`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MICHIGAN MOTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00160
`Patent 6,557,540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK EHSANI, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,557,540
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`VW EX1003
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,540
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`Summary of Grounds ......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................ 2
`III.
`IV. Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 3
`V. Materials Considered ......................................................................................... 7
`VI. Legal Standards ................................................................................................. 8
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction .............................................. 9
`B.
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................10
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness .......................................................10
`VII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 15
`VIII. Overview of the ’540 Patent ............................................................................ 15
`A.
`Technology Overview ...........................................................................15
`B.
`Alleged Problem in the Prior Art ..........................................................22
`C.
`Alleged Invention of the ’540 Patent ....................................................23
`D.
`Prosecution History Summary ..............................................................29
`E.
`Claim Construction................................................................................29
` “calculating a valve feedback term” (claim 1) ...............................29 1.
`
`IX. Summary of the Applied References ............................................................... 30
`A. Yoshioka ................................................................................................30
`B.
`Ohkubo ..................................................................................................40
`C.
`Reed .......................................................................................................43
`X. Ground 1: The combination of Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious
`claims 1, 2, 7, and 10-16. ................................................................................. 44
`A.
`Rationale for combining Yoshioka with Ohkubo .................................44
`B.
`Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 1. ..................................52
`[1.P] “A method for calculating a valve timing command for an 1.
`
`engine of a vehicle” .............................................................................52
`[1.A] “obtaining an engine performance command;” ....................52 2.
`
`
`[1.B] “receiving an environmental conditions signal;” ..................59 3.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`[1.C] “determining a valve feedforward term based on the engine 4.
`
`performance command and the environmental conditions signal” .....61
`[1.D] “receiving an engine performance feedback;” .....................66 5.
`
`
`[1.E] “calculating a valve feedback term based on the engine 6.
`performance command and the engine performance feedback” .........71
`[1.F] “calculating a valve timing command based on the valve 7.
`
`feedforward term and the valve feedback term.” ................................77
`Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 2. ..................................82
`C.
`D. Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 7. ..................................85
`E.
`Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 10. ................................87
`F.
`Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 11. ................................92
`G. Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 12. ................................93
`H. Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 13. ................................95
`I.
`Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 14. ................................97
`J.
`Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 15. ................................98
`K. Yoshioka and Ohkubo renders obvious claim 16. ..............................100
`XI. Ground 2: The combination of Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders
`obvious claims 3-6, 8, and 9. ......................................................................... 101
`A.
`Rationale for combining Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed .....................101
`B.
`Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders obvious claim 3. .....................109
`C.
`Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders obvious claim 4. .....................113
`D. Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders obvious claim 5. .....................114
`E.
`Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders obvious claim 6. .....................116
`F.
`Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders obvious claim 8. .....................120
`G. Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed renders obvious claim 9. .....................121
`XII. Objective indicia do not support patentability. .............................................. 123
`XIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 124
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I, Dr. Mark Ehsani, declare as follows:
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`(“VWGoA”) for the above-captioned inter partes review proceeding to provide my
`
`expert opinions and expert knowledge. I understand that this proceeding involves
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,540 (“the ’540 patent”) titled “Method of Calculating a Valve
`
`Timing Command for an Engine,” and that the ’540 patent is currently assigned to
`
`Michigan Motor Technologies LLC (“MMT”). I understand that the Petition
`
`submitted by VWGoA challenges claims 1 to 16 of the ’540 patent.
`
`3. The ’540 patent is directed to the well-known technique of varying
`
`valve timing in an internal combustion engine. I am familiar with the technology
`
`described in the ’540 patent as of its earliest possible priority date, December 11,
`
`2001.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent technical review,
`
`analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’540 patent and the references that
`
`form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’540 patent filed by VWGoA.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with all
`
`the documents cited herein. I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’540 patent
`
`and its file history. I confirm that to the best of my knowledge the accompanying
`
`exhibits are true and accurate copies of what they purport to be, and that an expert in
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`the field would reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions such as those set forth
`
`in this Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $500 per hour for my
`
`work on this case. My compensation is not dependent upon my opinions, my
`
`testimony, or the outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Grounds
`I understand that the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’540 patent
`
`7.
`
`filed by VWGoA asserts the following Grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Ground
`
`References
`
`Yoshioka, Ohkubo
`
`Yoshioka, Ohkubo,
`Reed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1, 2, 7, 10-16
`
`3-6, 8, 9
`
`III. Summary of Opinions
`In my opinion, the challenged claims of the ’540 patent would have
`8.
`
`been obvious in view of the combinations of references VWGoA asserts.
