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
`
`______________
`
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,237,634
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii
`
`Updated List of Exhibits .......................................................................................... iv
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Claim construction ........................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Setpoint (SP)” ...................................................................................... 2
`Paice seeks to amend each independent claim to include “a
`comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a
`determination that” ................................................................................ 3
`“Abnormal and transient conditions” ................................................... 4
`
`III. Regarding Paice’s procedural argument, Ford’s Petition is not
`conclusory ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`IV.
`
`Issues raised for Grounds 1-8: Paice’s repeated arguments regarding
`“RL” and “SP,” and Paice’s new argument regarding “abnormal and
`transient conditions,” are not persuasive ......................................................... 6
`
`A. As the Board has previously found, Severinsky ’970 discloses
`“when” to operate the engine based on “RL”, i.e., the “torque
`required to propel the vehicle” .............................................................. 6
`As the Board has previously found, Severinsky ’970 discloses a
`“setpoint” ............................................................................................... 8
`Severinsky ’970 discloses the additional “abnormal and
`transient conditions” limitations of claim 290 ...................................... 9
`Paice cannot avoid its ’634 Patent specification admissions ..............11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`Issues raised for Grounds 1-3, 5 and 8: Paice’s renewed argument
`regarding the rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 with Yamaguchi
`is not persuasive .............................................................................................11
`
`A. As the Board has previously found, Severinsky ’970 does not
`teach away from preheating the engine ...............................................13
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`Issues raised for Ground 2: Paice’s new arguments regarding the
`cruise control limitations of claim 283, and the rationale to combine
`Severinsky ’970 and Lateur, are not persuasive ............................................14
`
`Issues raised for Ground 3: Paice’s new argument regarding the
`rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 and Yamaguchi in view of Suga
`is not persuasive .............................................................................................15
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`VIII. Issues raised for Grounds 4-6: Paice’s repeated arguments regarding
`“limiting a rate of change of torque output of the engine,” and the
`rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 and Vittone, are not persuasive ........18
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`B.
`
`A. As the Board has previously found, a POSA would have
`understood that Vittone’s “steady state management” teaches
`that the rate of change of torque output of the engine is limited ........18
`Rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 with Vittone, and with
`Yamaguchi ...........................................................................................20
`Paice’s narrow interpretation of Severinsky ’970 and Vittone is
`incorrect ...............................................................................................21
`D. As the Board has previously found, Vittone does not teach
`away from preheating the engine ........................................................22
`
`C.
`
`IX.
`
`Issues raised for Ground 8: Paice’s repeated arguments regarding the
`hysteresis limitations, and the rationale to combine Severinsky ’970
`and Frank, are not persuasive ........................................................................23
`
`A. As the Board has found, the combination of Severinsky ’970
`and Frank discloses the hysteresis limitations ....................................23
`Rationale to combine Severinsky ’970 with Frank .............................24
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................25
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro–Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .....................................................................11
`
`In re Gurley,
`
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .........................................................................23
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................5, 10
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc.,
`
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .....................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1851
`
`1852
`1853
`
`1854
`
`1855
`
`1856
`
`1857
`
`1858
`
`1859
`
`1860
`
`1861
`
`Updated List of Exhibits
`
`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,
`
`Identifier
`
`’634 Patent
`
`Stein
`Ford
`Litigation
`
`Severinsky
`’970
`Yamaguchi
`
`Lateur
`
`Suga
`
`Vittone
`
`Frank
`
`’634 File
`History
`Takaoka
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`1862
`
`1863
`
`1864
`
`Prevention of Global 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.)
`
`v
`
`’347 File
`History
`Toyota
`Litigation
`
`Hyundai
`Litigation
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1865
`
`1866
`
`1867
`1868
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`
`Claim Construction Order (Ex. 1864 at 82-122.)
`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
`
`vi
`
`Ford IPRs
`
`’347 Patent
`
`Jeff Stein CV
`Heywood
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`1870
`
`1871
`
`1872
`
`Fundamentals (McGraw-Hill 1988) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=20946&recCount=25&recPointer=4&bibId=24217
`98.)
`1869 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=21095
`03.)
`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=1289
`584.)
