UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2015-00794
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List .................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a torque based line ....................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 compares road load to MTO .....................................................10
`
`A.
`
`
`Figure 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine when
`“road load” is “more than MTO” ........................................................21
`
`III. Claim 39 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Vittone, and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art .........................................23
`
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that A.
`Vittone’s ‘steady state management’ of the thermal engine
`teaches that the rate of change of torque output of the engine is
`limited ..................................................................................................23
`
`B.
`
`
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Vittone .................................27
`
`1.
`
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone
`is incorrect .................................................................................27
`
`IV. Claim 40 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Yamaguchi and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art .........................................29
`
`V.
`
`Claim 41 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in View of Ibaraki ’626 and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art .........................................30
`
`VI. Claim 27 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Lateur and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art .........................................30
`
`A.
`
`
`Rationale to combine ...........................................................................31
`
`VII. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Frank, and
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ...................................32
`
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................32
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Updated 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
`Handbook (Jurgen)
`US Patent 5,823,280
`Declaration of Gregory Davis
`US Application 60-100095
`
`Electronics
`
`Date
`Sept. 12, 2006
`Sept. 2014
`Aug. 4, 1998
`Apr. 22, 1997
`June 15, 1982
`
`
`Oct. 20, 1998
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`n/a
`
`Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347 File
`History
`July 3, 2007
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`7,237,634 File History (certified) n/a
`
`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
`
`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
`Hybrid Cars Design (Vittone)
`US Patent 5,865,263
`US Patent 6,003,626
`Innovations
`in Design: 1993
`Ford Hybrid Electric Vehicle
`Challenge
`
`to
`
`2005
`2013-2014
`
`
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Aug. 10, 1999 Koide
`Sept. 12, 2000
`Frank
`1997
`Pulkrabek
`
`Dec. 5-7, 1994 Vittone
`
`Feb. 2, 1999
`Dec. 21, 1999
`Feb. 1994
`
`Yamaguchi
`Ibaraki ’626
`
`
`Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1424
`
`1425
`
`1426
`
`1427
`1428
`1429
`
`1430
`
`1431
`1432
`1433
`
`1434
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Description
`1996 & 1997 Future Car
`Challenge
`to Automotive
`Introduction
`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
`
`Date
`Feb. 1997 &
`Feb. 1998
`
`
`1998
`
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Feb. 1, 1992
`Aug. 1, 1997
`
`Identifier
`
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`Wakefield
`
`Unnewehr
`Burke 1992
`Duoba 1997
`
`to
`
`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
`
`1994 Report
`Congress
`SAE SP-1331
`SAE SP-1156
`Bumby/Masding
`1988
`Sept. 30, 1979 HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`IEEE Ehsani 1996
`
`1435
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`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
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`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
`
`Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1447
`
`1448
`
`1449
`
`1450
`
`1451
`
`1452
`
`1453
`
`1454
`
`1455
`
`1456
`
`1457
`
`1458
`
`1459
`
`1460
`
`1461
`
`1462
`
`1463
`
`1464
`
`Description
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00904,
`Paper 41
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00571,
`Paper 44
`Final Decision, IPR2014-01416,
`Paper 26
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-01416
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00884,
`Paper 38
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00875,
`Paper 38
`Final Decision, IPR2014-01415,
`Paper 30
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00570
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00875
`Exhibit 2 from deposition of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00875
`Patent Owner’s Response,
`IPR2014-00884, Paper 19
`Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric
`and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00884
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00787
`Exhibit 12 from Deposition
`Transcript of Neil Hannemann
`(IPR2014-00884)
`Patent Owner’s Response,
`IPR2014-01416, Paper 17
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00571
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Date
`December 10,
`2015
`September 28,
`2015
`March 10, 2016
`
`Sept. 4, 2015
`
`December 10,
`2015
`November 23,
`2015
`March 10, 2016
`
`Identifier
`’904 Decision
`
`’571 Decision
`
`’1416 Decision
`
`Hannemann ’1416
`Dep.
`’884 Decision
`
`’875 Decision
`
`’1415 Decision
`
`April 8, 2015
`
`Hannemann ’570
`Dep.
`April 30, 2015 Hannemann ’875
`Dep.
`’875 Dep. Exhibit
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`March 10, 2015
`
`’884 POR
`
`2005
`
`Ehsani
`
`1976
`
`Bosch Handbook
`1976
`April 30, 2015 Hannemann ’884
`Dep.
