Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 307
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 307
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`PAICE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V,
`
`Case No: 2~04CV-211 (DP)
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR COR?ORATION, a
`Japanese Corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR
`NORTH AMERICA, INC, and TOYOTA
`MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF PAICE LLC’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`March 8, 2005
`
`Samuei F. Baxter (Bar No. 01938000)
`MCKOOL SMITH RC.
`
`505 East Travis Street, Suite 105
`
`Marshail, TX 75670
`
`Ofcounsel:
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (Bar No. 04820550)
`Ahmed J. Davis
`
`Peter J. Sawert
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Fioor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Robert E. Hiilman
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC.
`
`225 Franklin Street
`
`Boston, MA 021 10
`
`Andrew D. Hirsch, Esquire
`PAICE LLC
`
`6830 Elm Street
`
`McLean, VA 22101
`
`1 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`1 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 308
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 308
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`m
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. i
`
`A. Technological Overview ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. The Parties .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Legal Background ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`11. THE PAICE PATENTS .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A. United States Patent No. 5,343,970 .................................................................................... 3
`
`B. United States Patent No. 6,209,672 .................................................................................... 6
`
`C. United States Patent No. 6,554,088 .................................................................................... 9
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM INTERPRETATION ................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Principles of Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 9
`
`B. Construction of Means‘Plus-Function Claim Elements ................................................... 11
`
`IV. PROPOSED INTERPRETATION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS ................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`’970 Patent ........................................................................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ........................................ . ................................................................................. 12
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“Drive torque” ........................................................................................................... 13
`
`“Controllable torque transfer unit” ........................................................................... 13
`
`“Input shafts” ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`. and for controlling the relative
`.
`“A controller for controlling the operation of .
`d.
`contributions of. .
`. .” ....................................................................................................... 14
`
`6.
`
`“Output member” ...................................................................................................... l4
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`a.
`
`“Controller means” ................................................................................................... 15
`
`1).
`
`“Operating mode” ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`3.
`
`Claim 9 .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`2 of 220
`
`1
`
`FORD 1863
`
`2 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 309
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 309
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`flag
`
`. [and] means for
`.
`. means for converting .
`“Solid state switching means .
`a.
`rectifying” ......................................................................................................................... 16
`
`4.
`
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................................................ 16
`
`a.
`
`“Soiid state switching means” .................................................................................. 17
`
`5.
`
`Claim 32 ........................................................................................................................ 17
`
`“Means for performing the foiiowing functions responsive to input commands and
`a.
`monitored operation of said vehicle:
`seiecting an appropriate mode of operation .
`.
`. .” 18
`
`b.
`
`“Low speed running” {mode] .................................................................................... 19
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`“Steady state running” [mode] .................................................................................. 19
`
`“Acceleration or hiil climbing” [mode] .................................................................... 20
`
`“Battery charging” [model ........................................................................................ 20
`
`“Braking” [model ...................................................................................................... 20
`
`g.
`
`“Engine starting” ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`6.
`
`Claim 38 ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
`a.
`
`“Solid state switching network” ................................................................................ 21
`
`B.
`
`’67? Patent ........................................................................................................................ 21
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................................................... 21
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“Clutch” .................................................................................................................... 22
`
`“Controllable clutch” ................................................................................................ 23
`
`“Directiy coupled” .................................................................................................... 23
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 .......................................................................................................................... 24
`
`a.
`
`“Instantaneous road load” / “RL” ............................................................................. 24
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3 .......................................................................................................................... 25
`
`a.
`
`“Monitoring commands provided by the vehicle operator” ..................................... 25
`
`3 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`ii
`
`3 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 310
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 310
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`m
`
`4.
`
`Claim 13 ........................................................................................................................ 26
`
`a.
`
`“Total torque available at the road wheels from said engine” .................................. 26
`
`5.
`
`Claim 15 ........................................................................................................................ 26
`
`“Operating said controller to control selection of the operational mode of said
`a.
