Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: August 3, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-005701
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`____________
`
`Held: July 1, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on
`Wednesday, July 1, 2015, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`1 This Transcript addresses the same Oral Hearing in the inter
`partes reviews listed in the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one
`Transcript to be filed in all of the cases. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers.
`
`
`VWGoA - Ex. 1009
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. - Petitioner
`
`1
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 44
`Entered: August 3, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-005701
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`____________
`
`Held: July 1, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
`and CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on
`Wednesday, July 1, 2015, commencing at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`1 This Transcript addresses the same Oral Hearing in the inter
`partes reviews listed in the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one
`Transcript to be filed in all of the cases. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers.
`
`
`VWGoA - Ex. 1009
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. - Petitioner
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FRANK ANGILERI, ESQ.
`JOHN P. RONDINI, ESQ.
`SANGEETA G. SHAH, ESQ.
`ANDREW B. TURNER, ESQ.
`TIMOTHY W. RIFFE, ESQ.
`BRIAN J. LIVEDALEN, ESQ.
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`
`LISSI MOJICA, ESQ.
`KEVIN GREENLEAF, ESQ.
`NONA DURHAM, ESQ.
`Dentons
`1530 Page Mill Road
`Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1125
`
`MATTHEW J. MOORE, ESQ.
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`
`DAVID B. KELLEY, ESQ.
`Ford Global Technologies, LLC
`Fairlane Plaza South
`Suite 800
`330 Town Center Drive
`Dearborn, Michigan 48126-2738
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES, continued:
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`RUFFIN B. CORDELL, ESQ.
`LINDA LIU KORDZIEL, ESQ.
`W. PETER GUARNIERI, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: This morning we have our
`
`hearings for IPR2014-00570, 571, 579, 875, 884 and 904, Ford v.
`
`Paice and the Abell Foundation. I'm Judge Deshpande, to my left
`
`is Judge DeFranco, to my right is Judge Medley. Let's have our
`
`parties' appearances. Who do we have for Petitioner?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Your Honor, Frank Angileri for
`
`Petitioner, and would you like me to introduce our whole house at
`
`10
`
`this point in time?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Yes.
`
`MR. ANGILERI: At counsel table in this session are
`
`13
`
`Andy Turner and John Rondini. Behind me is Sangeeta Shah, she
`
`14
`
`will be joining counsel table for the third session and arguing one
`
`15
`
`of the two in that session. Mr. Rondini will be arguing one of the
`
`16
`
`two in the second session. They are all from my firm, Brooks
`
`17
`
`Kushman.
`
`18
`
`In the back row are Matt Moore, who is Ford's litigation
`
`19
`
`counsel, David Kelley who is in-house counsel at Ford, Kevin
`
`20
`
`Greenleaf, Lissi Mojica and Anna Durham, who are with the
`
`21
`
`Dentons firm. Nona Durham, excuse me.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Great, thank you.
`
`Who do we have for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. CORDELL: Good morning, Your Honors, Ruffin
`
`25
`
`Cordell from Fish & Richardson, and with me are my colleagues
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`Brian Livedalen and Pete Guarnieri, and arguing later in the day
`
`will be Linda Kordziel, and my partner Tim Riffe is here. And I
`
`would like to introduce our clients, this is Francie Keenan, who is
`
`the chairman of Paice and the CFO of Abell, and Mr. Bill
`
`Leinkhuler, who is the general counsel of Paice.
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Great, thank you, and
`
`welcome, everybody, to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. As
`
`we outlined in the trial hearing order, the procedure for today, I'm
`
`just going to go ahead remind everybody of what we have set up.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`We have three sessions set up, session 1 which will begin now,
`
`11
`
`session 2 that will begin at 12:30, and session 3 that will begin at
`
`12
`
`2:45.
`
`13
`
`In the first session, we will be hearing arguments for
`
`14
`
`IPR2014-00571 and 904. In the second session at 12:30, we will
`
`15
`
`be hearing IPR2014-00579 and 884. And in the final session, the
`
`16
`
`third session, we will be hearing IPR2014-00570 and 875. For
`
`17
`
`the whole day, we're going to gather one composite transcript,
`
`18
`
`and enter it in each case.
