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
`
`______________
`
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Updated List of Exhibits .......................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim construction ........................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Setpoint .................................................................................................. 2
`Paice’s “comparison” amendment is improper ..................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Ford is not estopped as Paice alleges .............................................................. 2
`
`IV. Grounds 1-2: Ibaraki ’882 renders the challenged claims unpatentable ......... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses operating the engine/motor when the
`“road load” is above/below a “setpoint” .............................................. 3
`1.
`Paice’s power argument is not based on the figures nor
`disclosure of Ibaraki ’882 ........................................................... 5
`Fig. 5 of Ibaraki ’882 discloses mode selection based on
`road load and setpoint ................................................................ 9
`Even if Ibaraki is power-based, the challenged claims are
`obvious based on the undisputed mathematical
`relationship between power and torque ....................................11
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses operating the motor and engine “when
`the torque RL...is more than the MTO” ...............................................12
`1.
`Fig. 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine
`when road load is “more than the MTO” .................................17
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a setpoint substantially less than MTO ...........19
`
`V. Ground 2: Claim 29 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of the
`knowledge of a PHOSITA and known prior art systems ..............................20
`
`VI. Ground 3: Claim 39 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Vittone,
`and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ................................................................20
`
`A. As the Board has previously found, a PHOSITA would have
`understood that Vittone’s “steady state management” teaches
`that the rate of change of torque output of the engine is limited ........20
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Vittone .................................21
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone is
`incorrect ...............................................................................................22
`
`B.
`C.
`
`VII. Ground 4: Claim 40 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of
`Yamaguchi and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ............................................23
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`VIII. Ground 5: Claim 41 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Ibaraki
`’626 and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ........................................................24
`
`IX. Ground 6: Claim 27 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Lateur
`and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ................................................................24
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Lateur discloses the additional cruise control “limitations” ...............24
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Lateur ..................................26
`
`X. Ground 7: Claims 25 and 26 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of
`Frank and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ......................................................27
`
`A. As the Board has found, Frank discloses the hysteresis
`limitations ............................................................................................27
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 with Frank ...................................27
`
`B.
`
`XI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................28
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................29
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Updated List of Exhibits
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1424
`
`1425
`
`1426
`
`1427
`1428
`1429
`
`1430
`
`1431
`1432
`1433
`
`1434
`
`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
`
`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
`
`iv
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1447
`
`1448
`
`1449
`
`1450
`
`1451
`
`1452
`
`1453
`
`1454
`
`1455
`
`1456
`
`1457
`
`1458
`
`1459
`
`1460
`
`1461
`
`1462
`
`1463
`
`1464
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`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
`
`v
`
`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.
`
`

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

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Paice challenges Ground 1 based on three primary arguments. First, Paice
`
`argues that Ibaraki ’882 does not disclose or render obvious a control strategy that
`
`compares “road load” to a “setpoint” and/or “MTO.” (POR at 15-32.) Second,
`
`Paice argues that Ibaraki ’882 does not operate both an electric motor and engine
`
`“when the torque RL required to do so is more than the MTO.” (POR at 32-43.)
`
`Third, Paice argues that Ibaraki ’882 does not disclose or render obvious a
`
`“setpoint” that is substantially less than MTO. (POR at 43-46.)
`
`Paice’s over-arching argument is that Ibaraki ’882 teaches a power-based
`
`strategy. But Ibaraki ’882 expressly teaches selecting operating modes based on
`
`the “vehicle running condition as represented by the current vehicle drive torque
`
`and speed.” (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 20:58-65, emphasis added; Pet. at 14-15.)
`
`Beyond these express teachings, the challenged claims would have also been
`
`obvious in view Ibaraki ’882 based on the well-known relationship where power =
`
`torque * speed.
`
`Paice also challenges Grounds 2-7 to address the secondary references. Ford
`
`provided detailed reasoning for: (1) how/why the prior art would be combined with
`
`Ibaraki ’882; and (2) why the challenged claims are unpatentable in view of the
`
`proposed combination.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`II. Claim construction
`
`A.
