`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`Petitione1',
`
`V.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`US. Patent No. 7,237,634 to Severinsky er at.
`IPR Case No.
`IPR201-4-0078?
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT‘ OF
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Page 1 of 30
`
`_
`
`_
`
`FORD 1809
`
`PAICE 2417
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2015-00794
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`lPR20l5—0U?87
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List ................................................................................................ ..3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Ibaraki ‘S82 discloses a torque based line ..................................................... ..7
`
`lbaraki ‘S82 compares road load to MTO ................................................... .. 10
`
`A.
`
`Figure 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine when
`“road load” is “more than MT ” ...................................................... ..2l
`
`The combination of Ibaraki "882 and Vittone teaches “controlling the
`engine” by “li1'nitiI1g a rate of change of torque output of the engine”
`“to achieve stoichiometry” .......................................................................... ..23
`
`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
`
`l.
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone
`is incorrect ............................................................................... ..27
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... ..30
`
`Page 2 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`lPR20l5-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Descri a tion
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`’634 Patent
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`
`Vittone
`
`July 3, 2007
`Sept. 2014
`Au. 4, 1998
`
`1994
`
`Feb. 23, 1996
`
`2013-2014
`
`Yamaguchi
`Davis Dec.
`To ota Litigation
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`Exhibit
`
`No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`Ford Letter to Paice
`U.S. Patent No. 5,789,882
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263
`
`Oreste Vittone er al., FIAT
`
` Research Centre, Ffat
`C0n.c'epi‘ual Approach to Hybrid
`
`Car Design,” 12”’ (International
`Electric Vehicle Symposium,
`1994)
`
`Declaration of Grego Davis
`
`
`
`Toyota Litigations
`
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`
`
`1755
`1756
`1757
`
` PTAB Decisions & Preliminary
`Response in 2014-00571
`
`7,237,634 File Histoiy (certified)
`History
`’347 File History Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347 File
`
`Set. 12, 2006
`
`’634 Patent File
`
`’347 Patent
`
`Unnewellr
`Bumby 1988
`
`
` n/a
`
`I1/a
`
`
`
`History
`
`U.S. Patent No.7,104,347
`
`
`
`1763
`
`1764
`1765
`
`SAE 760121 (Unnewehr~'1976)
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Microprocessor Design for HEV Sept. 1, 1988
`(Bumb -1988)
`SAE SP"-1331 (1993)
`Innovations in Design: 1993
`Ford Hybrid Electric Vehicle
`Challene
`
`Feb. 1993
`Feb. 1994
`
`1766
`
`1996 & 1997 Future Car
`
`Feb. 1997 &
`
`1767
`
`Challenge
`Introduction to Automotive
`
`Feb. 1998
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`Powertrain (Davis)
`
`1768
`
`U.S. Application 60-100095
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`
`’O95 Provisional
`
`Page 3 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`Date
`
`1998
`
`Identifier
`Wakefield
`
`Feb. 1, 1992
`
`Burke 1992
`
`No.
`1769
`
`1770
`
`1771
`
`Descri _u tion
`History of Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle (Wal<efielcl—l998)
`
`SAE 920447 (Burke~l992)
`
`
`
`Vehicle Tester for HEV (Duoba— Aug. 1, 1997
`1997)
`
`1772
`
`DOE Report to Congress (1994) April 1995
`
`1773
`
`1774
`
`SAE SP—1. 156 (1996)
`
`Feb. 1996
`
`DOE HEV Assessment (1979)
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`1775
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`W0 9323263A1 (Field)
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi~l998)
`
`r"NoV. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Conress
`SAE SP-1156
`
`HEV Assessment
`1979
`
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`9323263
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`
`1776
`1777
`
`1778
`
`1779
`
`1780
`
`1781
`
`1782
`
`1783
`
`1784
`1785
`1786
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Automotive Electronics
`
`US Patent 6,209,672
`
`Aril 3, 2001
`
`’672 Patent
`
`Propulsion System for Design
`for EV (Ehsani-1996)
`
`Propulsion System Design for
`I-IEV (Ehsani—l997)
`Bosch Automotive Handbook
`
`(1996)
`
`1996
`
`IEEE Eshani 1996
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`IEEE Eshani I997
`_
`Bosch Handbook
`
`SAE SP—1089 (Anderson—l995)
`
`Feb. 1995
`
`SAE SP—1089
`
`Aug. 11, 1998
`
`A11 1998
`
`l
`
`
`Critical Issues in Quantifying
`
`HEV Emissions (An 1998)
`Gregory Davis Resume
`
`July 12, 1994
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,992
`
`Sept. 6, 1994
`US Patent 5,343,970
`
`Bumby, JR. et al. “Optimisation Nov. 1987
`
`and control of a hybrid electric
`car” — IEE Proc. A 1987, 134(6)
`
`Paice Comlaint
` Feb. 25, 2014
`
`
`B011
`Severinsky ’970
`Bumby II
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1997
`
`
`
`
`Handbook (Jurgen)
`Engineering Fundamentals of the
`Internal Combustion Engine
`(Pulkrabek)
`
`Page 4 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`IPR2015—00787
`
`Case No.:
`
`No.‘
`
`Descri ntion
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Final Decision, IPR20l4—00904, December 10,
`
`’904 Decision
`
`Paper 41
`Final Decision, IPR20l4~0057l,
`Pa er 44
`
`2015
`September 28,
`2015
`
`’57l Decision
`
`Final Decision, IPR2014—01416, March 10, 2016
`Paer 26
`
`’l4l6 Decision
`
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`
`Hannemann for IPR2014-01416
`Final Decision, IPR2014—00884, December 10,
`
`Sept. 4, 2015
`
`2015
`Paper 38
`Final Decision, IPR2014—O0875, November 23,
`Pa 1 er 38
`2015
`
`De.
