating clauses. Do you see that?
` A Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 19
` Q Then on paragraph 160 on the next page, the
`very last sentence, you state, "Thus, claim 215
`requires that the vehicle only employs the engine to
`propel the vehicle when the road load is at or above
`a setpoint." Do you see that?
` A Yes.
` Q So my question to you is why do you opine
`that a control strategy that is power based does not
`satisfy claim 215.
` A Well, I mean, power is not torque, so it's
`a different parameter.
` Q So in paragraph 161, I believe maybe it's
`where you have your opinion, you state that it's
`fundamentally different. Power and torque are
`fundamentally different.
` A Yes.
` Q So it's your opinion that because power and
`torque are fundamentally different, the limitations
`from claim 215 are not satisfied by a power-based
`control strategy?
` A That's correct.
` Q And what limitations specifically in claim
`215 are fundamentally different such that a control
`strategy that's power based does not -- does not
`satisfy the claim?
`Page 20
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A I didn't say that the claim was
`fundamentally different. I said that the power and
`torque are fundamentally different.
` Q Well, you must have analyzed some
`limitations in claim 215 to opine that a power-based
`strategy -- or that claim 215 is patentable over a
`power-based control strategy, so I guess my question
`is what limitations do you believe are not satisfied
`by a control power -- or a power -- strike that. So
`my question to you is what limitations in claim 215
`are not satisfied by a power-based control strategy.
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, form.
` A Well, for sure, all three of these elements
`that I put in my declaration here. I don't have the
`patent in front of me to look for any others, but
`certainly these three.
` Q I'm sorry, which three are we referring to?
` A Well, in paragraph 160, I've got three
`numbered items there.
` Q So it's your opinion in 160, I see, it
`looks like you're stating that a power-based control
`strategy does not determine the amount of
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle,
`be it positive or negative. Is that the first one
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Pages 17 to 20Pages 17 to 20
`
`FORD 1450
`
`

`
`
`NEIL HANNEMANN (416)NEIL HANNEMANN (416)
`
`September 4, 2015September 4, 2015
`
`Page 21
`you're looking at?
` A Yes.
` Q So it's your opinion that a power-based
`control strategy does not determine road load; is
`that correct?
` A Well, that's -- that's a little broad, but
`the reference we're talking about, the Tabata
`reference, doesn't consider road load.
` Q Can a power-based control strategy
`determine road load?
` MR. LIVEDALEN: Objection, calls for
`speculation.
` A Yeah, that's -- I -- I haven't seen one in
`-- in anything that's -- I've looked at in the
`context of this matter.
` Q Let's go back to 161. You said power and
`torque are fundamentally different control
`strategies, correct?
` A Well, the one that Tabata discloses is
`fundamentally different, yes.
` Q In your expert opinion -- strike that. So
`let's look at the second factor here in 160. So it's
`your opinion then that a power-based control strategy
`does not use the electric motor to propel the vehicle
`when the amount of instantaneous torque required to
`Page 22
`propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative, is
`less than a predetermined torque value that may or
`may not be reset; is that correct?
` A Well, the -- the Tabata system does not do
`that, no.
` Q So Mr. Hannemann, the three points you've
`got in 160, those are -- that seems to be just
`paraphrasing the limitations you recite in paragraph
`159; is that correct?
` A Yeah, I think the -- the question you asked
`was what -- you know, what elements of the claim are
`not fulfilled, but I don't think you asked why, and
`I've got a lot of explanation in my declaration as to
`why I don't think they're fulfilled.
` Q Well, let's -- let's just start with my
`question. The question was in paragraph 160, you
`have three bullets, 1, 2 and 3, and they seem to be
`paraphrasing the limitations found in paragraph 159;
`is that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q So paragraph 159 are the three limitations
`that you believe are not satisfied by the power-based
`control strategy of Tabata '201; is that correct?
` A That's correct.
` Q And the reason for your opinion is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 23
`power and torque are fundamentally different; is that
`correct?
` A That is a reason. I'm just looking through
`to see if it's the -- if it's the only reason that I
`-- so I mean, yes, it is -- it is a reason.
` Q So one of the reasons that you opine that
`the three limitations in claim 159 are not satisfied
`is because a power-based control strategy such as the
`one described in Tabata '201 is fundamentally
`different than a control strategy based on torque; is
`that correct?
` A Yes.
` Q Could the court reporter please hand Mr.
`Hannemann the Exhibit Number 2, which I believe is
`the '634 patent? Mr. Hannemann, the court reporter's
`just handed you Exhibit Number 2. What is Exhibit
`Number 2?
` A Well, it's U.S. patent 7,237,634.
` Q And that's the patent