`
`Setpoint
`
`The Board’s institution decision construed “setpoint” as a “predetermined
`
`torque value that may or may not be reset.” (Paper 12 at 10.) For the reasons stated
`
`in Ford’s Petition and the Board Final Decisions, that continues to be the correct
`
`construction. (See, e.g., Ex. 1448, ’571 Decision at 13; Ex. 1447, ’904 Decision at
`
`9.)
`
`B.
`
`Paice’s “comparison” amendment is improper
`
`Unlinked to any particular claim term, Paice proposes a construction that
`
`improperly imports a detailed “comparison” of the RL to a “setpoint (SP)” and/or
`
`“MTO” limitation to each independent claim. (POR at 11-15.) Impermissibly
`
`adding limitations does not comport with the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard.
`
`Regardless, as discussed below, Paice’s proposed construction does not
`
`change the obviousness of the claims.
`
`III. Ford is not estopped as Paice alleges
`
`To address all of the dependent claims in the ’347 Patent, Ford had to file
`
`multiple petitions, which sometimes addressed the same independent claims. (See,
`
`Petition at 1.) And the present petition had to re-challenge independent claim 23 in
`
`order to address dependent claims that were neither challenged nor addressed by
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`the Board’s decisions in IPR2014-00571 and -00579 (e.g., claims 25-30).
`
`The Board may exercise its discretion in maintaining the current proceeding
`
`against the claim 23 because it is incorporated within the body of the presently
`
`challenged dependent claims 25-30, 32, 39-41 “as a matter of dependency.” (See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1451, ’884 Decision at 15-16, n.11.)
`
`IV. Grounds 1-2: Ibaraki ’882 renders the challenged claims
`unpatentable
`
`A.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses operating the engine/motor when the
`“road load” is above/below a “setpoint”
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a control strategy that uses Fig. 11 for selecting
`
`operating modes based on the vehicle’s current required torque and speed.1 (See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 8:37-43, 20:58-21:1, 23:66-24:30; Petition at 13-25.)
`
`Figure 11 is used to select an operating mode (annotated below) when it is
`
`determined that “the vehicle running condition as represented by the current
`
`vehicle drive torque and speed” is either: (1) “below the first boundary line B”
`
`(red); (2) “between the first and second boundary lines B and C” (green); or (3)
`
`“above the second boundary line C” (blue).2 (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 20:58-21:1,
`
`
`1 Mr. Hannemann testified that Fig. 11 is the vehicle torque and speed as measured
`
`at the vehicle wheels. (Ex. 1461, Hannemann ‘787 Dep at 73:18-22.)
`
`2 Ibaraki ’882 also discloses how Fig. 5 can also be used to select when to operate
`
`the engine. (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:36-26:8.)
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`see also 23:66-24:30.)
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 11 (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Each operating mode is specifically selected by determining where “a point
`
`corresponding to the required drive power PL (determined by the current vehicle
`
`drive torque and speed V)” is located on the “data map.” (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at
`
`23:66-24:30, emphasis added; see also Ex. 1461, Hannemann ‘787 Dep. at 66:6-
`
`67:2.) As annotated below, Ford maintains that Ibaraki ’882 satisfies the claimed
`
`comparison of road load (i.e., a required drive power PL “point,” determined by
`
`current vehicle drive torque) to a setpoint (i.e., a “point” on boundary line B) in
`
`determining when to operate the engine. (Petition at 8-15; Ex. 1408, Davis at
`
`¶¶180-197, 220-232.)
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 11 (Annotated)
`
`1.
`
`Paice’s power argument is not based on the figures
`nor disclosure of Ibaraki ’882
`
`
`
`Paice’s argument that Ibaraki ’882 teaches a control strategy that compares
`
`power demand to power thresholds is based on arguments and figures it presented
`
`in IPR2014-00884. (Compare, POR at 26-29 with Ex. 1457, ’884 POR at 48-51;
`
`see also Ex. 1463, ’1416 POR at 55-58.) Instead of relying on Fig. 11 of Ibaraki
`
`‘882 in this proceeding (below right), Paice has re-labeled figures (below left) that
`
`Mr. Hannemann testified were created for a prior proceeding that did not include
`
`Ibaraki ’882. (See Ex. 1461, Hannemann ‘787 Dep. at 74:21-77:8.)