`’884 Decision
`
`’875 Decision
`
`Final Decision, IPR2014-01415, March 10, 2016
`
`’ 1415 Decision
`
`Paper 30
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014~00570 .
`
`April 8, 2015
`'
`
`Hannemann ’570
`' De .
`
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR20l4—O0875
`Exhibit 2 from depositionof Neil April 30, 2015
`Hannernann for IPR20 l4~O0875
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`Hannemann ’875
`Dep.
`'875 Dep. Exhibit
`
`1801
`
`1802-
`
`1804
`
`1805
`
`1806
`
`Patent Owner’s Response,
`IPR2014—00884, Paper 19
`Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric
`and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannernann for IPR2014—00884
`
`I Deposition Transcript of Neil
`
`Hannemann for IPR2014—0O787
`Exhibit 12 from Deposition
`Transcript of Neil Hannemann
`(IPR2014+0O884)
`
`March 10, 2015
`
`’884 POR
`
`2005
`
`1976
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`April 27, 2016
`
`April 30, 2015
`
`Elisani
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`1976
`
`I-Iannemann ‘S84
`Dep.
`
`Hannemann ’787
`
`De.
`‘S84 Dep. Exhibit
`
`' 1807
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’,s Response,
`IPR20l4—01416, Paper 17
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014—00571
`
`June 17, 2015
`
`’ 1416 POR ..
`
`_
`
`April 7, 2015
`
`Hannemann ’571
`Dep.
`
`Page 5 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPRZUIS-DOTS?
`
`Attorney Docket No. F1’-’GP0104IPR5
`
`
` Description Date
`
`
` Reply Declaration of D1‘.
`
`Gregory Davis
`
`Identifier
`
`Davis Reply
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR2015—00?8'.*'
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPO104IPR5
`
`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 Panes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,237,634 (“the ’634 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 ‘S82 is a “power curve.” (see e.g., Ex. 2706, Hann. Decl. at ‘fl53.) 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 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`[PR20l5—O{)'r'87'
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPO l 04113115
`
`Lonsiamtftatl pomon oi‘
`
`"\.'E|u:Iedrluet-3rqi.»a'
`
`
`
`
`
`VEHICLEDFIIVETORQUE
`
`Hyperbol lca |iv,r sloping
`portion of "vehicle drive
`torque"
`
`
`
`
`VEHICLE SPEED
`
`EX. 1752, 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. 2711 that I understand was introduced by the Patent Owner with its
`
`response. Specifically, Ex. 2711 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.
`
`Page 8 of 30
`
`FORD 1309
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`lPR20l5—00?'87
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l{}4IPRS
`
`Power
`
`Torque
`
`Speed
`
`Ex. 2711 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. 2711 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 hype1'bolically” the
`
`power line is constant (flat). (Ex. 2711 at 14.)
`
`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 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR20I5—0{)7S7'
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPRS
`
`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. 2711 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 01' possibly less than
`
`the MTO of an engine. (Ex. l755, Davis Dec. at 91238.)
`
`Page 10 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No: IPRZUIS-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPOI 04IPR5
`
`17.
`
`Again, it is my understanding that Paice has introduced Ex. 2711 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. 2706,
`
`Hannemann Declaration at 9185.)
`
`18.
