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. 7,237,634 to Severinsky et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102, 106, 114, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133, 135, 161,
`172, 215, 226, 230, 233 AND 234 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,237,634)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................ 2
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................ 2
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................... 2
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................. 2
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................... 3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................. 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................. 3
`B.
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1) ............................................... 3
`C. Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) ........................................ 3
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT ................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’634 Patent ........................................................ 4
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent ................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA) ............................... 6
`
`VI.
`
`STATE OF THE ART .............................................................................................. 7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3) ................................... 8
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`road load (RL) and RL .................................................................................... 9
`setpoint (SP) and SP ...................................................................................... 10
`“mode I,” “low-load operation mode I,” “highway cruising
`operation mode IV,” “acceleration operation mode V” .......................... 11
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .................................................................... 12
`
`A. Overview of the University of Durham Hybrid Project .......................... 12
`B.
`Reasons to Combine ..................................................................................... 19
`C. Ground 1 - Claims 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102, 106, 114, 125,
`126, 129, 132, 133 and 135 are Obvious over The Durham Project
`in View of Frank and the General Knowledge of a POSA ...................... 22
`1.
`Independent Claim 80 ....................................................................... 23
`a.
`Reasons to Combine .............................................................. 35
`Dependent Claim 91 .......................................................................... 38
`Dependent Claim 92 .......................................................................... 39
`Dependent Claim 95 .......................................................................... 39
`Dependent Claim 96 .......................................................................... 40
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Dependent Claim 99 .......................................................................... 41
`6.
`Dependent Claim 100 ........................................................................ 44
`7.
`Dependent Claim 102 ........................................................................ 45
`8.
`Dependent Claim 106 ........................................................................ 48
`9.
`Independent Claim 114 ..................................................................... 49
`10.
`11. Dependent Claim 125 ........................................................................ 50
`12. Dependent Claim 126 ........................................................................ 50
`13. Dependent Claim 129 ........................................................................ 50
`14. Dependent Claim 132 ........................................................................ 50
`15. Dependent Claim 133 ........................................................................ 51
`16. Dependent Claim 135 ........................................................................ 51
`D. Ground 2 – Claims 161, 172, 215, 226, 230, 233, and 234 are
`Obvious over The Durham Project in View of the General
`Knowledge of a POSA ................................................................................. 51
`1.
`Independent Claim 161 ..................................................................... 51
`2.
`Dependent Claim 172 ........................................................................ 53
`3.
`Independent Claim 215 ..................................................................... 53
`4.
`Dependent Claim 226 ........................................................................ 54
`5.
`Dependent Claim 230 ........................................................................ 54
`6.
`Dependent Claim 233 ........................................................................ 54
`7.
`Dependent Claim 234 ........................................................................ 55
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ......................................... 55
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 55
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`7,237,634 File History (certified)
`
`Date
`July 3, 2007
`n/a
`
`Identifier
`’634 Patent
`’634 Patent File
`History
`Davis Dec.
`Ford Letter
`Bumby I
`
`
`Sept. 2014
`Sept. 1985
`
`Nov. 1987
`
`Bumby II
`
`1988
`
`Bumby III
`
`Apr.-June 1988 Bumby IV
`
`1990
`
`Bumby V
`
`Nov. 1989
`
`Masding Thesis
`
`Sept. 12, 2006
`2005
`2013-2014
`
`‘347 Patent
`Toyota Litigation
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1901
`1902
`
`1903
`1904
`1905
`
`1906
`
`1907
`
`1908
`
`1909
`
`1910
`
`1911
`1912
`1913
`
`Declaration of Gregory Davis
`Ford Letter to Paice
`“Computer modelling of the
`automotive energy requirements
`for internal combustion engine
`and battery electric-powered
`vehicles,” IEE PROCEEDINGS,
`Vol. 132
`“Optimisation and control of a
`hybrid electric car,” IEE
`PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 134
`“A hybrid internal combustion
`engine/battery electric passenger
`car for petroleum displacement,”
`Proc Inst Mech Engrs Vol 202
`“A test-bed facility for hybrid
`i c-engine/battery-electric road
`vehicle drive trains,” Trans Inst
`MC Vol 10
`“Integrated microprocessor
`control of a hybrid i.c.
