UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners.
`
`______________
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 to Severinsky et al.
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-00801
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JEFFREY L. STEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Updated Exhibit List .................................................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ....................................................................................................12
`
`
`
` Disputed claims ...................................................................................12 A.
`
`II.
`
`Grounds 1-8: ..................................................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`
`Regarding Independent claims 241 and 267, Severinsky ’970
`discloses when to operate the engine based on “RL”, i.e., the
`“torque required to propel the vehicle” ...............................................13
`
`1.
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 teaches starting and stopping the engine
`based on road load or torque required to operate the
`vehicle .......................................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses the additional “abnormal and
`transient conditions” limitations of claim 290 ....................................16
`
`III. Grounds 1-3, 5 and 8: ....................................................................................21
`
`A.
`
`
`Independent claim 267: .......................................................................21
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`Rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 and Yamaguchi .....................22
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of operating the engine at lower
`temperatures to reduce NOx emissions does not apply to
`starting conditions ...............................................................................22
`
`Regarding Ground 5, Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of operating
`the engine at lower temperatures is unnecessary when
`controlling the engine to operate at the stoichiometric air-fuel
`ratio ......................................................................................................25
`
`IV. Ground 2: Lateur discloses the additional cruise control limitations ............25
`
`V. Ground 3 and 6: The combination of Severinsky ’970 and Suga
`discloses the additional FUDs limitations of claims 291 and 266 ................28
`
`VI. Grounds 4-6: Independent claim 241 ............................................................31
`
`Page 2 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`The combination of Severinsky ’970 and Vittone teaches
`“controlling the engine” by “limiting a rate of change of torque
`output of the engine” “to achieve stoichiometry” ...............................32
`
`1.
`
`
`A POSA would have understood that Vittone’s ‘steady
`state management’ of the thermal engine teaches that the
`rate of change of torque output of the engine is limited ...........32
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Vittone discloses “road load,” i.e., “the amount of
`instantaneous
`torque
`required
`to propel
`the
`vehicle” ...........................................................................32
`
`Paice’s adds how “road load” is determined to the
`claims ..............................................................................33
`
`Vittone’s driveability torque requirement is not
`based only on accelerator pedal position ........................34
`
`Although Figure 8 is only shown for positive
`torque values,
`this does not
`indicate
`that
`driveability torque requirement is only accelerator
`pedal position ..................................................................41
`
`Vittone discloses in Figure 8, “limiting a rate of
`change of torque output of the engine” ..........................43
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood Vittone’s steady state management
`teachings .........................................................................47
`
`B.
`
`
`Ground 4: Rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 with Vittone .........51
`
`1.
`
`
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Severinsky ’970 and
`Vittone is incorrect ....................................................................51
`
`C.
`
`
`Severinsky and Vittone are directed to parallel hybrid control
`strategies ..............................................................................................54
`
`2.
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 does not teach away from operating at
`the stoichiometric ratio .............................................................60
`
`Page 3 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`Both Severinsky ’970 and Vittone teach engine control
`strategies that supplement engine torque with motor
`torque during peak conditions ...................................................62
`
`D.
`
`
`Rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 with Vittone, and with
`Yamaguchi ...........................................................................................63
`
`1.
`
`
`Vittone does not teach away from preheating the engine .........63
`
`VII. Ground 8: The combination of Severinsky ’970 and Frank discloses
`the hysteresis limitations of claims 111 and 144 ...........................................66
`
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................67
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1851
`
`1852
`1853
`
`1854
`
`1855
`
`1856
`
`1857
`1858
`
`1859
`1860
`
`1861
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Identifier
`
`’634 Patent
`
`Stein
`Ford
`Litigation
`
`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) Suga
`Oreste Vittone et al., FIAT Research Centre, Fiat
`Vittone
`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) Frank
`USPN 7,237,634 File History
`’634 File
`History
`Takaoka
`
`Severinsky
`’970
`Yamaguchi
`
`Lateur
`
`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
`Warming, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Toyota Motor Corporation,
`April 1998) (Ex. 1861 at 1-8.) (available at:
`
`Page 5 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1862
`
`1863
`
`1864
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`Description
`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.)
`
`
`’347 File
`History
`Toyota
`Litigation
`
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`Page 6 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1865
`
`1866
`
`1867
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`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
`
`Identifier
`
`Ford IPRs
`
`’347 Patent
`
`Jeff Stein
`CV
`
`Page 7 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1868
`
`1869
`
`1870
`
`1871
`1872
`
`1873
`
`1874
`
`1875
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Description
`John B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine
`Fundamentals (McGraw-Hill 1988) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=2094
`6&recCount=25&recPointer=4&bibId=2421798.)