`April 27, 2016 Hannemann ’787
`Dep.
`’884 Dep. Exhibit
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`June 17, 2015
`
`’1416 POR
`
`April 7, 2015
`
`Hannemann ‘571
`Dep.
`
`Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1465
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Description
`Reply Declaration of Dr.
`Gregory Davis
`
`Date
`
`
`Identifier
`Davis Reply
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`I, Gregory Davis, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration on February 23, 2015 at the
`
`request of Ford Motor Company in the matter of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,104,347 (“the ’347 Patent”) to Severinsky et al.
`
`2.
`
`I provide this supplemental declaration in response to arguments
`
`presented by the Patent Owner.
`
`I.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a torque based line
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Paice argues that boundary line B in Figure 11 of
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 is a “power curve.” (see e.g., Ex. 2406, Hann. Decl. at ¶52.) But I
`
`disagree as the curved portion Mr. Hannemann relies upon is only a segment of the
`
`entire “boundary line B.”
`
`4. When looking at the entire “boundary line B” I understand it to be the
`
`“vehicle drive torque” (as the y-axis states) at all “vehicle speeds.”
`
`5.
`
`For instance, “boundary line B” includes (1) a hyperbolic curved
`
`portion that I have highlighted in red; and (2) a flat (constant) portion which I have
`
`highlighted in blue.
`
`Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`
`
`6.
`
`This is important as it appears that Mr. Hannemann (and Paice) are
`
`solely relying on the hyperbolic curved portion to argue that “boundary line B” is a
`
`line of constant power.
`
`7.
`
`But I do not believe this to be an accurate statement as demonstrated
`
`by Ex. 14581. Specifically, Ex. 1458 confirms that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand the below graph to be the ideal characteristics of what
`
`an engine (or electric motor) would output at the drive wheels.
`
`
`1 Ex. 1458 (Ehsani) is a true and accurate copy of excerpts from a textbook titled
`
`“Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles Fundamentals, Theory,
`
`and Design” that was published by CRC Press in 2005 and authored by Mehrdad
`
`Ehsani et al.
`
`Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1458 at 14, Fig. 2.10
`
`
`
`8.
`
`As shown two curves are illustrated. The first curve labeled “torque”
`
`includes a flat portion at low vehicle speeds and then a segment where the “torque
`
`varies with speed hyperbolically.” (Ex. 1458 at 14.) This hyperbolically varying
`
`portion would be a torque line indicating a constant power value.
`
`9.
`
`In fact, the above graph illustrates this fact by also including a power
`
`output line. As is shown, when the “torque varies with speed hyperbolically” the
`
`power line is constant (flat).
`
`10. Likewise, as shown by Fig. 2.10, when the torque is constant (flat) the
`
`power line increases rapidly up to its constant (flat) value. This graph simply
`
`further illustrates the well-known relationships between torque and power with
`
`respect to speed.
`
`Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`11. But simply because a hyperbolically varying torque line might be
`
`understood as representing a constant power curve, does not mean the line is a
`
`power curve.
`
`12. Again, Fig. 11 is expressly labeled in terms of “vehicle drive torque”
`
`and “vehicle speed.” This alone should confirm that “boundary line B” is a torque
`
`line.
`
`13. Further, Ex. 1458 illustrates a person having ordinary skill would
`
`understand that the torque at the wheels is constant (flat) at low vehicle speeds, and
`
`then the “torque varies with speed hyperbolically.”
`
`14. A person having ordinary skill would therefore have understood the
`
`entire portion of boundary line B as being a “vehicle drive torque” line (as the
`
`graph expressly is labeled) which is constant (flat) at low “vehicle speeds,” and
`
`then which “varies with speed hyperbolically.”
`
`II.
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 compares road load to MTO
`
`15.
`
`I understand that Paice argues that boundary line C in Figure 11 of
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 does not use or disclose the use of MTO in its mode control strategy. I
`
`disagree with this statement.
`
`16. As I stated in my original declaration, a person having ordinary skill
`
`would have understood “boundary line C” as being equal to or possibly less than
`
`the MTO of an engine. (Ex. 1408 at ¶275.)
`
`Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Again, it is my understanding that Paice has introduced Ex. 2410 with
`
`its current response to explain the MTO graph illustrated on page 15, Fig. 2.11. It
`
`is also my understanding that Mr. Hannemann has overlayed what he states is
`
`“boundary line C” onto an engine graph having an MTO line. (Ex. 2406 at ¶85.)
