`
`Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`v.
`Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`Before Sally C. Medley, Jameson Lee, Kalyan K. Deshpande, and Carl
`M. DeFranco, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT 2317
`Ford v. Paice & Abell
`IPR2015-00795
`
`
`
`Agenda
`
`Three Groups
`
`I.
`
`IPR2015-00722, -00784, -00787, -00790, -00791,
`-00794, -00795
`
`II.
`
`IPR2015-00606, -00799
`
`III.
`
`IPR2015-00758, -00785, -00792, -00800, -00801
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent/Technology Overview
`
`3
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`
`Starter motor
`
`Engine
`
`Traction Motor
`
`See e.g. IPR ’722, Paper No. 19, POR at 5-6.
`
`4
`
`Controller
`
`Battery
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`
`The hybrid electric vehicle of the
`Paice Patents can be operated in
`various “modes,” i.e. different
`combinations of the motor, engine,
`or both, to propel the vehicle:
`
`Mode I: motor only propulsion
`
`Mode II: motor propulsion,
`engine charges the battery
`
`Mode IV: engine propulsion
`
`Mode V: engine and motor
`propulsion
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 5-6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`
`In a number of embodiments, switching between these modes depends
`on an innovative system that compares the “road load” (depicted as a
`solid line in the example from Fig. 7) to a “setpoint.”
`
`Engine + motor
`propulsion
`
`Engine propulsion
`
`Motor only propulsion
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 5.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`
`employing said at least one
`electric motor to propel said
`vehicle when the torque RL
`required to do so is less
`than said lower level SP;
`
`employing said engine to
`propel said vehicle when the
`torque RL required to do so
`is between said lower level
`SP and MTO;
`
`’347 Patent, Claim 23
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 7.
`
`’347 Patent, Fig. 9.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`
`“The rate of change of the
`engine's torque output is
`limited, e.g., to 2% or less
`per revolution, as indicated
`by noting that the dashed
`line in FIG. 7(a), indicating
`the instantaneous engine
`output torque, lags the solid
`line indicating the vehicle's
`instantaneous torque
`requirement. Thus limiting
`the rate of change of engine
`output torque is preferred to
`limit undesirable emissions
`and improve fuel economy”
`
`’097 Patent at 38:62-39:1
`
`’097 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`See e.g., IPR ’792, Paper No. 16, POR at 3.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Claim Construction
`
`9
`
`
`
`Previous Claim Constructions
`
`Claim term
`
`Board’s Construction
`
`Patent Owners’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`“road load”
`
`same
`
`“the amount of
`instantaneous torque
`required to propel the
`vehicle, be it positive or
`negative.”
`
`“setpoint (SP)”
`
`“predetermined torque
`value that may or may
`not be reset.”
`
`“a definite, but potentially
`variable value at which a
`transition between operating
`modes may occur.”
`
`10
`
`
`
`New Claim Constructions
`
`Claim term
`
`Patent Owners’ Proposed Construction
`
`“operating at least one
`electric motor to propel
`the hybrid vehicle when
`the RL required to do so
`is less than a setpoint
`(SP)” and like terms
`
`“operating at least one [first] electric motor to
`propel the hybrid vehicle when a comparison of
`the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a
`determination that the RL required to do so is less
`than a SP.”
`
`See, e.g., IPR 722, Paper No. 18, POR at 11-17.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Standards
`
`Claims must be read in light of the specification as it
`would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`The construction must not be “divorced from the
`specification and the record evidence” and
`inconsistent with “the one that those skilled in the art
`would reach.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 6-7.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Comparison Terms
`
`‘634 Patent, claim 16
`
`‘347 Patent, claim 23
`
`13
`
`
`
`Comparison Terms
`
`FIG. 9 thus shows the main decision
`points of the control program run by the
`microprocessor, with the transition point
`between mode I, low-speed operation, and
`mode IV highway cruising, set at a road
`load equal to 30% of MTO.
`
`‘634 Patent at col. 41:59-62
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 14-15.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Comparison Terms
`
`The Board acknowledges that the Paice Patents compare road load to
`setpoint.
`
`See, e.g., IPR 722, Paper No. 13, Inst. Dec. at 3.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Comparison Terms
`
`Ford admits that the claims of the Paice Patents require a comparison of
`road load to setpoint.
`
`See, e.g., IPR 722, Paper No. 1, Pet. at 11.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Group 1: IPR2015-00722, -00784, -00787, -00790,
`-00791, -00794, -00795
`
`17
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Two Paice Patents: the ’634 and ’347 patents
`
`One primary prior art reference: U.S. Patent
`No. 5,789,882 (“Ibaraki '882”)
`
`18
`
`
`
`Introduction to the ’634 Patent
`
`See, e.g., IPR 784, Paper No. 17, POR at 15.
`
`19
`
`‘634 Patent, claim 16
`
`
`
`Introduction to the ’347 Patent
`
`See, e.g., IPR 794, Paper No. 16, POR at 9.
`
`20
`
`‘347 Patent, claim 23
`
`
`
`Introduction to Ibaraki '882
`
`Discloses three primary
`modes:
`
`Motor only
`Engine only
`Motor + Engine
`
`Switches modes based on
`power-based comparisons.
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 19-22.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Paice Patents
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 9, 14.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 19-22.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Power and torque are different
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Q: That's my point. The passage you cite
`talks about 60 to 90 percent of its maximum
`power over a wide range of vehicle speeds,
`right?
`
`Dr. Davis: Correct.
`
`Q: And that is a different concept than
`percent of its maximum torque, correct?