`Willard W. Pulkrabek, Engineering Fundamentals of the
`Internal Combustion Engine (Prentice Hall, 1997)
`(available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1000
`3&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=2109503.)
`Hawley, G.G., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Van
`Nostrand Reinhold Co., 9th ed. (1977) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=2154
`1&recCount=25&recPointer=14&bibId=1289584.)
`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
`Design, SAE SP-1156, (February 1996) (available at
`
`Identifier
`
`Heywood
`
`Pulkrabek
`
`Hawley
`
`Pieper
`Duoba
`
`SP-1331
`
`Anderson
`
`Yamaguchi
`Paper
`
`Page 8 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1876
`
`1877
`
`1878
`
`1879
`
`1880
`
`1881
`
`1882
`
`1883
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`Description
`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=2182
`9&recCount=25&recPointer=13&bibId=4259071.)
`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=&arnu
`mber=411385&queryText%3DA.+G.+Stefanopoulou+et
`+al.%2C+Engine+Air-
`Fuel+Ratio+and+Torque+Control+using+Secondary+Thr
`ottles%2C+Proceedings+of+the+33rd+IEEE+Conference
`+on+Decision+and+Control+.LB.December+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.)
`William J. Palm III, Control Systems Engineering (John
`Wiley & Sons, 1986) (available at
`
`Reinbeck
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Unnewehr
`
`Brown
`
`Engh
`
`Stefanopoul
`ou
`
`GE Final
`Report
`
`Palm III
`
`Page 9 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1884
`
`1885
`
`1886
`
`1887
`
`1888
`
`1889
`1890
`
`1891
`
`1892
`
`1893
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`Description
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1047
`6&recCount=25&recPointer=0&bibId=3806292.)
`Ronald K. Jurgen, Automotive Electronics Handbook,
`(McGraw-Hill 1995) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1048
`5&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=1598658.)
`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=&arnu
`mber=557495&queryText%3DMehrdad+Ehsani+et+al.%
`2C+Propulsion+System+Design+of+Electric+and+Hybri
`d+Vehicles%2C)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,898 issued to Cullen et al. (Jan. 2,
`1996)
`Reply Decl. of Dr. Jeffrey L. Stein
`Final Decision, IPR2014-01416, Paper 26 (March 10,
`2016)
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00884, Paper 38 (December 10,
`2015)
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00904, Paper 41 (December 10,
`2015)
`Final Decision, IPR2015-01415, Paper 30 (March 10,
`2016)
`
`Jurgen
`
`Kruse
`
`An
`
`Ehsani
`Paper
`
`Cullen
`
`Reply Decl.
`’1416 Final
`Decision
`’884 Final
`Decision
`’904 Final
`Decision
`’1415 Final
`Decision
`
`Page 10 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1894
`
`1895
`
`1896
`
`1897
`
`1898
`
`1899
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Description
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00875, Paper 38 (November 23,
`2015)
`Final Decision, IPR2014-00570, Paper 44 (September 28,
`2015)
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition Transcript (IPR2014-00571,
`April 7, 2015) (Ex. 1896 at 1-65)
`
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition Transcript (IPR2014-00570,
`April 8, 2015) (Ex. 1896 at 66-105)
`
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition Transcript (IPR2014-00875,
`April 8, 2015) (Ex. 1896 at 106-155)
`
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition Transcript (IPR2014-01415,
`September 4, 2015) (Ex. 1896 at 156-178)
`Bosch Automotive Handbook (Oct. 1996)
`
`Dr. Stein Deposition Transcript (IPR2014-00875, March
`3, 2015)
`Mr. Hannemann Deposition Exhibit 2, pp. 1, 7 (IPR2014-
`00875, April 8, 2015)
`
`Identifier
`
`’875 Final
`Decision
`’570 Final
`Decision
`Hn
`Transcripts
`
`Bosch
`Handbook
`Stein Tr. 1
`
`Hn Dep.
`Ex.2
`
`Page 11 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`1. My name is Jeffrey L. Stein. I provided my background, qualifications
`
`and opinions pertaining to a Petition for Inter Partes Review, Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00801, of certain claims of U.S. 7,237,634 (“the ’634 Patent,” Ex. 1851) in a
`
`Declaration that was filed on February 24, 2015. (“Stein,” “First Declaration,” Ex.