`
`But it is my opinion that Ex. 2711 illustrates that Mr. I-Iaiinemantfs
`
`overlay graph is not accurate with respect to Figure I1’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. Hannematul is a graph of en.gr’ne
`
`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” lllLlSt1"c1lZlI1g the vehicle torque versus vehicle speed, as highlighted below.
`
`Page 11 of 30
`
`FORD 1309
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR2015—00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l{}41PR5
`
`Paice’s Illustration
`
`Tnrrluc ENn1l
`
`lbaraki ‘882
`
`Eng‘i‘fi‘e‘é“’5'E:"i5§ed
`
`
`
`EngineTorque
`
`.000
`
`2.100
`
`-30
`
`mm
`
`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. 2706,
`
`Hannemann Declaration at ‘]I‘][84-85.)
`
`
`
`I E
`
`i i
`
`i
`
`Ex. 2706, Hannemann Declaration at ‘I[85
`
`Page 12 of 30
`
`.
`
`_
`
`xv.
`
`.
`
`.t.
`.‘-.‘v
`
`_
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR20l5~00?S'!'
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP(}lG4IPR5
`
`22.
`
`A person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand M1‘.
`
`I-lannemannis graph as being incorrect
`
`is because Ibaraki
`
`’882 discloses a
`
`“transmission 116” being included between the engine and drive wheels. (Ex.
`
`1752, Ibaraki ’882 at 19:23-33.)
`
`ELEGTHIO EH EH6‘!
`STORAGE DEVICE
`
`ESNGWE BRAKJNG
`
`Ex. 1752, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 8
`
`23.
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would there'fore understand
`
`that the engine’s torque and speed would be modified by the “transmission U6”
`
`and the corresponding “vehicle drive torque” and “vehicle speed” would be based
`
`on the particular gear ratio of the transmission.
`
`24.
`
`Ex. 2711 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 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR20l5-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`2711 at 15.) Ex. 2711 further states that how a tiansmission modifies the “torque-
`
`speed profile” is shown in “Figure 2.13.” (Ex. 2711 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. 1802, Ehsani.')
`
`26.
`
`Shown below is “Figure 2.13” which was discussed on page 15 of Ex.
`
`2711. (Ex. 1802, Ehsani 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?
`
`For instance, in first (15') gear, the engine provides the greatest torque to the wheels
`
`at a low vehicle speed. On the other hand, in fourth (film) gear the engine torque
`
`' Ex. 1802 (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.
`
`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—
`
`in) divided by the rolling radius of the wheel. (see Ex. 1781, Bosch Handbook at 6»
`
`7.)
`
`Page 14 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: TPRZIOIS-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0lO4IPR5
`
`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. 1802, Ehsani at 39.)
`
`-h
`
`(.0
`
`M
`
`
`
`Tractiveeffononwheel{km
`
`00
`
`20
`
`40
`
`100 120 140 160 180 200
`BO
`80
`Vehicle speed (krnm)
`
`_
`_
`FIGURE 2.13
`Tractive effort of internal combustion engine and :1 multigear transmission vehicle vs. vehicle
`speed
`
`27.
`
`The above figure illustrates what was commonly known to a person
`
`having ordinary skill. For instance, a person driving a n1anual-transmission vehicle
`
`would have understood that 1“ gear cannot be used to drive vehicles at higher
`
`speeds (e.g., driving oil
`
`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., 4"‘ 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.‘
`
`_.&.
`
`Page 15 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`lPR20l5-00?87
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104iPR5
`
`28.
`
`It was also well-known to a person having ordinary skil.l_
`
`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
`
`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. I802, Ehsani at 40; Ex. 2711 at 15.)
`
`29.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Figure 2.13
`
`(Ex. 1802, Ehsani 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.
`
`_
`E"'B'"‘°-' M70
`
`Torque
`
`300
`
`'E*
`E.
`240 s
`E
`O
`;—
`
`100
`
`so
`
`'5
`2
`
`53 40
`
`Specific fuel
`
`0
`1000
`
`1
`000
`
`2
`
`1
`I
`3000
`Speed{|.pn:)m0
`
`I
`5000
`
`Engine MTD
`as modified by each gear
`of the transmission
`
`Upper boundary that limits
`engine's MTO at the drive wheels
`
`2
`f.
`._
`G)
`
`1:
`°
`
`‘“
`
`___§% E
`(I?
`310 § 2'
`2;
`D.
`270%;
`§
`U
`
`E
`
`
`
`0
`
`20
`
`40
`
`120 140 160 180 200
`100
`30
`60
`Vehicle speed (kmfh)
`
`Ex. 1802, Ehsani at Fig. 2.11 and 2.13
`
`30.
