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.: IPR2015-00795
`
`______________
`
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`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 1-7: Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide and the knowledge of a
`PHOSITA renders the challenged claims unpatentable .................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`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 a setpoint substantially less than MTO ...........12
`
`3.
`
`V. Ground 2: Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of
`Koide, Frank, and the knowledge of a PHOSITA .........................................14
`
`A. As the Board has found, Frank discloses the hysteresis
`limitations ............................................................................................14
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882, Koide and Frank .........................14
`
`B.
`
`VI. Ground 3: Claim 16 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide,
`Kawakatsu and the knowledge of a PHOSITA .............................................15
`
`VII. Ground 4: Claim 20 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide,
`Vittone, and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ..................................................18
`
`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 ........18
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with Vittone ...............19
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Ibaraki ’882 and Vittone is
`incorrect ...............................................................................................20
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`VIII. Ground 5: Claim 19 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide,
`Yamaguchi, and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ...........................................21
`
`IX. Ground 6: Claim 22 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide,
`Ibaraki ’626, and the knowledge of a PHOSITA ..........................................21
`
`X. Ground 7: Paice’s arguments regarding the cruise control limitations
`of claim 14, and the rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with
`Lateur are not persuasive ...............................................................................22
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Lateur discloses the additional “cruise control” limitations ...............22
`Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with Lateur .................24
`
`XI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................24
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................26
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`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 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
`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
`
`
`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: IPR2015-00795
`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
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`’672 Patent
`SAE SP-1089
`SAE 1973
`
`
`
`Oct. 4, 1983
`
`
`
`Kawakatsu ’132
`
`

`
`
`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
`
`v
`
`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.
`
`

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

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`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 16-33.) Second,
`
`Paice argues that Ibaraki ’882 does not disclose or render obvious a “setpoint” that
`
`is substantially less than MTO. (POR at 34-37.)
`
`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. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at 20:58-65, emphasis added; Pet. at 9.)
`
`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, even though Paice disputes these findings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`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. (Ex. 1349, ’1416 Decision at 8-9; see also, Ex. 1347, ’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 11-14.) 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 the large number of 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 1 in order to address dependent claims that were neither
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`challenged nor addressed by the Board’s decisions in IPR2014-00571 and
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`IPR2014-00579.
`
`The Board may exercise its discretion in maintaining the current proceeding
`
`against the claim 1 because it is incorporated within the body of the presently
`
`challenged dependent claims 3-5, 14, 16, 19-20 and 22 “as a matter of
`
`dependency.” (See e.g., Ex. 1351, ’884 Decision at 15-16, n.11.)
`
`IV. Grounds 1-7: Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide and the knowledge of
`a PHOSITA 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. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at 8:37-43, 20:58-21:1, 23:66-24:30; Petition at 9, 19-
`
`23.) 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)
`
`
`1 Mr. Hannemann testified that Fig. 11 is the vehicle torque and speed as measured
`
`at the vehicle wheels. (Ex. 1361, Hannemann‘787 Dep. at 73:18-22.)
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`“above the second boundary line C” (blue).2 (Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at 20:58-21:1,
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`see also 23:66-24:30.)
`
`Ex. 1303, 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. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at
`
`23:66-24:30, emphasis added; see also Ex. 1361, 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
`
`
`2 Ibaraki ’882 also discloses how Fig. 5 can also be used to select when to operate
`
`the engine. (Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at 25:36-26:8.)
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`determining when to operate the engine. (Petition at 19-23; Ex. 1308, Davis at
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`¶¶169-178, 238-248.)
`
`Ex. 1303, 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. 1357, ’884 POR at 48-51.)
`
`(See also Ex. 1363, ’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. 1361, Hannemann ‘787 Dep. at 74:21-77:8.)
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`POR at 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition at 9
`
`
`
`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. 1365, Davis Reply at ¶¶3-14.)
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`POR at 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition at 9
`
`
`
`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. 1303, 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. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 8.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`graph in Fig. 5, the graphs are dramatically different.
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`
`POR at 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`But when one compares the alleged “road load-based control strategy” that
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1308, Davis at ¶252;
`
` Ex. 1303, 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 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1308, Davis at ¶252;
`
` Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ‘882 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`With reference to the engine graph control strategy illustrated by Fig. 5,
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`Ibaraki ’882 states that a “fuel consumption efficiency” threshold of “0.7ηICEmax” is
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`employed for determining when to operate the motor or engine. (Ex. 1303, 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. 1303, 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 19-20;
`
`Ex. 1303, 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 33.)
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`According to Paice, a PHOSITA would have understood “fuel consumption
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`efficiency” is expressed as measures of power, not torque and therefore do not
`
`render the claimed invention obvious.4 (POR at 33, Ex. 2306, Hannemann Dec. at
`
`¶71.)
`
`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. 1303, 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.
`
`1308, 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. 1308,
`
`Davis at ¶¶237-241.)