`vehicle between a low—speed mode I, a cruising rnode IV, and an acceleration mode V”27
`
`“Monitoring the instantaneous torque requirements required for propulsion of the
`b.
`vehicle (RL)” .................................................................................................................... 28
`
`c.
`
`“Operating mode” ..................................................................................................... 28
`
`6.
`
`Claim 30 ........................................................................................................................ 28
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“At least one traction motor being coupled to read wheels of said vehicle” ............ 29
`
`“A controller for controlling operation .
`
`.
`
`. and controlling flow” ............................ 29
`
`“Configured as a number of batteries connected by normally—open switching
`c.
`devices, such that said batteries are electrically isolated from one another in the event
`power is cut off from said switching devices” .................................................................. 30
`
`C.
`
`’088 Patent ........................................................................................................................ 30
`
`a.
`
`“instantaneous torque demands (RL)” ...................................................................... 31
`
`“Said microprocessor controls operation. . .so as to operate said vehicle in a selected
`b.
`one of said operating modes in response to the instantaneous torque demands (RL) of said
`vehicle” ............................................................................................................................. 32
`
`c.
`
`“Operating mode” ..................................................................................................... 32
`
`“Said selected operating mode being selected such that said engine is operated only
`d.
`in response to a load equal at least to a predetermined minimum value of its maximum
`torque output” ................................................................................................................... 32
`
`4 of 220
`
`”1
`
`FORD 1863
`
`4 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 311
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 311
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`ACTVInc. v. Walt Disney Ca,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 11
`
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Lab, Inc.
`391 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`CR. Bard, Inc. v. US. Surgical Corp,
`388 F.3d 855 (Fed. C132 2004) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Gemsrar—TV Guide Int ’1, Inc. v. ITC,
`.
`383 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................... 10
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`.IT. Eaton (5’: Co. v. All. Paste & Glue C0,, 106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................... 10
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp, 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................. 1 1
`
`Markman 12. Wesrview Instruments, Inc,
`52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`Merck <52 Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc, 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................. 9
`
`Rockweil Int’i Corp. v. United States,
`147 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Tex. Digital Sys. v. Telegenix Inc,
`308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am), Inc. v. VDO N. Am, L.L.C.,
`375 F.3d 1126, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 11, 16, 17
`
`Vitrenics Corp. V. Conceptronic, Inc,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`iv
`
`5 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`5 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 312
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 312
`
`Plaintiff PAICE LLC (“Paice”) hereby submits its brief on the proper construction of
`
`certain disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“the ’970 patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`A); U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672 (“the ’672 patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit B); and US. Patent
`
`No. 6,554,088 (“the ”088 patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit C). For the reasons that follow,
`
`Paice respectfuily requests that this Court adopt its proposed claim constructions in their entirety.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Technological Overview
`
`Hybrid electric vehicles are powered by both a traditional internal combustion engine
`
`(ICE) and at least one electric motor. Such vehicles have become increasingly attractive
`
`alternatives to traditional automobiles powered solely by iCEs or straight electric vehicles
`
`because they combine the advantages from each and minimize their shortcomings. Namely,
`
`hybrid electric vehicies provide the potential for maximum fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and
`
`increased driveability in a wide range of vehicles, Without limiting travel distance and
`
`perfonnance based on the electric motor alone.
`
`Hybrid electric vehicles are generally categorized as one of a number of types: a series
`
`hybrid, a parallel hybrid, or a parallel-series hybrid.
`
`In a series hybrid system, the engine runs a
`
`generator that powers the electric motor in order to provide torque1 to the wheels to propei the
`
`vehicle. In a paraliel hybrid system, the engine and the electric motor are both connected to the
`
`drive wheels of the vehicle, and either can impart torque to the wheels to propel the vehicie. A
`
`parallel~series hybrid, as the name implies, can operate as a series or a parallel hybrid; the engine
`
`can run a generator to power a motor to impart torque to the wheeis to propel the vehicle (series),
`
`or the engine and motor can themselves directiy impait torque to the wheels to propet the vehicle
`
`(parallel). To maximize efficient use of the battery energy, each type of hybrid provides for
`
`j
`
`.
