Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Filed on behalf of Hyundai Motor America
`& Hyundai Motor Company
`By:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Kevin E. Paganini
`Bryan Cave LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY,
`KIA MOTORS CORPORATION & KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC &
`ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. §42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 23, 25-30, 32, AND 39-41 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,104,347)
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8...................................1
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).....................................1
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..............................................2
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ...........................3
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................................3
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104............................................3
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)......................................3
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)......................................4
`Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) .................................4
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA) ............................4
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3).............................5
`
`A.
`B.
`
`road load (RL) and RL ..........................................................................5
`setpoint (SP) and SP..............................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 23, 28, 30, and 32 are Obvious Over Ibaraki
`‘882 in View of the Knowledge of a POSA..........................................7
`1.
`Independent Claim 23.................................................................7
`2.
`Dependent Claim 28 .................................................................30
`3.
`Dependent Claim 30 .................................................................32
`4.
`Dependent Claim 32 .................................................................33
`Ground 2: Claim 29 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ‘882 in View of the
`Knowledge of a POSA and the Teachings of Known Prior Art
`Systems................................................................................................35
`Ground 3: Claim 39 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ‘882 in View of
`Vittone, and the Knowledge of a POSA .............................................37
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .................................................................41
`Ground 4: Claim 40 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ‘882 in View of
`Yamaguchi and the Knowledge of a POSA........................................42
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Reasons to Combine .................................................................42
`1.
`Dependent Claim 40 .................................................................43
`2.
`Ground 5: Claim 41 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ‘882 in View of
`Ibaraki ‘626 and the Knowledge of a POSA.......................................45
`1.
`Reason to Combine...................................................................45
`2.
`Dependent Claim 41 .................................................................48
`Ground 6: Claim 27 is Obvious Over Ibaraki ‘882 in View of
`Lateur and the Knowledge of a POSA................................................50
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .................................................................50
`2.
`Claims 27 ..................................................................................51
`Ground 7: Claims 25 and 26 are Obvious Over Ibaraki ‘882 in
`View of Frank and the Knowledge of a POSA...................................54
`1.
`Reasons to Combine .................................................................54
`2.
`Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................56
`3.
`Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................58
`
`VII. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS......................................60
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................60
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................61
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`US Patent 7,104,347
`Ford Letter to Paice
`US Patent 5,789,882
`US Patent 5,623,104
`US Patent 4,335,429
`Automotive Electronics
`Handbook (Jurgen)
`US Patent 5,823,280
`Declaration of Gregory Da-
`vis
`US Application 60-100095
`Excerpt of USPN 7,104,347
`File History
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`7,237,634 File History (certi-
`fied)
`Toyota Litigations
`Hyundai Litigation
`
`PTAB Decisions & Prelimi-
`nary Response in 2014-
`00571
`Bosch Automotive Hand-
`book (1996)
`US Patent 5,934,395
`US Patent 6,116,363
`Engineering Fundamentals
`of the Internal Combustion
`Engine
`Fiat Conceptual Approach to
`Hybrid Cars Design (Vit-
`tone)
`US Patent 5,865,263
`US Patent 6,003,626
`
`Sept. 12, 2006
`Sept. 2014
`Aug. 4, 1998
`Apr. 22, 1997
`June 15, 1982
`
`Oct. 20, 1998
`
`‘347 Patent
`Ford Letter
`Ibaraki ‘882
`Suga
`Kawakatsu ‘429
`Jurgen
`
`Lateur
`Davis Dec.