`
`1852.)
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by Ford to provide this Second Declaration (“Reply
`
`Decl.,” Ex. 1889) in support of Ford’s reply to Paice’s response regarding certain
`
`factual issues raised in IPR2014-00801.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, for purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to
`
`analyze the arguments made by Paice in their Patent Owner Response, along with
`
`the declaration of Paice’s expert, Mr. Hannemann (“Hn Decl.,” Ex. 2808). I have
`
`also analyzed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute.
`
`(“Decision,” IPR2014-00801, Paper 12.)
`
`4.
`
`I have also reviewed my first declaration (Stein, Ex. 1852) and the
`
`exhibits cited in my declarations.
`
`
`
` Disputed claims A.
`
`5.
`
`Paice did not argue all claim limitations. For all claim limitations not
`
`analyzed in this declaration, I refer to the analysis in my First Declaration (Stein,
`
`Ex. 1852.)
`
`Page 12 of 67
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`II. Grounds 1-8:
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`
` Regarding Independent claims 241 and 267, Severinsky ’970 A.
`discloses when to operate the engine based on “RL”, i.e., the
`“torque required to propel the vehicle”
`
`
`1.
`
`Severinsky ’970 teaches starting and stopping the
`engine based on road load or torque required to
`operate the vehicle
`
`6.
`
`Paice argues that claim 241 requires starting the engine, i.e., “the
`
`engine is brought into operation” and cites to paragraph 36 of Mr. Hannemann’s
`
`declaration for support. (POR at 14-15, n.1.) Mr. Hannemann does not explain how
`
`the claims require that the engine is “brought into operation” in paragraph 36, but
`
`he does discuss Paice’s proposed claim constructions for “setpoint” and adding the
`
`phrase “a comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a determination that”
`
`to each independent claim:
`
`36. In addition, counsel for Patent Owner has asked that in addition to
`
`applying the Board-adopted constructions that I apply an alternative
`
`construction of “setpoint (SP),” which requires that the setpoint be a
`
`value “at which a transition between operating modes may occur.” I
`
`also understand that Patent Owners have requested that the Board
`
`construe the challenged claims to make explicit the requirement that
`
`the challenged claims require a comparison between road load and
`
`setpoint and/or MTO. I agree with Patent Owners that the plain
`
`language of the claims requires such comparisons. Moreover, a person
`
`of skill in the art would certainly not interpret the challenged claims
`
`so broadly as to disregard the comparison of road load to setpoint
`
`Page 13 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`and/or MTO as such comparisons are fundamental to the claimed
`
`control system. Otherwise, the language following the word “when”
`
`in limitations such as "operating an internal combustion engine of the
`
`hybrid vehicle to propel the hybrid vehicle when the RL required to
`
`do so is between the SP and a MTO" would be rendered superfluous.
`
`Throughout my declaration, I apply the constructions identified in the
`
`table above unless I specifically note otherwise.
`
` (Hn. Decl., Ex. 2808, ¶36, emphasis added.)
`
`7.
`
`I cannot find the limitations – “starting the engine” or “the engine is
`
`brought into operation” in claim 241. However, per Mr. Hannemann’s statements
`
`in ¶36, I assume that Paice’s arguments are rooted in its proposed construction for
`
`“setpoint.”
`
`8.
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses that the engine is operated only under the
`
`most efficient conditions of output power and speed, and under other conditions,
`
`the electric motor drives the vehicle:
`
`More particularly, according to the invention, the internal combustion
`
`engine is operated only under the most efficient conditions of output
`
`power and speed. When the engine can be used efficiently to drive the
`
`vehicle forward, e.g. in highway cruising, it is so employed. Under
`
`other circumstances, e.g. in traffic, the electric motor alone drives the
`
`vehicle forward and the internal combustion engine is used only to
`
`charge the batteries as needed.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 7:8-16, emphasis added.)
`
`Page 14 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses disconnecting the engine 40 from the drive
`
`and shutting it off, when the motor 20 is operated to drive the vehicle:
`
`When the battery 22 is fully charged, and the vehicle speed is below
`
`about 25-35 mph, the microprocessor 48 disconnects the engine 40
`
`from the drive and shuts it off. Under these circumstances only the
`
`motor 20 provides power to drive the vehicle. If the brake pedal is
`
`depressed by the driver, the microprocessor 48 causes the motor
`
`frequency to advance, so that motor 20 performs as a generator to
`
`recover some of the braking energy back into the battery. See FIGS.
