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.: IPR2015-00801
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 80, 111, 114, 144, 241, 264, 266, 267, 278-280, 282-291
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,237,634)
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`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) ............................................... 2
`
`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.
`Prior Art Relied Upon .................................................................................... 3
`D. Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ...................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA) ............................... 4
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT ................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent ................................................. 4
`The Challenged Claims Require Only One-Motor ..................................... 5
`
`VI.
`
`STATE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................. 5
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3) ..................................... 6
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Road load (RL)” and “RL” ............................................................................ 7
`“Setpoint (SP)” and “SP” .................................................................................. 7
`“Mode I,” “low-load operation mode I,” “high-way cruising operation mode
`IV,” “acceleration operation mode V” ................................................................. 8
`“Abnormal and transient conditions” ................................................................... 9
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS .................................................................... 10
`
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 267, 278-280, 282, 284, 285, 289 and 290
`are Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view of Yamaguchi ........................ 10
`1.
`Independent Claim 267 ..................................................................... 10
`a.
`Severinsky ’970 discloses limitations [267.2] and
`[267.3][a] .................................................................................. 14
`Patentee’s admissions refute its expected arguments ........ 17
`Patentee’s contention that Severinsky ’970 is “speed-
`based” rather than “torque-based” is misplaced ................ 19
`
`b.
`c.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`B.
`
`F.
`
`Severinsky ’970’s description of motor-engine
`transition further confirms it uses road load....................... 20
`Conclusion: Severinsky ’970 discloses [267.2] and
`[267.3] ...................................................................................... 21
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 24
`2.
`Dependent Claims 278-280, 282, 284, 285, 289 and 290 .............. 25
`3.
`GROUND 2: Claims 283, 286, 287 and 288 are Obvious over
`Severinsky ’970 and Yamaguchi in view of Lateur .................................... 33
`1.
`Rationale to Combine – Controls .................................................... 35
`2.
`Rationale to Combine – “Variable-Ratio Transmission” ................... 39
`C. GROUND 3: Claim 291 is Obvious over Severinsky ’970 and
`Yamaguchi in view of Suga .......................................................................... 40
`1.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 42
`D. GROUND 4: Claim 241 is Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view
`of Vittone ....................................................................................................... 44
`1.
`Independent Claim 241 ..................................................................... 44
`2.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 48
`E. GROUND 5: Claim 264 is Obvious over Severinsky ’970 and
`Vittone in view of Yamaguchi ..................................................................... 50
`1.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 50
`GROUND 6: Claim 266 is Obvious over Severinsky ’970 and
`Vittone in view of Suga................................................................................. 50
`1.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 51
`G. GROUND 7: Claims 80 and 114 are Obvious over Severinsky
`’970 in view Frank ......................................................................................... 51
`1.
`Independent Claim 80 ....................................................................... 51
`2.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 55
`3.
`Independent Claim 114 ..................................................................... 57
`H. GROUND 8: Claims 111 and 144 are Obvious over Severinsky
`’970 and Frank in view of Yamaguchi ........................................................ 59
`1.
`Rationale to Combine ........................................................................ 60
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ......................................... 60
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Identifier
`
`’634 Patent
`
`Stein
`Ford Litigation
`
`Severinsky ’970
`
`Yamaguchi
`
`Lateur
`
`Suga
`
`Vittone
`
`Frank
`
`’634 File
`History
`Takaoka
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 issued to Severinsky et al.
`(July 3, 2007)
`Declaration of Jeffery L. Stein, Ph.D.
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:14-
`cv-00492, District of MD, Baltimore Div., Complaint
`(Feb. 19, 2014) (Ex. 1853 at 2-51.)
`
`Service (Feb. 25, 2014) (Ex. 1853 at 1.)
`
`Letter from Ford to Paice (Sept. 22, 2014) (Ex. 1853
`at 52.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 issued to Severinsky (Sept.
`6, 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263 issued to Yamaguchi et al.