`.
`“Torque” ts a measure of rotational force.
`
`6 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`6 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 313
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 313
`
`recovery of torque from the wheels during braking to drive a generator, which charges the
`
`battery.
`
`Because hybrid electric vehicles are equipped with more than one source of torque, a
`
`microprocessor typically is employed to control the various components of the hybrid system,
`
`including determining the source of propulsive torque in a given driving condition. This
`
`determination is critically important, as hybrid systems that do not make such determinations
`
`properly or use the most efficient source of torque ultimately fail to realize the significant
`
`benefits of hybrids.
`
`The salient issues in this case revolve around the novel topology of Paice hybrid electric
`
`vehicles, and the superior methods invented by Paice to select modes of operation (e. g., motor-
`
`only), together with the method of operation of key components to maximize utility of such
`
`vehicles.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties
`
`Paice is in the business of developing superior hybrid electric vehicle technology that,
`
`when implemented, promotes better fuel efficiency, lower emissions, superior driving
`
`performance and fuel efficient operation of internal combustion engines. Formed in 1992, Paice
`
`has been at the forefront of development of economical hybrid electric vehicle control systems
`
`and related technologies. As a result of its inventive endeavors, Paice owns a number of patents
`
`directed to hybrid vehicle technology. The technological superiority of Paice’s technology as a
`
`cost—effective alternative to other hybrid vehicle designs has been recognized in the industry.
`
`Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan, Toyota Motor North America, inc, and
`
`Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Toyota”) are in the business of designing,
`
`developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling automobiles worldwide, including hybrid
`
`electric vehicles within the United States. Toyota’s present hybrid electric vehicle sold in the
`
`United States, the Prius, was named Motor Trend’s 2004 Car of the Year, and had year-end sales
`
`in 2004 in excess of 53,000 units. In addition to the Prius, Toyota also has offered for sale or
`
`7 of 220
`
`2
`
`FORD 1863
`
`7 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 314
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 314
`
`announced the imminent release of three other hybrid electric vehicles: the Lexus 400b, the
`
`Lexus GS 450b, and the Highiander Hybrid.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Background
`
`Paice instituted this action for patent infringement against Toyota for infringement of the
`
`’970 patent, the ’672 patent, and the ’088 patent (collectively, “the asserted patents”) on June 8,
`
`2004. Toyota answered on July 30, 2004, asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and
`
`invalidity. The court entered a Scheduling Order on November 22, 2004 which, among other
`
`things, required that the parties exchange claim terms they believed require construction by
`
`February 22, 2005.2 Paice identified five claim terms that it believed required construction. See
`
`2/22/2005 Davis Ltr to Grasso (Exhibit D). Toyota identified over 30 claim terms requiring
`
`construction, including those identified by Paice. See 2/22/2005 Gerchick Ltr to Cordell (Exhibit
`
`E). Paice’s proposed construction for each of the disputed terms is discussed in further detail
`
`below. Paice remains convinced that the Court need construe only a handfui of terms; however,
`
`Paice here presents its analysis of ali of the terms Toyota urges for construction.
`
`II.
`
`THE PAIGE PATENTS
`
`Paice is the owner by assignment of each of the asserted patents. As discussed in further
`
`detail below, each of these patents is directed to various aspects of hybrid electric vehicle
`
`technology, including novel designs and control systems for hybrid electric vehicles.
`
`A.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,343,970
`
`The ”970 patent, entitled “Hybrid Electric Vehicle,” issued on September 6, 1994, from
`
`an application that was filed on September 21, 1992. The ’970 patent generally discloses and
`
`claims a novel hybrid electric vehicle, including an internal combustion engine and electric
`
`2
`
`The Scheduling Order did not set a page limit for these claim construction briefs. Pursuant to
`their March 4, 2005 Joint Motion to Extend i’age Limit of Claim Construction Briefs, the
`parties have jointly sought a 35-page limit.