`
`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. 1308, Davis at ¶¶237-
`
`241.) 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. 1308, Davis at ¶¶110-123; Ex. 1333, Bumby at Fig. 1.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`point along the “0.7ηICEmax” threshold (setpoint) to determine whether to operate
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`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 related ’634 Patent is obvious based on
`
`the well-known (and undisputed) relationship between power and torque (i.e.,
`
`power = torque * speed).5 (Ex. 1349, ’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. 1363, ’1416 POR at 55-58.) The
`
`Board has found that component sizing is not part of the independent claims and
`
`“thus, is irrelevant.” (Ex. 1349, ’1416 Decision at 24.)
`
`Moreover, the challenged claims of the ‘347 Patent also do not require a
`
`constant-value “setpoint” at all vehicle or engine speeds. Mr. Hannemann
`
`illustrated examples of such variable setpoints below. (Ex. 1360,’884 Dep. at
`
`16:10-16:22; and 42:21-45:3; Ex. 1362.)
`
`
`5 Paice’s power-based argument also conflicts with the ’634 Patent which claims
`
`evaluating the “power required from the engine to satisfy the road load.” (See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1311, ’634 Patent at claims 302-306, emphasis added.)
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`Ex. 1362, Hannemann ’884 Dep.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`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 35.) But neither the claims nor the
`
`specification define “substantially less” as being any particular value, let alone a
`
`value that is 50% of MTO. Again, 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 22.) The imprecision of this limitation is
`
`demonstrated by the claims of the ‘347 Patent. Claims 6 and 29, for example, allow
`
`a setpoint anywhere above 30% of MTO. (Ex. 1301, ‘347 Patent at claims 6, 29.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Further, claim 1 of the related ’634 Patent also recites the “setpoint” being
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`“substantially less than the... MTO.” (Ex. 1311, ’634 Patent at claim 1.) Claim 15
`
`of the ‘634 Patent (which depends from claim 1) further recites that the “setpoint”
`
`can be any value “less than approximately 70% of the MTO.” (Ex. 1311, ’634
`
`Patent at Claim 15.) Claim 15 therefore acknowledges that any value from 0% to
`
`approximately 70% MTO satisfies a “setpoint” that is “substantially less than the
`
`... MTO.” (See Petition at 22.) So Paice’s argument that “substantially less” is
`
`limited to values that are “less than 50% of MTO” is contrary to the teachings of
`
`the ’347 and ’634 Patents.
`
` Ford maintains Ibaraki ’882 meets this limitation. (Petition at 22-24.) First,
`
`Ibaraki ’882 discloses how an engine graph (Fig. 5) can be used to determine
`
`whether to operate the engine. (See Petition at 23.) While this graph may not
`
`include precise numerical values, it visually illustrates a “setpoint” that is
`
`approximately half the engine’s MTO, i.e., less than “approximately 70%.” (Ex.
`
`1308, Davis at ¶¶250-258.)
`
`“Boundary line C” also represents a hyperbolic curve that is the upper-bound
`
`for an engine’s MTO in each transmission gear. (Ex. 1365, Davis Reply at ¶¶22-
`
`27) A PHOSITA would have therefore understood that “boundary line B” would
`
`be “substantially less than …MTO.” (Ex. 1308, Davis at ¶¶255-257.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`V. Ground 2: Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view
`of Koide, Frank, and the knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`A. As the Board has found, Frank discloses the hysteresis
`limitations
`
`Paice argues that “the proposed combination of Ibaraki ’882 and Koide with
`
`Frank fails to disclose or render obvious the road load-based hysteresis required by
`
`claims 3 and 4.” (POR at 38.) But the Board previously rejected this same
`
`argument for similar claims of U.S.P.N. 7,237,634 in IPR2015-01416.
`
`Severinsky’s disclosure of a torque-based setpoint for starting and
`
`stopping the engine, when combined with Frank’s teaching of a time-
`
`delay with an on-off threshold for an engine, would have suggested to
`
`a skilled artisan the features of claims 80 and 114.
`
`(Ex. 1349, ’1416 Decision at 22, emphasis in original.) Like Severinsky, and as
`
`explained above, Ibaraki ’882 discloses a control strategy that uses a “data map”
`
`for selecting operating modes based on the required “current vehicle drive torque
`
`and running speed.” (Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882 at 20:49-53; Petition at 9.) Frank
`
`discloses hysteresis strategies that utilize a time delay with an engine start/stop
`
`threshold to reduce excessive engine cycling. (See Petition at 32-33; Ex. 1308,
`
`Davis at ¶¶312-322.)
`
`B. Rationale to combine Ibaraki ’882, Koide and Frank
`
`Further, it is undisputed that time-based hysteresis techniques – such as
`
`those disclosed by Frank – were well-known and used in hybrid vehicles. (See Ex.
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`1308, Davis at ¶¶289-296; Ex. 1350, Hannemann ’1416 Dep. at 5:18-12:20.) It
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`would have therefore been obvious to apply well-known time-based hysteresis
`
`techniques to any control strategy, including the torque-based control strategy of
`
`Ibaraki ’882, to achieve known benefits and results (e.g., avoiding frequent on/off
`
`switching of the engine). (Ex. 1308, Davis at ¶¶289-291; See also Ex. 1349, ’1416
`
`Decision at 21-22.)