`engine/battery-electric automotive
`power train,” Trans Inst MC Vol
`12
`Masding Thesis – “Some drive
`train control problems in hybrid
`i.c engine/battery electric
`vehicles”
`US Patent 7,104,347
`Toyota Litigations
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`Ford IPRs
`
`‘347 File History
`
`
`
`n/a
`
`Description
`PTAB Decisions & Preliminary
`Response in 2014-00571
`Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347 File
`History
`Innovations in Design: 1993 Ford
`Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge
`1996 & 1997 Future Car
`Challenge
`Introduction to Automotive
`Powertrain (Davis)
`US Application 60-100095
`
`Feb. 1994
`
`Feb. 1997 &
`Feb. 1998
`
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`1998
`
`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
`
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Feb. 1, 1992
`Aug. 1, 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
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1914
`
`1915
`
`1916
`
`1917
`
`1918
`
`1919
`
`1920
`
`1921
`1922
`1923
`
`1924
`
`1925
`1926
`1927
`
`1928
`
`1930
`1931
`
`1932
`1933
`
`1934
`
`1935
`
`
`
`
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`’095 Provisional
`
`Wakefield
`
`Unnewehr
`Burke 1992
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1331
`SAE SP-1156
`Bumby/Masding
`1988
`HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`9323263
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`‘672 Patent
`IEEE Ehsani 1996
`
`1929
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`WO 9323263A1 (Field)
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi-1998)
`
`Nov. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`US Patent 6,209,672
`Propulsion System for Design for
`EV (Ehsani-1996)
`Propulsion System Design for
`HEV (Ehsani-1997)
`Bosch Automotive Handbook
`(1996)
`
`iv
`
`April 3, 2001
`June 5, 1996
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`IEEE Ehsani 1997
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1936
`1937
`
`1938
`1939
`1940
`1941
`1942
`1943
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Description
`SAE SP-1089 (Anderson-1995)
`Critical Issues in Quantifying
`HEV Emissions (An 1998)
`Gregory Davis Resume
`Gregory Davis Data
`US Patent 5,789,882
`US Patent 5,343,970
`Paice Complaint
`U.S. Patent 6,116,363
`
`Date
`Feb. 1995
`Aug. 11, 1998
`
`Identifier
`SAE SP-1089
`An 1998
`
`
`
`Aug. 4, 1998
`Sept. 6, 1994
`Feb. 25, 2014
`April 21, 1998
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`Severinsky ‘970
`
`Frank
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Petitioner (“Ford”) requests IPR of claims 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102, 106,
`
`114, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133, 135, 161, 172, 215, 226, 230, 233, and 234 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,237,634 (“the ’634 Patent”, Ex. 1901).
`
`The ’634 patent is one of five patents that Patent Owner (“Patentee” or
`
`“Paice”) has asserted against Ford in litigation. Paice contends that these patents teach
`
`an allegedly “fundamental” method of “mode control using road load” and “engine
`
`control under which engine torque is above a setpoint.” (Ex. 1942, Paice Complaint,
`
`p. 16, ¶43, served on 2/25/14 (p.1).) Paice’s methods of using “road load” and an
`
`engine torque “setpoint” were actually well known in the art. (Davis Decl, ¶¶445-462.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,789,882 (“Ibaraki ‘’882), prior publications by Bumby, and Paice’s
`
`own U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ’970”) all disclose use of “road load” and
`
`“setpoint” for mode switching in a hybrid vehicle. (Id.)
`
`Paice’s patent claims start with this well-known control strategy and then add
`
`other common features. The ’634 patent has such 306 claims. Ford has repeatedly
`
`asked Paice to limit the asserted claims to a reasonable number (Ex. 1904, Ford
`
`Letter), but Paice has refused. Accordingly, Ford is filing several IPR’s to address the
`
`’634 Patent claims and is trying to group the claims according to claimed subject
`
`matter. Due to page limitations, and the voluminous number of dependent claims,
`
`Ford addresses independent claims in multiple petitions. Ford relies on the Bumby
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`publications in this petition, but may rely on Severinsky ’970 or the Ibaraki ’882 in
`
`other petitions because they address other dependent claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner certifies that Ford is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’634 Patent is being asserted in Paice, LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc. v.