`
`18. But it is my opinion that Ex. 2410 illustrates that Mr. Hannemann’s
`
`overlay graph is not accurate with respect to Figure 11’s data map.
`
`19.
`
` Mr. Hannemann uses the overlayed curves to explain that the
`
`engine’s MTO curve is a hyperbolic curve that looks different than boundary line C
`
`in Figure 11. But there are several reasons for the difference in appearance, even
`
`though both lines are based on the engine’s MTO.
`
`20. First, the drawing generated by Mr. Hannemann is a graph of engine
`
`torque (y-axis) versus engine speed (x-axis). In other words, it is an engine graph
`
`like the one shown by Figure 5 of Ibaraki ’882. Figure 11, however, is a “data
`
`map” illustrating the vehicle torque versus vehicle speed, as highlighted below.
`
`Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`21. And below is Mr. Hannemann’s generated figure where he overlays
`
`what he alleges is “boundary line C” onto the above engine graph. (Ex. 2406,
`
`
`
`Hannemann Declaration at ¶¶84-85.)
`
`Ex. 2406, Hannemann Declaration at ¶85
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`22. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Mr.
`
`Hannemann’s graph as being incorrect is because Ibaraki ’882 discloses a
`
`“transmission 116” being included between the engine and drive wheels. (Ex.
`
`1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 19:23-33.)
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 8
`
`
`
`23.
`
` A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand
`
`that the engine’s torque and speed would be modified by the “transmission 116”
`
`and the corresponding “vehicle drive torque” and “vehicle speed” would be based
`
`on the particular gear ratio of the transmission.
`
`24. Ex. 2410 even explains that it was known to use a “multigear
`
`transmission... to modify” the “torque-speed profile” shown in Figure 2.11. (Ex.
`
`Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`2410 at 15.) Ex. 2711 further states that how a transmission modifies the “torque-
`
`speed profile” is shown in “Figure 2.13.” (Ex. 2410 at 15.)
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding however, that Paice did not include the portion
`
`of the textbook including Figure. 2.13. I have acquired a copy of this textbook and
`
`included chapter 2 in its entirety. (Ex. 1458, Ehsani.)
`
`26. As Shown below is “Figure 2.13” which was discussed on page 15 of
`
`Ex. 2410. (Ex. 1458 at 39.) As shown below, Figure 2.13 illustrates that each gear
`
`in the transmission has a different gear ratio that modifies the single torque vs
`
`speed curve of the engine to map to various torque vs speed curves for the vehicle.2
`
`For instance, in first (1st) gear, the engine provides the greatest torque to the wheels
`
`at a low vehicle speed. On the other hand, in fourth (4th) gear the engine torque
`
`provided at the wheels has a relatively flat curve and can only provide a low torque
`
`but can do so up to a much higher vehicle speed. (Ex. 1458, Ehsani at 39.)
`
`
`2 One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that Tractive Effort at the wheel (kN)
`
`(shown on the y-axis of Fig. 2.13) is simply the Tractive Torque at the wheel (kN-
`
`m) divided by the rolling radius of the wheel. (see Ex. 1459, Bosch Handbook at 6-
`
`7.)
`
`Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`27. The above figure illustrates what was commonly known to a person
`
`having ordinary skill. For instance, a person driving a manual-transmission vehicle
`
`would have understood that 1st gear cannot be used to drive vehicles at higher
`
`speeds (e.g., driving on the freeway). Likewise, a person driving a manual-
`
`transmission vehicle in 1998 would have also understood that higher gears cannot
`
`be used when attempting to climb a very steep hill or tow a heavy load at low
`
`speed. This is because higher gears (e.g., 4th gear) cannot produce the torque
`
`necessary to meet these vehicle demands. Therefore, lower gears (and lower
`
`vehicle speeds) are used to operate the vehicle under these situations.
`
`28.
`
`It was also well-known to a person having ordinary skill that
`
`transmissions were used not only to improve the performance of an engine, but
`
`also to improve the efficiency. For instance, Ex. 1802 describes that the gear ratios
`
`Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`of a transmission are “selected in such a way that the engine can operate in the
`
`same speed range for all the gears. This approach would benefit the fuel economy
`
`and performance of the vehicle.” (Ex. 2410 at p. 37)
`
`29. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Figure 2.13
`
`(Ex. 1458 at 39) illustrates the engine’s MTO at each gear, as provided at the
`
`wheels of the vehicle. As annotated below, the engine’s MTO (as modified by each
`
`gear of the transmission) is limited by a hyperbolic curve.