`
`Dr. Davis: Depends how you do the
`calculation.
`
`Q: But it is different.
`
`Dr. Davis: Well, power and torque are
`different.
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 21 (citing Ex. 2262, Davis Tr. at 184:14-24).
`
`24
`
`
`
`Power and torque are different
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Dr. Davis: Well, torque and power are
`related, as we've discussed before.
`
`Q. But they're not the same thing,
`right?
`
`Dr. Davis: Definitely not, they're not
`the same thing.
`
`Q. But torque and power are different
`correct?
`
`Dr. Davis: Yes, they are.
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 21 (citing Ex. 2262, Davis Tr. at 155:11-23, 166:3-17).
`
`25
`
`
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`10.5 kw of power
`
`Speed (RPMs)
`
`Torque (Nm)
`
`1000
`
`2000
`
`3000
`
`4000
`
`5000
`
`100
`
`50
`
`33.33333
`
`25
`
`20
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 22.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Ibaraki '882 at Fig. 11 (annotated).
`
`27
`
`
`
`Paice Patents
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Engine + motor
`propulsion
`
`Engine propulsion
`
`Motor only propulsion
`
`’634 Patent at Fig. 7.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 24.
`
`29
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Q. There's no comparison of a speed, of a vehicle speed
`to a speed threshold?
`
`A. I don't believe so, there is [sic] a speed threshold
`there. I think later on, you know, obviously over the full
`operating range of the vehicle, speed is a concern.
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 25 (citing Ex. 2259, Davis Tr. at 17:16-20).
`
`30
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`I said boundary line B describes the variation of the setpoint as
`a function of speed. So at V1 here's the setpoint value. So
`that's the value, the number for the setpoint, if you willK. At V2
`I have a different value for that setpoint, it has varied as a
`function of speed. Boundary line B is simply a description of
`how the setpoint varies as a function of speed.
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 25 (citing Ex. 2259, Davis Tr. at 17:16-20).
`
`31
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Ex. 2265 at 48.
`
`32
`
`
`
`Power and torque are different
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 28 (citing Ex. 2257 at ¶ 61-62).
`
`33
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`Ibaraki '882 at Fig. 5.
`
`34
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`a low-load mode I,
`wherein, when the
`RL<the SP )
`
`a highway cruising mode
`IV, wherein, when the
`SP<the RL<the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 32-33 (citing Ex. 2263 (IPR2015-00790, Ex. 1661) at ¶ 293).
`
`35
`
`
`
`Paice Patents
`
`an acceleration mode V,
`wherein, when the
`RL>the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 9, 14.
`
`36
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`an acceleration mode V,
`wherein, when the
`RL>the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 36-37.
`
`37
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`an acceleration mode V,
`wherein, when the
`RL>the MTO )
`
`Ibaraki '882 at Fig. 11 (annotated).
`
`38
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`an acceleration mode V,
`wherein, when the
`RL>the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 38 (citing Ex. 2257 at ¶ 76).
`
`39
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`Ibaraki ’882 at Figs. 10 and 11 (annotated).
`
`40
`
`
`
`Paice Patents vs. Ibaraki '882
`
`an acceleration mode V,
`wherein, when the
`RL>the MTO )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 39 (citing Ex. 2257 at ¶ 77).
`
`41
`
`
`
`Paice Patents
`
`SP is substantially less
`than the maximum torque
`output (MTO) of the
`engine
`
`Engine + motor
`propulsion
`
`Engine propulsion
`
`Motor only propulsion
`
`’634 Patent at claim 7.
`
`42
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`SP is substantially less
`than the maximum
`torque output (MTO) of
`the engine
`
`Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 11.
`
`43
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`SP is substantially less
`than the maximum
`torque output (MTO) of
`the engine
`
`Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 5.
`
`44
`
`
`
`Ibaraki '882
`
`SP is substantially less
`than the maximum torque
`output (MTO) of the
`engine )
`
`See e.g., IPR ’722, Paper No. 18, POR at 32-33 (citing Ex. 2263 (IPR2015-00790, Ex. 1661) at ¶ 293).
`
`45
`
`
`
`Motor Sizing Claims
`
`’634 Patent, claim 25.
`
`46
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429 (“Kawakatsu”)
`
`wherein total torque
`available to the one or
`more wheels from the
`engine is no greater than
`total torque available
`from the first and second
`electric motors
`combined.
`
`Vehicle speed
`(Nel)
`
`Vehicle speed
`(Neu)
`
`Kawakatsu at Fig. 2.
`
`47
`
`
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`
`wherein total torque
`available to the one or
`more wheels from the
`engine is no greater than
`total torque available
`from the first and second
`electric motors
`combined.
`
`Kawakatsu at Fig. 2; Ibaraki ’882 at Fig. 11.
`
`48
`
`
`
`Motor Performance Claims
`
`’634 Patent, claim 173.
`
`49
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,623,104 (“Suga”)
`
`wherein said at least one
`electric motor is
`sufficiently powerful to
`provide acceleration of
`said vehicle sufficient to
`conform to the Federal
`urban cycle driving fuel
`mileage test without use
`of torque from the engine
`to propel the vehicle.
`
`Suga at 1:6-10.
`
`50
`
`
`
`Suga
`
`wherein said at least one
`electric motor is
`sufficiently powerful to
`provide acceleration of
`said vehicle sufficient to
`conform to the Federal
`urban cycle driving fuel
`mileage test without use
`of torque from the engine
`to propel the vehicle.
`
`Suga at Abstract.
`
`51
`
`
`
`END
`
`52