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`POR at 36
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition at 8
`
`
`
`But these figures which Paice labels “Ibaraki ’882,” are notably different
`
`from the actual Ibaraki ’882. First, as shown above, Paice’s created figures lack
`
`the constant (flat) portion of “boundary line B” at low vehicle speeds. As is further
`
`shown below, Paice’s created figures would not account for, nor select, the
`
`“MOTOR-DRIVE mode” if a “point corresponding to the required drive power PL”
`
`is positioned just below this constant (flat) portion of “boundary line B” (i.e., high
`
`torque/low speed). This constant portion confirms that the entire “boundary line
`
`B” – and not just the hyperbolic portion – would be understood as being torque.
`
`(Ex. 1465, Davis Reply at ¶¶3-14.)
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
`
`
`POR at 36
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition at 8
`
`
`
`Second, Paice’s figures depict an IC engine graph with “engine torque”
`
`along the y-axis and “engine speed” along the x-axis and a blue “MTO” line across
`
`the top. Fig. 11, on the other hand, is labeled “vehicle drive torque” along the y-
`
`axis and “vehicle speed” along the x-axis. In other words, Fig. 11 depicts the actual
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle at the wheels, not the torque/speed output at
`
`the engine.3
`
`This difference is not insignificant as Ibaraki ’882 itself recognizes the
`
`difference and discusses how an IC engine graph (Fig. 5) could be modified to
`
`embody “the data map shown in FIG. 11.” (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:62-65.)
`
`When one compares the Paice-created engine graph with the actual Ibaraki engine
`
`
`3 This distinction is important as Ibaraki ’882 discloses a “transmission 116”
`
`between the engine and the drive wheels. (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 8.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`graph in Fig. 5, the graphs are dramatically different.
`
`
`
`POR at 36
`
`
`
`But when one compares the alleged “road load-based control strategy” that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶291-294;
`
` Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`Paice contends is the claimed control strategy (below left), with Ibaraki ’882’s
`
`control strategy using the Fig. 5 engine graph, the differences are virtually
`
`indistinguishable.
`
` POR at 25
`
`
`
`With reference to the engine graph control strategy illustrated by Fig. 5,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶291-294;
` Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882 states that a “fuel consumption efficiency” threshold of “0.7ηICEmax” is
`
`employed for determining when to operate the motor or engine. (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki
`
`’882 at 25:46-54.) Ibaraki ’882 also explains that “fuel consumption efficiency
`
`FCe may be determined on the basis of engine torque TE and speed NE.” (Id. at
`
`12:67-13:5.) In other words, Ibaraki ’882 determines how much engine
`
`torque/speed is needed to operate the vehicle and will: (1) operate the motor if the
`
`engine torque is below a point along the “0.7ηICEmax” threshold (setpoint); or (2)
`
`operate the engine if the engine torque is above a point along the “0.7ηICEmax”
`
`threshold (setpoint). (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:46-54.) So contrary to Paice’s
`
`created engine graph representations, Ibaraki ’882 specifically discloses how an
`
`engine graph can be used to select modes based on torque. The engine graph of
`
`Fig. 5 (like the vehicle drive torque graph of Fig. 11) demonstrates that Ibaraki
`
`’882 does not use or disclose any graph similar to the Paice-created “Ibaraki ’882”
`
`graphs.
`
`2.
`
`Fig. 5 of Ibaraki ’882 discloses mode selection based
`on road load and setpoint
`
`As discussed, Ibaraki ’882 also discloses how an engine map can be used to
`
`select modes similar to the “data map” illustrated in Fig. 11. (See Petition at 25-26;
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:36-65.) Paice argues that this disclosure does not meet
`
`the claimed invention because “Fig. 5 uses entirely different criteria (fuel
`
`consumption efficiency) to determine when to operate the engine.” (POR at 30.)
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`According to Paice, a PHOSITA would have understood “fuel consumption
`
`efficiency” is expressed as measures of power, not torque and therefore do not
`
`render the claimed invention obvious.4 (POR at 30, citing Ex. 2406, Hannemann
`
`Dec. at ¶¶69-70.)