`(Feb. 2, 1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,823,280 issued to Lateur (Oct. 20,
`1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,623,104 issued to Suga (Apr. 22,
`1997)
`Oreste Vittone et al., FIAT Research Centre, Fiat
`Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Car Design, 12th
`International Electric Vehicle Symposium, Volume 2
`(1994), (available at
`https://www.worldcat.org/title/symposium-
`proceedings-12th-international-electric-vehicle-
`symposium-december-5-7-1994-disneyland-hotel-and-
`convention-center-anaheim-
`california/oclc/32209857&referer=brief_results.)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534 issued to Frank (Dec. 1,
`1998)
`USPN 7,237,634 File History
`
`Toshifumi Takaoka et al., A High-Expansion Ratio
`Gasoline Engine for the Toyota Hybrid System, published as
`part of Toyota Technical Review, Prevention of Global
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1851
`
`1852
`1853
`
`
`
`1854
`
`1855
`
`1856
`
`1857
`
`1858
`
`1859
`
`1860
`
`1861
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1862
`
`1863
`
`1864
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`Warming, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Toyota Motor Corporation,
`April 1998) (Ex. 1861 at 1-8.) (available at:
`https://www.worldcat.org/title/a-high-expansion-
`ratio-gasoline-engine-for-the-toyota-hybrid-
`system/oclc/205516653&referer=brief_results.)
`
`Declaration of Walt Johnson and Exhibit A (Dec. 23,
`2014) (Ex. 1861 at 9-19.)
`USPN 7,104,347 File History Excerpts
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`2:04-cv-211, E.D. Texas, Paice Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (Mar. 8, 2005) (Ex. 1863 at 1-40.)
`
`Paice Claim Construction Reply Brief (Mar. 29, 2005)
`(Ex. 1863 at 41-79.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (Sept. 28, 2005) (Ex. 1863
`at 80-130.)
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`2:07-cv-180 (Paice Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(June 25, 2008) (Ex. 1863 at 131-165.)
`
`Paice Claim Construction Reply Brief (Aug. 1, 2008)
`(Ex. 1863 at 166-191.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (Dec. 5, 2008) (Ex. 1863 at
`192-220.)
`Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor Corp. et al., Case No.
`1:12-cv-0499, District of MD, Baltimore Div., Paice
`Opening Claim Construction Brief (Nov. 14, 2013)
`(Ex. 1864 at 1-37.)
`
`Paice Responsive Brief on Claim Construction (Dec.
`16, 2013) (Ex. 1864 at 38-81.)
`
`Claim Construction Order (Ex. 1864 at 82-122.)
`
`iv
`
`’347 File
`History
`Toyota
`Litigation
`
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1865
`
`1866
`
`1867
`1868
`
`Description
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00570, Paper 10
`(Sept. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1865 at 1-13.)
`
`
`Excerpts from Public Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, IPR2014-00571, Paper 11, (July 11, 2014)
`(Ex. 1865 at 14-23.)
`
`Excerpts from Public Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, IPR2014-00579, Paper 11, (July 11, 2014)
`(Ex. 1865 at 24-33.)
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00571, Paper 12,
`(Sept. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1865 at 34-50.)
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00579, Paper 12,
`(Sept. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1865 at 51-64.)
`
`Decision of Institution, IPR2014-00904, Paper 13,
`(Dec. 12, 2014) (Ex. 1865 at 65-78.)
`
`Excerpts from Public Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response, IPR2014-01415, Paper 9, (Dec. 16, 2014)
`(Ex. 1865 at 79-96.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2014-00571, Paper 20
`(January 21, 2015) (Ex. 1865 at 97-162.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2014-00579, Paper 20
`(January 21, 2015) (Ex. 1865 at 163-226.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2014-00570, Paper 22
`(January 21, 2015) (Ex. 1865 at 227-292.)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 issued to Severinsky et al.