`
`Filed Sept. 11, 1998
`n/a
`
`‘095 Provisional
`‘347 File History
`
`July 3, 2007
`n/a
`
`2005
`2013-2014
`
`‘634 Patent
`‘634 Patent File
`History
`Toyota Litigation
`Hyundai Litiga-
`tion
`Ford IPRs
`
`Oct. 1996
`
`Bosch Handbook
`
`Aug. 10, 1999
`Sept. 12, 2000
`1997
`
`Koide
`Frank
`Pulkrabek
`
`Dec. 5-7, 1994
`
`Vittone
`
`Feb. 2, 1999
`Dec. 21, 1999
`
`Yamaguchi
`Ibaraki ‘626
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1401
`1402
`1403
`1404
`1405
`1406
`
`1407
`1408
`
`1409
`1410
`
`1411
`1412
`
`1413
`1414
`
`1415
`
`1416
`
`1417
`1418
`1419
`
`1420
`
`1421
`1422
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1423
`
`1424
`
`1425
`
`1426
`
`1427
`
`1428
`1429
`
`1430
`
`1431
`1432
`1433
`
`1434
`
`1435
`
`1436
`
`1437
`
`1438
`
`1439
`1440
`
`1441
`1442
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`Innovations in Design: 1993
`Ford Hybrid Electric Vehicle
`Challenge
`1996 & 1997 Future Car
`Challenge
`Introduction to Automotive
`Powertrain (Davis)
`History of Hybrid Electric
`Vehicle (Wakefield-1998)
`SAE 760121 (Unnewehr-
`1976)
`SAE 920447 (Burke-1992)
`Vehicle Tester for HEV
`(Duoba- 1997)
`DOE Report to Congress
`(1994)
`SAE SP-1331 (1998)
`SAE SP-1156 (1996)
`Microprocessor Design for
`HEV (Bumby-1988)
`DOE HEV Assessment
`(1979)
`EPA HEV Final Study
`(1971)
`Propulsion System for De-
`sign for EV (Ehsani-1996)
`Propulsion System Design
`for HEV (Ehsani-1997)
`Critical Issues in Quantify-
`ing HEV Emissions (An
`1998)
`WO 9323263A1 (Field)
`Toyota Prius (Yamaguchi-
`1998)
`US Patent 6,209,672
`SAE SP-1089 (Anderson-
`
`Feb. 1994
`
`Feb. 1997 &
`Feb. 1998
`
`1998
`
`Feb. 1, 1976
`
`Feb. 1, 1992
`Aug. 1, 1997
`
`April 1995
`
`Feb. 1998
`Feb. 1996
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`June 18, 2005
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Aug. 11, 1998
`
`Nov. 25, 1998
`Jan. 1998
`
`April 3, 2001
`Feb. 1995
`
`iv
`
`Davis Textbook
`
`Wakefield
`
`Unnewehr
`
`Burke 1992
`Duoba 1997
`
`1994 Report to
`Congress
`SAE SP-1331
`SAE SP-1156
`Bumby/Masding
`1988
`HEV Assessment
`1979
`EPA HEV Final
`Study
`IEEE Ehsani
`1996
`IEEE Ehsani
`1997
`An 1998
`
`9323263
`Toyota Prius
`Yamaguchi 1998
`‘672 Patent
`SAE SP-1089
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Description
`
`Date
`
`Identifier
`
`1995)
`1973 Development of the
`Federal Urban Driving
`Schedule (SAE 730553)
`Gregory Davis Resume
`Gregory Davis Data
`U.S. Patent No. 4,407,132
`
`1973
`
`SAE 1973
`
`Oct. 4, 1983
`
`Kawakatsu ‘132
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1443
`
`1444
`1445
`1446
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Mo-
`
`tors Corporation and Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests review of
`
`claims 23, 25-30, 32, and 39-41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 (“‘347 Patent”)
`
`based on the substantively identical grounds as instituted for the pending IPR2015-
`
`00794 proceeding. For the exact same reasons previously considered by the
`
`Board, Petitioner respectfully seeks to join IPR2015-00794. This Petition asserts
`
`substantively identical arguments in connection with the grounds already instituted
`
`in IPR2015-00794; it does not add to or alter any argument that has already been
`
`considered by the Board, and this Petition does not seek to expand the grounds of
`
`unpatentability that the Board has already instituted. As explained below, there ex-
`
`ists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating unpatenta-
`
`bility of at least one challenged claim. Because this Petition is filed along with a
`
`Motion for Joinder within one month of the institution of IPR2015-00794, it is
`
`timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).