`
`But Ibaraki ’882 also expressly recognizes that “fuel consumption efficiency
`
`FCe” may be “determined on the basis of the engine torque TE and engine speed
`
`NE and according to a predetermined relationship between the efficiency FCe and
`
`these parameters.” (Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 12:67-13:4.) A PHOSITA also would
`
`have understood that fuel efficiency for an engine can be related (as Ibaraki ’882
`
`expressly teaches) to both the engine’s power and torque at a specific speed. (Ex.
`
`1408, Davis at ¶¶108-123.) Any point on the engine map of Fig. 5 is therefore a
`
`known fuel consumption efficiency at a given engine torque and speed. (Ex. 1408,
`
`Davis at ¶¶185-187.)
`
`This engine torque is the amount of torque required (road load) by either the
`
`motor (if below “0.7ηICEmax” threshold) or the engine (if between “0.7ηICEmax”
`
`threshold and engine MTO) for propelling the vehicle. (Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶185-
`
`187.) The amount of required torque at a given engine speed is also compared to a
`
`
`4 A PHOSITA, however, would have understood that fuel efficiency could be
`
`expressed on an engine graph in terms of power or torque based on the engine
`
`speed. (Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶110-123; Ex. 1433, Bumby at Fig. 1.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`point along the “0.7ηICEmax” threshold (setpoint) to determine whether to operate
`
`the motor or engine. (Id.) Thus, Fig. 5 teaches a control strategy that compares
`
`“road load” to a “setpoint.” (Id.)
`
`3.
`
`Even if Ibaraki is power-based, the challenged claims
`are obvious based on the undisputed mathematical
`relationship between power and torque
`
`This Board has already considered Paice’s power versus torque argument
`
`and held the claimed control strategy of the ’634 Patent, which is very similar to
`
`that of the ’347 patent, is obvious based on the well-known (and undisputed)
`
`relationship between power and torque (i.e., power = torque * speed). (Ex. 1449,
`
`’1416 Decision at 23-25.)
`
`Paice re-argues (as it did in IPR2014-01416) positions regarding engine-
`
`motor sizing. (Compare POR at 26-29 with Ex. 1463, ’1416 POR at 55-58.) The
`
`Board has found that component sizing is not part of the independent claims and
`
`“thus, is irrelevant.” (Ex. 1449, ’1416 Decision at 24.)
`
`Moreover, Mr. Hannemann acknowledged the challenged claims of the ’347
`
`Patent do not require a constant-value “setpoint” at all vehicle or engine speeds and
`
`his own figure (reproduced below) shows that. (Ex. 1460, Hannemann ‘884 Dep. at
`
`11
`
`16:10-16:22 and 42:21-45:3.)
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Ex. 1462
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses operating the motor and engine
`“when the torque RL...is more than the MTO”
`
`Paice provides a graph, reproduced below, and alleges it is representative of
`
`Ibaraki ’882 that discloses both the motor and engine being operated “when the
`
`torque RL...is more than the MTO.” (POR at 36-37.) Mr. Hannemann even agreed
`
`that this figure represents that Ibaraki ’882 discloses that the motor and engine
`
`operates above the engine’s MTO (i.e., shown by a green shaded area above a blue
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`MTO line).5 (Ex. 1461, Hannemann ‘787 Dep. at 96:8-97:14; Ex. 2406,
`
`Hannemann Dec. at ¶78.)
`
`POR at 36
`
`
`
`The claims simply require that the motor and engine be operated “when the
`
`torque RL...is more than the MTO.” (see e.g., Ex. 1401, ’347 Patent at Claim 23.)
`
`Even though its own response demonstrates this limitation is met, Paice argues that
`
`Ibaraki ’882 cannot meet the limitation by “coincidentally” operating both the
`
`motor+engine above the engine’s MTO. (POR at 38.) Instead, Paice argues the
`
`claims “properly construed... require an affirmative comparison of ‘road load’ to
`
`‘MTO’...” (POR at 38.) Ford disagrees. The claims do not recite any such
`
`
`5 This figure is not an accurate representation of Fig. 11. Ford maintains this
`
`limitation is met when Fig. 11 is accurately analyzed. (Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶269-
`
`282.)