`
`19
`
`I'm just going to remind both parties that if you have
`
`20
`
`any objections, wait until it's your turn to raise the objection. Do
`
`21
`
`not interrupt the opposing party while they're speaking, raise your
`
`22
`
`objections during your own allocated time. For each session,
`
`23
`
`each party will be given 60 minutes. You can allocate the time as
`
`24
`
`you see fit, just remember to identify what case number you're
`
`25
`
`referring to and also identify what slide numbers for
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`demonstratives or exhibit numbers and page numbers for the
`
`record, and for the transcript.
`
`If nobody has any questions, the burden of proof lies on
`
`the Petitioner, and the Petitioner can go ahead and argue first.
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Thank you, Your Honor. May it
`
`please the Board, my name is Frank Angileri, and in this phase
`
`one, I think Mr. Cordell and I talked about this beforehand, we're
`
`going to address a couple of some of the global issues at the
`
`beginning, some of the claim construction issues, and then also
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`obviously proceed to the two IPRs that are within this particular
`
`11
`
`phase.
`
`12
`
`We're here today to address four patents, and this is the
`
`13
`
`patent family from which these patents arise. They're shown in
`
`14
`
`red. The yellow is -- this is slide 2. The yellow is the other
`
`15
`
`patent that's at issue between the parties right now, but that's not
`
`16
`
`at issue in these hearings today.
`
`17
`
`These four patents, they're a continuation, they're all the
`
`18
`
`same spec, they're in a long chain and early in this chain Paice
`
`19
`
`was focusing on hardware, in these patents, the reason we're here
`
`20
`
`is because these patents attempt to patent old control strategies.
`
`21
`
`The first two, which are in the first two sessions, the '347 and
`
`22
`
`'634 patents focus on operating an engine when the torque
`
`23
`
`required exceeds a setpoint that's above which the engine operates
`
` 6
`
`24
`
`efficiently.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The last two patents focus on, that's the '388 and '097
`
`patents focus on limiting the rate of change of engine torque. In
`
`the '097 patent so that you can maintain a stoichiometric air fuel
`
`ratio, and in the '388 patent, limiting the rate of change of engine
`
`torque and then add in the motor.
`
`In slide 3, we have claim 1 of the '347 and '634 patents,
`
`and we have highlighted the control language that's the focus of
`
`these patents, and that language is, "starts and operates said
`
`engine when torque required to be produced by said engine to
`
`10
`
`propel the vehicle is at least equal to a setpoint above which said
`
`11
`
`engine torque is efficiently produced." This is a very common
`
`12
`
`feature that reoccurs in many claims in these patents. Other
`
`13
`
`claims add limitations about operating the motor when the torque
`
`14
`
`required is below that setpoint. Other claims, this claim uses the
`
`15
`
`language "torque required to be produced by said engine," so
`
`16
`
`required torque. Other claims will use that same "required
`
`17
`
`torque" language, or will use a "road load" language, but the
`
`18
`
`Board has construed road load as the amount of instantaneous
`
`19
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative,
`
`20
`
`and that makes those road load claims likewise focus on the
`
`21
`
`required torque.
`
`22
`
`The Board's construction is the top of slide 4, and the
`
`23
`
`reason we consider this a global issue is in virtually all these
`
`24
`
`IPRs, Paice has argued that the prior art does not meet the road
`
`25
`
`load limitations, but all of these prior art references talk about
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`required torque, and required torque is what the claims require
`
`either directly in the claim language as shown in claim 1, or
`
`through the construction of road load.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Mr. Angileri?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes?
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Do any of the prior art
`
`references use the term "road load?"
`
`MR. ANGILERI: I don't know that they use that term.