`
`As is further illustrated below, Figure 2.13 (Ex. 1802, Ehsani at 39)
`
`includes a dashed line (highlighted in yellow) that
`
`is the upper bound of each
`
`Page 16 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.: LPR20l 5-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPO I04IPR5
`
`individual MTO curve that has been modified by the transinission 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 represents the maximum torque output of the engine that can be
`
`provided to the wheels at any given vehicle speed.
`
`engine MTO in 1“geat'
`
`2nd gear
`engine MTO in 2”“ gear
`
`'\
`
`3rd gear
`engine MTO in 3rd gear
`E
`41h gfigihe MTO in
`--.
`*-
`4"‘ gear
`
`
`
`
`
`Tractiveeffortonwheel(KN)
`
`0
`
`20
`
`40
`
`60
`
`80
`
`100
`
`120 140 160 180 200
`
`Vehicle speed (km/h)
`
`Ex. 1802, 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
`
`Page 17 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR20l5-0078?
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0lO4lPR5
`
`in yellow could be attained over a range of gear ratios.
`
`(Ex.
`
`l803,3 Bosch
`
`Handbook 1976 at 3.) In other words, the dashed line would be the engine’s MTO
`
`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. ll 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. 271 l. A comparison is shown below.
`
`3 Ex. 1803 (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 18 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-0078?
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPO l04lPR5
`
`Ehsani (Ex. 2711)
`
`Ibaraki '88}!
`
`
`
`-
`s
`c:
`s
`as
`:1:
`3
`
`E.
`
`EG)E3
`
`5
`r
`,2
`-v
`S
`Q
`,:
`
`
`
`20
`
`40
`
`‘I40 160 180 200
`‘[20
`100
`80
`60
`Vahlcle speed {kmfl1)
`
`VEHICLE SPEED
`
`33. While Ex. 2711 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. 18034.) Ex. 1803 also explains that it was well
`
`known that without a transmission,
`
`the engine could
`
`provide only little
`
`(I
`
`acceleration and exhibit unsatisfactory climbing ability.” (Ex. 1803, 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
`
`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. 1803 at 3) is simply the
`
`Tractive Torque at the wheel divided by the rolling radius of the wheel.
`
`(see Ex.
`
`1781, Bosch Handbook at 6-7; See also Ex. 1803 at 3; explaining that “M = F*r,”
`
`where M = torque, F = force, 1' = radius.)
`
`Page 19 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`[PR2Ul5-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPOI 04IPR5
`
`modified and will be far below the hyperbolic “ideal tractive force liyperbola”
`
`curve illustrated below at most vehicle speeds.
`
`Ideal tractive
`
`force hyperbole
`, , -'. ;-- .-'3
`9;
`, ’
`sparkignitlon engine with
`speed transmission
`30%
`
`"9 Diesel engine with
`speed lransmis sion
`
`Plpvmax
`
`Performance man
`
`Vl1'Inu..\
`
`Ex. 1803, 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 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR20I5~00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`A.
`
`Figure 5 also discloses operating the motor and engine when “road
`load” is “more than MT0”
`
`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.
`
`1755, Davis at ‘][‘]I218—2l9; Ex. I752, 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 ‘S82 also contemplates the
`
`engine graph of Figure 5 could be used for selecting the “ENGINEMOTOR
`
`DRIVE” mode.
`
`ENGINEMDTOR DRIVE mode
`
`Engine MTG
`
`ENGINEDRIVE mode
`
`TORQUETE
`
`ENGINE
`
`ENGINE SPEED NE
`
`Ex. 1752, ibaruki '882 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`37.
`
`Specifically, Ibaraki ’88?. described the modification as applying to
`
`the “first embodiment.” Then, Ibaraki ’88?. also explains that the first embodiment
`
`may be further “modified to have the ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode... which is
`
`Page 21 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR20l5—00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPOl04IPR5
`
`selected when the vehicle load is comparatively hi gh.” (Ex. 1752, Ibaraki ’882 at
`
`26:28-33.)
`
`38.
`
`Based on this disclosure,
`
`it
`
`is my opinion that a person having
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that Figure 5 could further include a
`
`“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 in ‘H34 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. 1755, Davis at ‘][‘j[240-243, 129-134; Ex. I762,
`
`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 diive 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 fl[31—33.
`
`Page 22 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`lPR20l5—0078?
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGPDIO-4IPR5
`
`III. The combination of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone teaches “controlling the
`engine” by “limiting a rate of change of torque output of the engine” “to
`achieve stoichiometry”
`
`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. (I-Iannemann Declaration, Ex. 2706 at ‘][l04.)