`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
`
`1873
`
`1874
`
`vii
`
`Pulkrabek
`
`Hawley
`
`Pieper
`
`Duoba
`
`SP-1331
`
`Anderson
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1875
`
`1876
`
`1877
`
`1878
`
`1879
`
`1880
`
`1881
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`Yamaguchi
`Paper
`
`Reinbeck
`
`Kawakatsu
`
`Unnewehr
`
`Brown
`
`Engh
`
`Stefanopoulou
`
`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
`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=4259
`071.)
`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.+Stefanop
`oulou+et+al.%2C+Engine+Air-
`
`viii
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`1882
`
`1884
`
`1885
`
`Fuel+Ratio+and+Torque+Control+using+Secondary
`+Throttles%2C+Proceedings+of+the+33rd+IEEE+C
`onference+on+Decision+and+Control+.LB.Decemb
`er+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.)
`1883 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=38062
`92.)
`Ronald K. Jurgen, Automotive Electronics
`Handbook, (McGraw-Hill 1995) (available at
`http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId
`=10485&recCount=25&recPointer=1&bibId=15986
`58.)
`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=&
`
`1886
`
`1887
`
`ix
`
`GE Final
`Report
`
`Palm III
`
`Jurgen
`
`Kruse
`
`An
`
`Ehsani Paper
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Description
`
`Identifier
`
`arnumber=557495&queryText%3DMehrdad+Ehsan
`i+et+al.%2C+Propulsion+System+Design+of+Elect
`ric+and+Hybrid+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, IPR2014-01415, Paper 30 (March
`10, 2016)
`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)
`
`Cullen
`
`Reply Decl.
`’1416 Final
`Decision
`’884 Final
`Decision
`’904 Final
`Decision
`’1415 Final
`Decision
`’875 Final
`Decision
`’570 Final
`Decision
`Hn Transcripts
`
`Bosch
`Handbook
`Stein Tr. 1
`
`Hn Dep. Ex.2
`
`1888
`
`1889
`1890
`
`1891
`
`1892
`
`1893
`
`1894
`
`1895
`
`1896
`
`1897
`
`1898
`
`1899
`
`x
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board instituted an inter partes review on seven Grounds challenging
`
`claims 111, 144, 241, 264, 266, 267, 278, 279, 280 and 282–291 of the ’634
`
`Patent. (“Decision,” Paper 12 at 2.)
`
`Paice’s Patent Owner Response (“POR,” Paper 15) focuses on arguments
`
`that have been: (a) raised in prior responses by Paice; (b) addressed in prior replies
`
`by Ford; and (c) rejected by this Board. These arguments are: (1) that “setpoint”
`
`should be construed as a definite, but potentially variable value “at which a
`
`transition between operating modes may occur,” (see e.g., ’904 Final Decision, Ex.
`
`1892 at 6-10; ’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 8-11; addressed below at 2-3); (2)
`
`that Severinsky ’970 allegedly does not teach using “road load” and “setpoint” to
`
`determine when to operate the engine (see e.g., ’904 Final Decision, Ex. 1892 at
`
`12-19; ’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 11-18; addressed below at 6-11); (3) that
`
`Severinsky ’970 allegedly teaches away from preheating the engine (see e.g.,
`
`’1415 Final Decision, Ex. 1893 at 31; addressed below at 13-14); (4) that Vittone
`
`allegedly does not teach limiting a rate of change of engine torque output (see e.g.,
`
`’875 Final Decision, Ex. 1894 at 12; addressed below at 18-20); (5) that Vittone
`
`allegedly teaches away from preheating the engine (see e.g., ’875 Final Decision,
`
`Ex. 1894 at 25-26; addressed below at 22-23); and (6) that the combination of
`
`Severinsky ’970 and Frank, allegedly does not teach “road load” based hysteresis
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`(see e.g., ’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 19-22; addressed below at 23-24.)