`
`9.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’540 patent recites a method for calculating
`
`a valve timing command for an engine of a vehicle. EX1001, 3:52-53. Specifically,
`
`the ’540 patent broadly claims a method of calculating a valve timing command that
`
`allegedly solves the problem of optimizing valve timing for a particular load on an
`
`engine. Id., 1:30-33.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`10. As discussed in this Declaration, all the recited elements were basic,
`
`well-known techniques found in valve timing control systems as of December 11,
`
`2001, which I understand is the earliest possible priority date for the ’540 patent.
`
`And as discussed in this Declaration, the known problem of optimizing fuel
`
`efficiency and power output of an engine by varying valve timing for a particular
`
`load on an engine had been accomplished by the prior art in exactly the same way as
`
`recited in claims 1-16 of the ’540 patent. Moreover, as further discussed in this
`
`Declaration, before the ’540 patent’s December 11, 2001 earliest possible priority
`
`date, a POSA would have had a good reason to combine the asserted prior art
`
`references and, in so doing, they would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success.
`
`11. Therefore, it is my opinion that the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious in view of the disclosures in the asserted prior art references, as described in
`
`detail below.
`
`IV. Qualifications
`12. In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I have considered
`
`and relied upon my education, background, and experience. In addition, I have
`
`reviewed and relied upon additional materials in preparation of this Declaration, as
`
`described below.
`
`13. My experience and education are detailed in my curriculum vitae
`
`(“CV”), a copy of which is provided as EX1004. My CV also lists publications on
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`which I am a named author and identifies parties on behalf of whom I have
`
`previously provided expert testimony.
`
`14. I am a professor of electrical engineering at Texas A&M University, in
`
`College Station, Texas. I have experience in a number of areas, and have particular
`
`expertise in electronics, power electronics, automotive electrical and electronic
`
`systems, and their related technologies, such as in automotive electrical systems,
`
`which includes engine control systems. This expertise is directly applicable to the
`
`technical area of the ’540 patent, which relates to controlling electrical current
`
`through a valve solenoid.
`
`15. I received my Bachelors and Masters degrees, in electrical engineering,
`
`from the University of Texas at Austin in 1973 and 1974, respectively. After a few
`
`years of professional work and research, I received my Ph.D. in electrical
`
`engineering from University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 1981.
`
`16. I hold several academic professorships at Texas A&M University,
`
`including the Robert M. Kennedy Endowed Professorship of Electrical Engineering.
`
`I founded one of the first university power electronics and motor drives teaching and
`
`research programs in the United States, which is considered to be in the top three in
`
`the U.S. and one of the best in the world. For this I received several awards and
`
`recognitions, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
`
`Outstanding Teaching Award in 2003, which is the top academic award in this field.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`17. I have organized two undergraduate and five graduate courses in power
`
`electronics, motors and drives at Texas A&M University. Many of these courses
`
`have been on the topic of power converters, electric motors, their controls and
`
`applications for various systems such as vehicles. I have also conducted research
`
`and supervised over 90 Ph.D. and M.S. theses on these topics.
`
`18. I was one of the founders of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers, IEEE, Power Electronics Society in the early 1980’s and served on its
`
`founding Administrative Council and chaired its committees for many years. This
`
`professional society is the main forum for power electronics and motor drives
`
`specialists, organizes several annual conferences, and has a journal for publication
`
`of state of the art papers in power electronics and motor drives. I have chaired many
`
`of these international conferences and have been a reviewer for the publications of
`
`this society for over three decades.
`
`19. I have also served in positions of leadership in power electronics, motor
`
`drives and its applications in other professional societies, including IEEE Industry
`
`Application Society, IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IEEE Vehicular
`
`Technology Society, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). I have received
`
`numerous honors and awards from these societies for my contributions to power
`
`electronics and motor drives technologies and its state of the art, such as the Avant
`
`Garde Award from IEEE Vehicular Technology Society. I have been elected Life
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Fellow of both IEEE and Fellow of SAE, which is the highest ranking given to a
`
`fraction of one percent of the membership of these professional societies.
`
`20. I have been a consulting engineer to over 60 companies in the U.S. and
`
`internationally, in power electronics and its applications, over the past thirty-five
`
`years. I have also given numerous power electronics short courses and seminars in
`
`the U.S. and all over the world for continuing education of power electronics and
`
`motor drive engineers in companies and government agencies.
`
`21. I am the author or co-author of over four hundred published papers,
`
`eighteen books, and over twenty-four patents in power electronics, motor drives, and
`
`its applications. A list of publications that I have authored over the last thirty-eight
`
`years is included in my professional CV, which is attached as EX1004.