`
`8 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`8 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 315
`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 315
`
`motor, both of which can provide torque to the wheels of the vehicle through a controliable
`
`torque transfer unit.
`
`At the time the application that became the ’970 patent was filed, hybrid electric vehicles
`
`were known in the art, but suffered from substantial deficiencies that prohibited them from being
`
`competitive with traditional automobiles. For example, hybrid vehicles known in the prior art
`
`taught or required that the vehicle operator control the transition between operating modes. ”970
`
`patent, col. 3:16-25; col. 4:12~18. Similarly, many of the hybrids in the prior art required
`
`multiple-speed, manual, or automatic transmissions AW which added complexity, cost, and size to
`
`the vehicles.
`
`’970 patent, coi. 3:31—59. Further, because the electric motors in the prior art rareiy
`
`provided sufficient torque to propei the vehicle at low speeds, a variabie-speed transmission was
`
`often required. ”970 patent, col. 4:22-26.
`
`To overcome these deficiencies in the prior art, the ’970 patent teaches employing an
`
`innovative parailel hybrid system containing‘a relativeiy powerful alternating current electric
`
`motor that is run at high voltage and low current, and an internal combustion engine that is
`
`operated in its fuel efficient range. The microprocessor controls the direction of torque transfer
`
`responsive to the mode of operation to provide highly efficient operation of the vehicle over a
`
`wide range of operating conditions.
`
`In particular, the transition between modes in this system is
`
`transparent to the operator. The arrangement of a preferred embodiment is shown in Figure 3 of
`
`the ’970 patent, reproduced below.
`
`9 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`9 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 316
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 316
`
`
`
`In the preferred embodiment shown in Figure 3, an internal combustion engine 40 and an
`
`aiternating current (AC) motor 20 are connected to the drive wheels of the vehicle through a
`
`controllable torque transfer unit 28. The torque transfer unit receives torque from the engine 40
`
`or motor 20 and transmits this torque to drive wheels 34. A battery 22 provides direct current
`
`(DC) power to a bi—directional solid state AC/DC power converter 44, which converts the DC
`
`power from the battery to AC power, which then powers motor 20.
`
`’970 patent, col. 9:61-68.
`
`The battery is charged by power generated by the motor 20 when it receives torque from the
`
`Wheels (sometimes called “regenerative braking”) or the engine, through the torque transfer unit.
`
`”970 patent, col. 9:68~col. 10:4.
`
`Control of the engine and motor is accomplished by microprocessor controller 48, which
`
`controls the rate of supply of fuel to engine 40; the throttle opening by which the engine receives
`
`air for combusting fuel; the Operation of two-way clutch SO and torque transfer unit 28; and the
`
`bi—directional flow of power between battery 22 and motor 20. This control is responsive to
`
`control signals received from the vehicle operator (e.g, depressing accelerator or brake pedals)
`
`and external system elements, such as engine speed, motor speed, and battery voltage.
`
`’970
`
`patent, col. 10:4~24.
`
`10 of 220
`
`5
`
`FORD 1863
`
`10 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 317
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 317
`
`These input parameters are indicative of the overall driving condition, which is used to
`
`setect the operating mode of the vehicle. Thus, for exampie, when the vehicle is operating in
`
`low—speed circumstances, such as in stop-and~go city driving, the microprocessor may determine
`
`that all torque should be supplied from the electric motor. ’970 patent, col. 10:52-68. Likewise,
`
`when the vehicle is operating in a high-speed acceleration or hill climbing mode, the
`
`microprocessor may determine that torque should be supplied to the drive wheels from both the
`
`engine and the electric motor.
`
`’970 patent, col. 142264.