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Paice’s POR also addresses the new issues raised in this IPR, i.e., limitations
`
`concerning “abnormal and transient conditions,” cruise control, and Federal Urban
`
`Driving Schedule (“FUDs”). Paice attempts to distinguish the Challenged Claims
`
`over the prior art by: (1) construing claims requiring “abnormal and transient
`
`conditions” unreasonably narrowly (addressed below at 4-6); (2) arguing that
`
`Lateur allegedly does not teach “road load” based cruise control (addressed below
`
`at 14-15); and (3) arguing that the combination of Severinsky ’970 and Suga does
`
`not teach the FUDs limitations (addressed below at 15-18).
`
`II. Claim construction
`
`A.
`
`“Setpoint (SP)”
`
`The Board construed “setpoint (SP)” as “a predetermined torque value that
`
`may or may not be reset.” (Decision at 10.) Paice seeks a construction as “a
`
`definite, but potentially variable value at which a transition between operating
`
`modes may occur” and argues that the Board’s construction “is unreasonably broad
`
`and does not reasonably reflect the disclosure of the ’634 Patent.” (POR at 4-5.)
`
`The Board explained its “SP” construction in multiple final determinations.
`
`(See e.g., ’904 Final Decision, Ex. 1892 at 9; ’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 8-
`
`11.) As the Board stated, “each of the challenged independent claims speak of the
`
`‘setpoint’ or ‘SP’ as being the lower limit at which the engine can produce torque
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`efficiently,” and “[t]his express language suggests that ‘setpoint’ is not just any
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`value, but a value that—per the surrounding claim language—equates to ‘torque.’”
`
`(’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 8.) The Board further referenced Paice’s
`
`expert’s testimony that “under the ‘most straightforward’ approach for the claimed
`
`‘comparison,’ the ‘setpoint is a torque value.’” (’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 n.7
`
`at 8, citing Hn Transcripts, Ex. 1896 at 21 (79:16-80:25).)
`
`The Board rejected Paice’s proposed “setpoint” construction, stating that
`
`although “sometimes the specification describes the setpoint in terms of a
`
`‘transition point’ . . . the claim language itself makes clear that setpoint relates
`
`simply to a torque value, without requiring that it be a transition point.” (’1416
`
`Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 8-9, emphasis in original.) The Board also stated that
`
`“the specification acknowledges that the mode of operation does not always
`
`transition, or switch, at the setpoint, but instead depends on a number of
`
`parameters.” (Id.)
`
`Ford agrees with the Board’s construction, as supported by the Board’s prior
`
`final determinations. (See also Pet. at 7-8.)
`
`B.
`
`Paice seeks to amend each independent claim to include “a
`comparison of the RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a
`determination that”
`
`Paice proposes a “construction” that adds the phrase “a comparison of the
`
`RL to a setpoint (SP) results in a determination that” to each independent claim.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`(POR at 9.) Impermissibly adding limitations does not comport with the broadest
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`reasonable interpretation standard. A POSA would have understood that
`
`Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of running the engine only between 60-90% of MTO
`
`teaches that the engine is started and operated when the “RL” > “SP” and shut off
`
`when “RL” < SP and therefore discloses “comparing” RL to SP. Thus Paice’s
`
`construction does not affect the obviousness analysis. (Reply Decl., Ex. 1889, ¶¶6-
`
`12; Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, at 17:44-55; 20:63-67.)
`
`C.
`
`“Abnormal and transient conditions”
`
`In its institution decision, the Board stated that “it is not necessary that we
`
`expressly construe ‘abnormal and transient conditions’ beyond determining merely
`
`that examples of such conditions include starting the engine and stopping the
`
`engine.” (Decision at 13-14.)
`
`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.) But Paice’s
`
`proposed claim construction does not make it clear that “abnormal and transient
`
`conditions” excludes “city traffic and reverse operation.” (Reply Decl., Ex. 1889,
`
`¶¶16-22.) Paice’s proposed claim construction merely adopts the Board’s
`
`construction, adds “and provision of torque” and then adds the later claim language
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`“to satisfy drivability or safety considerations.” (POR at 10.)
