`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MAHDI SHAHBAKHTI PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`PAICE 2016
`BMW v. Paice
`IPR2020-01299
`
`1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 6
`II.
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ....................................................................... 14
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 16
`V.
`THE ’761 PATENT ....................................................................................... 17
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 26
`VII. ANALYSIS AND OPINIONS ...................................................................... 27
`A. Ground 1: The proposed combination of Severinsky and
`Quigley does not render obvious claims 1-12 ..................................... 27
`1.
`Neither Severinsky nor Quigley “derive[] a
`predicted near-term pattern of operation of said
`hybrid vehicle” .......................................................................... 27
`Neither Severinsky nor Quigley disclose “wherein
`said derived predicted pattern of operation
`comprises at least one repetitive pattern of
`operation of said hybrid vehicle.” (Claims 2 and 8) ................. 32
`Neither Severinsky nor Quigley disclose “wherein
`said controller monitors variation in road load
`experienced by said hybrid vehicle and compares
`patterns of variation in road load experienced from
`day to day in order to identify said repetitive
`patterns of operation of said hybrid vehicle.”
`(Claims 4 and 10) ...................................................................... 33
`A person of skill in the art would not combine
`Severinsky and Quigley ............................................................ 40
`Ground 2: The proposed combination of Severinsky and
`Nii does not render obvious claims 1-12 ............................................. 50
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Neither Severinsky nor Nii “derive[] a predicted
`near-term pattern of operation of said hybrid
`vehicle” ..................................................................................... 50
`Neither Severinsky nor Nii disclose “wherein said
`derived predicted pattern of operation comprises at
`least one repetitive pattern of operation of said
`hybrid vehicle.” (Claims 2 and 8) ............................................. 55
`Neither Severinsky nor Nii disclose “wherein said
`controller monitors variation in road load
`experienced by said hybrid vehicle and compares
`patterns of variation in road load experienced from
`day to day in order to identify said repetitive
`patterns of operation of said hybrid vehicle.”
`(Claims 4 and 10) ...................................................................... 56
`Severinsky’s parallel hybrid architecture vs. Nii’s
`series hybrid architecture .......................................................... 59
`Nii’s use of vehicle patterns has no applicability to
`Severinsky’s parallel hybrid control system ............................. 69
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`Exhibit Name
`Curriculum Vitae of Mahdi Shahbakhti, Ph.D.
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Selected Pages From Merhdad Ehsani et al, Modern
`Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Oxford Dictionary
`The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics
`Encarta World English Dictionary
`Selected Pages From Handbook of Air Pollution From
`Internal Combustion Engines
`Selected Pages From Guzzella et al., Vehicle
`Propulsion Systems
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`Ex. 2017
`Ex. 2018
`Ex. 2019
`
`Ex. 2020
`
`Ex. 2021
`Ex. 2022
`Ex. 2023
`Ex. 2024
`Ex. 2025
`Ex. 2026
`Ex. 2027
`Ex. 2028
`Ex. 2029
`Ex. 2030
`Ex. 2031
`
`Ex. 2032
`
`Ex. 2033
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`I, Mahdi Shahbakhti, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Paice LLC and the Abell
`
`Foundation (collectively, “Paice” or “Patent Owner”) to investigate and analyze
`
`certain issues relating to the validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,630,761 (“the
`
`’761 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to analyze the
`
`arguments made by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft and BMW of
`
`North America, LLC (“BMW” or “Petitioners”) related to Grounds 1 and 2 in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’761 patent, Case No. IPR2020-01299, as
`
`shown in the table below.
`
`Ground 1
`
`Severinsky/Quigley Claims 1-12
`
`Ground 2
`
`Severinsky/Nii
`
`Claims 1-12
`
`
`
`In addition to the grounds and noted claims above, I have also reviewed the petition
`
`as well as the declaration of BMW’s expert, Dr. Davis (and the documents cited
`
`therein) pertaining to these grounds. I have also reviewed the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) decision to institute regarding these grounds, as well
`
`as the Board’s claim constructions. My analysis is based on the Board’s claim
`
`constructions, unless I specifically note otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following claims
`
`of the ’761 patent (the “challenged claims”): 1-12. I understand that Grounds 1 and
`
`2 relate to claims 1-12.