`
`I don't think that's necessarily relevant because road load is the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`amount of torque required and the references use road load, and
`
`11
`
`that's consistent -- the references use "the amount of torque
`
`12
`
`required." That is consistent with the Paice patent. The
`
`13
`
`construction of road load is consistent with the Paice patent,
`
`14
`
`which defines road load as "the amount of instantaneous torque
`
`15
`
`required to propel a vehicle." And, so, therefore, the fact that the
`
`16
`
`reference -- whether the references use road load is not really
`
`17
`
`significant in our view to whether they disclose the invention of
`
`18
`
`the claims. They disclose required torque, they disclose operating
`
`19
`
`the engine when the required torque is above a torque threshold,
`
`20
`
`which is the focus of the Paice patents.
`
`21
`
`Although the Court's construction -- the Board's
`
`22
`
`construction is required torque, and the references disclose
`
`23
`
`required torque, Paice has consistently argued that these
`
`24
`
`references don't teach road load. The problem with that argument
`
`25
`
`is, number one, the Board's construction does not require
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`anything further on road load, but the Paice patents also don't
`
`require anything further in terms of how road load is determined.
`
`JUDGE DESHPANDE: Counsel, are you satisfied with
`
`the Board's construction of road load?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes. Paice has consistently tried to
`
`distinguish this art based on how road load is determined. For
`
`example, with respect to the Vittone and Caraceni references,
`
`Paice has argued that those references determined the drivability
`
`torque requirements or the driver torque requests based on the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`pedal position. Those both have a microprocessor, which
`
`11
`
`interprets that pedal position to determine a torque required at an
`
`12
`
`instant in time, and therefore disclose the Board's road load
`
`13
`
`construction, they disclose the amount of torque required.
`
`14
`
`Paice cannot differentiate this prior art based on how
`
`15
`
`road load is determined in this proceeding because it's not part of
`
`16
`
`the Board's construction, and because the '347 patents and all the
`
`17
`
`patents at issue do not define how road load is determined.
`
`18
`
`In slide 5, we asked Paice's expert, "Does the '347
`
`19
`
`patent explain how you determine road load, or how a person of
`
`20
`
`skill in the art would determine road load?" His answer: "Yeah,
`
`21
`
`that's not -- that's something that wasn't part of the patent." So,
`
`22
`
`any attempt by Paice in these proceedings to distinguish prior art
`
`23
`
`based on how road load is determined, we believe is improper
`
`24
`
`and should have no weight.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Likewise, when we asked Mr. Hannemann what factors
`
`would one consider to determine road load, in slide 6, on the
`
`left-hand side, we have a number of citations to specific groups of
`
`features where we asked him are those features sufficient, and he
`
`said they were not. He said those are factors one might consider,
`
`but those are not sufficient to determine road load.
`
`In the quote that we have on the upper right-hand side
`
`of page slide 6, we asked him, again, what about a list of factors,
`
`we asked him, pedal position, vehicle speed, engine RPM, gear
`
`10
`
`ratio engine vacuum, would those be sufficient? And his
`
`11
`
`response, those are examples of factors that I would consider, but
`
`12
`
`he said he hadn't done the analysis. And finally, we asked him
`
`13
`
`some questions about how could you finally determine whether
`
`14
`
`someone is calculating road load according to the Paice patents,
`
`15
`
`he said it would take a full product development cycle. Needless
`
`16
`
`to say, none of that is in the Paice patents.
`
`17
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: So, Mr. Angileri, regardless of
`
`18
`
`what Paice's expert said, is it Petitioner's position that the '347
`
`19
`
`patent does not disclose how road load is determined?
`
`20
`
`MR. ANGILERI: That's correct. It just talks about
`
`21
`
`road load being instantaneous torque to propel the vehicle, and
`
`22
`
`therefore in our view, any prior art that discloses determining the
`
`23
`
`torque required is disclosing the road load of the Paice patents.
`
`24
`
`The second global issue is the setpoint issue, which, again, crops
`
`25
`
`up in many, many petitions. The Board construed setpoint as,
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`and I'm on slide 7 now, "a predetermined torque value that may
`
`or may not be reset." That's correct because, first, foremost, the
`
`claims, when they reference setpoint, it's done so in the context of
`
`a torque value, where a torque is referenced relative to the
`
`setpoint to determine, for example, whether the engine should
`
`operate. That shows you that the setpoint is a torque value.