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`“comparison” nor can one be inferred. They also do not require operating the
`
`motor and engine only “when the torque RL” is “more than the MTO.”
`
`The fact that a “parallel hybrid” – like Ibaraki ’882 – meets this limitation is
`
`also not “coincidental” as it was well-known to a PHOSITA to operate the motor
`
`and engine to propel the vehicle “when the torque RL . . . is more than the MTO.”
`
`(Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶277-281, 129-134.)
`
`When the vehicle acceleration demands exceed the power capacity of
`
`the engine, the electrical system is used to provide the extra needed
`
`power.
`
`(Ex. 1427, Unnewehr at 5.)
`
`When more power
`
`is needed
`
`than
`
`the engine can provide,
`
`a... motor/generator or ‘torquer’ provides additional torque as needed.
`
`(Ex. 1401, ’347 Patent at 3:36-39.)
`
`Furthermore, Fig. 11 illustrates the “vehicle drive torque” and “vehicle
`
`speed” at the drive wheels. Paice’s attempt to overlay Fig. 11 onto an engine graph
`
`erroneously disregards the “transmission 116” that exists between the engine and
`
`drive wheels.6 (Ex. 1403 at Fig. 8.) In accounting for the “transmission 116,” a
`
`
`6 Again, the ’347 Patent states a “variable-ratio transmission” can be included as
`
`part of the claimed invention. (Ex. 1401, ’347 Patent at 20:5-16, 21:8-22, 51:38-
`
`53:5; see also Claims 18, 37.) But Paice does not discuss how the claimed engine
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`PHOSITA would have understood that any point along “boundary line C” is at or
`
`above the engine’s MTO as Ford explained. (Petition at 19-22.)
`
`For example, the textbook cited in Paice’s response (Ex. 2410) describes
`
`how it was known to use a “multigear transmission is usually employed to modify
`
`[the torque-speed profile]” of an engine.7 (Ex. 2410 at 15; Ex. 1465, Davis Reply at
`
`¶¶15-24.) As shown, the engine’s “torque-speed profile” is modified by the
`
`transmission to provide: (1) higher vehicle torques at lower vehicle speeds (1st and
`
`2nd gear); and (2) lower vehicle torques at higher vehicle speeds (3rd and 4th gear).8
`
`(Ex. 1465, Davis Reply at ¶¶24-27.) Mr. Hannemann even agreed that Fig. 2.13
`
`(below right) illustrates “the engine torque curve” (below left) for each gear after it
`
`is “multiplied” (i.e., modified) by a transmission. (Ex. 1461, Hannemann ‘787 Dep
`
`at 86:23-87:12, see also 85:25-86:5, 83:1-84:12.)
`
`
`MTO would be modified by a transmission nor how such a modification would
`
`affect the claimed control strategy.
`
`7 Paice cites Ex. 2410 in arguing the “torque-speed profile” is representative of
`
`what a PHOSITA understood as being an engine’s MTO curve. (POR at 33; Ex.
`
`2406 at ¶74; see also Ex. 1461, Hannemann ’787 Dep. at 83:1-6.)
`
`8 While Ex. 1458 is labeled “tractive effort” along the y-axis, a PHOSITA would
`
`have understood “vehicle drive torque” is simply the tractive effort * the radius of
`
`the vehicle’s tires. (Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶116; Ex. 1416, Bosch Handbook at 6-7.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`Ex. 1458 at 38, Fig. 2.13 and 39, Fig. 2.13 (annotated)
`
`
`As also shown, each gear is limited by the dashed hyperbolic curve line. (Ex.