`
`12-13. Up to 40-50% on average of the vehicle's kinetic energy may
`
`thus be recovered and stored in battery 22. Excess braking energy is
`
`still dissipated by the brake pads of the vehicle.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 17:44-55, emphasis added.)
`
`10. Severinsky ’970 discloses that the engine is run only in the vicinity of
`
`its most efficient operational point (i.e., between 60-90% of the engine’s MTO):
`
`It will be appreciated that according to the invention the internal
`
`combustion engine is run only in the near vicinity of its most efficient
`
`operational point, that is, such that it produces 60-90% of its
`
`maximum torque whenever operated.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 20:63-67, emphasis added.)
`
`11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that since
`
`the engine is run only between 60-90% of MTO, the engine is started and operated
`
`Page 15 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`
`when the ”RL” / torque required to operate the vehicle is between a setpoint (60%
`
`MTO) and 90% MTO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also
`
`understood that the engine is shut off (stopped) during other conditions, e.g., when
`
`the engine produces less than the setpoint (60% of MTO).
`
`12. Thus even if the independent claims were construed as proposed by
`
`Paice to require starting the engine, and to include a comparison between road load
`
`and setpoint and/or MTO - Severinsky ’970 discloses such limitations.
`
`
`B.
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses the additional “abnormal and transient
`conditions” limitations of claim 290
`
`13. Claim 290 depends from claim 267 and is directed to “abnormal and
`
`transient conditions” limitations. Claim 290 is challenged in Ground 1.
`
`14. Claim 290 requires “operating the engine at torque output levels less
`
`than the SP under abnormal and transient conditions to satisfy drivability and/or
`
`safety considerations.”
`
`15. Severinsky ’970 discloses the additional “abnormal and transient
`
`conditions” limitations of claim 290. (Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶293-303.)
`
`16. Paice argues that “abnormal and transient conditions” be construed as
`
`“‘starting and stopping of the engine and provision of torque to satisfy drivability
`
`or safety considerations,’ to make clear that it does not include ‘city traffic and
`
`reverse operation.’” (POR at 10-11, citing ’097 FH, Ex. 2801 at 238.) And Mr.
`
`Hannemann states:
`
`Page 16 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`95. During prosecution of the related ’097 patent, the patentee
`
`distinguished “abnormal and transient conditions” from “traffic or city
`
`driv[ing]” and reverse operation, stating that “city traffic and reverse
`
`operation are normal conditions” during which the traction motor
`
`provides the torque and the combustion engine is “operated to charge
`
`the battery when it is discharged.” Ex. 2801 at 238. In my opinion, to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art, Severinsky’s disclosure of traffic
`
`and low battery charge do not constitute “abnormal and transient
`
`conditions,” because these are normal operating conditions, as
`
`confirmed by the prosecution history of the ’097 patent.
`
`(Hn. Decl., Ex. 2808, ¶95.)
`
`17. During the prosecution of the related ’097 Patent, the Examiner
`
`rejected pending claims 25, 36, 47, 56 and 59, which included similar “abnormal
`
`and transient conditions” limitations, over Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of “low
`
`speed or in traffic driving” in its Abstract and in Col. 6, lines 19-48. (‘097 FH, Ex.
`
`2801 at 191.) The Examiner also stated that he “interprets ‘abnormal and transient
`
`condition’ as in traffic or city drive, too many traffic light so too many stops and
`
`reverse operation.” (Id.) However, Severinsky ’970’s disclosed low speed mode
`
`refers to an electric mode in which the electric motor alone drives the vehicle:
`
`An improved hybrid electric vehicle includes an internal combustion
`
`engine and an electric motor. Both the motor and the engine provide
`
`torque to drive the vehicle directly through a controllable torque
`
`transfer unit. Typically at low speeds or in traffic, the electric
`
`Page 17 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`motor alone drives the vehicle, using power stored in batteries;
`
`under acceleration and during hill climbing both the engine and the
`
`motor provide torque to drive the vehicle; and in steady state highway
`
`cruising, the internal combustion engine alone drives the vehicle.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, Abstract, emphasis added.)