`
`4.
`
`As to Grounds 1 and 2, I understand that BMW and Dr. Davis assert
`
`that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,343,970 to Severinsky (Ex. 1303) (“Severinsky”) in view of Quigley et al.,
`
`Predicting the Use of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle (Ex. 1054) (“Quigley”) and in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,650,931 to Nii (Ex. 1022) (“Nii”).
`
`5.
`
`In rendering my opinions, I considered the ’761 patent in addition to
`
`the references identified in Exhibit A attached to this declaration. My opinions are
`
`also based on my experience and work in the field of hybrid electric vehicle and
`
`powertrain engineering as I detail below. For the reasons discussed herein, I disagree
`
`with BMW and Dr. Davis.
`
`6. WIT Legal, LLC charges $500 for each hour of service that I provide
`
`in connection with this matter. My compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`performance, upon the outcome of this matter, or upon any issues involved in or
`
`related to this matter.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`7.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
`
`University of Alberta and an Adjunct Associate Professor of Mechanical
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`Engineering at Michigan Technological University. At these two universities, I
`
`serve as the Director of Energy Mechatronics Laboratory that conducts research in
`
`a multidisciplinary area of engineering that includes electrical and mechanical
`
`systems, and control engineering.
`
`8.
`
`Before joining Michigan Technological University in August of 2012,
`
`I spent two years as a post-doctoral scholar at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of California, Berkeley. My post-doctorate work
`
`focused on developing control systems for automotive applications, including
`
`powertrains and others.
`
`9.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Alberta in 2009 and a Master’s degree from KNT University of Technology in 2003.
`
`A large portion of my research activities in the past 20 years have centered on design,
`
`modeling, and control of automotive propulsion systems, including conventional,
`
`hybrid electric, and electric vehicles.
`
`10.
`
`I also have direct industry experience related to the control of
`
`automotive propulsion systems. From 2001 to 2004, I worked as a researcher in the
`
`automotive industry. During this time, I was involved in research and development
`
`work on powertrain management systems for gasoline and natural gas vehicles. In
`
`the past ten years, I, along with my research group, have performed a number of
`
`research projects sponsored by various automotive companies such as Ford Motor
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Hyundai,
`
`Cummins, Westport, IAV GmbH, Hitachi, and Denso.
`
`11. For example, I, along with my research group at Michigan Tech, built
`
`a hybrid electric powertrain test platform including a 100-kW AC electric motor and
`
`a 201-kW GM Ecotec engine. The testbed was used for testing various aspects of
`
`powertrain performance including real-time torque control during transient and
`
`steady state operations. In addition, I, along with my research group at Michigan
`
`Tech, tested and evaluated different hybrid electric vehicle platforms in the past
`
`eight years. For instance, my research group in partnership with GM, worked on the
`
`Chevy Volt Gen II hybrid electric vehicle for powertrain modeling and control to
`
`maximize energy saving via utilization of vehicle connectivity data and automation.
`
`This was part of a $2.8M funded project by the US Department of Energy Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program that took place from 2017 to
`
`2020. A number of peer-reviewed journal and conference publications from my
`
`research group documented our research studies covering different hybrid electric
`
`vehicle architectures including series, parallel, and powersplit powertrains ranging
`
`from mild to full hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and extended range electric vehicles.
`
`12.
`
`I have also worked on various aspects of internal combustion engines
`
`including design, modeling, benchmarking, experimental studies, calibration, and
`
`electronic control unit (ECU) design and implementation since 2000. This work
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`covers various engine types including spark ignition (e.g., gasoline), compression
`
`ignition (e.g., diesel), lean burn, low temperature combustion (HCCI, PPCI, RCCI)
`
`engines, and their exhaust aftertreatment systems.
`
`13.
`
`I also have experience with automotive control systems including
`
`modeling, design, and implementation. This work encompasses numerous projects
`
`in the past 20 years for vehicles including conventional, hybrid electric, electric, and
`
`connected and automated vehicles. Many of these projects include the design of
`
`prototype systems for collecting required vehicle/powertrain data and implementing
`
`and testing designed real-time automotive controllers.