`
`Ex. 1458, Ehsani at Fig. 2.11 and 2.13 (annotated)
`
`30. As is further illustrated below, Figure 2.13 (Ex. 1458 at 39) includes a
`
`
`
`dashed line (highlighted in yellow) that is the upper bound of each individual MTO
`
`curve that has been modified by the transmission and provided at the drive wheels.
`
`This upper bound represents the maximum power that could be provided to the
`
`drive wheels by the engine at any vehicle speed. In other words, the dashed line
`
`Page 16 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`represents the maximum torque output of the engine that can be provided to the
`
`wheels at any given vehicle speed.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1458, Ehsani at 39, Fig. 2.13 (annotated)
`
`31.
`
`It was further known by a person having ordinary skill that if an
`
`“infinitely variable transmission” was used, the hyperbolic curve highlighted above
`
`in yellow could be attained over a range of gear ratios. (Ex. 14593, Bosch
`
`Handbook 1976 at 3.) In other words, the dashed line would be the engine’s MTO
`
`
`3 Ex.1459 (Bosch Handbook 1976) is a true and accurate copy of excerpts from the
`
`1976 Bosch Automotive Handbook that was published by Robert Bosch GmbH in
`
`1976.
`
`Page 17 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`as seen at the vehicle wheels when using an infinitely variable transmission. This
`
`concept is illustrated somewhat by the 4 gear transmission shown in Figure 2.13.
`
`Specifically, it can be seen that each gear follows the hyperbolic curves for at least
`
`a portion. With the infinitely variable transmission, there would not be any “steps”
`
`or gaps between gears; thus the engine MTO at the wheels of the vehicle would
`
`follow the hyperbolic curve highlighted in yellow.
`
`32. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that boundary
`
`line C in Fig. 11 of Ibaraki ‘882 represents the upper bound of the engine’s MTO
`
`as seen at the output of the “transmission 116” (i.e., at the drive wheels) in any
`
`gear represented on a graph of vehicle torque versus speed, as described by Dr.
`
`Ehsani in Ex. 2410. A comparison of Ex. 2410 (below left) and Ibaraki ’882
`
`(below right) is shown below.
`
`Ehsani, Ex. 2410
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ‘882
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`33. While Ex. 2410 is not prior art, illustrating the transmission output for
`
`each gear of the engine’s MTO was well-known as shown and described in the
`
`Bosch Handbook in 1976. (Ex. 14594.) Ex. 1459 also explains that it was well
`
`known that without a transmission, the engine could “provide only little
`
`acceleration and exhibit unsatisfactory climbing ability.” (Ex. 1459, Bosch
`
`Handbook 1976 at 3.) This is shown below by the dashed line labeled “direct
`
`drive.” In other words, with a direct drive gear ratio the engine’s MTO is not
`
`modified and will be far below the hyperbolic “ideal tractive force hyperbola”
`
`curve illustrated below at most vehicle speeds.
`
`
`4 Just as before with Ehsani, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the
`
`Tractive force at the wheel (shown on the y-axis of Ex. 1459 at 3) is simply the
`
`Tractive Torque at the wheel divided by the rolling radius of the wheel. (see Ex.
`
`1416, Bosch Handbook at 6-7; See also Ex. 1459 at 3; explaining that “M = F*r,”
`
`where M = torque, F = force, r = radius.)
`
`Page 19 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1459, Bosch Handbook 1976 at 3
`
`34. The direct drive illustration just further demonstrates that a person
`
`having ordinary skill would have understood that the hyperbolic “boundary line C”
`
`curve is at or possibly below the engine’s MTO at all points. The “direct drive”
`
`curve shows that without a transmission, the MTO of the engine at the wheels is
`
`below the engine MTO curve at the wheels for each gear ratio of the transmission
`
`that follows the hyperbolic “ideal tractive force” curve.
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Figure 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine when “road
`load” is “more than MTO”
`
`35. As I explained in my opening declaration, Figure 5 describes how an
`
`engine map can be modified to embody the data map shown by Figure 11. (Ex.
`
`1408, Davis at ¶¶185-186; Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:46-65.)
`
`36. Aside from describing using Figure 5 for selecting just the “ENGINE-
`
`DRIVE” mode and “MOTOR-DRIVE” mode, Ibaraki ’882 also contemplates the
`
`engine graph of Figure 5 could be used for selecting the “ENGINE-MOTOR
`
`DRIVE” mode.