`
`Separate from that, in the upper right-hand portion of
`
`slide 7, we have some excerpts from the deposition of Paice's
`
`expert, where he basically said he agreed that independent of the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Board's construction, regardless, the setpoint is a torque value in
`
`11
`
`these claims, and he said yes.
`
`12
`
`Paice's proposed construction is a definite but
`
`13
`
`potentially variable value at which a transition between operating
`
`14
`
`modes may occur. We believe that the Board's construction is the
`
`15
`
`correct construction. Paice's construction says it's a definite but
`
`16
`
`potentially variable value, that really doesn't add much definition.
`
`17
`
`And then Paice's construction says at which a transition between
`
`18
`
`operating modes may occur, that means it may not occur. So, we
`
`19
`
`don't think that Paice's construction properly captures the fact that
`
`20
`
`setpoint is a torque value, and it makes it somewhat undefined.
`
`21
`
`I'm now going to proceed, unless the Board has any
`
`22
`
`further questions on these global issues, to the issues that are
`
`23
`
`specific to these two IPRs in this session.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Mr. Angileri, would you agree
`
`25
`
`that a setpoint is a torque value at which a transition occurs?
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. ANGILERI: I think it can occur, I don't think
`
`these claims in the broadest reasonable construction require a
`
`transition at that setpoint. For example --
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Well, what would be the
`
`purpose of the setpoint, then?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: It defines a range where the engine
`
`may operate. The claim, for example, talks about the engine
`
`operating when the required torque is between a setpoint and
`
`MTO. That claim limitation would be met by a required torque
`
`10
`
`being somewhere in that range. It doesn't necessarily require a
`
`11
`
`specific transition at a particular setpoint. In other words, if the
`
`12
`
`engine is operating in that range, if the prior art teaches the
`
`13
`
`engine operating in that range, above the setpoint, below the
`
`14
`
`MTO, it meets that limitation. Whether it teaches a transition, per
`
`15
`
`se, that would certainly meet the limitation as well, but if the
`
`16
`
`prior art teaches an engine operating when the required torque is
`
`17
`
`above that setpoint and below MTO, it will meet that limitation.
`
`18
`
`So, a transition would certainly meet it, but the claims
`
`19
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction do not necessarily
`
`20
`
`require that transition. In the prior art.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: But we have to interpret setpoint
`
`22
`
`consistent with the specification, it seems to me the specification
`
`23
`
`is all about transitions between modes. Would you agree?
`
`24
`
`MR. ANGILERI: It is -- it certainly discusses
`
`25
`
`transitions, it also discusses where you operate. It also discusses
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`having multiple setpoints. It discusses situations where one
`
`might not operate the engine in that range. I don't think it's
`
`necessarily significant to these proceedings, however, because the
`
`prior on which we rely does discuss treating the setpoint as a
`
`transition point. In other words, for example, the Bumby
`
`reference talks about if you're above the torque line, you operate
`
`the engine, and if you're below the torque line, you operate the
`
`motor. Likewise, the Severinsky '970 patent has that same sort of
`
`discussion. So, the prior art discloses the transition feature.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Turning to the Severinsky '970, there are three
`
`11
`
`limitations that have gotten a lot of discussion in the parties'
`
`12
`
`papers. They're what we call the motor -- the engine limitation,
`
`13
`
`the motor limitation and the setpoint limitation. We've given
`
`14
`
`them numbers, and we've put up the claim language for claim 23
`
`15
`
`as an example, but these features arise in claim 7 of the '347
`
`16
`
`patent, and claim 16 of the '634 patent. All three of these
`
`17
`
`limitations, we believe, are very clearly disclosed in the
`
`18
`
`Severinsky '970 patent. And we have focused on two provisions,
`
`19
`
`which are on slide 9.
`
`20
`
`The first, which is at column 7, lines 8 to 16, reads,
`
`21
`
`"More particularly, according to the invention," so it's focusing
`
`22
`
`on the invention of the '970 patent. "The internal combustion
`
`23
`
`engine is operated -- there's an "only" there -- "under the most
`
`24
`
`efficient conditions of output power and speed." Now, power,
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`torque and speed, there's a well-known relationship between those
`
`three, namely that power is equal to torque times speed.