`
`22. The following are a sample of my publications in the field. I am co-
`
`author of the book “Vehicular Electric Power Systems,” Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2004,
`
`and the book “Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles –
`
`Fundamentals, Theory, and Design, ” M. Ehsani, Y. Gao, S. Longo, K. Ebrahimi,
`
`CRC Press, 3rd Edition, 2018. I am a contributor to “Handbook of Automotive
`
`Power Electronics and Motor Drives,” CRC Press, 2005. I taught a short course,
`
`“Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) Techniques,” at IEEE Applied Power Electronics
`
`Conference and Exposition (APEC ’91), Dallas, March 1991. Furthermore, I am the
`
`inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,095,205 titled “System and Method For Inductance
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Based Position Encoding Sensorless SRM Drive,” which was issued on August 22,
`
`2006.
`
`23. Therefore, based on my education, professional experience of forty-one
`
`years, and scholarly books and publications, I am an expert in the relevant field of
`
`the ’540 patent at issue here and have been an expert in this field since before the
`
`’540 patent was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”). I am intimately familiar with how a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood and used the terminology found in the ’540 patent at the
`
`time of its filing.
`
`V. Materials Considered
`24. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training, knowledge,
`
`and experience that are relevant to the ’540 patent. Furthermore, I have specifically
`
`considered the following documents, in addition to any other documents cited in this
`
`Declaration:
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,540 B1 to Mianzo et al. (“’540 Patent”)
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,557,540 B1 (“’540
`history”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,713,317 to Yoshioka, titled “Method of
`Continuously and Variably Controlling Valve Timing of Internal
`Combustion Engine,” issued February 3, 1998 (“Yoshioka”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,995,351 to Ohkubo et al., titled “Valve Timing
`Control Apparatus for an Internal Combustion Engine,” issued
`February 26, 1991 (“Ohkubo”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,308,671 to Reed et al., titled “Method of
`Increasing Torque and/or Reducing Emissions by Varying The
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Exhibit #
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`Description
`Timing of Intake and/or Exhaust Valves,” issued October 30, 2001
`(“Reed”)
`“Torque Management of Engines with Variable Cam Timing,” M.
`Jankovic, F. Frischmuth, A. Stefanopoulou, and J. A. Cook, IEEE
`Control Systems, October 1998 (“Jankovic”)
`“Bosch Fuel Injection Systems,” F. Aird, Berkeley Publishing
`Group, 2001, ISBN 1-55788-365-3 (“Aird”)
`McGraw-Hill Electronics Dictionary, 6th ed. By Neil Sclater and
`John Markus © 1997 Mcgraw-Hill Inc., ISBN 0-07-057837-0.
`“Automotive Encyclopedia,” W. Toboldt & L. Johnson,
`Goodheart-Wilcox Co. Inc., 1979, ISBN 0-87006-268-9
`(“Toboldt”)
`“Bosch Automotive Handbook,” Robert Bosch GmbH, 2000,
`ISBN 0-7680-0669-4 (“Bosch”)
`“Modeling and Control of Advanced Technology Engines,” A.
`Stefanopoulou, U. Mich., 1996 (“Stefanopoulou”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,220,120 to Jackson et al., titled “Internal
`Combustion Engine System and Operation,” issued September 2,
`1980 (“Jackson”)
`“Automotive Electronics Handbook,” R. Jurgen, McGraw-Hill,
`Inc., ISBN0-07-033189-8, 1994 (“Jurgen”)
`“Bosch Fuel Injection & Engine Management,” C. O. Probst,
`Robert Bentley, Inc., 1992, ISBN-978-0-8376-0300-1 (“Probst”)
`
`VI. Legal Standards
`25. I have also relied upon various legal principles (as explained to me by
`
`Volkswagen’s counsel) in formulating my opinions. My understanding of these
`
`principles is summarized below.
`
`26. I have been told the following legal principles apply to analysis of
`
`patentability. I also have been told that, in an inter partes review proceeding, a
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`patent claim may be deemed unpatentable if it is shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the claim is anticipated by one prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102, or rendered obvious by one or more prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`27. I understand that documents and materials such as printed publications
`
`or patents that qualify as prior art can be used to render a patent claim as anticipated
`
`or as obvious.
`
`28. I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation or obviousness of a patent
`
`claim requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art
`
`on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`29. I understand that during an inter partes review proceeding, claims are
`
`to be construed in light of the specification as would be read by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art at the time of the purported priority date. I understand that
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`A claim term, however, will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as
`
`his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the
`
`specification. In this case, the claim term will receive the definition set forth in the
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`B. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`30. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (herein
`
`“POSA”) is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional
`
`wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity—not an automaton.