`(Sep. 12, 2006)
`Curriculum Vitae of Jeffery L. Stein
`John B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine
`Fundamentals (McGraw-Hill 1988) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`
`v
`
`Identifier
`
`Ford IPRs
`
`’347 Patent
`
`Jeff Stein CV
`Heywood
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1869
`
`1870
`
`1871
`
`1872
`
`1873
`
`1874
`
`1875
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`=20946&recCount=25&recPointer=4&bibId=242179
`8.)
`Willard W. Pulkrabek, Engineering Fundamentals of
`the Internal Combustion Engine (Prentice Hall, 1997)
`(available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=10003&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=210950
`3.)
`Hawley, G.G., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary,
`Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 9th ed. (1977) (available
`at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=21541&recCount=25&recPointer=14&bibId=12895
`84.)
`U.S. Patent No. 913,846 issued to Pieper (Mar. 2,
`1909)
`Michael Duoba, Ctr. for Transp. Research, Argonne
`Nat’l Lab., Challenges for the Vehicle Tester in
`Characterizing Hybrid Electric Vehicles, 7th CRC on Road
`Vehicle Emissions Workshop (April 1997) (available at
`http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/516019.)
`Society of Automotive Engineers Special Publication,
`Technology for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, SAE SP-1331
`(February 1998) (available at
`http://www.worldcat.org/title/technology-for-
`electric-and-hybrid-vehicles/oclc/39802642.)
`Catherine Anderson & Erin Pettit, The Effects of APU
`Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control Strategies for
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE Technical Paper 950493,
`published as part of Society of Automotive Engineers
`Special Publication, DESIGN INNOVATIONS IN
`Electric AND Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE SP-1089
`(February, 1995) (available at
`http://papers.sae.org/950493/.)
`Yamaguchi et al., Development of a New Hybrid System –
`Dual System, SAE Technical Paper 960231, published
`as part of Society of Automotive Engineers Special
`Publication, Strategies in Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
`
`Pulkrabek
`
`Hawley
`
`Pieper
`
`Duoba
`
`SP-1331
`
`Anderson
`
`Yamaguchi
`Paper
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`1876
`
`1877
`
`1878
`
`1879
`
`1880
`
`1881
`
`1882
`
`Design, SAE SP-1156, (February 1996) (available at
`http://www.worldcat.org/title/strategies-in-electric-
`and-hybrid-vehicle-design-sae-special-publication-sp-
`1156-a-collection-of-papers-presented-for-sessions-at-
`the-1996-sae-international-congress-and-
`exposition/oclc/312822989?ht=edition&referer=di;
`and http://papers.sae.org/960231/.)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,888,325 issued to Reinbeck (June
`10, 1975)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429 issued to Kawakatsu (June
`15, 1982)
`L. E. Unnewehr et al., Hybrid Vehicle for Fuel Economy,
`SAE Technical Paper 760121 (1976) (available at
`http://papers.sae.org/760121/.)
`Brown, T.L. et al., Chemistry, The Central Science,
`Third Edition (Prentice-Hall, 1985) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=21829&recCount=25&recPointer=13&bibId=42590
`71.)
`Grunde T. Engh & Stephen Wallman, Development of
`the Volvo Lambda-Sond System, SAE Technical Paper
`770295 (1977) (available at
`http://papers.sae.org/770295/.)
`A.G. Stefanopoulou et al., Engine Air-Fuel Ratio and
`Torque Control using Secondary Throttles, Proceedings of
`the 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
`(December 1994) (available at
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&
`arnumber=411385&queryText%3DA.+G.+Stefanopo
`ulou+et+al.%2C+Engine+Air-
`Fuel+Ratio+and+Torque+Control+using+Secondary
`+Throttles%2C+Proceedings+of+the+33rd+IEEE+
`Conference+on+Decision+and+Control+.LB.Decem
`ber+1994.RB.)
`General Electric Company, Corp. Research & Dev.,
`Near-Term Hybrid Vehicle Program, Final Report - Phase
`1 (October 1979) (available at
`http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19800017707.)