`
`VI. Ground 3: Claim 16 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide,
`Kawakatsu and the knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`Paice does not dispute that Kawakatsu’s HEV mode selection strategy
`
`discloses the limitations of claim 16, i.e., “wherein the total torque available at the
`
`road wheels from said internal combustion engine is no greater than the total
`
`torque available from said first and second electric motors combined.” (Petition at
`
`35-37; Ex. 1308, Davis at ¶¶347-353; Ex. 1305, Kawakatsu at Fig. 2, 4:31-42,
`
`4:58-5:2.) Paice limits its argument to the rationale to combine. (POR at 40-42.)
`
`Paice argues that Ford’s rationale to combine “fails to take into account the
`
`entirely differing control strategies of Ibaraki ’882 and Kawakatsu that would
`
`counsel against adopting the disproportionately large motor and small engine of
`
`Kawakatsu into Ibaraki ’882’s topology.” (POR at 41.)
`
`On the contrary, both Ibaraki ’882 and Kawakatsu disclose similar control
`
`strategies. Both Ibaraki ’882 and Kawakatsu disclose an ENGINE DRIVE mode in
`
`which the engine is operated in its most efficient operating region (i.e., low
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`specific fuel consumption), and acts alone to provide torque for propelling the
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`HEV. (Petition at 10, 36-37, Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882, 20:63-66, 24:11-16, Fig. 11;
`
`Ex. 1305, Kawakatsu at 4:31-42, Fig. 2, Region 4.) Both references also disclose a
`
`MOTOR DRIVE mode in which the motor alone is operated to provide torque for
`
`propelling the vehicle, when it would be inefficient to operate the engine. (Petition
`
`at 10, 36-37, Ex. 1303, Ibaraki ’882, 20:64-62, 24:6-11, Fig. 11; Ex. 1305,
`
`Kawakatsu at 4:58-5:2, Fig. 2, Region 2.) Both Ibaraki ’882 and Kawakatsu also
`
`disclose an ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode in which the engine and at least one
`
`motor are operated to provide torque for propelling the vehicle when the torque
`
`required exceeds the engines torque capabilities. (Petition at 10, Ex. 1303, Ibaraki
`
`’882, 20:66-21:1, 24:16-21, Fig. 11; Ex. 1305, Kawakatsu at 5:3-15, Fig. 2, Region
`
`3.)
`
`It was well-known that an HEV could use a smaller engine than a
`
`conventional vehicle due to the dual power sources (i.e., motor and engine), and
`
`use less fuel. (Ex. 1308, Davis at ¶¶80-86.) Therefore it would have been obvious
`
`to a PHOSITA to modify the base HEV architecture of Ibaraki ’882 to include a
`
`motor having a higher maximum torque output, as taught by Kawakatsu. Such a
`
`known technique (large motor and small engine) provides known benefits and
`
`results (e.g., less fuel consumption). (Petition at 34-35; Ex. 1308 Davis, ¶¶345-
`
`346.) And such a configuration would further the objective of the hybrid vehicle
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`disclosed in Ibaraki ‘882 to “permit[] effective reduction in the fuel consumption
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`amount or exhaust gas amount of the engine.” (Id.) Additionally, a PHOSITA that
`
`was designing an HEV capable of operating entirely in electric-mode, i.e., as a
`
`“zero-emission vehicle” (ZEV) to meet new emissions standards, would have been
`
`motivated to combine Ibaraki ’882’s base architecture and control strategy with
`
`Kawakatsu’s motor sizing technique to further such a ZEV. (Ex. 1365, Davis
`
`Reply at ¶¶29-33.)
`
`Paice argues that Ford did not explain how and why a PHOSITA would
`
`modify Ibaraki ’882’s control strategy. (POR at 42.) However, claim 16 is directed
`
`to the relative sizing between motors and the engine in an HEV, not any particular
`
`HEV mode selection strategy beyond the limitations of independent claim 1.
`
`Regardless, 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, a
`
`PHOSITA would have known to change these boundaries if they select a different
`
`engine. Such a modification to the boundaries only requires a simple software
`
`change. (Ex. 1365, Davis Reply Dec at ¶34.)
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00795
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0101IPR5
`
`
`VII. Ground 4: Claim 20 is obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Koide,
`Vittone, and the knowledge of a PHOSITA
`
`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
`
`Paice argues that Vittone discloses the “ramp-up of the engine due to its
`
`inherent transient characteristics” and not “a control strategy that controls the
`
`engine to limit the rate of change of the engine torque output.” (POR at 45,
`
`emphasis in original.) Paice made this same argument in IPR2014-00875,
`
`regarding the ’388 Patent, and the Board rejected it stating that “we are persuaded
`
`by Petitioner that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Vittone’s ‘steady state management’ of the thermal engine meets the limitation of
`
`the ‘rate of change of torque output of said engine is limited . . . .’” (Ex. 1352, ’875
`
`Decision at 12.)
`
`The record continues to support the Board’s conclusion. For example,
`
`Vittone discloses an “electronic control unit (ECU), which implements the working
`
`strategies of the vehicle” including “new control strategies in