`
`14.
`
`In addition, I have frequently taught graduate courses in the areas of
`
`Internal Combustion Engines, and Advanced Propulsion Systems for Hybrid
`
`Electric Vehicles in the past 12 years. In this academic semester, I am teaching a
`
`graduate course on internal combustion engines and alternative fuels at the
`
`University of Alberta. Other relevant courses include a graduate course in the area
`
`of Model Predictive Control and undergraduate courses in the area of Applied
`
`Thermodynamics.
`
`15.
`
`I have led international workshops in the areas of controls and data
`
`systems including “Methods of Easily verifiable Control Design,” “Connected and
`
`Automated Vehicles (CAVs),” and “From Data to Models and Decisions in
`
`Engineering Systems” at conferences such as the American Control Conference and
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) Dynamic Systems and
`
`Controls conference.
`
`16.
`
`I have supervised/mentored 127 graduate and undergraduate students,
`
`including 29 PhD, 69 MS and 29 BS students in Mechanical Engineering and
`
`Electrical Engineering Departments in four academic institutions during 2010-2020.
`
`These mentorships have been in the areas of powertrain design, modeling,
`
`experimental studies, and control of automotive, HVAC, and energy systems. The
`
`majority of the graduated students from my research group have joined the
`
`automotive industry after graduation. These companies include Ford Motor
`
`Company, General Motors, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Toyota Motor Company,
`
`Karma Automotive, Tesla, Rivian, Cummins, Electra Vehicles, Bosch, APTIV,
`
`GKN Driveline, etc.
`
`17.
`
`I am an Associate editor (2017- ) for American Society of Mechanical
`
`Engineers (ASME) Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Controls and
`
`former Associate Editor (2014-2020) for the International Journal of Powertrains
`
`(Inderscience Publishers). In these roles, I have regularly evaluated research work
`
`in the field of hybrid electric vehicles. I am currently serving as a guest editor for
`
`two specials issues including a special issue on “Optimal Design and Operation of
`
`Energy Systems” in Int. Journal of Optimal Control Applications and Methods
`
`(Wiley Publisher), and a special Issue on “Connected and Automated Vehicles” in
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control. In addition, I serve
`
`as an Editorial Board Member in the International Journal of Vehicle Autonomous
`
`Systems, International Journal of Automobiles and Automobile Technologies,
`
`International Journal of Powertrains.
`
`18.
`
`I have served on the US Department of Energy (DOE) Vehicle
`
`Technology Program, and United States’ National Science Foundation (NSF) review
`
`panels for evaluating projects and proposals in the areas of automotive propulsion
`
`systems, controls, and energy systems in the past seven years. I have also been
`
`reviewer for (i) international grant proposals from funding agencies from Croatia,
`
`France, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands, (ii) US Academy of Engineering for
`
`the Research Program of the US DRIVE Partnership, (iii) 24 international journals
`
`mostly in the area of controls and energy systems, and (iv) Springer International
`
`Publishing for books in the area of controls and automotive systems.
`
`19.
`
`I am an active member of ASME Dynamic Systems & Control Division
`
`(DSCD), serving as chair of the Automotive and Transportation Systems (ATS)
`
`technical committee (181 international members), former chair (2018-2020) of the
`
`Energy Systems (ES) technical committee (141 international members), and chairing
`
`(32 sessions) and co-organizing sessions (> 60 sessions) in the areas of design,
`
`modeling, fault diagnosis, and control of automotive systems, and energy/HVAC
`
`systems in American Control Conference, SAE World Congress, and ASME
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`Dynamic Systems Control Conferences. I am currently co-organizing sessions in
`
`the area of Powertrain Actuators and Sensors for 2021 SAE World Congress.
`
`20.
`
`I have won the following awards for my work relating to design,
`
`modeling, and control of automotive systems:
`
`• Awarded over $2.1M grants/support as a Principle Investigator (PI) and
`
`over $6.6M as a co-PI from international, federal, provincial, and industry
`
`sources for conducting research in the areas of modeling, design, and
`
`implementation of novel control systems for automotive systems, HVAC,
`
`and energy systems.