`
`vii
`
`Reinbeck
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Unnewehr
`
`Brown
`
`Engh
`
`Stefanopoulou
`
`GE Final
`Report
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`William J. Palm III, Control Systems Engineering
`(John Wiley & Sons, 1986) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=10476&recCount=25&recPointer=0&bibId=380629
`2.)
`Ronald K. Jurgen, Automotive Electronics Handbook,
`(McGraw-Hill 1995) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=10485&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=159865
`8.)
`Ronald E. Kruse and Thomas A. Hulse, Development
`of the Federal Urban Driving Schedule, SAE
`Technical Paper 730553 (1973). Kruse is a true and
`accurate copy of a technical paper that I understand
`was published in 1973 by SAE. (Kruse, Ex. 1885 at 1-
`2) (available at http://papers.sae.org/730553/)
`Feng An and Matthew Barth, Critical Issues in
`Quantifying Hybrid Electric Vehicle Emissions and Fuel
`Consumption, SAE Technical Paper 981902, published
`as part of the Future Transportation Technology
`Conference & Exposition, (August 11-13, 1998)
`(available at http://papers.sae.org/981902/)
`Mehrdad Ehsani et al., Propulsion System Design of Electric
`and Hybrid Vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
`Electronics, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 1997) (available
`at
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&
`arnumber=557495&queryText%3DMehrdad+Ehsani
`+et+al.%2C+Propulsion+System+Design+of+Electr
`ic+and+Hybrid+Vehicles%2C)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,898 issued to Cullen et al. (Jan.
`2, 1996)
`
`Palm III
`
`Jurgen
`
`Kruse
`
`An
`
`Ehsani Paper
`
`Cullen
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1883
`
`1884
`
`1885
`
`1886
`
`1887
`
`1888
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner (“Ford”) requests inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`(“’634 Patent”, Ex. 1851) through this Petition. The Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey L.
`
`Stein in support of this Petition, is filed as Exhibit 1852 (“Stein”, Ex. 1852).
`
`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.” (Ford Litigation, Ex. 1853 at
`
`16, served on Feb. 25, 2014, id. at 1.) Paice’s methods of using “road load” and an
`
`engine torque “setpoint” were actually well known in the art. (Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶63-
`
`68.) U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429 to Kawakatsu (Ex. 1877) and Paice’s own U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ’970”, Ex. 1854) 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 306 such claims. Ford has repeatedly
`
`asked Paice to limit the asserted claims to a reasonable number (Ford Litigation, Ex.
`
`1853 at 52), 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 Severinsky
`
`’970 in this petition, but may rely on other references in other petitions because they
`
`1
`
`

`
`address other dependent claims directed toward different subject matter. This IPR
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`focuses on claims directed to preheating an engine before it is started.
`
`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 -00800.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Ford appoints Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733) of Brooks Kushman P.C. as
`
`lead counsel, and appoints Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759), Andrew B. Turner (Reg.
`
`No. 63,121), and John P. Rondini (Reg. No. 64,949) 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 herewith.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Hand-delivery service can be made to Brooks Kushman P.C., 1000 Town
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Center, Twenty-Second Floor, Southfield, MI 48075 and Dentons US LLP, 233 South
`
`Wacker Drive, Suite 7800, Chicago, IL 60606-6306. Ford consents to email service at
`
`FPGP0104IPR8@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 inter partes review and that
`
`the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging
`
`the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of ’634 Patent claims 80, 111, 114, 144, 241, 264, 266,
`
`267, 278-280, 282-291 and requests these claims be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`U.S. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ’970,” Ex. 1854) is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`U.S. 5,865,263 (“Yamaguchi,” Ex. 1855) is at least § 102(e) prior art.
`
`U.S. 5,823,280 (“Lateur,” Ex. 1856) is at least § 102(e) prior art.