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`To argue for excluding “city traffic and reverse operation” Paice argues
`
`prosecution disclaimers based on the prosecution history for a later filed related
`
`patent, USPN 8,214,097. (POR at 10-11.) However, for a prosecution disclaimer to
`
`arise, “the alleged disavowing actions or statements made during prosecution
`
`[must] be both clear and unmistakable.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334
`
`F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But, as the Board found in the institution
`
`decision, the prosecution history excerpt does not support “exclud[ing] operation in
`
`city traffic and reverse operation in their entirety including any abnormal and
`
`transient conditions which may occur within them.” (Decision at 13; see also
`
`Reply Decl., Ex. 1889, ¶¶16-22.) On the contrary, the prosecution history excerpt
`
`Paice cites supports the Board’s conclusion “that examples of such [abnormal and
`
`transient] conditions include starting the engine.” (Decision at 13-14.)
`
`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.
`
`(POR at 11, citing ’097 File History, Ex. 2801 at 238, emphasis added.)
`
`As explained below, Ford relies on Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of
`
`operating the engine “outside its most fuel efficient operating range”, i.e., when RL
`
`< SP, to meet the “abnormal and transient conditions” limitations. (Pet. at 32-33;
`
`Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 18:23-33: Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶293-303.) This is
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`consistent with the Board’s conclusion that “abnormal and transient conditions”
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`include starting the engine. (Decision at 13-14.)
`
`III. Regarding Paice’s procedural argument, Ford’s Petition is not
`conclusory
`
`On pages 12-13, Paice makes a conclusory assertion that Ford did not
`
`provide adequate obviousness analysis. In particular, Paice asserts that Ford must
`
`“identify the differences between Severinsky [’970] and independent claim 267” to
`
`present an obviousness argument. (POR at 12-13.) Paice cites no case so holding.
`
`To the extent there are any differences between the prior art and the challenged
`
`claims, Ford ascertained them by providing limitation-by-limitation analysis of
`
`each challenged claim, including citations to the disclosure in the prior art
`
`reference that meets each limitation (see e.g., claims charts, Pet. at passim), and
`
`specific reasons of how and why to combine the references (Pet. at 24-25, 35-36,
`
`39-40, 42-44, 48-51, 55-57, 60) as appropriate, for all Grounds raised.
`
`IV.
`
`Issues raised for Grounds 1-8: Paice’s repeated arguments
`regarding “RL” and “SP,” and Paice’s new argument regarding
`“abnormal and transient conditions,” are not persuasive
`
`A. As the Board has previously found, Severinsky ’970
`discloses “when” to operate the engine based on “RL”, i.e.,
`the “torque required to propel the vehicle”
`
`Paice argues that “Severinsky [’970] determines when to use the internal
`
`combustion engine based on the speed of the vehicle and not the road load.” (POR
`
`at 14.) Paice made this same argument in IPR2014-00904 and -01416, and the
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Board rejected it. (See ’904 IPR Final Decision, Ex. 1892 at 12-19; ’1416 Final
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`Decision, Ex. 1890 at 14-17.)
`
`As the Board found, “[a]lthough Severinsky describes the use of ‘speed’ as a
`
`factor considered by the microprocessor, Severinsky makes clear that the
`
`microprocessor also uses the vehicle’s ‘torque’ requirements in determining when
`
`to run the engine.” (’904 IPR Final Decision, Ex. 1892 at 13-14, citing Severinsky
`
`’970, Ex. 1854, 17:11–15; see also ’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 14.)
`
`Severinsky ’970 does not use the term “road load”, but describes HEV mode
`
`selection based on the “load imposed by the vehicle’s propulsion requirements” -
`
`which meets the Board’s construction of “road load” as “the amount of
`
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative.”
`
`(Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 17:11-15; Decision at 7-8.)
`
`The record continues to support the Board’s decisions in the related IPRs.
`
`For example Severinsky ’970 discloses that the “microprocessor 48” determines
`
`“the load imposed by the vehicle’s propulsion requirements,” (i.e., “RL”) “at all
`
`times.” (Pet. at 11; citing Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 17:11-15; Stein, Ex. 1852,
`
`¶¶134-152.) Severinsky ’970 also discloses that the microprocessor uses the
`
`vehicle’s torque requirements in determining when to run the engine:
`
`[A]t all times the microprocessor 48 may determine the load (if
`
`any) to be provided to the engine by the motor, responsive to
`
`the load imposed by the vehicle’s propulsion requirements,
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`
`
`so that the engine 40 can be operated in its most fuel efficient
`
`operating range.