`
`
`
`1465, Davis Reply at ¶¶28-32.) And both experts agree that a PHOSITA would
`
`have understood that the engine’s MTO at each of the transmissions gears cannot
`
`exceed the hyperbolic curve line shown as a dashed line in Fig. 2.13 above. (Id.;
`
`Ex. 1461, Hannemann ‘787 Dep. at 87:13-88:13.) Fig. 11 likewise includes such a
`
`hyperbolic curve (“boundary line C”) like the “dashed line” shown above. This is
`
`because a PHOSITA would have understood “boundary line C” (like the curved
`
`line illustrated in Fig. 2.13 below) illustrates the vehicle’s MTO, i.e., the engine’s
`
`MTO as modified by the “transmission 116” and as measured at the drive wheels.
`
`(Ex. 1465, Davis Reply at ¶¶28-32.)
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`
` Ex. 1458 at 39, Fig. 2.13
`
` Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 11
`(annotated)
`
`In accounting for the transmission, a PHOSITA would have understood that
`
`
`
`any drive torque beyond the hyperbolic dashed line (i.e., boundary line C) is near
`
`or beyond the engine’s MTO capability. (Pet. at 19-22; Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶269-
`
`282; Ex. 1465, Davis Reply at ¶¶32-34.) “Boundary line C” therefore discloses
`
`operating the motor and engine together when the “vehicle drive torque” (road
`
`load) is more than the engine’s MTO as modified by “transmission 116.”
`
`1.
`
`Fig. 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine
`when road load is “more than the MTO”
`
`Paice also argues that this limitation is not met by the engine graph of Fig. 5
`
`because it does not include an “ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE” mode. (POR at 33, n.
`
`5.) But as discussed, Ibaraki ’882 discloses modifying “the first embodiment...
`
`embodied as the data map shown in FIG. 11” using the Fig. 5 engine map. (Ex.
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:62-65.) In the very next column, Ibaraki ’882 discloses
`
`that the first embodiment may be further “modified to have the ENGINE-MOTOR
`
`DRIVE mode... which is selected when the vehicle load is comparatively high.”
`
`(Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ’882 at 26:29-33.) So contrary to Paice’s position, Ibaraki ’882
`
`teaches that an ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode can be used with the engine
`
`graph of Fig. 5. A PHOSITA would have also understood that comparatively high
`
`vehicle loads could either be at or slightly below the engine’s MTO. (Ex. 1465,
`
`Davis Reply at ¶¶35-40.) And as further shown below, a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood the Fig. 5 engine graph could operate the motor and engine when the
`
`amount of engine torque required to propel the vehicle (i.e., “road load”) is “more
`
`than the MTO” of the engine (i.e., comparatively high vehicle loads). (Ex. 1465,
`
`Davis Reply at ¶¶35-40.)
`
`Ex. 1403, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`C.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a setpoint substantially less than
`MTO
`
` Paice argues that it is improper for Ford to rely on Fig. 5 alone to claim the
`
`“0.7ηICEmax is less than 50% MTO.” (POR at 43.) But neither the claims nor the
`
`specification define “substantially less” as being any particular value, let alone a
`
`value that is 50% of MTO. The patent owner stated during prosecution that the
`
`limitation “substantially less than the MTO of the engine” is not a value that is
`
`“mathematically precise.” (Petition at 25.) The imprecision of this limitation is
`
`demonstrated by the claims of the ’347 Patent. For instance, claims 6 and 29 state
`
`that “setpoint” can be any value above 30% of MTO, i.e., a broad range of possible
`
`values. (Ex. 1401, ’347 Patent at Claims 6 and 29; see also Petition at 25-26.)
`
` Ford maintains Ibaraki ’882 meets this limitation. (Petition at 25-27.) First,
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses how an engine graph (Fig. 5) can be used to determine
`
`whether to operate the engine. (see Petition at 25.) While this graph may not
`
`include precise numerical values, it visually illustrates a “setpoint” that is
`
`approximately half the engine’s MTO.” (Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶298-300.)
`
`As discussed, “boundary line C” also represents a hyperbolic curve that is
`
`the upper-bound for an engine’s MTO in each transmission gear. (Ex. 1465, Davis
`
`Reply at ¶¶28-32.) A PHOSITA would have therefore understood that “boundary
`
`line B” would be “substantially less than …MTO.” (Ex. 1408, Davis at ¶¶301-
`
`305.)
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No: IPR2015-00794
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR6
`
`
`V. Ground 2: Claim 29 is obv