`
`U.S. 5,263,104 (“Suga,” Ex. 1857) is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`Oreste Vittone et al., FIAT Research Centre, Fiat Conceptual Approach to
`
`Hybrid Car Design, 12th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (1994), Volume 2
`
`(“Vittone”, Ex. 1858), published in 1994, is § 102(b) prior art.
`
`6.
`
`U.S. 5,842,534 (“Frank,” Ex. 1859) is at least § 102(e) prior art.
`
`D. Grounds of Challenge – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Yamaguchi
`
`267, 278-280, 282,
`
`284, 285, 289, 290
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970, Yamaguchi and Lateur 283, 286, 287, 288
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970, Yamaguchi and Suga
`
`291
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Vittone
`
`241
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970, Vittone, Yamaguchi
`
`264
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970, Vittone and Suga
`
`266
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Frank
`
`80, 114
`
`§ 103
`
`Severinsky ’970, Frank and Yamaguchi 111, 144
`
`
`IV. 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), and is also set forth in the declaration
`
`of Dr. Stein. (Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶39-43, see also ¶¶2-11.)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’634 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Purported Improvement in the ’634 Patent
`
`The ’634 Patent identifies a purported “new ‘topology’ for a hybrid vehicle”
`
`requiring “a first electric ‘starting’ motor” and “[a] second ‘traction’ motor . . . directly
`
`connected to the road wheels to propel the vehicle.” (’634 Patent, Ex. 1851, 11:50-61.)
`
`The “new ‘topology’” is disclosed as a two-motor “series-parallel” hybrid. (Id. at 16:5-
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`11.) Two-motor “series-parallel” hybrids were well-known long before the earliest
`
`priority date of September 1998. (Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶58-59.)
`
`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.” (’634
`
`Patent, Ex. 1851 at 1-Abstract, see also 19:45-50 and 20:61-21:2.)
`
`The control strategy of the ’634 Patent was known in the prior art. (See e.g.,
`
`Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶63-68.) In fact, the ’634 Patent acknowledges “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.” (’634 Patent, Ex. 1851 at 35:3-9, see also 25:4-24.)
`
`B. The Challenged Claims Require Only One-Motor
`
`The challenged independent claims 267, 241, 80 and 114 each recite “at least one
`
`electric motor.” Accordingly, a hybrid vehicle having only one electric motor satisfies this
`
`limitation; i.e., the challenged claims do not recite the allegedly “novel” hybrid
`
`topology having two-motors disclosed in the ’634 Patent.
`
`VI. STATE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`Environmental regulations in the 20th century resulted in the development of
`
`catalysts to increase the rate of fuel combustion to reduce the formation of undesired
`
`emissions. (Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶69-78.) Since at least 1988, “three-way” catalysts have
`
`been widely used to control hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`oxide (NOx) emissions. Id. at ¶79. To efficiently convert all three gases, the engine
`
`must operate at a substantially stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. Id. Conventional SI
`
`engines are typically operated with a rich A/F ratio (i.e., non-stoichiometric
`
`combustion) during cold starting conditions to ensure that the engine starts. Id. at ¶84.
`
`However, HC and CO emission levels are high when the A/F ratio is rich. For
`
`example, “[i]t is estimated that cold start-ups are the source of 70--90% of all HC
`
`emissions.” (Pulkrabek, Ex. 1869 at 46; Stein Ex. 1852, ¶84.) It was well known to a
`
`POSA that preheating the engine, before starting the engine, would reduce cold-start
`
`emissions. Id. at 85. A POSA would have also known that when a piston translates
`
`back and forth, it compresses air within the cylinder “raising both the pressure and
`
`temperature in the cylinder.” (Pulkrabek, Ex. 1869 at 16, Stein Ex. 1852, ¶¶46-47.)
`
`Thus, a POSA would have also known that an engine could be preheated, by simply
`
`rotating it for a period of time before starting it. (Id. at ¶¶203-207.)
`
`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).