`
`• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International Ralph R. Teetor
`
`Educational Award, 2016. This international award “recognizes top
`
`engineering educators for outstanding contributions.”
`
`• 2018 MARQUIS Who’s Who in the World (“top 3% of the professionals in
`
`the world”).
`
`• Best Paper Award, ASME Automotive and Transportation Systems
`
`Technical Committee – ASME Dynamic Systems Control Conference,
`
`2015.
`
`• Best Paper Award, ASME Automotive and Transportation Systems
`
`Technical Committee – ASME Dynamic Systems Control Conference,
`
`2012.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`• Best Presentation in the Session, American Control Conference (ACC),
`
`2012, 2015, 2016.
`
`• Best Presentation Award, SAE Int. Powertrain, Fuels & Lubricants
`
`Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2016.
`
`• Canada National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
`
`Postdoctoral Fellowship (for research in the area of automotive controls),
`
`2010 - 2012.
`
`• Andrew Stewart Memorial Graduate Prize, University of Alberta, 2009.
`
`• David Morris Graduate Scholarship in Automotive Engineering, University
`
`of Alberta, 2008.
`
`• Lehigh Inland Cement Graduate Scholarship in Environmental Studies,
`
`University of Alberta, 2007.
`
`• Winning Team (first prize) of a Total of 66 Research Teams from 26
`
`Canadian Universities, Canada Automotive21 High Qualified Personnel
`
`Competition, Windsor, Canada, June 11-13, 2007.
`
`• Chevron Graduate Scholarship in Natural Gas Engineering, University of
`
`Alberta, 2005.
`
`21. My curriculum vitae has been submitted as Exhibit 2017 to this
`
`proceeding.
`
`My
`
`publications
`
`are
`
`found
`
`at
`
`https://sites.ualberta.ca/~mahdi/Shahbakhti_Publications.html. This includes 173
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`peer-reviewed publications. These research publications have been recognized and
`
`cited over 2600 times from over 45 different countries (Source: Google Scholar).
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`22.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`below, as provided to me by counsel for Patent Owner and as I understand them.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`patent claim is unpatentable as “anticipated” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if it is
`
`determined that the claimed invention was previously known, and that all the
`
`limitations of the claim are described in a single prior art reference. I am informed
`
`by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that, to anticipate a claim, a prior
`
`art reference must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every limitation
`
`of that claim and enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if 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 at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`understand that obviousness may be based upon a combination of references. I am
`
`informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. However, I am informed by counsel for the
`
`Patent Owner and understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is
`
`not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`when a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must
`
`determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I
`
`am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that identifying a
`
`reason those elements would be combined can be important because inventions in
`
`many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`already known. I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that
`
`it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent's claims
`
`should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`27.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that an
`
`obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need, failure
`
`of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results.
`
`28.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Patent Owner and understand that all
`
`prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Furthermore, obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`29. Based on my review of the ’761 patent, the documents cited by BMW
`
`and Dr. Davis, and my own knowledge and skill based on my experience with the
`
`design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art in September of 19981 is someone with at least a Bachelor’s
`
`of Science degree in electrical engineering or mechanical engineering and at least
`
`three years of technical experience in designing, implementing, testing, or otherwise
`
`working with, automotive powertrains, control system logic, or a related field.
`
`Extensive experience and technical training might substitute for educational
`
`requirements, while advanced degrees might substitute for experience. I note that
`
`the differences between the level of skill above and the level of skill defined by Dr.
`
`Davis are minor and do not affect my opinions set forth below.
`
`V. THE ’761 PATENT
`
`30. The ’761 patent (Ex. 1001), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on
`
`January 14, 2014 from an application that claims priority to a provisional application
`
`filed on September 14, 1998. The ’761 patent discloses and claims a hybrid electric
`
`vehicle including an internal combustion engine and one or two electric motors. The
`
`motors may be operated as generators to recharge the battery. Additionally, a
`
`microprocessor is employed to arbitrate between operating modes based on the
`
`vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirements for propelling the vehicle (also called
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’761 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed
`
`on September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’761 patent,
`
`that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`“road load”), state of charge of the battery bank, and other variables. Ex. 1001 (’761
`
`patent) at 34:23-38.
