throbber
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. IPR2015-00795
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List .................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses a torque based line ....................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses an engine MTO ..........................................................10
`
`III. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Frank,
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ............................17
`
`IV. Claim 16 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Kawakatsu
`’429, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ...................18
`
`V.
`
`Claim 20 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Vittone, and
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ...................................20
`
`
` 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 ..................................................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with Vittone ...............24
`
`1.
`
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone
`is incorrect .................................................................................24
`
`VI. Claim 19 is obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with
`Yamaguchi and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ........26
`
`VII. Claim 22 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Ibaraki ’626,
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ............................27
`
`VIII. Claim 14 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Lateur, and
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art ...................................27
`
`A.
`
`
`Rationale to combine ...........................................................................28
`
`IX. Conclusion .....................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1301
`1302
`1303
`1304
`1305
`1306
`
`1307
`1308
`1309
`
`1310
`
`1311
`1312
`
`1313
`1314
`
`1315
`
`1316
`
`1317
`1318
`1319
`
`1320
`
`1321
`1322
`1323
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`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
`Jun. 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
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`Suga ’104
`Kawakatsu ’429
`Jurgen
`
`Lateur ‘280
`Davis Dec.
`’095 Provisional
`
`’347 File History
`
`’634 Patent
`’634 Patent File
`History
`Toyota Litigation
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`
`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 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1324
`
`1325
`
`1326
`
`1327
`1328
`1329
`
`1330
`
`1331
`1332
`1333
`
`1334
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1331
`SAE SP-1156
`Bumby/Masding
`1988
`Sept. 30, 1979 HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`IEEE Ehsani 1996
`
`1335
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`1336
`
`1337
`
`1338
`
`1339
`1340
`
`1341
`1342
`1343
`
`1344
`1345
`1346
`
`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
`US Patent 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
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`’672 Patent
`SAE SP-1089
`SAE 1973
`
`
`
`Oct. 4, 1983
`
`
`
`Kawakatsu ’132
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1347
`
`1348
`
`1349
`
`1350
`
`1351
`
`1352
`
`1353
`
`1354
`
`1355
`
`1356
`
`1357
`
`1358
`
`1359
`
`1360
`
`1361
`
`1362
`
`1363
`
`1364
`
`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)
`Response,
`Patent Owner’s
`IPR2014-01416, Paper 17
`Deposition Transcript of Neil
`Hannemann for IPR2014-00571
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`10,
`
`Date
`December
`2015
`September 28,
`2015
`March 10, 2016
`
`Sept. 4, 2015
`
`10,
`
`December
`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 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1365
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`Description
`Reply Declaration
`Gregory Davis
`
`of Dr.
`
`Date
`
`
`Identifier
`Davis Reply
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`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. 2306, Hannemann 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 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1303, 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. 1358.1 Specifically, Ex. 1358 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. 1358 (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 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1358, Ehsani at 37, 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. 1358, Ehsani at 37.) 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 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1358 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 discloses an engine MTO
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that Paice argues boundary line C is not at or
`
`near an engine’s MTO, and therefore boundary line B is not substantially less than
`
`the engine’s MTO. But, Ibaraki ‘882 discloses a multigear “transmission 116” as
`
`located between the engine and the drive wheels.
`
`16.
`
`It is also my understanding that Paice has relied on Ex. 1358 (Ehsani
`
`textbook) to demonstrate the typical engine MTO curve.
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Ex. 1358 explains
`
`that
`
`it was known
`
`to use a “multigear
`
`transmission... to modify” the “torque-speed profile” (engine MTO curve) shown
`
`in Figure 2.11. (Ex. 1358, Ehsani at 38.) Ex. 1358 further states that how a
`
`transmission modifies the “torque-speed profile” is shown in “Figure 2.13.” (Ex.
`
`1358, Ehsani at 39.)
`
`18.
`
`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. 1358, Ehsani.)
`
`19. Shown below is “Figure 2.13” (Ex. 1358, Ehsani at 39) that 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
`
`
`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. 1316, Bosch Handbook at
`
`6-7.)
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`provide a low torque but can do so up to a much higher vehicle speed. (Ex. 1358,
`
`Ehsani at 39.)
`
`
`
`20. 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.
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`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. 1358 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. 1358, Ehsani at 40.)
`
`22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Figure 2.13
`
`(Ex. 1358, 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.
`
`Ex. 1358, Ehsani at Fig. 2.11 and 2.13
`
`23. As is further illustrated below, Figure 2.13 (Ex. 1358, Ehsani at 39)
`
`
`
`includes a dashed line (highlighted in yellow) that is the upper bound of each
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`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 represents the maximum torque output of the engine that can be
`
`provided to the wheels at any given vehicle speed.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1358, Ehsani at 39, Fig. 2.13 (annotated)
`
`24.
`
`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. 1359, 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
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`25. 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. 1358. A comparison is shown below.
`
`Ehsani (Ex. 1358)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 (Ex. 1303)
`
`26. While Ex. 1358 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
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`Bosch Handbook in 1976. (Ex. 1359.3) Ex. 13594 also explains that it was well
`
`known that without a transmission, the engine could “provide only little
`
`acceleration and exhibit unsatisfactory climbing ability.” (Ex. 1359, 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.
`
`
`3 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. 1359 at 3) is simply the
`
`Tractive Torque at the wheel divided by the rolling radius of the wheel. (See Ex.
`
`1316, Bosch Handbook at 6-7; see also Ex. 1359, Bosch Handbook 1976 at 3;
`
`explaining that “M = F*r,” where M = torque, F = force, r = radius.)
`
`4 Ex. 1359 (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 16 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1359, Bosch Handbook 1976 at 3
`
`27. 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.