`
`Petitioner proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes of this
`
`IPR only. But for some terms, based on the specification, file history, and patentee
`
`admissions, Ford contends that construction under applicable district court standards
`
`is narrower, and reserves the right to present a narrower construction in district court
`
`litigation.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`A.
`
`“Road load (RL)” and “RL”
`
`The Eastern District of Texas and 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.” (Toyota
`
`Litigation, Ex. 1863 at 205-206; Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1864 at 16, 96-100.)
`
`For this proceeding only, Ford 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 the PTAB’s construction. (See Ford IPRs, Ex. 1865
`
`at 40, 57-58, 70.) Ford contends the construction may be 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” (Toyota Litigation, Ex. 1863 at 203-204, Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1864 at 100-
`
`104.) Ford disagrees that this 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 33). 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
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`torque requirement, i.e., the “road load” RL . . . against setpoints, and uses the results of
`
`the comparisons to control the mode of vehicle operation.” (’634 Patent, Ex. 1851,
`
`40:16-26, emphasis added.) To do so (e.g., compare whether “RL < SP”), the “setpoint”
`
`must be in the same measurement units as the “road load.”
`
`During prosecution of the ’347 Patent (Ex. 1866) – the parent of the ’634
`
`Patent – patentee added the following limitation to pending claims 82 and 104, to
`
`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.” Patentee then argued the engine was operated only “when it is
`
`loaded . . . in excess of a setpoint SP, which is now defined to be ‘substantially less
`
`than the maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine.’” (’347 File History, Ex.
`
`1862 at 37-38, 43-44, 49, emphasis added.)
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with the PTAB’s recent construction.
`
`(Ford IPRs, Ex. 1865 at 40-42; see also at 58-60.) 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,” “high-way cruising
`operation mode IV,” “acceleration operation mode V”
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`During the Toyota suit, the court construed similar terms1 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”; and (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.
`
`1863 at 219.) Ford agrees with these constructions for this IPR but reserves the right
`
`to offer narrower constructions in litigation.
`
`D.
`
`“Abnormal and transient conditions”
`
`The ’634 Patent does not define “abnormal and transient conditions,” nor describe
`
`its full scope with reasonable certainty. Claim 22 of the ’347 Patent, the parent of the
`
`’634 Patent, defines “abnormal and transient conditions” as “comprising starting and
`
`stopping of the engine and provision of torque to satisfy drivability or safety
`
`considerations.” (’347 Patent, Ex. 1866, Claim 22.)
`
`Thus, although Petitioner does not admit that the term “abnormal and transient
`
`
`1 The similar terms of the ’347 Patent do not include the word “operation,” however
`
`the addition of the term does not alter the proposed construction.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`conditions” satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 112, the limitation appears to include “starting and
`
`stopping of the engine and provision of torque to satisfy drivability or safety
`
`considerations.” Accordingly, for purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner
`
`construes “abnormal and transient conditions” as comprising “starting and stopping of the
`
`engine and provision of torque to satisfy drivability or safety considerations.”
`
`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 on each of
`
`the following grounds of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 267, 278-280, 282, 284, 285, 289 and 290 are
`Obvious over Severinsky ’970 in view of Yamaguchi
`
`The purported “new” two motor topology disclosed in the ’634 Patent was an
`
`asserted improvement over the “one motor” hybrid disclosed by Severinsky ’970.
`
`(’634 Patent, Ex. 1866, 11:52, 17:30-36.) Severinsky ’970 and Yamaguchi render
`
`obvious the following one motor claims 267, 278-280, 282, 284, 285, 289 and 290
`
`under §103. (Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶128-316.)
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 267
`
`Claim 267 is directed to “[a] method for controlling a hybrid vehicle.” Severinsky ’970
`
`illustrates a hybrid vehicle as shown in Figure 3, annotated and reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 & Yamaguchi
`[267.0] Severinsky ’970 - Title: “Hybrid Electric Vehicle”
`claims a “method of operating a hybrid vehicle.”
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, claim 15; see also Stein, E