`
`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 Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai Motor Com-
`
`pany, Kia Motors Corporation and Kia Motors America, Inc. are the real parties-in-
`
`interest.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`The ‘347 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. The ‘347 Patent was also previously asserted in Paice, LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. Case No. 2-07-cv-00180.
`
`Paice has also asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 (“‘634 Patent”) in the all of the
`
`foregoing litigations, and has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,214,097 (“‘097 Patent”) in
`
`the first two of the above-identified litigations. Ford has filed petitions concerning
`
`the ‘347 Patent in IPR2015-00795, IPR2015-00794, IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-
`
`00579 and IPR2014-00571. Ford has also filed petitions concerning the ‘634 and
`
`‘097 Patents in IPR2015-00800,
`
`IPR2015-00801,
`
`IPR2015-00799,
`
`IPR2015-
`
`00787,
`
`IPR2015-00790,
`
`IPR2015-00785,
`
`IPR2015-00722,
`
`IPR2015-00784,
`
`IPR2015-00758,
`
`IPR2015-00791,
`
`IPR2015-00606,
`
`IPR2014-01416,
`
`IPR2014-
`
`00904, IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-01415 and IPR2015-00792. On November 25,
`
`2015, Petitioner filed petitions and motions to join IPR proceedings IPR2015-
`
`00722, IPR2015-00784, IPR2015-00785, IPR2015-00791, IPR2015-00792 and
`
`IPR2015-00800 concerning the ‘634 and ‘097 Patents. Petitioner’s filings were
`
`accorded proceeding numbers IPR2016-00246, IPR2016-00251, IPR2016-00247,
`
`IPR2016-00248, IPR2016-00250, and IPR2016-00249, respectively. Petitioner is
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`separately filing petitions seeking inter partes review and motions to join the fol-
`
`lowing IPR proceedings concerning the ‘634 Patent: IPR2015-00758 and IPR2015-
`
`00790.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024) of Bryan Cave LLP
`
`as lead counsel and Kevin Paganini (Reg. No. 66,286) of Bryan Cave LLP as back-
`
`up counsel. An appropriate Power of Attorney is filed concurrently herewith.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Bryan Cave LLP, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
`
`10104. Petitioner consents to service by email at joe.richetti@bryancave.com and
`
`kevin.paganini@bryancave.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 ‘347 Patent is available for IPR and that Petition-
`
`er is not barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds in
`
`this Petition because this Petition is filed within one month of institution of
`
`IPR2015-00794 along with a Motion for Joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b).
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the ‘347 Patent claims 23, 25-30, 32, and 39-41
`
`based on the substantively identical grounds as instituted for the pending IPR2015-
`
`00794 proceeding, and requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`C.
`
`Grounds of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2)
`
`The grounds of unpatentability presented in this petition are as follows:
`
`Ground Basis References
`in View of
`1
`§ 103 Ibaraki
`‘882
`Knowledge of a POSA
`
`the
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`the
`in View of
`‘882
`§ 103 Ibaraki
`Knowledge of a POSA and the Teach-
`ings of Known Prior Art Systems
`§ 103 Ibaraki ‘882 in View of Vittone, and
`the Knowledge of a POSA
`§ 103 Ibaraki ‘882 in View of Yamaguchi
`and the Knowledge of a POSA
`§ 103 Ibaraki ‘882 in View of Ibaraki ‘626
`and the Knowledge of a POSA
`§ 103 Ibaraki ‘882 in View of Lateur and the
`Knowledge of a POSA
`§ 103 Ibaraki ‘882 in View of Frank and the
`Knowledge of a POSA
`
`Claims
`Claim 23 and depend-
`ent claims 28, 30, and
`32
`Dependent claim 29
`
`Dependent claim 39
`
`Dependent Claim 40
`
`Dependent Claim 41
`
`Dependent Claim 27
`
`Dependent Claims 25
`and 26
`
`The unpatentability grounds set forth in this Petition are confirmed and sup-
`
`ported by the declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis. (“Davis Dec.”, Ex. 1408.)