`
`31. The ’761 patent describes employing a system topology incorporating
`
`two electric motors and a control strategy that makes decisions based on “road load.”
`
`Figure 4 of the ’761 patent (reproduced below) discloses one embodiment. As
`
`shown below, the hybrid vehicle includes an internal combustion engine 40, a
`
`traction motor 25, and a starter motor 21. The internal combustion engine 40 is
`
`controllably coupled to the drive wheels 34 via a clutch 51, drive shaft 16, and
`
`differential 32. Traction motor 25 also provides torque to the road wheels 34 via
`
`chain drive 54 and differential 32. The rotating shaft of starter motor 21 is coupled
`
`to the output shaft 15 of internal combustion engine 40. Both traction motor 25 and
`
`starter motor 21 can operate as motors or generators, depending on the mode of
`
`operation and the state of the corresponding inverter/charger units 27 and 23.
`
`Inverter/charger units 27 and 23 electrically couple motors 25 and 21, respectively,
`
`to battery bank 22 and perform the intermediary function of transferring current
`
`to/from battery bank 22. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 25:29-47; 28:28-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at Fig. 4.
`
`32. These components are controlled by microprocessor 48. Ex. 1001
`
`(’761 patent) at 25:11-28. For example, microprocessor 48 controls the operation of
`
`engine 40 by sending signals to electronic fuel injection (EFI) unit 56 and electronic
`
`engine management (EEM) unit 55 (not shown). Microprocessor 48 also sends
`
`control signals to inverter/charger units 27 and 23 to, for example: start engine 40;
`
`operate motors 21 and 25 to provide propulsive torque; or operate motors 21 and 25
`
`as generators to provide regenerative recharging of battery bank 22. Ex. 1001 (’761
`
`patent) at 27:43-55; 28:59 – 29:3.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`33. The ’761 patent describes a number of different modes in which the
`
`hybrid vehicle may operate depending on the “road load,” the engine’s maximum
`
`torque output, the state of charge of the battery, and other operating parameters. For
`
`example, in mode I, the hybrid vehicle is operated as an electric car, with traction
`
`motor 25 providing torque to propel the vehicle. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 35:1-8;
`
`Fig. 8(a).
`
`34.
`
`In mode II, the hybrid vehicle operates as in mode I with the addition
`
`of engine 40 operably engaging starter motor 21 to generate electrical energy and
`
`recharge battery bank 22. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 35:9-24; Fig. 8(b). The hybrid
`
`vehicle will transition to mode II when the state of charge of battery bank 22 is low
`
`and in need of a recharge.
`
`35.
`
`In mode IV, engine 40 provides torque to propel the vehicle while
`
`operating in its fuel-efficient range. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 35:25-41; Fig. 8(c).
`
`36.
`
`If the “road load” exceeds the engine’s maximum torque output (MTO),
`
`then the vehicle will enter an acceleration or hill-climbing operation called mode V,
`
`where in combination with engine 40, traction motor 25 is powered by battery pack
`
`22 to provide additional torque to propel the vehicle beyond what is available from
`
`engine 40 alone. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 35:42-48; Fig. 8(d). Exemplary
`
`illustrations of Modes I, II, IV, and V are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 (reproduced
`
`below).
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at Figs. 8(a) - 8(d).
`
`37. The ’761 patent uses “road load” as a factor in making mode switching
`
`determinations and addresses operating the engine above a certain “setpoint” above
`
`which engine output torque will be efficiently produced. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at
`
`43:50-44:8. The “road load” is instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.
`
`An exemplary disclosure in the ’761 patent of the use of “road load” to effect mode
`
`switching is shown in Figures 6 and 7(a).
`
`38. Fig. 7(a) is reproduced below with added colors representing modes I,
`
`IV, and V.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at Fig. 7(a) (annotated).