`
`31. I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in the field that
`
`someone would have had at the time the alleged invention was made. In deciding the
`
`level of ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`32. I understand that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a POSA is at the time of the alleged invention, which I
`
`have been told to assume for this case is December 11, 2001.
`
`33. Regardless if I use “I” or “POSA” during my technical analysis below,
`
`all of my statements and opinions are to be understood to be based on how a POSA
`
`would have understood or read a document at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness
`34. I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. I understand that this means that even if all of the elements of the
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim,
`
`the claim can still be unpatentable.
`
`35. It is my understanding that to obtain a patent, a claimed invention must
`
`have been, as of its earliest possible priority date, non-obvious in view of the prior
`
`art in the field. I understand that a patent claim is obvious when the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the alleged invention was made.
`
`36. When considering the issues of obviousness, I have been told that I am
`
`to do the following:
`
`• Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`• Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`37. With respect to determining the proper scope of prior art to examine, I
`
`understand that in order for a prior art reference to be properly used in an
`
`obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the prior art reference must be
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention. I have been told that a reference is analogous
`
`art to the claimed invention only if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem solved by the inventor.
`
`38. I understand that factors relevant to determining the proper field of
`
`endeavor include the inventor’s explanations of the subject matter (including the
`
`patent specification), as well as the claimed invention’s structure and function. And I
`
`further understand that to be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by
`
`the inventor, a prior art reference must logically commend itself to the inventor’s
`
`attention in considering his or her problem.
`
`39. I have been told that an analogous reference may be modified or
`
`combined with other analogous references or with the POSA’s own knowledge if the
`
`person would have found the modification or combination obvious. I have also been
`
`told that a POSA is presumed to know all relevant, analogous prior art, and the
`
`obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`POSA would employ.
`
`40. In determining whether a prior art reference would have been combined
`
`with another prior art reference or other information known to a POSA, I have been
`
`told that the following principles may be considered:
`
`• A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`• The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to
`
`be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`• The use of a known technique to improve similar devices, products, or
`
`methods in the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable
`
`results;
`
`• The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement is likely obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`• Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the reference
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
`
`claimed;
`
`• A skilled artisan often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`references together like a puzzle; and
`
`• The proper analysis of obviousness requires a determination of whether
`
`a POSA would have a “reasonable expectation of success”—not
`
`“absolute predictability” of success—in achieving the claimed
`
`invention by combining prior art references.
`
`41. I understand that whether a prior art reference renders a claim
`
`unpatentable as obvious is determined from the perspective of a POSA. I have also
`
`been told that, while there is no requirement for the prior art to contain an express
`
`suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention, a
`
`suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention may come
`
`from the prior art as a whole or individually, as filtered through the knowledge of
`
`one skilled in the art. In addition, I have been told the inferences and creative steps a
`- 13 -
`
`
`

`

`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ are also relevant to the
`
`determination of obviousness.
`
`42. I also understand that when a work is available in one field, design
`
`alternatives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or in another. I have also been told that if a POSA can implement a predictable
`
`variation and would see the benefit of doing so, that variation is likely to be obvious.
`
`I have been told that in many fields, there may be little discussion of obvious
`
`combinations, and in these fields market demand—not scientific literature—may
`
`drive design trends. I have been told that, when there is a design need or market
`
`pressure and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a POSA has good
`
`reason to pursue those known options.
`
`43. I have been told there is no rigid rule prescribing that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But I also have been told that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. I have been told this test poses the question as to whether
`
`there is an express or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior
`
`art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it seeks to counter
`
`impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`VII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`44. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the
`
`context of the ’540 patent as of December 11, 2001 (the earliest possible priority
`
`date of the ’540 patent) would have had a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering or
`
`Mechanical Engineering (or equivalent), as well as at least 2–4 years of academic or
`
`industry experience in the relevant field of engine control systems.
`
`45. I am well qualified to determine the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`First, I am very familiar with the technology of the ’540 patent as of the December
`
`11, 2001 timeframe. As mentioned above, by December 11, 2001, I had acquired
`
`extensive experience relating to engine control systems. Specifically, by December
`
`11, 2001, I had over 23 years of experience working with engine control systems.
`
`See supra Section IV; EX1004.
`
`VIII. Overview of the ’540 Patent
`A. Technology Overview
`46. The ’540 patent is titled “Method of Calculating a Valve Timing
`
`Command for an Engine.” The ’540 patent issued on May 6, 2003 from U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/014,286, which was filed on December 11, 2001. EX1001, ’540
`
`Patent, (21), (22), (45).