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSA)
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is provided in the declaration. (See, for
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`example, Davis Dec., Ex. 1408 ¶¶41-42, 5-37.)
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION — 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (B)(3)
`
`For purposes of this IPR, a claim is interpreted by applying its “broadest rea-
`
`sonable construction.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Petitioner proposes the following constructions for the purposes of this IPR
`
`only. But for some of these terms, based on the specification, prosecution history,
`
`and patentee admissions, Petitioner contends that the construction under the appli-
`
`cable district court standards is narrower, and reserves the right to present a nar-
`
`rower construction in district court litigation.
`
`A.
`
`road load (RL) and RL
`
`The Eastern District of Texas and the District of Maryland courts have con-
`
`strued 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. 1413 at 205-206; Hyundai Litigation, Ex. 1414 at
`
`16, 96-97.)
`
`For this proceeding, Petitioner 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 a prior PTAB construction. (See Ex. 1415 at 20,
`
`38, 51, 70, 84.) Petitioner contends the construction is narrower under district court
`
`standards.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`setpoint (SP) and SP
`B.
`The Texas and Maryland courts construed “setpoint (SP)” as being “a defi-
`
`nite, but potentially variable value at which a transition between operating modes
`
`may occur.” (Ex. 1413 at 204; Ex. 1414 at 104.) Petitioner disagrees that this is the
`
`broadest reasonable construction.
`
`The ‘347 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 [23.11]); or (2) a torque-
`
`based “road load” value (e.g., claim [23.7]). Likewise, the specification says “the
`
`microprocessor tests sensed and calculated values for system variables, such as the
`
`vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirement, i.e., the ‘road load’ RL . . . against set-
`
`points, and uses the results of the comparisons to control the mode of vehicle oper-
`
`ation.” (Ex. 1401, 40:20-31.) To do so (e.g., whether “RL < SP”), the “setpoint”
`
`would have to be in the same measurement units as the “road load.”
`
`During prosecution of the ‘347 Patent, patentee added the following limita-
`
`tion to pending claims 1 and 82 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.” (‘347 File History,
`
`Ex. 1410 at 8-20.) Patentee then argued the engine was operated only “when it is
`
`loaded . . . in excess of SP [setpoint], which is now defined to be ‘substantially less
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`than the maximum torque output (MTO) of said engine.’” (‘347 File History, Ex.
`
`1410 at 21.)
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with recent PTAB constructions.
`
`(Ford IPRs, Ex. 1415 at 21, 40, 72, 86.) Accordingly the broadest reasonable con-
`
`struction of “setpoint (SP)” and “SP” as used in the challenged claims is a “prede-
`
`termined torque value.”
`
`VI. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 23, 28, 30, and 32 are Obvious Over Ibaraki
`‘882 in View of the Knowledge of a POSA
`
`As provided below and by the accompanying declaration of Dr. Davis,
`
`claims 23, 28, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Ibaraki ‘882 (Ex. 1403) and the general knowledge of a POSA.
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 23
`
`...