`
`Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1-14-cv-00492 and Paice LLC and The Abell Foundation,
`
`Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America et. al., Case No. 1:2012-cv-00499. Ford has filed related
`
`petitions in IPR2014-00568, -00570, -00571, -00579, -00852, -00875, -00884, -00904, -
`
`01415, -01416, and IPR2015-00606, -00722, -00758, -00767, -00787, -00784, -00785, -
`
`00790, -00791, -00792, -00794 and -00795. Ford is concurrently filing IPR2015-00799
`
`and -00801. This Petition is not redundant to any previously or concurrently filed
`
`petitions.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) of Brooks Kushman
`
`P.C. as lead counsel, and appoints John E. Nemazi (Reg. No. 30,876), John P.
`
`Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949) and Michael N. MacCallum (Reg. No. 63,108) of Brooks
`
`Kushman P.C., as well as Lissi Mojica (Reg. No. 63,421) and Kevin Greenleaf (Reg.
`
`No. 64,062) of Dentons US LLP, as back-up counsel. An appropriate Power of
`
`Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via hand-
`
`delivery to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor,
`
`Southfield, Michigan 48075 and Dentons US LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite
`
`7800, Chicago, IL 60606-6306. Petitioner consents to service by email at
`
`FPGP0104IPR10@brookskushman.com and iptdocketchi@dentons.com.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’634 Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds in this
`
`Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the ’634 Patent claims 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100,
`
`102, 106, 114, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133, 135, 161, 172, 215, 226, 230, 233, and 234 and
`
`requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) cancel those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2)
`
`There are two grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition:
`
`Grounds Basis
`
`Reference
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`
`
`§103
`
`Bumby
`
`I-V, Masding, 80, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Frank and Knowledge of a
`
`106, 114, 125, 126, 129, 132, 133,
`
`POSA
`
`135
`
`2
`
`§103
`
`Bumby I-V, Masding, and
`
`161, 172, 215, 226, 230, 233, 234
`
`Knowledge of a POSA
`
`
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis. (“Davis” at Ex. 1903.)
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT
`
`The ’634 Patent is a divisional in a patent family chain that ultimately claims
`
`priority back to two separate Provisional Applications—Provisional Application No.
`
`60/100,095, filed September 14, 1998, and 60/122,296, filed March 1, 1999. The ’634
`
`Patent is a direct divisional of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“the ’347 Patent,” Ex.
`
`1911).
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent was accorded a filing date of January 13, 2006. (’634 File
`
`History, Ex. 1902 at 159-160.) As filed, the ’634 Patent included 16 claims. Id. at
`
`126-131. On May 5, 2006, the Patentee filed a preliminary amendment cancelling
`
`originally-filed claims 1-16 and adding new claims 17-75. Id. at 166-182. On
`
`October 24, 2006, the patentee responded to a non-final office action by cancelling
`
`some of the previously submitted claims and adding 261 new claims. Id. at 344. On
`
`February 8, 2007, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance. Id. at 493.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`B.
`
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent identifies a purportedly “new ‘topology’ for a hybrid vehicle”
`
`that requires “a first electric ‘starting’ motor” and “[a] second ‘traction’ motor []
`
`directly connected to the road wheels to propel the vehicle.” (Ex. 1901 [’634 Patent] at
`
`11:50-62.)1 The purported “new ‘topology’” is disclosed as a two-motor “series-
`
`parallel” hybrid. Id. at 16:5-11. Two-motor “series-parallel” hybrids were well-known
`
`long before the patentee’s earliest priority date of September 1998. (Ex. 1903 [Davis
`
`Dec.] at ¶¶87-107.)
`
`The ’634 Patent also identifies a control strategy to operate the engine, traction
`
`motor, and starter motor “in accordance with the vehicle’s instantaneous torque
`
`demands so that the engine is run only under conditions of high efficiency.” (Ex. 1901
`
`[’634 Patent] at Abstract.) The ’634 Patent states that the control strategy operates
`
`“the internal combustion engine only under circumstances providing a significant
`
`load, thus ensuring efficient operation.” (Ex. 1901 [’634 Patent] at 35:10-12; see also
`
`19:45-50 and 20:61-21:2.) Efficient engine operation is accomplished by using a set of
`
`operating modes that determine when to operate the engine or motors “depending on
`
`the torque required, the state of charge of the battery and other variables.” (Id. at 35:3-
`
`9.) Specifically, the ’634 Patent discloses: (1) operating the traction motor to provide
`
`
`1 “Topology” is used in the ’634 Patent to describe a vehicle architecture or vehicle
`
`hardware configuration.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`“the torque required to propel the vehicle” when engine torque would be inefficiently
`
`produced (i.e., “mode I”); (2) operating the engine to provide “the torque required to
`
`propel the vehicle” when engine torque is efficiently produced (i.e., “mode IV”); (3)
`
`operating both the engine and motor when the “torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle” is above the maximum operating torque of the engine (i.e., “mode V”). (Id. at
`
`35:63-36:4; 36:20-43; Figs. 8(a), (c), (d).)