`
`(Pet. at 11 citing Severinsky ’970, Ex. 1854, 17:11–15, emphasis added).
`
`B. As the Board has previously found, Severinsky ’970
`discloses a “setpoint”
`
`Paice argues that “Severinsky’s aspirational operating range of ‘60-90% of
`
`its maximum torque’ does not disclose a ‘60% of MTO’ setpoint.” (POR at 27-28.)
`
`The Board has previously found that “Severinsky’s disclosure of an ‘operational
`
`point’ for the engine is no different than the claimed ‘setpoint.’” (’904 Final
`
`Decision, Ex. 1892 at 14-15; see also ’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 15.)
`
`The record still supports the Board’s finding. For example, Severinsky ’970
`
`discloses that: (1) the microprocessor controls the engine to “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;” and (2) operating the motor
`
`“under other circumstances.” (Pet. at 14-15, emphasis added, citing Severinsky
`
`’970, Ex. 1854, 7:8-16; 20:63-67; Stein, Ex. 1852, ¶¶153-163, 164-192.)
`
`The Board also found: “That Severinsky describes the engine’s operational
`
`point in terms similar to, if not the same as, the claimed setpoint, i.e., a percentage
`
`of maximum torque, runs counter to Paice’s argument that Severinsky employs the
`
`engine based on speed alone.” (’1416 Final Decision, Ex. 1890 at 15, emphasis in
`
`original.) Like Severinsky ’970, the challenged claims also describe the
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`setpoint/operational point as a percentage of maximum torque (see e.g., claim 258
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`“wherein the SP is at least approximately 30% of the MTO.”) (’634 Patent, Ex.
`
`1851, 83:21-22.)
`
`Paice also argues that Severinsky ’970’s disclosure of “potential output
`
`torques of the engine” is “unrelated to input torque demands taught by the ’634
`
`Patent, for example, the instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle (i.e.,
`
`road load).” (POR at 35, emphasis added.) Paice made this same argument in
`
`IPR2014-00904, and the Board rejected it, finding that Paice’s “argument fails for
`
`the simple reason that, like Severinsky, the claims themselves express ‘road load’
`
`as a torque output, not an input.” (’904 IPR Final Decision, Ex. 1892 at 18,
`
`emphasis in original.)
`
`In fact, as already discussed above in Section IV.A, like Severinsky ’970 the
`
`challenged claims describe the setpoint/operational point as a percentage of
`
`maximum torque output (e.g., claim 284 “wherein the SP is at least approximately
`
`30% of the MTO.”) (’634 Patent, Ex. 1851, 85:44-46.) Accordingly, the Board
`
`should reject Paice’s argument again in this IPR for the same reasons, because it
`
`has not changed.
`
`C.
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses the additional “abnormal and
`transient conditions” limitations of claim 290
`
`Paice argues that Severinsky ’970 cannot meet the “abnormal and transient
`
`conditions” limitations of claim 290 because its disclosure relates to “traffic
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`operation” and Paice allegedly “explicitly disavowed ‘city traffic’ as not within the
`
`Case No: IPR2015-00801
`Attorney Docket No. FPGP0104IPR8
`
`scope of ‘abnormal and transient conditions.’” (POR at 39.) The “abnormal and
`
`transient conditions” limitations were not addressed in prior IPR decisions.
`
`As explained above in Section II.C, Paice’s alleged “disavowal” should be
`
`rejected because it is not “clear and unmistakable.” See Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at
`
`1325–26. In its Institution Decision, the Board stated that Severinsky ’970’s
`
`disclosure of operating “the engine to prevent the battery from discharging
`
`excessively during the time the engine is off because its output would be below the
`
`setpoint of 60% MTO requires starting the engine.” (Decision at 22, emphasis
`
`added.) That is correct and meets the Board’s construction conclusion of
`
`“‘abnormal and transient conditions’ as covering starting the engine.” (See Reply
`
`Decl., Ex. 1889, ¶¶21-22.)
`
`More specifically, Severinsky ’970 discloses operating the engine outside its
`
`most fuel efficient operating range (i.e., at torque output levels less than the SP
`
`(60% MTO)) on occasion: “it is preferable