`
`[23.0] A method of control of a hybrid vehicle,
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 states that the “present invention” pertains to a “drive control
`
`apparatus” for controlling a “hybrid vehicle” that may be propelled by an internal
`
`combustion (IC) engine and an electric motor. (Ex. 1403, 1:9-14; Ex. 1408, ¶¶169-
`
`170.) As illustrated below, Ibaraki ‘882 generally discloses a hybrid vehicle includ-
`
`ing a controller (128) that is used to control an internal combustion engine (112)
`
`and an electric motor (114) (Ex. 1403, 19:11-54.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Ex. 1403 at Figure and 8
`
`Figure 10 below illustrates a control routine that is implemented by the con-
`
`troller 26, 118 to select: 1) a MOTOR DRIVE mode (step “Q12”) where the elec-
`
`tric motor propels the vehicle; (2) an ENGINE DRIVE mode (step “Q11”) where
`
`the engine propels the vehicle; and (3) an ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode (step
`
`“Q10”) where both the electric motor and engine propel the vehicle. (Id. 11:58-67,
`
`20:43-49, 26:25-33; Ex. 1408, ¶¶174-175.) To select the MOTOR DRIVE mode,
`
`ENGINE DRIVE mode, or ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode, a data map (as ex-
`
`emplified by Fig. 11) is used. As annotated below, the data map determines the
`
`three operating modes as a function of “VEHICLE DRIVE TORQUE,” and “VE-
`
`HICLE SPEED.” (Ex. 1403, 20:38-21:2; Ex. 1408, ¶¶176-177.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 10
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`[23.1] said vehicle comprising an internal combustion engine
`...
`capable of efficiently producing torque at loads between a lower lev-
`el SP and a maximum torque output MTO,
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses an engine efficiency map (annotated below), which
`
`includes a threshold boundary line along “0.7 ηICEmax,” i.e., 70% of the maximum
`
`efficiency, also known as 70% relative efficiency. This threshold includes multiple
`
`setpoints that vary along the 0.7 ηICEmax boundary line depending upon the given
`
`engine speed (NE). As illustrated, a setpoint (annotated as SP) exists at engine
`
`speed (NE1) along the 0.7 ηICEmax boundary line. This setpoint (SP) represents the
`
`point where the hybrid vehicle would transition from MOTOR DRIVE mode to
`
`ENGINE DRIVE mode at engine speed (NE1).
`
`(Ex. 1403, 25:46-54; Ex. 1408,
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`¶¶185-187.) Specifically, when the Engine Torque (TE) is above setpoint (SP) at a
`
`particular Engine Speed (NE) the vehicle is operated in the ENGINE DRIVE mode.
`
`Additional description of this mode is provided in [23.8].
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 5 (annotated)
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses that less fuel is consumed when the engine operates
`
`above setpoint (SP) along the 0.7 ηICEmax boundary line than below. That is, at and
`
`above SP, torque produced by the engine (in ENGINE DRIVE mode) is fuel effi-
`
`cient. (Ex. 1403, 25:36-26:8; Ex. 1408, ¶185.) Therefore, a POSA would have un-
`
`derstood that at a given engine speed, an engine torque along the 0.7 ηICEmax
`
`boundary line is a setpoint above which the engine is efficiently producing torque.
`
`(Id. ¶¶185-187.)
`
`Similarly, in Figure 11, Ibaraki ‘882 discloses a drive source selecting data
`
`map (annotated below), which includes a threshold “boundary line B.” This
`
`threshold includes multiple setpoints that vary along “boundary line B” depending
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`upon the given vehicle speed. As illustrated, a setpoint (annotated as SP) exists at
`
`a vehicle speed (V1) along “boundary line B.” This setpoint (SP) at vehicle speed
`
`(V1) represents the point where the hybrid vehicle would transition from MOTOR
`
`DRIVE mode to ENGINE DRIVE mode. (Ex. 1403, 24:6-26.) Specifically, when
`
`the vehicle drive torque (annotated as TL2) is between setpoint (SP) and a torque
`
`point along boundary line C (annotated as C1) the vehicle is operated in an EN-
`
`GINE DRIVE mode.
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses that when operated at torques between a setpoint (SP)
`
`and the vehicle drive torque point (C1), the engine consumes less fuel than when
`
`the engine is operated at torques below the setpoint (SP).