`
`B.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,209,672
`
`The ’672 patent, entitled “Hybrid Vehicle,” issued on April 3, 200} from an application
`
`with a priority date of September E4, 1998. Although the ’672 patent is not related to the ”970
`
`patent, it builds substantialiy on the teachings of the ’970 patent. See, e.g., ’672 patent, col.
`
`18218434.
`
`in particular, the ”672 patent discloses and claims a novel hybrid electric vehicle,
`
`including an internal combustion engine and a first (starter/generator) motor that are connected
`
`to the drive wheels of the vehicle through a clutch, as well as a second (traction) motor
`
`connected to the drive wheels. Both (or either of) the traction motor and the starter/generator
`
`motor may be used to recharge the battery during regenerative braking, or from the engine.
`
`Additionally, a microprocessor is employed to arbitrate between operating modes based on the
`
`vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements (also called “road load”), state of charge of the
`
`battery bank, and other variables. ”672 patent, col. 28:4-19.
`
`A preferred embodiment of the hybrid vehicle claimed in the ’672 patent is shown in
`
`Figure 3, reproduced below.
`
`11 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`11 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 318
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 318
`
`
`V WW W as
`
`
` a";
`7
`it,
`émw _._._i
`-
`are state state
`at,
`WNW;
`. it
`i" ”n.
`"rt-w)?
`.-.
`I
`‘32-
`»??m“: zid‘
`“
`
`As shown, a traction motor 25 is connected to the road wheels 34 through a differential
`
`32. A starter motor 21 is connected directly to the internal combustion engine 40. The motors
`
`2t and 25 are functional as either motors or generators, depending on the operation of the
`
`corresponding inverter/charger units 23 and 27, which connect the motors to the battery bank 22.
`
`Engine 40 and traction motor 25 are controliabiy connected to each other through a clutch 51.
`
`’672 patent, col. 19:20-33.
`
`These components are controlled by a microprocessor 48, or any controller capable of
`
`examining input parameters and signais and controlling the mode of operation of the vehicle
`
`according to a stored program.
`
`’672 patent, col. 18:65-col. 19:9. For example, control of engine
`
`40 is accomplished by way of control signals provided by the microprocessor to the electronic
`
`fuei injection (EFI) unit 56 and electronic engine management (REM) unit 55. Controi of (1)
`
`starting of the engine 40; (2) usage of motors 21 and 25 to provide proputsive torque; or (3)
`
`usage of motors as generators to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22, is
`
`accomplished through control signals provided by the microprocessor to the inverter/charger
`
`units 23 and 27. ”672 patent, col. 19:31-39, co]. 2113949, col. 2224964.
`
`The hybrid vehicle may be operated in a number of modes based on the vehicle’s
`
`instantaneous torque requirements, the engine’s maximum torque output, the state of charge of
`
`12 of 220
`
`7
`
`FORD 1863
`
`12 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 319
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 319
`
`the battery, and other operating parameters.
`
`In the preferred embodiment of the ’672 patent, the
`
`microprocessor causes the vehicle to operate in one of four principal modes in response to a
`
`control strategy.
`
`During low-speed operation (mode I), the hybrid vehicle is operated as a simple electric
`
`car, with the traction motor providing all torque to propel the vehicle.
`
`’672 patent, col. 28:50-55;
`
`Fig. 8(a). As the vehicle continues to be propelled in electric only mode, the state of charge of
`
`the battery may become depleted, and need to be recharged. During this battery recharge mode
`
`(mode 11), the vehicle operates as in mode I, with the engine running the starter/generator motor
`
`to provide electrical energy to operate the traction motor and recharge the battery.
`
`’672 patent,
`
`col. 28:58wcol. 29:5; Fig. 8(b). During highway cruising (mode IV),3 which is when the internal
`
`combustion engine operates in its fuel efficient range, the hybrid vehicle is operated essentially
`
`as a traditional automobile, with the engine providing all torque to propel the vehicle.