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 5 (Annotated)
`
`37. Specifically, Ibaraki ’882 described the modification as applying to
`
`
`
`the “first embodiment.” Then, Ibaraki ’882 also explains that the first embodiment
`
`may be further “modified to have the ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode... which is
`
`Page 21 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`selected when the vehicle load is comparatively high.” (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at
`
`26:29-33.)
`
`38. Based on this disclosure, it is my opinion that a person having
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that Figure 5 could further include an
`
`“ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE” mode. A person having ordinary skill would have
`
`further understood that high “vehicle loads” means loads that exceed the MTO of
`
`an engine. For instance, as I described above, a “direct drive” vehicle (i.e., vehicle
`
`without transmission) is limited as to how much tractive effort (load) that the
`
`engine can provide at the drive wheels. In conventional vehicles, a transmission is
`
`used to increase the torque (load) output at low vehicle speeds.
`
`39. However, in hybrid vehicles, it was understood that at high load
`
`demands the electric motor can also provide the extra torque (or power) needed to
`
`propel the vehicle. (See e.g., Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶128-130, 48-53; Ex. 1427,
`
`Unnewehr at 5.)
`
`40. This would allow the engine the capability of providing a certain
`
`amount of torque (as modified by the transmission) to the drive wheels. And then
`
`beyond the engine’s MTO, additional torque (again as modified by the
`
`transmission) could be provided using a combination of the engine and the electric
`
`motor. This torque which is modified by the transmission would be above
`
`“boundary line C” which I discussed above in ¶31-33.
`
`Page 22 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Claim 39 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Vittone, and the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`A.
`Vittone’s ‘steady state management’ of the thermal engine teaches
`that the rate of change of torque output of the engine is limited
`
`41.
`
`It is my understanding that Paice has argued Ford provided no support
`
`that Figure 8 discloses limiting a rate of change of torque output of the engine
`
`during transient phases. (Ex. 2406, Hannemann Declaration at ¶¶106-109.)
`
`42. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`
`change in engine output torque, as illustrated in Figure 8 of Vittone, is limited
`
`during the transient phases, i.e., between (t1-t3) and (t4-t6), because the engine
`
`output torque (green) lags the driveability torque requirement (yellow) in these
`
`phases.
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1420, Vittone, Figure. 8 (annotated)
`
`
`
`43. With reference to Figure 8 above, the vehicle is subjected to a first
`
`transient input when, between t1 and t2, the DRIVEABILITY TORQUE
`
`REQUIREMENT increases at a constant rate. This is illustrated by the slope of the
`
`DRIVEABILITY TORQUE REQUIREMENTS curve (i.e., the rate of change of
`
`road load) between time t1 and t2 that is labeled as Rapid acceleration1. The steady
`
`state management of the engine in response to Rapid acceleration1 is illustrated by
`
`the slope of the ENGINE TORQUE curve (i.e., the “rate of change of torque
`
`produced by said engine”) between t1 and t3.
`
`44. The vehicle is then subjected to a second transient input when,
`
`between t4 and t5, the DRIVEABILITY TORQUE REQUIREMENT increases at a
`
`constant rate. This is illustrated by the slope of the DRIVEABILITY TORQUE
`
`Page 24 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`REQUIREMENTS curve (i.e., the rate of change of “road load”) between time t4
`
`and t5, which I have labeled as Rapid acceleration2. The steady state management
`
`of the engine in response to Rapid acceleration2 is also illustrated by the slope of
`
`the ENGINE TORQUE curve (i.e., the “rate of change of torque produced by said
`
`engine”) between t4 and t6.
`
`45. As shown above in the annotated Figure 8 of Vittone, Rapid
`
`acceleration1 is greater that Rapid acceleration2. This means that the rate of
`
`change of “road load” is greater during the first transient phase than during the
`
`second transient phase. However, the slope of the ENGINE TORQUE curve (i.e.,
`
`the “rate of change of torque produced by said engine”) is approximately equal
`
`during both transient phases. Further, due to the “steady state management” of the
`
`engine during the transient phases, the slope of the ENGINE TORQUE curve is
`
`limited to a common rate of change that is less than Rapid acceleration1 or Rapid
`
`acceleration1. This common rate of change of the engine output torque during
`
`different transient conditions illustrates Vittone’s ‘steady – state’ management of
`
`the engine during transient phases.