`
`So, a person of skill in the art would understand that a
`
`condition of output, power and speed is a torque condition. Any
`
`pair of power and speed is going to be a torque value, but
`
`Severinsky makes it very clear that they're talking about torque
`
`elsewhere.
`
`Now, this is the when, there's been a lot of discussion in
`
`the briefings about Severinsky '970 not teaching when the engine
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is operated. This very clearly and expressly states when the
`
`11
`
`engine is operated. Specifically, "When the engine can be used
`
`12
`
`efficiently to drive the vehicle forward, e.g. in highway cruising,
`
`13
`
`it is so employed." So, it's a very definitive statement about when
`
`14
`
`you apply the engine, namely when it's efficient to do so. Or
`
`15
`
`when it would be efficient to do so.
`
`16
`
`The next sentence, "Under other circumstances, e.g. in
`
`17
`
`traffic, the electric motor alone drives the vehicle." So, when it's
`
`18
`
`not efficient for the engine to drive the vehicle, the motor does so.
`
`19
`
`The second paragraph, or the second provision that we
`
`20
`
`focus on is column 20, lines 63 to 67, that's on the bottom of slide
`
`21
`
`9. The first provision talked about driving the engine when it's
`
`22
`
`efficient, the second provision defines when efficiency exists, at
`
`23
`
`least in this example. And it says, again, "It will be appreciated
`
`24
`
`that according to the invention," again, focusing on the invention
`
`25
`
`of the '970 patent, "the internal combustion engine is run only in
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`the near vicinity of its most efficient operational point." So, near
`
`vicinity, that suggests a band around that most efficient point, and
`
`that band is defined as times when the engine will produce 60 to
`
`90 percent of its maximum torque, or MTO, as the parties have
`
`talked.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Mr. Angileri, what does
`
`maximum torque output mean? Is that the full capacity of the
`
`engine?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Well, maximum torque output can be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`used in different ways. It usually is the maximum torque that the
`
`11
`
`engine can hit at any point in time. There are different maximum
`
`12
`
`torque -- maximum torques that an engine can generate at
`
`13
`
`different speeds. So, persons of skill in the art would understand
`
`14
`
`both of those meanings, if you will. Said another way, if you
`
`15
`
`plotted engine torque versus engine speed, there would be a
`
`16
`
`maximum torque at -- and these are common curves in the art,
`
`17
`
`there would be a maximum torque at which the engine could -- a
`
`18
`
`maximum torque that the engine could generate at a given speed,
`
`19
`
`and that would generally looks like a hill, and then, of course, the
`
`20
`
`center point, which is the highest point, would be the single
`
`21
`
`maximum torque that that engine can generate at a particular
`
`22
`
`speed.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Does maximum torque output
`
`24
`
`change depending on the mode of operation?
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. ANGILERI: No. And to the extent I understand
`
`your question, the maximum torque output of the engine wouldn't
`
`change, for example, if the motor is running. On the other hand,
`
`the maximum torque output of the vehicle would change if you
`
`operate the engine and the motor because now you've got two
`
`torque sources. So, I'm not sure I understand -- the MTO is sort
`
`of a -- it's a maximum value that an engine has, that doesn't
`
`change, whether -- that stays the same whether the engine is
`
`running, the motor is running or both are running. It's a capacity
`
`10
`
`thing.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: I guess what I'm wondering is
`
`12
`
`does the MTO change depending on whether the engine is
`
`13
`
`propelling the vehicle up a hill versus propelling the vehicle on a
`
`14
`
`flat surface?
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. ANGILERI: No.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: No.
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Because it's an engine capacity. It's
`
`18
`
`what the engine can do at its maximum output.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Okay.
`
`MR. ANGILERI: So that maximum doesn't change, it's
`
`21
`
`a question of whether the engine is operating near it or in the case
`
`22
`
`of when you're running in dual mode, the vehicle may be
`
`23
`
`generating more torque than the engine's maximum torque output
`
`24
`
`because it's using the motor to supplement the engine.
`
`25
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Okay. Thank you.