`
`’672
`
`patent, col. 2926—22; Fig. 8(c). If, while operating the vehicle in mode IV, the operator calls for
`
`additional power, then the vehicle will enter acceleration/hillnclirnbing operation (mode V),
`
`where the traction motor provides additional torque to propel the vehicle beyond that already
`
`provided by engine 40.
`
`’672 patent, col. 29:23-39; Fig. 8(d).
`
`In addition to the topology and control system described in the ’672 patent, it also
`
`discloses a novel configuration of the source of energy used to power the electric motors. In
`
`particular, because the hybrid electric vehicle of the ’672 patent is preferably operated at high
`
`voltages, there is a substantial need to subdivide this voltage for safety reasons. Accordingly, the
`
`”672 patent teaches separating the battery bank with normally-open switching devices that will
`
`isolate the batteries from one another in the event power is cut off from those devices.
`
`’672
`
`patent, col. 27:49—57.
`
`3 Mode Ill, an emergency mode of operation not relevant to the asserted claims, allows the
`vehicle to operate in electric—only mode in the case of engine or battery fault. ’672 patent,
`col. 30:10-14,
`
`13 of 220
`
`8
`
`FORD 1863
`
`13 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 320
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 14 of 40 PagelD #: 320
`
`C.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,554,088
`
`The ’088 patent, entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on April 29, 2003, and ciaims priority
`
`to two provisional applications dated March 1, i999, and September 14, 1998, respectiveiy. As a
`
`continuation-in-part of the ’672 patent, the entire disclosure of the ’672 patent is contained in the
`
`’088 patent specification. Because the only asserted claim in the ’088 patent, ciairn 1, does not
`
`involve any new matter, the relevant disclosure in the ”088 patent has been described above.
`
`111.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS OF CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`A.
`
`Principles of Claim Construction
`
`Claim interpretation is a question of law decided before proceeding to an infringement or
`
`invalidity analysis. Markman 12. Wesrvz'ew Instruments, Inc, 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. i995),
`
`afl’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996); see also Rockweil Int ’1 Corp. v. United States, 147 F.3d 1358, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998). “In determining the meaning of disputed claim language, a court looks first to
`
`the intrinsic evidence of record, examining, in order, the claim language itself, the specification,
`
`and the prosecution history.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Lab, Inc. 391 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`“To properly construe a claim term, a court first considers the intrinsic evidence, starting
`
`with the language ofthe claims.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc, 395 F.3d 1364,
`
`1369—70 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “While in some cases there is a presumption that favors the ordinary
`
`meaning ofa terrn, Tex. Digital 8325. v. Telegenix Inc, 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the
`
`court must first examine the specification to determine whether the patentee acted as his own
`
`lexicographer of a term that already has an ordinary meaning to a person of skili in the art.” Id.
`
`at 1370. To act as his own lexicographer and deviate from ordinary meaning, the patentee “must
`
`ciearly express that intent in the written description” with “sufficient clarity to put one
`
`reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the inventor intended to redefine the claim term.” Id.
`
`14 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`14 of 220
`
`FORD 1863
`
`

`

`Case 2:04-cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 321
`Case 2:04—cv-00211-DF Document 21 Filed 03/08/05 Page 15 of 40 PagelD #: 321
`
`More specifically, this requires that “the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of
`
`coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
`
`disavowal of claim scope.” Gemstar~TV Guide Int’l, Inc. v. [TC, 383 F.3d 1352, 1364 (lied. Cir.
`
`2004); Teleflex, Inc. v. Fieosa N. Am. Corp, 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Absent such clear intent, there is a heavy presumption in favor of the ordinary meaning of
`
`claim language. Tex. Digital, 308 F.3d at 1202. Accordingly, “[u]nless compelled otherwise, a
`
`court will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning as understood by persons
`
`skilled in the relevant art.” Gemsrar-TV, 383 F.3d at 1364; Tex. Digital, 308 F.3d at 1202.
`
`“{D]ictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises are particularly useful resources to assist the court in
`
`determining the ordinary and customary meanings of cla