`
`46. Figure 7 of the ’347 Patent includes a similar graph illustrating the
`
`engine output torque during transient conditions. During a deposition, Mr.
`
`Hannemann described Figure 7 of the related ’388 Patent, which is the same as
`
`Figure 7 of the ’347 Patent, and circled regions (shown in red below) where the
`
`Page 25 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`rate of change of engine output torque is limited to a threshold value. (Ex.1455,
`
`Hannemann ’875 Dep., 18:4-19:18.)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1456, Hannemann ’875 Dep. Ex. 2 at 2 (annotated in original)
`
`47. Mr. Hannemann explained that he knew where the rate of change of
`
`engine output torque is limited because the engine output torque lags the road load
`
`at those portions of the graph, and that “[i]f the engine torque output is not limited,
`
`I would assume that it would follow the road load.” (Ex. 1455, Hn Tr ’875, at
`
`18:18-19:4.)
`
`48. As confirmed by Mr. Hannemann, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`could tell by visual inspection of a graph including an engine output torque curve
`
`Page 26 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`and a “road load” (i.e., the torque required for propulsion of the vehicle) curve,
`
`that the engine output torque is limited during transient phases in which the engine
`
`output torque lags the torque required for propulsion of the vehicle.
`
`49. Thus, Vittone’s Figure 8 discloses “wherein the rate of change of
`
`torque produced by said engine is limited,” as required by claim 39.
`
` Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Vittone
`B.
`
`50.
`
`I described the rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Vittone in
`
`¶¶421-431 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1408, Davis Dec.)
`
`
`1.
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone is
`incorrect
`
`51.
`
`It is my understanding that Paice is arguing a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not have combined Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone because Ibaraki ’882
`
`and Vittone are directed to very different hybrid control strategies; and Vittone
`
`would not have worked with the engine control strategies of Ibaraki ’882. (Ex.
`
`2406, Hannemann Declaration at ¶¶110-113.) Further, I understand Paice argues
`
`the Vittone discloses that the driver uses a switch to select between the electric and
`
`hybrid modes. (Ex. 2406, Hannemann Declaration, at ¶112.)
`
`52. As explained in my first declaration, Ibaraki ’882 teaches operating
`
`the engine based on “RL”, i.e., the “torque required to propel the vehicle” – not
`
`based solely on power. (Ex. 1408, Davis Dec at ¶¶251-262.)
`
`Page 27 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`53. Paice’s characterization of Vittone’s control strategy as requiring the
`
`driver to select the mode is misleading. Vittone describes development trends in
`
`Europe as including “city centers with mobility restricted to [zero emission
`
`vehicles] ZEV vehicles.” (Ex. 1420, Vittone at 24.) Accordingly, one of the
`
`goals/missions of the hybrid development project described in Vittone is a parallel
`
`hybrid vehicle capable of “short trips in urban areas with zero emissions by only
`
`using the electric motor driveline.” (Ex. 1420, Vittone at 21.) Vittone discloses an
`
`electric/hybrid selector switch (Fig. 5) that allows the driver to select electric
`
`mode, so that the vehicle is restricted to ZEV operation. When the switch is set to
`
`hybrid mode, however, “the electronic control unit (ECU) manages the powertrain
`
`on the basis of the inputs of the accelerator and brake pedals” and “torque splitting
`
`between the two drivelines occurs automatically”:
`
`Management strategies of the hybrid powertrain
`
`With reference to the configuration scheme shown in Fig. 5, the
`
`electronic control unit (ECU) manages the powertrain on the basis of
`
`the inputs of the accelerator and brake pedals, discriminating between
`
`the two modes, electric and hybrid, which are selected by the driver
`
`by means of a switch, also while the vehicle is running.
`
`* * *
`
`To assure a good driveability of the vehicle:
`
`Page 28 of 32
`
`
`
`FORD 1465
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`- the torque splitting between the two drivelines occurs automatically.
`
`Therefore the driveability is totally similar to that of a conventional
`
`vehicle with manual gearbox.
`
`(Ex. 1420, Vittone at 26-27, emphasis added.)
`
`54. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Vittone’s disclosure that the ECU “manages the powertrain on the basis of the
`
`inputs of the accelerator and brake pedals” means that the ECU, not the driver,
`
`selects the operating modes (power sharing) within the hybrid mode (i.e., using
`
`just the engine, just th