`
`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 (t.-13) and (t4~t5), because the engine
`
`output torque (green) lags the driveability torque requirement
`
`(yellow) in these
`
`phases.
`
`Page 23 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR20l5—0078'r'
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`m
`
`Rapid accelerationz
`
`Rapid
`
`FIGURE 8
`
`DRIVING TORQUE HANAGEMENT
`
`Ex. 1753, 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 t, and t; that is labeled as Rapid accelerationl. The
`
`steady state management of the engine in response to Rapid accelerationl
`
`is
`
`illustrated by the slope of the ENGINE TORQUE curve (t'.e., the “rate ofchange of
`
`torque output ofthe engine”) between tI and t3.
`
`I
`
`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 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR20l5-OUTS?
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPRS
`
`REQUIREMENTS curve (t'.e., the rate of change of “mad 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 07.6.,
`
`the “rate of change of torque output o_f'n'1e
`
`engine”) between t4 and t5.
`
`45.
`
`As shown above in the annotated Figure 8 of Vittone, Rapid
`
`accelerationl
`
`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 output of the 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 acceleration] or Rapid
`
`accelerationl. 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 ’634 Patent includes a similar graph illustrating the -
`
`engine output
`
`torque during transient conditions. During a deposition, Mr.
`
`Hannernann described Figure 7 of the related 38% Patent, which is the same as
`
`Figure 7 of the ’634 Patent, and circled regions (shown in red below) where the
`
`Page 25 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`IPR20l5—00'r'87
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR5
`
`rate of change of engine output torque is limited to a threshold value. (Ex. 1799,
`
`Hannemann ’8'75 Deposition Transcript, l8:4—19:l8.)
`
`F5
`E”
`’-:1Q3
`83F9
`
`g
`:
`.4-
`
`§
`
`33O
`
`h
`
`E
`
`F216. 7(0)
`
`Rom LONE} ta‘/.
`0% MM. Eucaue
`1oRQ,uE out em
`
`(°!.M1c‘:
`
`/-7'6.7{b)
`Ed-JTERY BANK
`3'1 rm:-_ nr- cu NREE
`Lest}
`
`§
`v
`t
`.
`K,
`/-76. M; M
`F
`r
`I
`V
`;
`
`.T.1—r////2-W a
`enema womut W
`ouwur
`0 ' - 8
`.
`38!19
`.
`
`Ex. 1800, Hannemann ’875 Deposition 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.” (Fax. 1799, Hannemann ’8'75
`
`Deposition Transcript, at 18:18-19:43
`
`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 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 1PR20l5-00787
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`and a “road load” (:'.e., the torque required for propulsion of the vehic]_e) 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 “h'm.ir:'r:g a rate ofc/range ofrorque
`
`output Qfthe en.gin.e,” as required by claim 24}.
`
`1.
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone is
`incorrect
`
`50.
`
`It is my understanding that Paice is arguing a person of ordinaiy skill
`
`in the art would not have combined lbaraki ’882 and Vittone because Ibaraki ‘S82
`
`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.
`
`2706, Hannemann Declaration, at ‘][108.) Fuither, I understand Paice argues the
`
`Vittone discloses that the driver uses a switch to select between the electric and
`
`hybrid modes. (Ex. 2706, Hannemann Declaration, at ‘J[109.)
`
`51.
`
`As explained in my first declaration, Ibaraki ‘E382 teaches operating
`
`the engine based on “RL”,
`
`r'.e., the “torque required to propel the vehicle” — not
`
`_based solely on power. (Ex. 1755, Davis Dec at ‘][‘][l64—l72.)
`
`52.
`
`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. 1753, Vittone at 24.) Accordingly, one of the
`
`Page 27 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`lPR20l5-OOYST
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104lPR5
`
`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. 1753, 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, discrirnjnating 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:
`
`- the torgue splitting between the two drivelines occurs automatically.
`
`Therefore the driveability is totally similar to that of a conventional
`
`vehicle with manual gearbox.
`
`(Ex. 1753, Vittone at 26-27, emphasis added.)
`
`Page 28 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`mg]
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR20l5-00‘F8?
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP01(}4IPR5
`
`53.
`
`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 the motor, or both the engine and the motor simultaneously).
`
`Page 29 of 30
`
`FORD 1809
`
`
`
`Case N0.: IPR20l5-00?87
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0l04IPR5
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion, all
`
`tl1e elements of the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable in View of the references discussed above. For the reasons presented
`
`above, it is my opinion that