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. ANGILERI: So, back to these two passages. In
`
`our view, these passages very clearly define the engine limitation,
`
`the motor limitation and the setpoint. They define the engine
`
`limitation because it talks about the engine limitation says,
`
`employing the engine to propel the vehicle when the required
`
`torque to do so is between the lower level setpoint and MTO.
`
`Setpoint is the efficiency range. So, the Severinsky '970 patent
`
`defines a range of 60 to 90 percent of MTO where you're going to
`
`operate the engine, so you've got a lower level setpoint of 60
`
`10
`
`percent and you're defining it and you're running the engine
`
`11
`
`between that setpoint of 60 percent and MTO.
`
`12
`
`Then, '970 says, on your other circumstances, run the
`
`13
`
`motor. That's the motor limitation, 23.7. "Employing said one
`
`14
`
`electric motor to propel said vehicle when the required torque is
`
`15
`
`less than the lower level setpoint." And, finally, the setpoint
`
`16
`
`limitation is met because the setpoint limitation is the point above
`
`17
`
`which the engine operates sufficiently, that's 23.1, and again,
`
`18
`
`Severinsky defines that point as 60 percent of maximum torque.
`
`19
`
`That's the lower end of its efficiency range.
`
`20
`
`Severinsky discloses mode switching based on torque in
`
`21
`
`several other places. On slide 10, we've got some of those
`
`22
`
`reproduced. At column 14, lines 15 to 18, it talks about
`
`23
`
`activating the motor when torque in excess of the capabilities of
`
`24
`
`the engine is required. So, it's focusing on the torque required to
`
`25
`
`decide whether to go into that dual mode electric engine or
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`electric motor and engine. Then on the bottom of slide 10 we
`
`have the excerpts from the acceleration and hill-climbing mode.
`
`The first portion of this excerpt clarifies that
`
`acceleration and hill climbing is a scenario, this is from column
`
`14, lines 22 to 25, and column 10, line 63, to 11, line 6. The first
`
`portion says that figure 6 illustrates operation of the system in a
`
`high-speed acceleration and/or hill-climbing mode, where both
`
`the engine and the motor provide torque to the wheels. So, we
`
`put that in there just to make it clear that when Severinsky '970
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`uses acceleration or hill climbing, they're talking about using both
`
`11
`
`the engine and the motor at the same time.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`The next excerpt talks about a situation figure 4 --
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Mr. Angileri, I don't mean to
`
`14
`
`interrupt.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Yep.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: But I do have a question.
`
`17
`
`Looking at figure 3 of Severinsky, you see a controller there, the
`
`18
`
`microprocessor, and it has various inputs, and some of those
`
`19
`
`inputs are operator commands. Now, you just stated that the
`
`20
`
`switching modes are dependent upon torque, yet the
`
`21
`
`microprocessor controls the switching modes, correct?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Yes.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: And when I look at figure 3 of
`
`24
`
`Severinsky, '970, I believe, it shows inputs of operator
`
`25
`
`commands, so that -- and I believe this is Patent Owner's position,
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`that really those switching modes are dependent on driver input,
`
`and not necessarily torque values that are detected. So, how do
`
`we come to grips with this figure 3 showing input from the driver
`
`as opposed to torque?
`
`MR. ANGILERI: So, I don't -- I think you can come to
`
`grips by -- for several reasons. First, the claims talk about
`
`determining road load based on operator command. So, that's a
`
`clear example. In column 12 of the '347 patent, there's a
`
`discussion of determining road load based on the pedal position
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and what's happening with the pedal position.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: Isn't that really just claim 23?
`
`12
`
`Does claim 1 also speak to driver input?
`
`13
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Well, claim 1, I don't know that that
`
`14
`
`precludes driver input. Claim 1 talks about starting in the
`
`15
`
`operating engine, when the torque required to be produced by the
`
`16
`
`engine to propel the vehicle is above a setpoint. That torque
`
`17
`
`certainly can be determined, based on the operator commands. In
`
`18
`
`fact, that's how cars generally work. The operator communicates
`
`19
`
`to the controller through the pedal that he or she wants more or
`
`20
`
`less torque.