`
`39. As shown above, the vehicle’s instantaneous torque requirement for
`
`propelling the vehicle, i.e., the “road load,” is expressed as a percentage of the
`
`engine’s MTO and plotted as a solid line as a function of time. On the same graph,
`
`the engine’s instantaneous torque output is plotted as a dashed line as a function of
`
`time. Where the “road load” exceeds the engine’s instantaneous torque output, there
`
`is additional torque provided by the electric motor(s); and where the “road load” is
`
`less than the engine’s instantaneous torque output and the engine is producing
`
`torque, the engine is also used to charge the batteries. In the particular embodiment
`
`of Fig. 7(a), the engine is turned on when the “road load” exceeds a value that is at
`
`least 30% of the maximum engine torque output.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`40. Torque can be an objective indicator of efficiency, especially in the
`
`context of the specification—engine efficiency generally increases as torque
`
`increases until the torque approaches its “sweet spot,” which is below the maximum
`
`torque output of the engine. The commonly understood relationship between torque
`
`and efficiency is confirmed by the specification: “it is well known that a gasoline or
`
`other internal combustion engine is most efficient when producing near its maximum
`
`output torque.” Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 2:47-51. Inefficiency occurs at low torque
`
`output values when a large fraction of the total torque produced by the engine is lost
`
`due to friction and pumping of the cylinders. By increasing the torque output of the
`
`engine such that the engine operates at relatively high torque outputs (e.g., in its
`
`“sweet spot”), the fraction of torque available to propel the vehicle becomes greater.
`
`By eliminating engine operation at low torque output, that has low fuel conversion
`
`efficiency, the engine can operate more efficiently.
`
`41. Figure 9 from the ’761 patent, reproduced below, is an exemplary
`
`embodiment of a high-level flowchart containing the principal decision points in the
`
`control program used to control the various modes of vehicle operation:
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at Fig. 9 (annotated).
`
`
`
`42. The ’761 patent further discloses how to adjust the setpoint, which
`
`serves as the transition point between electric motor and engine operation, by
`
`looking at how the hybrid vehicle was previously operated. The ’761 patent
`
`discloses altering the control system based on patterns of vehicle operation, which
`
`refers to how the operator drives the car over some period of time, i.e., how the driver
`
`actually uses the car on a day-to-day basis. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 34:49-60
`
`(“Examples of this practice—amounting in many circumstances to modifying
`
`certain specific values depending on other data items not discussed in detail, or by
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`monitoring the vehicle’s actual usage patterns over time—are given below.”). For
`
`example, the specification describes an embodiment where the controller adjusts the
`
`value of the setpoint based on the driver’s daily commute from home to work. Ex.
`
`1001 (’761 patent) at 39:48-67. After analyzing the driver’s “daily patterns,” such
`
`as “driv[ing] the same route from a congested suburban development to a workplace
`
`about the same time every morning,” the controller adjusts the “setpoint” to use the
`
`engine more efficiently (e.g., to “prevent repetitive engine starts”). Ex. 1001 (’761
`
`patent) at 39:48-67. For example, the controller would increase the setpoint from
`
`30% MTO to 60% MTO based on identifying a regular commute where “the road
`
`load might remain under 20% of MTO for the first few minutes of each day, then
`
`vary between 0 and 50% of MTO for another few minutes as the operator passes
`
`through a few traffic lights, and then suddenly increase to 150% of MTO as the
`
`operator accelerates onto a highway.” Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 39:51-62. The ’761
`
`patent predicts a pattern where the road load remains under 20% MTO followed by
`
`road load varying between 0 and 50% MTO followed by road load increasing to
`
`150% MTO, and the controller in turn adjusts the setpoint to 60% MTO, which
`
`“would prevent repetitive engine starts” that would otherwise occur when the road
`
`load fluctuates above and below 30% MTO. Ex. 1001 (’761 patent) at 39:62-67.
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01299
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`43.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review proceeding, the claims of a
`
`patent are to be given the meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention. In addition, I understand the Federal Circuit
`
`has previously construed “road load” and the Board has preliminarily adopted a
`
`construction for the terms “predicted near-term pattern of operation” / “near-term
`
`pattern of operation” in its institution decision. I have used the following
`
`constructions in my analysis