`
`A microprocessor receives control inputs from the driver of the
`
`vehicle and monitors the performance of the electric motor and the
`
`internal combustion engine, the state of charge of the battery, and
`
`other significant variables. The microprocessor determines whether
`
`the internal combustion engine or the electric motor or both should
`
`provide torque to the wheels under various monitored operating
`
`conditions. Typically, the electric motor operates under battery power
`
`during low speed operation, e.g., in traffic, during reverse operation,
`
`or the like. In this mode of operation, the energy transfer efficiency
`
`from the batteries to the wheels is very high. By comparison, it will be
`
`appreciated that a vast amount of fuel is wasted as internal
`
`combustion engines of conventional vehicles idle uselessly at stop
`
`lights or in traffic. This source of inefficiency and pollution is
`
`eliminated according to the invention.
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 6:19-35, emphasis added.)
`
`18. Paice filed an amendment, and argued the Examiner’s rejection of the
`
`“abnormal and transient conditions” claims over Severinsky’s disclosed low speed
`
`/ electric mode:
`
`Page 18 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`There are also a few apparent misunderstandings concerning the
`
`claims, which should be clarified. For example, as to claims 25, 36,
`
`47, [56 - sic - apparently an error] and 59 the Examiner interprets
`
`"abnormal and transient conditions" wherein the engine can be run at
`
`output levels less than SP, the minimum power output of the engine
`
`under normal circumstances, as "in traffic or city driv[ing] too many
`
`traffic light so too many stops and reverse operation." In fact, city
`
`traffic and reverse operation are normal conditions and are explicitly
`
`provided for. In both, the vehicle typically operates as an electric car,
`
`with the traction motor providing the torque necessary to propel the
`
`vehicle, and with the ICE operated to charge the battery when it is
`
`discharged. The "abnormal and transient conditions" referred to are
`
`such conditions as starting the engine, during which operation it must
`
`necessarily be operated at less than SP for a short time.
`
`(’097 FH, Ex. 2801 at 238, emphasis added.)
`
`19. Paice’s argument from the ‘097 File History does not make clear what
`
`is not “abnormal and transient conditions.” The “abnormal and transient” claims
`
`are not addressed in the remainder of the ’097 File History, including the
`
`Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance. (’097 FH, Ex. 2801 at 256-257.) Therefore it
`
`is not clear that Paice’s argument from the ‘097 File History somehow limited the
`
`scope, of “abnormal and transient conditions” to make clear that it does not
`
`include ‘city traffic and reverse operation.’”
`
`Page 19 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`20. Alternatively, Paice’s argument seemingly attempts to broaden the
`
`“abnormal and transient” limitations to include any engine start: “[t]he ‘abnormal
`
`and transient conditions’ referred to are such conditions as starting the engine,
`
`during which operation it must necessarily be operated at less than SP for a short
`
`time.” (’097 FH, Ex. 2801 at 238.)
`
`21. Nonetheless, I understand that the Board concluded that examples of
`
`“abnormal and transient conditions” include “starting the engine and stopping the
`
`engine.” (Decision at 13-14.) And I used a similar interpretation of the term for my
`
`analysis in my first declaration.
`
`22. Therefore Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of “operat[ing] the engine 40
`
`outside its most fuel efficient operating range, on occasion . . . [because] it is
`
`preferable to use the engine somewhat inefficiently rather than to discharge the
`
`batteries excessively, which would substantially reduce the battery lifetime”
`
`discloses the additional “abnormal and transient conditions” limitations of claim
`
`290 (i.e., “operating the engine at torque output levels less than the SP under
`
`abnormal and
`
`transient conditions
`
`to satisfy drivability and/or safety
`
`considerations” under the Board’s determination that such conditions include
`
`“starting the engine and stopping the engine.” (Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 18:23-
`
`33; Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶293-303; Decision at 13-14.)
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 67
`
`
`
`FORD 1889
`
`

`
`
`
`
`III. Grounds 1-3, 5 and 8:
`
`
`
` Independent claim 267: A.
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`23. The limitations of claim 267 have been parsed and given unique
`
`numerical identifiers:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`[267.0] A method for controlling a hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`
`[267.1] determining instantaneous road load (RL) required to propel the hybrid
`
`vehicle responsive to an operator command;
`
`[267.2] operating at least one electric motor to propel the hybrid vehicle when the
`
`RL required to do so is less than a setpoint (SP);
`
`[267.3][a] operating an internal combustion engine of the hybrid vehicle to propel
`
`the hybrid vehicle when the RL required to do so is between the SP and a
`
`maximum torque output (MTO) of the engine, [b] wherein the engine is operable
`
`to efficiently produce torque above the SP, and [c] wherein the SP is substantially
`
`less than the MTO;
`
`[267.4] operating both the at least one electric motor and the engine to propel the
`
`hybrid ve