`
`The ’634 Patent control strategy was also known in the prior art. (Ex. 1903,
`
`[Davis Dec.] ¶¶108-133.) In fact, the ’634 Patent itself acknowledges that “the
`
`inventive control strategy according to which the hybrid vehicles of the [’634 Patent]
`
`invention are operated” is the same “as in the case of the hybrid vehicle system shown
`
`in [the prior art Severinsky] ’970 patent.” (Ex. 1901 [’634 Patent] at 35:3-9, see also
`
`25:4-24.)
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA)
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A POSA would have either: (1) a
`
`graduate degree in mechanical, electrical or automotive engineering with experience in
`
`the design and control of combustion engines, electric or hybrid electric propulsion
`
`systems, or automotive transmissions, or (2) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical,
`
`electrical or automotive engineering with at least five years of experience in the design
`
`and control of combustion engines, electric or hybrid electric propulsion systems, or
`
`automotive transmissions. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] ¶¶41-42, see also ¶¶5-37.)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`VI. STATE OF THE ART
`
`Hybrid vehicles date back over 100 years to the infancy of the automobile. (Ex.
`
`1903 [Davis Dec.] ¶¶43-47.) Over this time span, numerous hybrid architectures had
`
`been examined to achieve design “goals” that included efficient engine operation,
`
`improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] ¶48.)
`
`By September 1998, the development of the hybrid vehicle had advanced to a
`
`state where numerous different hybrid vehicle architectures were generally known and
`
`had even been successfully built and tested on public roads. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.]
`
`¶¶49-60.) These hybrid vehicle architectures typically employed electric motors to
`
`maintain operation of the internal combustion engine within the engine’s most
`
`efficient operating region, commonly referred as the engine’s “sweet spot.” (Ex. 1903
`
`[Davis Dec.] ¶¶59, 108-133.) Some hybrid vehicles could accomplish efficient engine
`
`operation by employing “one-motor” architectures while other designs found
`
`operational benefits by employing “two-motor” architectures. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.],
`
`see discussion regarding “series” hybrid vehicles at ¶¶61-69; “parallel” hybrid vehicles
`
`at ¶¶70-86; and “series-parallel” hybrid vehicles ¶¶ 87-107.)
`
`It was known before September 1998 that engines in conventional vehicles
`
`operate inefficiently at low torque loads and vehicle speeds. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.]
`
`¶¶108-123, 125-126.)
`
` Hybrid vehicles could overcome the
`
`inefficiency of
`
`conventional vehicles by including an electric motor (i.e., “traction motor”) with
`
`sufficient power to propel the vehicle at low speeds and low loads. (Ex. 1903 [Davis
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Dec.] ¶¶108-123.) By using a powerful enough motor, hybrid vehicles could restrict
`
`engine operation solely to areas of high efficiency. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] ¶¶59, 108-
`
`123.) As the vehicle speed and load increased, operation of the engine was permitted
`
`when the speed and load were determined to be in a region where engine torque is
`
`most efficiently produced—i.e., the engine’s “sweet spot.” (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.]
`
`¶¶59, 109-133.)
`
`For hybrid vehicles it was further known prior to September 1998 that engine
`
`operation could be restricted to its “sweet spot” using a control strategy that typically
`
`included: (1) an all-electric mode where only the motor propels the vehicle when
`
`engine operation is inefficient (i.e., at low loads or vehicle speeds); (2) an engine-only
`
`mode where the engine propels the vehicle when engine operation is efficient, such as
`
`highway cruising at higher loads and speeds; and (3) an acceleration mode where the
`
`both the engine and motor are used to propel the vehicle when the demand is beyond
`
`the maximum torque capabilities of the engine, such as during acceleration, passing,
`
`hill-climbing. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] ¶¶84, 124-131.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, a claim is interpreted by applying its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Certain terms in the claims of the ’634 Patent were argued by the patentee with
`
`respect to the ’634 Patent and other patents in the ’634 Patent family, and construed
`
`by the Eastern District of Texas court in Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`No. 2:04-cv-211 and Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-180,
`
`(“Toyota Litigation,” Ex. 1912.)