`
`21
`
`So, when you have a microprocessor-based system, the
`
`22
`
`microprocessor is looking at these inputs, like the inputs shown
`
`23
`
`on figure 3, and making a determination of how much torque is
`
`24
`
`required at that time. That is consistent with the specification of
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`the patents at issue, and as discussed earlier, the patents at issue
`
`don't define any other way of determining the torque required.
`
`So, the figure 3, the inputs of figure 3 are consistent
`
`with the '347 patent's teachings on how you determine the torque
`
`required. And, in fact, the figure 3 has virtually the same figure,
`
`figure 3 of the '970 patent is virtually identical to figure 4 of the
`
`'347 patent in terms of the inputs that are shown. And I can put
`
`them on the ELMO if you would like to see them.
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: So, it's Petitioner's position that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`figure 3 of Severinsky in showing operator commands is simply
`
`11
`
`the operator choosing the torque value?
`
`12
`
`MR. ANGILERI: The operator is choosing torque
`
`13
`
`value in sort of a human sense, right? The operator isn't --
`
`14
`
`JUDGE DeFRANCO: By pressing on the accelerator
`
`15
`
`or --
`
`16
`
`MR. ANGILERI: Yeah, sure. So, the operator isn't --
`
`17
`
`isn't even saying I want more torque, the operator doesn't
`
`18
`
`necessarily know anything about torque or power, of course, but
`
`19
`
`the operator is pushing on the pedal, and the vehicle with the
`
`20
`
`microprocessor, you know, designed by an engineer, is smart
`
`21
`
`enough to know, okay, the operator wants more torque, I'm going
`
`22
`
`to calculate that torque, I'm going to calculate the torque required
`
`23
`
`based on that pedal input, maybe based on -- it may look at other
`
`24
`
`factors, too, which are shown in both figure 3 of the '970 patent
`
`25
`
`and figure 4 of the '347 patent.
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`But again, exactly how it's determined is not -- is not
`
`part of the claim, and the '347 patent doesn't teach anything about
`
`specifically how that required torque is determined, other than
`
`talking about the pedal.
`
`Slide 10, just to finish the thought on acceleration and
`
`hill climbing, the reason we're focusing on acceleration and hill
`
`climbing, there are several reasons. First, on this question of
`
`whether Severinsky '970 teaches mode selection based on torque,
`
`acceleration and hill climbing is necessarily torque-based,
`
`10
`
`because it arises at any speed, and it requires an increase in torque
`
`11
`
`no matter what speed you're at. But this passage also confirms
`
`12
`
`that '970 is teaching activating the engine when the torque
`
`13
`
`required goes up.
`
`14
`
`In the bottom of slide 10, finishing this -- it talks about
`
`15
`
`at column 10, line 63, through column 11, line 6, this is a scenario
`
`16
`
`where it's talking about operating with just the electric motor in
`
`17
`
`heavy traffic. So, it's a situation where the car isn't accelerating
`
`18
`
`much because you're in heavy traffic. And then, it talks about
`
`19
`
`other combinations of torque and energy required under other
`
`20
`
`circumstances are detailed below in connection with other
`
`21
`
`figures, 5 and 9. And they give one example.
`
`22
`
`So, again, you're in an electric motor-only mode, and
`
`23
`
`then this says, "for example, if the operator continues to
`
`24
`
`command acceleration, an acceleration/hill-climbing mode
`
`25
`
`illustrated in figure 6 may be entered, followed by a highway
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00570
`Patent 8,214,097 B2
`
`cruising mode." The reason we put this in there, and we talk
`
`about followed by, is this is talking about a scenario where you
`
`have the motor only, where you have an increased torque demand
`
`from acceleration and hill climbing, and you enter this
`
`acceleration and hill-climbing mode, which means you are
`
`turning on the engine, because you are going from motor-only
`
`mode to hill-climbing mode which means you are going from
`
`motor-only mode to motor-plus-engine mode.
`
`Severinsky '970 is teaching turning on the engine
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`because the torque required has gone up. And then it says,
`
`11
`
`"followed by a highway c
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