`
`(Id. at 20:49-21:20.)
`
`That is, at and above SP, torque produced by the engine (in ENGINE DRIVE
`
`mode) is fuel efficient. (Ex. 1408 at ¶¶188-190.) A POSA would have understood
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`that at a given speed, a torque along boundary line “B” is a setpoint above which
`
`torque produced by the engine is efficiently produced. (Id. ¶193.)
`
`Because the engine propels the vehicle throughout the ENGINE DRIVE
`
`mode (shaded green), the maximum torque output (MTO) of the engine is at least
`
`equal to or greater than the torque point C1 at the vehicle speed (V1). The engine
`
`therefore efficiently produc[es] torque at loads between a lower level SP and a
`
`maximum torque output MTO. (Id. at ¶¶191-197.)
`
`...
`
`[23.2] a battery,
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses an “electric energy storage device 136” which can be
`
`“in the form of a battery or condenser.” (Ex. 1403, 19:55-57, emphasis added; Ex.
`
`1408, ¶¶198-199.)
`
`[23.3] and one or more electric motors being capable of
`...
`providing output torque responsive to supplied current, and of gen-
`erating electrical current responsive to applied torque,
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses a “dynamo-electric motor” 114 which is capable of
`
`being operated in a “DRIVE state,” “CHARGING state,” or “NON-LOAD state.”
`
`(Ex. 1403, 11:32-36 and 19:55-20:1.)
`
`“In the DRIVE state, the motor 114 is driven by an electric energy supplied
`
`from the electric energy storage device 136.” (Id. at 19:55-63.) A POSA would un-
`
`derstand that when “electric energy” is supplied from the battery to the electric mo-
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`tor, the battery is supplying current to the electric motor. (Ex. 1408, ¶¶200-203.)
`
`As will be described below in [23.7], the electric motor 114 can be operated by the
`
`supplied current in a MOTOR DRIVE mode in which the motor alone propels the
`
`vehicle. (Id. ¶203.)
`
`Further, Ibaraki ‘882 expressly discloses that the “power of the motor [is] se-
`
`lectively transferred to. . . right and left drive wheels.” (Ex. 1408 at 11:12-15 and
`
`19:24-28.) A POSA would have understood that when power is transferred from
`
`the motor 114 to the transmission 116 and to the drive wheels 120, the power is
`
`transferred by the torque from the output shaft of the electric motor, which is ap-
`
`plied to the drive shaft and ultimately the wheels.
`
`(Ex. 1408 at ¶204.) Indeed, a
`
`POSA would understand that power and torque are related as a function of speed
`
`(Power = Torque * Speed). Id.
`
`“In the CHARGING state, the motor 114 functions as an electric generator
`
`or dynamo, with regenerative braking (braking torque electrically generated by the
`
`motor 114 itself), for storing an electric energy in the electric energy storage de-
`
`vice 136.” (Ex. 1403, 19:61-67.) Again, the “electric energy” generated would in-
`
`clude current.
`
`[23.4] said engine being controllably connected to wheels of
`...
`said vehicle for applying propulsive torque thereto and to said at
`least one motor for applying torque thereto, said method comprising
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`the steps of:
`
`Regarding said engine being controllably connected to wheels of said vehi-
`
`cle for applying propulsive torque thereto, Fig. 8 of Ibaraki ‘882 (annotated below)
`
`illustrates the engine 112 (green) is controllably coupled to drive wheels 120 (red)
`
`via a “clutch 130” (yellow). The clutch 130 is controlled by a “clutch control actu-
`
`ator 132” to couple and decouple (i.e., connect and disconnect) the engine to and
`
`from the transmission 116 which transfers torque to the wheels 120.
`
`(Ex. 1403,
`
`19:50-54; Ex. 1408, ¶¶208-210.)