`
`III. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Frank,
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`28.
`
`See ¶¶281-338 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1308, Davis Dec.)
`
`Page 17 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`IV. Claim 16 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, Kawakatsu ’429,
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`29.
`
`I explained the reasons to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with
`
`Kawakatsu ’429 in ¶¶345-346 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1308, Davis Dec.)
`
`30. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been further
`
`motivated to combine the base architecture and control strategy of Ibaraki ’882
`
`with Kawakatsu’s known motor sizing technique (relatively large motor and small
`
`engine) to design a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV). In September 1990 the California
`
`Air Resource Board (CARB) enacted the Clear Air Act, which required that 52%
`
`of all vehicles sold in California be either low-emission vehicles (LEV’s)—48%,
`
`ultralow-emission vehicles (ULEV’s)—2%, or zero-emission vehicles (ZEV’s)—
`
`2%, by 1998. (Ex. 1337, IEEE Ehsani 1997 at 1.) Ehsani also notes that other
`
`states and nations were considering similar requirements. Id. For example, Vittone
`
`describes trends in Europe to include “city centers with mobility restricted to ZEV
`
`vehicles.” (Ex. 1320, Vittone at 24.) Electric vehicles were often classified as such
`
`“ZEVs.” (Ex. 1337, IEEE Ehsani 1997 at 1.) However, a HEV that was capable of
`
`operating entirely in electric-mode (i.e., the APU is not used) was referred to as
`
`“ZEV-operation-capable.” (Ex. 1338, An at 8.)
`
`31. An further explains that HEVs have various operational strategies,
`
`including: charge-sustaining, charge-depleting and zero emission vehicle (ZEV)
`
`Page 18 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`capability. (Ex. 1338, An at 8.) An also discloses that the sizing of the electric
`
`motor determines whether or not the HEV is capable of ZEV Operation. (Id.)
`
`32. Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art, who wanted to design a
`
`HEV to target such a ZEV classification, would have sized the motor so that the
`
`vehicle was capable of operating entirely in electric-mode.
`
`33. As I explained in my first declaration, a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that the combination of Kawakatsu’s large motor
`
`with Ibaraki ’882’s base architecture and control strategy allows for use of a
`
`smaller engine in the hybrid vehicle – a smaller engine, which will use less fuel
`
`and emit less exhaust fumes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known that increasing the motor and decreasing engine in a HEV would have
`
`resulted in packaging modifications and potentially changing the battery capacity.
`
`Further, such ZEV operation capability would require a battery that was large
`
`enough to provide the desired ZEV range without needing a recharge.
`
`34. Further, since Ibaraki ’882 discloses a control strategy with
`
`boundaries B and C that are based on the limits of the efficient operating range of
`
`the engine (Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at 20:49-21:20), a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known to change these boundaries if a different engine was selected
`
`to best use the efficient operating range of the new engine. And a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been capable and knowledgeable to make such
`
`Page 19 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`a software change to incorporate new boundaries based on the large motor and
`
`small engine disclosed by Kawakatsu. (See e.g., Ex. 1305, Kawakatsu ‘429, Fig.
`
`2.) Figure 11 of Ibaraki ’882, including boundaries B and C, is reproduced below:
`
`Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882, Fig. 11
`
`
`
`
`V. Claim 20 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide, 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
`
`35.
`
`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. 2306, Hannemann Declaration at ¶¶89-91, 101.)
`
`36. 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
`
`Page 20 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1320, Vittone, Figure 8 (annotated)
`
`
`
`37. 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.
`
`Page 21 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`
`38. 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
`
`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.
`
`39. 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.
`
`Page 22 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`
`40. 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
`
`rate of change of engine output torque is limited to a threshold value. (Ex. 1355,
`
`Hannemann ‘875 Dep., 18:4-19:18.)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1355, Hannemann ’875 Dep., Ex. 2 at 2 (annotated in original)
`
`41. 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,
`
`Page 23 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`I would assume that it would follow the road load.” (Ex. 1355, Hannemann ‘875
`
`Dep. at 18:18-19:4.)
`
`42. 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
`
`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.
`
`43. Thus, Vittone’s Figure 8 discloses “wherein the rate of change of
`
`torque produced by said engine is limited,” as required by claim 20.
`
` Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with Vittone
`B.
`
`44.
`
`I described the rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with
`
`Vittone in ¶¶354-365 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1308, Davis Dec.)
`
`
`1.
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone is
`incorrect
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`2306, Hannemann Declaration, at ¶¶104-107.) Further, I understand Paice argues
`
`the Vittone discloses that the driver uses a switch to select between the electric and
`
`hybrid modes. (Ex. 2306, Hannemann Declaration, at ¶106.)
`
`Page 24 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`
`
`46. 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. 1308, Davis Dec at ¶¶237-248.)
`
`47. 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. 1320, 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. 1320, 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.
`
`Page 25 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`To assure a good driveability of the vehicle:
`
`* * *
`
`- 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. 1320, Vittone at 26-27, emphasis added.)
`
`48. 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).
`
`VI. Claim 19 is obvious in view of Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with Yamaguchi
`and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`49.
`
`I described the rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with
`
`Yamaguchi in ¶¶388-390 of my first declaration. (Ex. 1308, Davis Dec.)
`
`50. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that modifying
`
`the base-control strategy in Ibaraki ’882 to implement Yamaguchi’s control
`
`strategy to rotate the engine before starting would have been a simple software
`
`modification without having to modify the hybrid vehicle architecture disclosed by
`
`Ibaraki ’882. And a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`capable and knowledgeable to make such a software change.
`
`Page 26 of 29
`
`
`
`FORD 1365
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docke

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket