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
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`______________
`
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
` INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO 7,237,634
`
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii
`
`Updated Exhibit List ................................................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim construction ........................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`B.
`
`“Setpoint (SP)” ...................................................................................... 2
`Paice seeks to amend each independent claim to include “a
`comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a
`determination that ...” ............................................................................ 3
`
`III.
`
`Paice’s procedural arguments are unfounded .................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ford’s Petition provides a detailed analysis of the claims with
`respect to the Bumby references and is not conclusory ........................ 4
`Ford is not estopped from maintaining its challenges to
`dependent claims 172, 226, 230, and 234 ............................................. 5
`
`IV. The Board has already found the Bumby references use “road load”
`compared to a “setpoint” to determine when to operate the engine ................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`The Bumby references use “actual torque and speed values” for
`determining the vehicle’s mode of operation ........................................ 8
`1. Mr. Hannemann’s example confirms that the sub-optimal
`control strategy is based on torque not “demand power” ........... 9
`Ford accurately described the teachings of the Bumby
`references .............................................................................................12
`1.
`Paice is incorrect that Bumby V is “separate and distinct”
`from the teachings of Bumby II and III ....................................12
`The Board has already found that the Bumby references
`determine the recited “road load” ............................................14
`Paice’s footnote argument regarding the Board’s
`Decision in IPR2014-00579 does not have merit .....................15
`Ford accurately described the sub-optimal control strategy ...............18
`The Bumby references are not “fundamentally different” than
`the claimed control strategy as Paice alleges ......................................20
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`V.
`
`The Board has already found that Ford sufficiently established that
`there exists a motivation to combine Bumby I - Bumby V ...........................21
`
`A.
`
`The Board has already found that Bumby IV and V do not teach
`away from Bumby II and III ...............................................................23
`
`

`
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................25
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................26
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Cases
`
`Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB,
`
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .....................................................................23
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) .................................................................. 5
`
`In re Fulton,
`
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .....................................................................23
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................25
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1901
`1902
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`7,237,634 File History (certified)
`
`Date
`July 3, 2007
`n/a
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Identifier
`’634 Patent
`’634 Patent File
`History
`Davis Dec.
`Ford Letter
`Bumby I
`
`
`Sept. 2014
`Sept. 1985
`
`1903
`1904
`1905
`
`1906
`
`1907
`
`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
`1910 Masding Thesis – “Some drive
`train control problems in hybrid
`i.c engine/battery electric
`vehicles”
`US Patent 7,104,347
`Toyota Litigations
`
`1908
`
`1909
`
`1911
`1912
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Nov. 1987
`
`Bumby II
`
`1988
`
`Bumby III
`
`Apr.-June 1988
`
`Bumby IV
`
`1990
`
`Bumby V
`
`Nov. 1989
`
`Masding Thesis
`
`Sept. 12, 2006
`2005
`
`‘347 Patent
`Toyota
`Litigation
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1913
`
`Description
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`Date
`2013-2014
`
`1914
`
`1915
`
`1916
`
`1917
`
`1918
`
`1919
`
`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
`
`1920
`
`History of Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle (Wakefield-1998)
`SAE 760121 (Unnewehr-1976)
`1921
`SAE 920447 (Burke-1992)
`1922
`1923 Vehicle Tester for HEV (Duoba-
`1997)
`DOE Report to Congress (1994)
`
`1924
`
`SAE SP-1331 (1998)
`1925
`SAE SP-1156 (1996)
`1926
`1927 Microprocessor Design for HEV
`(Bumby-1988)
`DOE HEV Assessment (1979)
`
`1928
`
`
`
`n/a
`
`Feb. 1994
`
`Feb. 1997 & Feb.
`1998
`
`
`Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`1998
`
`Feb. 1, 1976
`Feb. 1, 1992
`Aug. 1, 1997
`
`April 1995
`
`Feb. 1998
`Feb. 1996
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`1929
`
`EPA HEV Final Study (1971)
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`1930
`1931
`
`WO 9323263A1 (Field)
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi-1998)
`
`Nov. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`1932
`
`US Patent 6,209,672
`
`April 3, 2001
`
`
`
`v
`
`Identifier
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`Ford IPRs
`
`‘347 File
`History
`
`
`
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`’095 Provisional
`
`Wakefield
`
`Unnewehr
`Burke 1992
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1331
`SAE SP-1156
`Bumby/Masdin
`g 1988
`HEV
`Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`9323263
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi
`1998
`‘672 Patent
`
`

`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1933
`
`1934
`
`1935
`
`1936
`1937
`
`1938
`1939
`1940
`1941
`1942
`1943
`1944
`
`1945
`
`1946
`
`1947
`1948
`1949
`
`1950
`
`1951
`1952
`
`1953
`
`1954
`
`1955
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Description
`Propulsion System for Design
`for EV (Ehsani-1996)
`Propulsion System Design for
`HEV (Ehsani-1997)
`Bosch Automotive Handbook
`(1996)
`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
`IPR2014-00579 - Patent Owner
`Response to Petition
`IPR2014-00579 - Final Written
`Decision (Paper 45)
`IPR2014-00904 – Final Written
`Decision
`IPR2014-00416
`IPR2014-00884
`IPR2014-00579 – Petitioner
`Reply to Patent Owner Response
`IPR2014-00579 Hearing
`Transcript
`Davis Reply Declaration
`4/7/2015 Hannemann Deposition
`Transcript
`4/7/2015 Hannemann Deposition
`Transcript - Exhibit 12
`IPR2014-00579 Davis
`Declaration
`IPR2014-00579 Davis Reply
`
`Date
`June 5, 1996
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Feb. 1995
`Aug. 11, 1998
`
`Identifier
`IEEE Ehsani
`1996
`IEEE Ehsani
`1997
`Bosch
`Handbook
`SAE SP-1089
`An 1998
`
`
`
`Aug. 4, 1998
`Sept. 6, 1994
`Feb. 25, 2014
`April 21, 1998
`January 21, 2015
`
`
`
`Ibaraki ’882
`Severinsky ‘970
`
`Frank
`’579 POR
`
`September 28,
`2015
`December 10,
`2015
`March 10, 2016
`Dec. 10, 2015
`January 21, 2015
`
`’579 Decision
`
`’904 Decision
`
`’416 Decision
`’884 Decision
`’579 Reply
`
`
`
`’579 Transcript
`
` August 3, 2015
`April 8, 2016
`April 7, 2015
`
`Davis Reply
`Hann. Dep.
`
`April 7, 2015
`
`Ex. 12
`
`April 4, 2014
`
`’579 Davis
`
`April 22, 2015
`
`’579 Davis
`Reply
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`As Ford has explained, because Paice is asserting so many of the ’634
`
`Patent’s 300+ claims, Ford filed multiple petitions, sometimes challenging
`
`independent claims multiple times, to address the many asserted dependent claims.
`
`(Petition at 1.) While Ford has previously challenged independent claims 161 and
`
`215, the present petition challenges dependent claims 172, 226, 230, and 234 for
`
`the first and only time. Yet, Paice’s response never separately addresses the
`
`patentability of these dependent claims.
`
`Instead, Paice argues only that the Bumby references fail to disclose the
`
`limitations of independent claims 161 and 215 that recite selecting when to operate
`
`the electric motor and/or engine based on a comparison of “road load” to a
`
`“setpoint.” (POR at 15-16.) As Ford will explain below, Paice has previously
`
`raised nearly identical arguments, against nearly identical claim limitations, and
`
`the Board made final determinations rejecting them. For example, Paice raised the
`
`same “road load” and “setpoint” arguments in IPR2014-00579 (See e.g., Ex. 1944,
`
`’579 POR at 14), and the Board ultimately found:
`
`[T]he Bumby references compare calculated torque values against the
`
`“lower torque bound” to determine whether the engine and/or electric
`
`motor should be used for propelling the vehicle.” Ex. 1104, 10-11
`
`(Fig. 16), Ex. 1105, 7-8 (Fig. 8). When the torque value is above the
`
`lower torque bound, the engine is used to propel the vehicle. Id. When
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`the torque value is below the lower torque bound, the electric motor is
`
`used to propel the vehicle. Id. As such, the Bumby references teach a
`
`control strategy that uses a boundary, or setpoint, for determining the
`
`operating mode of the engine and motor...
`
`***
`
`[W]e find that the Bumby references’ comparison of torque values to
`
`the “lower torque bound,” as depicted in Fig. 16 of Bumby II and Fig.
`
`8 of Bumby III, as well as its description of a control strategy that
`
`“accounts for both the road load requirement and the system losses,”
`
`satisfy the claimed “road load” and “setpoint” comparisons...
`
`(Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision at 21-22 & 24, emphasis in bold/underline.)
`
`While the arguments Paice now presents are nearly indistinguishable from
`
`arguments previously rejected by the Board, Ford addresses them again below.
`
`II. Claim construction
`
`A.
`
`“Setpoint (SP)”
`
`In a prior final determination for the ’634 Patent, the Board construed
`
`“setpoint (SP)” as “predefined torque value that may or may not be reset.”1 (Ex.
`
`1946, ’904 Decision at 9.) The Board explained that “the claims compare the
`
`setpoint against a torque value,” and “[t]his express language suggests that
`
`‘setpoint’ is not just any value, but a value that—per the surrounding claim
`
`
`1 The Board applied the same construction when previously evaluating the Bumby
`
`references. (Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision at 11.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`language—equates to ’torque.’ (Ex. 1946, ’904 Decision at 7.) The Board has also
`
`noted that Paice’s own expert agrees that “given the ‘comparison’ being made by
`
`this claim language, the ‘most straightforward’ construction is that ‘setpoint is a
`
`torque value.’” (Ex. 1946, ’904 Decision at 7, fn.8.)
`
`Paice argues that the Board’s construction fails to recognize “that ‘setpoint’
`
`represents a point at which a transition between different modes may occur.” (POR
`
`at 9.) But the Board has considered this argument and found it “misplaced.” (Ex.
`
`1946, ’904 Decision at 7.) The Board stated that although “sometimes the
`
`specification describes the setpoint in terms of a ’transition point’ . . . the claim
`
`language itself makes clear that setpoint relates simply to a torque value, without
`
`requiring that it be a transition point.” (Id. at 7-8, emphasis in italics original.) The
`
`Board also stated that “the specification acknowledges that the mode of operation
`
`does not always transition, or switch, at the setpoint, but instead depends on a
`
`number of parameters.” (Id.)
`
`Ford agrees with the Board’s prior construction, as supported in the Board’s
`
`prior final determinations.
`
`B.
`
`Paice seeks to amend each independent claim to include “a
`comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a
`determination that ...”
`
`Unlinked to any particular claim term, Paice proposes a construction that
`
`adds “a comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a determination that” to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`each independent claim. (POR at 12.) Impermissibly adding limitations does not
`
`comport with the broadest reasonable construction standard. Regardless, Paice’s
`
`proposed construction is met because the Bumby references teach comparing
`
`torque values (road load) to an operating boxed region having a “lower torque
`
`bound” (setpoint). (Petition at 23-24; Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶¶247-256.) And when the
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle (road load) is below the “lower torque
`
`bound” (setpoint) the engine is shut off and the vehicle is propelled using the
`
`electric motor. (Petition at 27-29; Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶¶269-272.) When the torque
`
`required to propel the vehicle (road load) is above the “lower torque bound”
`
`(setpoint) the engine is started and operated to propel the vehicle. (Petition at 29-
`
`31; Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶¶273-277.) Since Ford’s analysis shows that the Bumby
`
`references teach “a comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP),” Paice’s proposed
`
`construction does not affect the obviousness analysis.
`
`III. Paice’s procedural arguments are unfounded
`
`A.
`
`Ford’s Petition provides a detailed analysis of the claims with
`respect to the Bumby references and is not conclusory
`
`Nowhere does Paice cite supporting case law for the alleged requirement
`
`that Ford must admit what “claim elements are missing” in the Bumby references.
`
`(POR at 13-15.) Although the Graham v John Deere opinion mentions
`
`“differences,” neither Graham nor any other Paice-cited case requires admitting
`
`differences nor identify missing claim elements to present an obviousness
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`challenge. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).
`
`And contrary to Paice’s assertion, Ford’s petition provided a detailed
`
`description of how each of the Bumby references were inter-related and a detailed
`
`limitation-by-limitation obviousness analysis based on the combination. (Petition
`
`at 12-22; see also Section VII, infra.) At institution, the Board addressed this issue
`
`and stated that Ford’s petition “adequately combined the teachings of Bumby I,
`
`Bumby II, Bumby III, Bumby IV, and Bumby V, to apply them collectively as
`
`stemming from a single source without separately accounting for a reason to
`
`combine with respect to each individual claim limitation being addressed.” (Paper
`
`12, Institution Decision at 18.)
`
`B.
`
`Ford is not estopped from maintaining its challenges to dependent
`claims 172, 226, 230, and 234
`
`Paice argues that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), Ford’s petition with
`
`respect to independent claims 161 and 215 should be dismissed because a
`
`previously filed petition (IPR2014-01416) held these same independent claims
`
`were unpatentable. (POR at 12; see Ex. 1947, ’1416 Decision at 26.) But, the
`
`present petition addresses the unpatentability of additional instituted dependent
`
`claims that were not challenged in IPR2014-01416.
`
`Again, Ford needed separate petitions (addressing similar independent
`
`claims) to also address the large number of dependent claims in the ’634 Patent.
`
`(See, Pet. at 1-2.) Further, the Board may exercise its discretion in maintaining the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`current proceeding against the previously challenged independent claims because
`
`they are incorporated within the body of the presently challenged dependent claims
`
`“as a matter of dependency.” (See e.g., Ex. 1948, ’884 Decision at 15-16, fn. 11.)
`
`IV. The Board has already found the Bumby references use “road load”
`compared to a “setpoint” to determine when to operate the engine
`
`Paice alleges that the Bumby references do not disclose “using road load
`
`compared to a setpoint to determine when to... operate the... engine to propel the
`
`hybrid vehicle and when to operate one or more electric motors.” (POR at 15-16.)
`
`But as stated above, the Board previously considered and rejected this same
`
`argument in its final determination for IPR2014-00579:
`
`[T]he Bumby references compare calculated torque values against the
`
`“lower torque bound” to determine whether the engine and/or electric
`
`motor should be used for propelling the vehicle.” Ex. 1104, 10-11
`
`(Fig. 16), Ex. 1105, 7-8 (Fig. 8)... As such, the Bumby references
`
`teach a control strategy that uses a boundary, or setpoint, for
`
`determining the operating mode of the engine and motor...
`
`***
`
` [W]e find that the Bumby references’ comparison of torque values to
`
`the “lower torque bound,” ... satisfy the claimed “road load” and
`
`“setpoint” comparisons...
`
`(Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision at 21-22 & 24, emphasis added.)
`
`Paice’s current response does not address the Board’s above-quoted final
`
`determination. Supporting the Board’s findings, Bumby II (Fig. 16) and Bumby III
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`(Fig. 8) disclose a sub-optimal control strategy that compares “actual torque and
`
`speed values” against a “lower torque bound” to determine the vehicle’s operating
`
`mode. (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 10-11; Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 7-8; see also Ex.
`
`1945, ’579 Decision at 20.)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 11, Fig. 16; Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶265, see also ¶251
`
`The Bumby references state that when the vehicle’s torque and speed values
`
`are within the engine-operating boxed region, the engine propels the vehicle (i.e.
`
`engine-only mode). (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 10-11; Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 8; Ex.
`
`1903, Davis at ¶¶273-276.) Below the lower torque and speed bound, the motor
`
`alone propels the vehicle. (i.e., motor-only mode). (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 11; Ex.
`
`1907, Bumby III at 7-8; Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶¶269-271.) Above the upper torque
`
`bound both the motor and engine propel the vehicle (i.e., engine-motor mode).
`
`(Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 11; Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 8; see also Ex. 1903, Davis at
`
`¶¶305-307.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`A POSA would also have understood the actual “torque values” as being the
`
`recited “road load” and the “lower torque bound” threshold as being the recited
`
`“setpoint.” (Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶¶270-271 & ¶¶274-275; Ex. 1951, Davis Reply
`
`¶¶4-11.) And as illustrated above, a POSA would have further understood that the
`
`Bumby references disclose a control strategy that compares the “actual torque
`
`values” (i.e., “road load”) with both the “lower torque bound” (i.e., “setpoint”) and
`
`MTO to determine the operational mode of the vehicle. (Ex. 1903, Davis at ¶¶270-
`
`275 & 305-307.)
`
`A. The Bumby references use “actual torque and speed values” for
`determining the vehicle’s mode of operation
`
`Identical to its argument in IPR2014-00579, Paice alleges that the Bumby
`
`references teach “a fundamentally different control strategy that uses demand
`
`power” determined “by reading the accelerator pedal.”2 (Compare POR at 16-19,
`
`emphasis original with Ex. 1944, ’579 POR at 21-24.) The Board fully considered
`
`and rejected this argument in its final determination for IPR2014-00579:
`
`Based on the Bumby references’ clear teaching of determining the
`
`mode of operation based on torque and speed values, we are not
`
`persuaded by Paice’s contention that it is based solely on “power
`
`demand.”
`
`(Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision at 20-21.)
`
`
`2 Compare paragraph spanning POR at 16-17 with Ex. 1944, ’579 POR at 34.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Consistent with the Board’s final determination, both Bumby II and III make
`
`clear that “demand power” (i.e., pedal position) is converted to a torque value.
`
`This algorithm accepts demand power as its control variable and, by
`
`sensing road speed, transforms this power to a torque at the output
`
`of the transmission. Demand power, as far as the simulation is
`
`concerned, is simply transmission output power, but in reality would
`
`be driver-demand power, expressed as a function of accelerator pedal
`
`position. (Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 7, emphasis added; see also, Ex.
`
`1906, Bumby II at 11.)
`
`This converted torque value is then used to determine a “torque split point”
`
`(i.e., “actual torque and speed value”) for each “available gear ratio” of the
`
`transmission. (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 11; see also, Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 7.)
`
`Based on these teachings, a POSA would have understood that “demand power” is
`
`converted based on the known mathematical relationship where power = torque *
`
`speed. (Ex. 1951, Davis Reply at ¶¶12-14.)
`
`Once converted, the “selected mode of operation depends on the actual
`
`torque and speed values” (i.e., “torque split values”) being compared to the
`
`operating graphs illustrated in Bumby II (Fig. 16) and Bumby III (Fig. 8), as
`
`discussed on page 8. (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 10-11, Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 7-8.)
`
`1. Mr. Hannemann’s example confirms that the sub-
`optimal control strategy is based on torque not
`“demand power”
`
`Also identical to its argument in IPR2014-00579, Paice again annotates
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`Bumby II (Fig. 16) to include a 10kW “power” line with a series of four “gear”
`
`points. (Compare POR at 18-19 with Ex. 1944, ’579 POR at 23-24.) Paice argues
`
`that the annotated power line supports Paice’s position that the sub-optimal control
`
`strategy makes control decisions based on “demand power,” not torque. (POR at
`
`19.)
`
`But even using Paice’s own annotation, the four “gear ratio” values could
`
`illustrate a possible “set of torque and speed values at the torque split point” that
`
`relate to “discrete gear ratio[s]” for the transmission. (Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 7;
`
`Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 11.) And these “torque and speed values” would be
`
`compared against the upper and lower torque/speed thresholds for determining the
`
`operational mode of the vehicle. (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 10-11; Ex. 1907, Bumby
`
`III at 7; Ex. 1903 at ¶¶270-271, 274-276, 306-307.) In fact, during his prior
`
`deposition Mr. Hannemann’s example was further annotated to include a 4.2kW
`
`power line having another set of 4 possible gear ratio points. (Ex. 1952, Hann.
`
`Dep. at 86:3-105:23.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`(Ex. 1953, Ex. 12 from 4/18/2015 Hannemann Deposition)
`
`
`
`As shown, the 4.2kW constant-power line (referenced by the blue
`
`text/arrow) includes two points below the “lower torque bound” (i.e., Gear 1 and
`
`Gear 2) and another point within the boxed region above the “lower torque bound”
`
`(i.e., Gear 3 shown at ~2000RPM). Based on the above drawing, Mr. Hannemann
`
`testified that the sub-optimal control algorithm would select the torque value that is
`
`located above the “lower torque bound” (i.e., Gear point 3, which is in the “box”).
`
`(Ex. 1952, Hann. Dep. at 89:16-90:10.)
`
`The deposition example confirms that the sub-optimal strategy is not based
`
`on “demand power,” because a constant power (i.e., 4.2kW) value could include a
`
`series of torque/speed values that cross through the “lower torque bound.” Having
`
`torque/speed values above and below the “lower torque bound” would result in a
`
`mode transition (e.g., engine mode is selected). (Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 7; Ex.
`
`1906, Bumby II at 11.) For the 4.2kW example, the Bumby references make clear
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`that sub-optimal control strategy would have used the engine to operate vehicle.
`
`(Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 11, “If one of this family of operating points falls within
`
`the engine operating box, then that gear and IC engine operation is selected.”) A
`
`POSA would have therefore understood that because a torque value is within the
`
`box, the engine is used to propel the vehicle. (Ex. 1951, Davis Reply ¶¶15-18.)
`
`B.
`
`Ford accurately described the teachings of the Bumby references
`
`Paice argues at pages 19-23 that Ford is “misleading” when it discusses the
`
`Bumby references teachings about the “torque required to propel the vehicle.” But
`
`the references teach a control strategy for determining when to operate the hybrid
`
`vehicle using the engine and/or motor based on the “torque required to propel the
`
`vehicle.” Paice’s arguments incorrectly take select portions of the Bumby
`
`references out-of-context.
`
`1.
`
`Paice is incorrect that Bumby V is “separate and
`distinct” from the teachings of Bumby II and III
`
`Paice argues that the “complete vehicle component control system”
`
`illustrated by Fig. 16 of Bumby V is “separate and distinct” from the teachings of
`
`the sub-optimal control algorithm. (POR at 19-20.) Paice specifically argues that
`
`the entire teaching of Bumby V applies to a speed-based hybrid controller and not
`
`the torque based sub-optimal control strategy discussed in Bumby II and III. (Id.)
`
`This argument misreads Bumby V and ignores that Bumby V is using speed
`
`based control for testing the physical (i.e., hardware) components that will be used
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`in an actual vehicle. Like Bumby II/III, Bumby V discusses the goal of achieving a
`
`“torque control system.” (Ex. 1909, Bumby V at 1-2.) But Bumby V recognizes
`
`that the “speed controller allows the laboratory test system to be exercised over any
`
`test driving cycle and offers the ability to carry out sophisticated power sharing and
`
`transmission shifting strategies.” (Id.)
`
`Bumby V also explains that such testing is performed using an “arbitrary
`
`speed-based mode controller” that is “intended purely to demonstrate” that the
`
`control system illustrated by Figure 16 (Bumby V) “is capable of following the
`
`dictates of any more sophisticated control strategy such as those described in
`
`[Bumby II].” (Id. at 19.)
`
`Bumby V never teaches solely using a speed-based controller, as Paice
`
`alleges. Instead, Bumby V explains: “The job of the P+I speed controller is to map
`
`varying speed demands to appropriate torque demands.” (Ex. 1909, Bumby V at
`
`15, emphasis added.) Therefore, Bumby V does not teach away from the torque-
`
`based control strategy in Bumby II/III.
`
`Further, Bumby V states that a new “block diagram for automatic speed
`
`control” is accomplished by “adding an outer speed feedback loop to the existing
`
`vehicle control system of Fig. 16.” (Id. emphasis added.) In other words, Fig. 18
`
`illustrates how the speed control is implemented with the “components of Fig 16
`
`represented by the block labelled ‘vehicle control system.’” (Id.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`2.
`
`The Board has already found that the Bumby
`references determine the recited “road load”
`
`As in IPR2014-00579, Paice again alleges the Bumby references do not
`
`determine the recited “road load” because it is a “computer simulation” (or
`
`“computer model”) that allegedly calculates the “torque required at the road
`
`wheels” too slowly. (Compare POR at 21-23 with Ex. 1944, ’579 POR at 34-35.)
`
`But neither the ’634 Patent specification nor the claims require a specific method,
`
`algorithm, or frequency for calculating “road load.” (See, Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision
`
`at 24.)3 And Paice never articulates how the ’634 Patent “calculates” road load. As
`
`Ford noted during the ’579 proceeding, Paice’s own expert even testified that the
`
`specification (which is common between the ’347 Patent and ’634 Patent) does not
`
`disclose how to calculate, measure, or determine road load because “that’s
`
`something that wasn’t a part of the patent.” (Ex. 1952, Hann. Dep. at 61:6-62:6.)
`
`As the Board held, the Bumby references disclose “the torque required at the
`
`road wheels to overcome both vehicle drag and rolling resistance... is determined at
`
`discrete (typically one second) intervals.” (Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision at 23; Ex.
`
`1907, Bumby III at 5; Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 4.) And a POSA would have
`
`understood this disclosure as determining the “torque required to propel the
`
`
`3 The Board’s prior decision was with respect to U.S.P.N. 7,104,347. The ’634
`
`Patent is a divisional application of the ’347 Patent having the same specification.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`vehicle,” per the Board’s construction. (Ex. 1951, Davis Reply ¶¶4-11.)
`
`3.
`
`Paice’s footnote argument regarding the Board’s
`Decision in IPR2014-00579 does not have merit
`
`Paice now argues in a footnote (POR 22) that the Board holding regarding
`
`road load in IPR2014-00579 is incorrect because the Board relied on the following
`
`passage:
`
`To implement this optimization process over an urban driving cycle
`
`such as the ECE-15 (Fig. 3) or the J227a-D (Fig. 4) the torque
`
`required at the road wheels to overcome both vehicle drag and rolling
`
`resistance, and to provide any vehicle acceleration, is determined at
`
`discrete (typically one second) intervals.
`
`(Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 5; Ex. 1945, ’579 Decision at 23.)
`
`Based on the above quote, Paice appears to misunderstand the Bumby
`
`references discussion of an “optimization process,” “optimal control strategy4,”
`
`and “sub-optimal control strategy.” All of these concepts are related and not
`
`mutually exclusive as Paice seems to allege.
`
`First, the “optimization process” is how a hybrid vehicle’s power sources
`
`(i.e., engine/electric motor) and components (i.e., battery) are evaluated based on a
`
`particular control strategy. (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 3; Ex. 1951, Davis Reply at
`
`
`4 The Bumby references synonymously use the terms “policy,” “algorithm,” or
`
`“strategy” when discussing the “optimal control” and “sub-optimal control.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case No.: IPR2015-00800
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0104IPR10
`
`¶¶63-64.) The “optimization process” is not limited to any control strategy, let
`
`alone the “optimal control strategy” or the “sub-optimal control strategy.” (Ex.
`
`1951, Davis Reply at ¶¶65-66.)
`
`Instead, the Bumby references teach that to “implement the optimization
`
`process” a hybrid vehicle is “simulated over a defined driving cycle using the
`
`Janus road vehicle simulation program.”5 (Ex. 1906, Bumby II at 4; Ex. 1951,
`
`Davis Reply at ¶¶66-68.) As Ford has previously explained, the “Janus” simulation
`
`program discussed
`
`in Bumby I “is a flexible road vehicle simulation
`
`program... used to study the performance of advanced i.c. engine vehicles (9)
`
`and hybrid electric vehicles (2).” (Ex. 1907, Bumby III at 3; citing to Ex. 1906,
`
`Bumby II.) The “optimization process” using the Janus simulator is therefore not
`
`even limited to hybrid vehicles, but can also be used for evaluating and optimizing
`
`a control strategy and components for a conventional vehicle. (Id.)
`
`Bumby II &