`
`Certain terms recited in the claims of the ’634 Patent were also argued by the
`
`patentee and construed by a Maryland district court in Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-0499, on July 24, 2014. (“Hyundai Litigation,” Ex. 1913.)
`
`Certain terms that are related to terms recited in the claims of the ’634 Patent
`
`were also discussed in prior institution decisions. (“Ford IPRs,” Ex. 1914.)
`
`Petitioner proposes the following constructions for the purposes of this IPR
`
`only. But for some of these terms, based on the specification, prosecution history, and
`
`patentee admissions, Petitioner contends that the construction under the applicable
`
`district court standards is narrower, and reserves the right to present a narrower
`
`construction in district court litigation.
`
`A.
`
`road load (RL) and RL
`
`The Eastern District of Texas and the District of Maryland courts have
`
`construed the terms “road load,” “RL,” and “road load (RL)” as “the instantaneous
`
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle, which may be positive or negative in
`
`value.” (Ex. 1912 [Toyota Litigation] at 205-206; Ex. 1913 [Hyundai Litigation] at 16,
`
`96-97.)
`
`For this proceeding, Petitioner proposes that “road load” be construed as “the
`
`amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or
`
`negative.” This is consistent with a prior PTAB construction. (See Ex. 1914 [Ford v.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Paice IPR Decisions] at 20, 38, 51, 70, 84.) Petitioner contends the construction is
`
`narrower under district court standards.
`
`B.
`
`setpoint (SP) and SP
`
`The Texas and Maryland courts construed “setpoint (SP)” as being “a definite,
`
`but potentially variable value at which a transition between operating modes may
`
`occur” (Ex. 1912 [Toyota Litigation] at 204; Ex. 1913 [Hyundai Litigation] at 104),
`
`and Patent Owner maintains this as being the correct construction. (Ex. 1914 [Ford
`
`IPRs] at 20-22, 38-40, 70-72, 84-86, 110-113.) Petitioner disagrees that Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction is the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`The ’634 Patent claims, specification, and file history define “setpoint” as a
`
`“predetermined torque value.” All claims recite a “setpoint” or “SP” value being
`
`compared to either: (1) an engine torque value (e.g., claim 1); or (2) a torque-based
`
`“road load” value (e.g., claim 80). No claims recite a “setpoint” or “SP” in comparison
`
`to any other system variable. Likewise, the specification says “the microprocessor tests
`
`sensed and calculated values for system variables, such as the vehicle’s instantaneous
`
`torque requirement, i.e., the ‘road load’ RL . . . against setpoints, and uses the results
`
`of the comparisons to control the mode of vehicle operation.” (Ex. 1901 [’634 Patent]
`
`at 40:16-26, emphasis added.) To do so (e.g., whether “RL < SP”), the “setpoint” would
`
`have to be in the same measurement units as the “road load.”
`
`During prosecution of the ’347 Patent – the parent of the ’634 Patent (See Ex.
`
`1915) – patentee added the following limitation to pending claims 1 and 82 to
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`overcome a prior art rejection: “wherein the torque produced by said engine when
`
`operated at said setpoint (SP) is substantially less than the maximum torque output
`
`(MTO) of said engine.” (Ex. 1915 [’347 File History] at 8-20.) Patentee then argued
`
`the engine was operated only “when it is loaded . . . in excess of SP [setpoint], which
`
`is now defined to be ‘substantially less than the maximum torque output (MTO) of
`
`said engine.’” (Ex. 1915 [’347 File History] at 21.)
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with recent PTAB constructions.
`
`(Ford IPRs, Ex. 1914 at 21, 40, 72, 86.) Accordingly the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “setpoint (SP)” and “SP” as used in the challenged claims is a
`
`“predetermined torque value.”
`
`C.
`
`“mode I,” “low-load operation mode I,” “highway cruising
`operation mode IV,” “acceleration operation mode V”
`
`During the Toyota Litigation, the court construed terms of the parent ’347
`
`Patent as follows: (1) low-load mode I as “the mode of operation in which energy from
`
`the battery bank flows to the traction motor and torque (rotary force) flows from the
`
`traction motor to the road wheels;” (2) highway cruising mode IV as “the mode of
`
`operation in which energy flows from the fuel tank into the engine and torque (rotary
`
`force) flows from the engine to the road wheels;” (3) acceleration mode V as “the mode
`
`of operation in which energy flows from the fuel tank to the engine and from the
`
`battery bank to at least one motor and torque (rotary force) flows from the engine and
`
`at least one motor to the road wheels.” (Toyota Litigation, Ex. 1912 at 219.) Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`agrees with these constructions for this IPR but reserves the right to offer narrower
`
`constructions in litigation, for the reasons stated above.