`
`Ex. 1403 at Figure 8 (annotated)
`
`As is clear in Fig. 8 above, the clutch 130 (yellow) also controllably con-
`
`nects the engine to the electric motor 114. As will further be discussed in [23.10],
`
`the controller can command an “ELECTRICITY GENERATING DRIVE mode”
`
`in which the engine will supply an output beyond the drive power (PL) required to
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`propel the vehicle provide excess output to drive the electric motor as a generator
`
`to charge the battery. (Ex. 1408, ¶¶210-218.)
`
`[23.5] determining the instantaneous torque RL required to
`...
`propel said vehicle responsive to an operator command;
`
`In order to determine which drive mode to operate in, Ibaraki ‘882 states that
`
`a point corresponding to the current “vehicle running condition” is plotted onto the
`
`data map of Fig. 11. (Ex. 1403, 20:58-21:1; Ex. 1408, ¶¶221-223.) This point “cor-
`
`respond[s] to the required drive power PL” for the vehicle and is “determined by
`
`the current vehicle drive torque and vehicle speed V.”1 (Ex. 1403, 23:66-24:21,
`
`20:39-43; Ex. 1408, ¶¶223-224.)
`
`Figure 11 (annotated below) highlights the mode selection when three points
`
`of “required drive power” (annotated as PL1, PL2, PL3) are plotted, “as determined
`
`by the current vehicle drive torque” (annotated as TL1, TL2, TL3) “and vehicle
`
`speed” (annotated as V1). The MOTOR DRIVE mode (shaded red) is selected
`
`when the “vehicle drive torque” (TL1) at vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL1) is locat-
`
`ed below a first boundary line B. Likewise, the ENGINE DRIVE mode (shaded
`
`1 A POSA would have known that power and torque are related by speed (i.e.,
`
`Power = Torque * Speed). (Ex. 1408 at ¶190.) Figure 11 is expressed in graphical
`
`format as “vehicle drive torque” vs. “vehicle speed,” and any point on the graph
`
`would represent a related power value. (Id. at ¶190.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`green) is selected when the “vehicle drive torque” (TL2) at the vehicle speed (V1)
`
`(i.e., point PL2) is above the first boundary line B but on or below a second bounda-
`
`ry line C. Finally, the ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode (shaded blue) is selected
`
`when the “vehicle drive torque” (TL3) at the vehicle speed (V1) (i.e., point PL3) is
`
`above the second boundary line C. (Ex. 1403, 23:66-24:30; Ex. 1408, ¶¶224-226.)
`
`Ex. 1403 at Figure 11 (annotated)
`
`The “points” of “required drive power PL” (PL1, PL2, PL3) are disclosed as be-
`
`ing the “instantaneous drive power required for running the vehicle, which
`
`power includes components for overcoming the air resistance experienced by the
`
`vehicle and the rolling resistance of each vehicle wheel.” (Ex. 1403, 12:50-54 (em-
`
`phasis added); Ex. 1408, ¶¶227-230.) A POSA would have understood that the cor-
`
`responding “vehicle drive torque” values (TL1, TL2, TL3) at the same vehicle speed
`
`(V1) are the instantaneous torque (RL) required to propel the hybrid vehicle. (Id.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`¶230.) Because each point of “required drive power PL” (PL1, PL2, PL3) is also de-
`
`termined on the basis of accelerator pedal “operating amount θA,” and “rate of
`
`change,” each corresponding “vehicle drive torque” (TL1, TL2, TL3) is likewise de-
`
`termined on the basis of the accelerator pedal operating amount and rate of change.
`
`(Ex. 1403, 22:66-23:6, 12:54-59; Ex. 1408, ¶¶229-230.) Ibaraki ‘882 therefore dis-
`
`closes determining the instantaneous torque (RL) required to propel the hybrid ve-
`
`hicle (i.e., “vehicle drive torque”) responsive to an operator command (i.e., sensed
`
`accelerator pedal operating amount and rate of change).