`
`47. The ’540 patent relates to the well-known technique of varying valve
`
`timing in an internal combustion engine. In particular, the ’540 patent is directed to a
`
`method of calculating a valve timing to allegedly solve the problem of optimizing
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`valve timing for a particular load on an engine. EX1001, 1:30-33. However, well
`
`before the ’540 patent, it was known that competing objectives are present in
`
`internal combustion engines, for example, achieving maximum power output while
`
`attaining efficient fuel consumption and minimizing exhaust byproducts. To achieve
`
`these objectives, electrical engine controls manage various aspects of engines
`
`including valve timing.
`
`48. As one example, Jankovic explains that known variable cam timing
`
`(VCT) systems utilized an electro-hydraulic mechanism to rotate the camshaft
`
`relative to the crankshaft in order to retard the cam timing with respect to the intake
`
`and exhaust strokes of the engine, as illustrated below:
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`EX1008, Jankovic, 34-35.
`
`
`
`49. According to Jankovic, it was known that varying intake and exhaust
`
`valve timing permits an engine designer to optimize valve timing over a wide range
`
`of engine operating conditions including emission and torque. The background of
`
`the ’540 patent itself also admits that “fuel efficiency and power output of the engine
`
`may be optimized with an adjustment of the valve timing for a particular load on the
`
`engine.” EX1001, 1:30-33. Jankovic also recognized that there are multiple types of
`
`known variable cam timing (VCT) systems including: phasing only the intake cam
`
`(intake only), phasing only the exhaust cam (exhaust only), phasing the intake and
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`exhaust cams equally (dual equal), and phasing the two camshafts independently
`
`(dual independent). EX1008, 35. According to Jankovic, “intake valve timing and
`
`exhaust valve timing are advanced or retarded equally, gives the best overall
`
`performance in terms of emissions and fuel economy.” Id. A POSA would have
`
`thus been aware of and considered varying valve timing as a known technique to
`
`improve engine performance (e.g., improve fuel economy and reduce emissions).
`
`50. As another example, Stefanopoulou described in 1996 that:
`
`Variable cam timing schemes have been studied extensively and have
`been found to reduce emissions [45, 79] increase fuel economy [21,
`41, 26] and improve full load performance [40]. The primary
`emphasis of this work is on reducing emissions while satisfying
`drivability requirements at part load and medium engine speed.
`Variable cam timing can inhibit the production of oxides of nitrogen
`(NOx) and reduce the amount of unburned hydrocarbons (HC) emitted
`to the exhaust system [45]. By retarding the cam timing, combustion
`products which would otherwise be expelled during the exhaust stroke
`are retained in the cylinder during the subsequent intake stroke. The
`contribution of this diluent to the mixture in the cylinder reduces the
`combustion temperature and suppresses NOx formation. In addition,
`this process often reduces HC emissions since the internally
`recirculated exhaust gas subjected to the additional combustion cycle
`is generally from the crevice volumes at the piston/cylinder wall
`interface and is rich in unburned HC. The effect is to reduce the base
`HC and NOx emission levels of the engine with respect to a
`conventional powerplant, resulting in lower tailpipe emissions at
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`equivalent catalytic converter efficiencies. Of course, VCT obviates
`the requirement for external exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems
`commonly used for NOx reduction. Furthermore, by retarding the cam
`phasing, the amount of fresh air into the cylinder is reduced. This
`results in the need for a higher manifold pressure in order to maintain
`the same load. Operation in high manifold pressure is advantageous
`since it is associated with reduced intake stroke pumping work [31,
`83], and therefore, increased fuel economy. One type of VCT engine
`utilizes a hydraulically actuated mechanism to rotate the camshaft
`relative to the crankshaft and advance the valve timing with respect to
`the engine induction and exhaust strokes. This is illustrated in the
`valve lift profiles shown in Fig. 3.1.
`EX1013, Stefanopoulou, 33.
`
`51. Stefanopoulou recognized that the goal of variable cam timing for an
`
`engine “is to keep emissions as low as possible, by maintaining air fuel ratio (A/F)
`
`close to stoichiometry, and minimizing feedgas NOx and HC emissions, while
`
`providing good driveability during rapid throttle movements.” Id., 47.
`
`52. Yoshioka, Ohkubo, and Reed, described in detail below, also disclose
`
`control systems for varying valve timing. For example, Yoshioka discloses “a
`
`method of and an apparatus for optimizing valve timing according to