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`The references below render the claimed subject matter invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103 and the Petitioner therefore has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to each
`
`of the following grounds of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4).
`
`A. Overview of the University of Durham Hybrid Project
`
`Bumby I-V and the Masding Thesis are a series of publications from the 1980’s
`
`that pertain to a hybrid vehicle research and development project undertaken
`
`primarily by Professor James Bumby, Professor Forster, and Dr. Peter Masding (a
`
`student pursuing his doctoral thesis under Professor Bumby). Collectively, the series
`
`of publications are referred to as “the Durham Project.”
`
`Bumby I discloses the “Janus simulator,” a software tool that was developed
`
`for simulating the design of either a conventional vehicle or hybrid vehicle. (Ex. 1905
`
`[Bumby I] at 2; Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] at ¶¶148-149.) To start the evaluation of the
`
`vehicle design, the Janus simulator calculates the “vehicle dynamics,” which are
`
`described as follows:
`
`To provide the necessary propulsion power, any vehicle drive train must
`
`be able to provide sufficient tractive effort at the road wheels to
`
`overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance and hill gradient effects,
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`while still providing the necessary vehicle acceleration. Consequently, at
`
`any particular velocity and acceleration, the net tractive effort required at
`
`the road wheels can be expressed as the algebraic sum of these
`
`components, i.e.
`
`TE = Td+ Tr +Tg + TaN (eqn. 1)
`
`(Ex. 1905 [Bumby I] at 2.)
`
`The tractive effort—as noted by Bumby I above—is generally referred to by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as the force (commonly expressed in terms of
`
`torque) required for propelling the vehicle. (Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] at ¶¶148-157 &
`
`113-120.) Tractive effort is what the ’634 Patent refers to as “road load” or
`
`“instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle.” It was known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art prior to September 1998, that when the tractive
`
`effort overcomes the sum of external forces, the vehicle accelerates. (Ex. 1903 [Davis
`
`Dec.] at ¶¶116-119.) Conversely, it was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`that when the sum of the external forces exceeds the “tractive effort” forces, the
`
`vehicle decelerates or remains stopped. (Id.)
`
`Bumby II is a November 1987 publication that uses the Janus simulator
`
`disclosed by Bumby I for optimizing the “power train control and component rating”
`
`of a hybrid electric vehicle. (Ex. 1906 [Bumby II] at 1-Abstract.) Specifically, Bumby
`
`II uses the Janus simulator to define “a control algorithm that can be used in a vehicle
`
`suitable for the European car market.” (Ex. 1906 [Bumby II] at 2; Ex. 1903 [Davis
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Dec.] at ¶¶161-162.) The “main objective” of the control algorithm was to “maximise
`
`the accelerative performance of the vehicle, minimise exhaust emissions or to
`
`minimise energy use.” (Ex. 1906 [Bumby II] at 3.) Bumby II recognizes that a control
`
`optimization strategy was needed for hybrid vehicles where “two or more power
`
`sources are used” because “the way in which [the power sources] are controlled is
`
`fundamental to the performance of the vehicle.” (Ex. 1906 [Bumby II] at 3; Ex. 1903
`
`[Davis Dec.] at ¶163.)
`
`This control optimization was performed on a “parallel” hybrid vehicle
`
`architecture (illustrated below) that Bumby II determined would “offer the most
`
`potential” for being a commercially viable hybrid vehicle solution. (Ex. 1906 [Bumby
`
`II] at 1; Fig. 2; Ex. 1903 [Davis Dec.] at ¶164.)
`
`Ex. 1905 [Bumby I] at 1, Fig. 2
`
`
`
`In order to optimize the overall vehicle efficiency, Bumby II recognizes that
`
`the power usage of the individual power train components (i.e., motor and engine)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00800
`
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR10
`
`needed to be optimized. (Ex. 1906 [Bumby II] at 4.) Bumby II therefore “calculates
`
`the torque and speed requirements at the road wheels, at each second of the
`
`driving cycle, and then reflects this demand back through the power train to the
`
`energy source(s) to compute the net input energy required over that one second
`
`interval.”