`
`The data map of Fig. 11 of Ibaraki ‘882 illustrates positive road load (RL)
`
`“vehicle drive torque” values. (Id. ¶231.)
`
`...
`
`[23.6] monitoring the state of charge of said battery;
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses that the controller receives a “charging amount SOC”
`
`(i.e., state of charge) of the “electric energy storage device 136” (i.e., battery). (Ex.
`
`1403, 20:10-23; Ex. 1408, ¶¶223-225.) In one embodiment, this SOC is used to ad-
`
`just the setpoint along boundary line B of Fig. 11 to increase the “MOTOR DRIVE
`
`mode” region to “prevent excessive charging” of the battery. (Ex. 1403, 24:39-60,
`
`emphasis added; see also 7:47-52; Ex. 1408, ¶237.) Steps Q4 and Q5 of the control
`
`strategy illustrated in Fig. 10 show the battery SOC being compared to thresholds.
`
`(Ex. 1403 at Fig. 10.)
`
`...
`
`[23.7] employing said at least one electric motor to propel said
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`vehicle when the torque RL required to do so is less than said lower
`level SP;
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses at least one electric motor (“electric motor 114” in
`
`Fig. 8) that may operate in a “DRIVE state” to propel the hybrid vehicle during a
`
`“MOTOR DRIVE mode in which the motor 114 is selected as the drive power
`
`source.” (Ex. 1403, 19:55-20:9, 20:43-53; Ex. 1408, ¶¶242-245.)
`
`The “controller 128” is disclosed as using the data map of Fig. 11 to select
`
`“the MOTOR DRIVE mode when the vehicle running condition as represented by
`
`the current vehicle drive torque and speed V is held within the range below the first
`
`boundary line B” (highlighted in red). (Ex. 1403, 20:58-62 (emphasis added); Ex.
`
`1408, ¶¶244-248.) As annotated below, a torque setpoint (annotated as SP) along
`
`“boundary line B” would be known at the current vehicle speed (annotated as V1).
`
`This setpoint (SP) marks the transition point between the MOTOR DRIVE mode
`
`and the ENGINE DRIVE mode. Also, a “required drive power PL” point (annotat-
`
`ed as PL1) within the MOTOR DRIVE mode is illustrated. This point also marks
`
`“the vehicle running condition as represented by the current vehicle drive torque
`
`[annotated as TL1] and speed [V1].” (Ex. 1403, 20:58-63, 23:66-24:2.) If the “cur-
`
`rent vehicle drive torque” (TL1) and “vehicle speed” (V1) result in a point (PL1) be-
`
`low the setpoint (SP), the MOTOR DRIVE mode is selected. In other words, the
`
`controller would operate the vehicle in the MOTOR DRIVE mode because the re-
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`quired “vehicle drive torque” (TL1) or road load at vehicle speed (V1) is less than
`
`the setpoint (SP) (Ex. 1408, ¶¶249-250.)
`
`Ex. 1403 at Fig. 11 (annotated)
`
`[23.8] employing said engine to propel said vehicle when the torque
`...
`RL required to do so is between said lower level SP and MTO;
`
`Ibaraki ‘882 discloses an engine 112 that may be operated to propel the hy-
`
`brid vehicle during an “ENGINE DRIVE mode in which the engine 112 is selected
`
`as the drive power source.” (Ex. 1403. 20:43-53; 19:18-27; Ex. 1408. ¶¶253-256.)
`
`As illustrated below, Ibaraki ‘882 discloses that the controller uses the data
`
`map of Fig. 11 to select this ENGINE DRIVE mode when the vehicle running
`
`condition “as represented by the current vehicle drive torque and speed V” is “held
`
`within the range between the first and second boundary lines B and C” (highlighted
`
`in green).
`
`(Ex. 1403, 20:18-63, Ex. 1408, ¶¶257-258.) At a given vehicle speed
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`
`(annotated