`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2020-00994
`Patent 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MAHDI SHAHBAKHTI PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2016
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 1 of 131
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 7
`II.
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ....................................................................... 15
`IV. DEFINITION OF A PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART ............................ 17
`V.
`THE ’347 PATENT ....................................................................................... 18
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 33
`VII. ANALYSIS AND OPINIONS ...................................................................... 34
`A. Grounds 1b and 2b: The proposed combination of
`Severinsky and Ma does not render obvious claim 33 and
`the proposed combination of Severinsky, Ehsani, and Ma
`does not render obvious claim 11 ........................................................ 34
`1.
`Dr. Davis does not identify a valid reason to add
`a turbocharger to Severinsky’s parallel hybrid ................... 35
`The prior art does not disclose any reason to
`add a turbocharger to Severinsky’s parallel
`hybrid ....................................................................................... 48
`The disadvantages of adding a turbocharger to
`Severinsky would deter a person of skill in the
`art from combining Severinsky and Ma ............................... 55
`No reasonable expectation of success .................................... 68
`4.
`Grounds 3a and 3b: The proposed combination of
`Severinsky and Nii does not render obvious claim 24 and
`the proposed combination of Severinsky, Ehsani, and Nii
`does not render obvious claim 2 .......................................................... 69
`1.
`Neither Severinsky nor Nii vary a setpoint .......................... 69
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`2
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 2 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Severinsky’s parallel hybrid architecture vs.
`Nii’s series hybrid architecture ............................................. 83
`Nii’s use of vehicle patterns has no applicability
`to Severinsky’s parallel hybrid control system
`and varying the alleged “setpoint” ........................................ 94
`Ground 4b: The proposed combination of the Bumby
`References and Ma does not render obvious claims 11
`and 33 ................................................................................................114
`D. Grounds 4c: The Bumby References in view of Ehsani do
`not render obvious claim 38 ..............................................................117
`1.
`Overview of Bumby V’s “free-wheel unit” .........................118
`2.
`Bumby V’s disclosure of synchronizing output
`shafts to “within 45 rev/min” does not satisfy
`the “substantially equal” requirement ................................122
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 3 of 131
`
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`Exhibit Name
`Curriculum Vitae of Mahdi Shahbakhti, Ph.D.
`Bosch Gasoline-engine Management
`Selected Pages From John Heywood, Internal
`Combustion Engines Fundamentals
`Selected Pages From Merhdad Ehsani et al, Modern
`Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`Matthew Cuddy et al., Analysis of the Fuel Economy
`Benefit of Drivetrain Hybridization
`Selected Pages From Draft Technical Assessment
`Report: Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle
`Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate
`Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years
`2022-2025
`Selected Pages From Assessment of Fuel Economy of
`Fuel Economy Technologies for Light Duty Vehicles
`Selected Pages From Richard Stone, Introduction to
`Internal Combustion Engines
`Heinz Heisler, Advanced Vehicle Technology, SAE
`Hitoshi Inoue et al., A Performance Improvement in
`Idle-Speed Control System with Feedforward
`Compensation for the Alternator Load Current, SAE
`Satoru Watanabe, Development of Model-Following
`Idle Speed Control System Incorporating Engine
`Torque Models, SAE
`Guzzella et al., Introduction to Modeling Control of
`Internal Combustion Engine 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
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 4 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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. 7,104,347 (“the
`
`’347 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 1b, 2b, 3a, 3b,
`
`4b, and 4c (claim 38) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of the ’347 patent,
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00994, as shown in the table below.
`
`Grounds 1b, 2b
`
`Severinsky/Ma
`
`Claims 33 and 11
`
`Grounds 3a, 3b
`
`Severinsky/Nii
`
`Claims 24 and 2
`
`Ground 4b
`
`Bumby/Ma
`
`Claims 33 and 11
`
`Ground 4c
`
`Bumby/Eshani
`
`Claim 38
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 5 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`as the Board’s claim constructions. My analysis is based on the Board’s claim
`
`constructions, unless I specifically note otherwise.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has instituted review of the following claims
`
`of the ’347 patent (the “challenged claims”): 2, 11, 17, 24, 33, and 38. I understand
`
`that Grounds 1b, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4b, and 4c relate to claims 2, 11, 24, 33, and 38.
`
`4.
`
`As to Grounds 1b, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4b, and 4c (claim 38), 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”),
`
`U.S. Patent 5,586,613 to Ehsani (Ex. 1019) (“Ehsani”), International Application
`
`Publication No. WO 92/15778 to Ma (Ex. 1021) (“Ma”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,650,931to Nii (Ex. 1022) (“Nii”), Bumby, J.R. et al., “Computer modelling of the
`
`automotive energy requirements for internal combustion engine and battery electric-
`
`powered vehicles,” IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 132, Pt. A, No. 5 (Ex. 1014)
`
`(“Bumby I”), Bumby, J.R. et al., “Optimisation and control of a hybrid electric car,”
`
`IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 134, Pt. D, No. 6 (Nov. 1987), 373-87 (Ex. 1015)
`
`(“Bumby II”), Bumby, J.R. et al., “A hybrid internal combustion engine/battery
`
`electric passenger car for petroleum displacement,” Proceedings of the Institution of
`
`Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 202, No.
`
`D1 (Jan. 1988), 51-65 (Ex. 1016) (“Bumby III”), Bumby, J.R. et al., “A test-bed
`
`facility for hybrid i c-engine/battery-electric road vehicle drive trains,” Transactions
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 6 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`of the Institute of Measurement and Control, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr.-June 1988), 87-
`
`97 (Ex. 1017) (“Bumby IV”), and Bumby, J.R. et al., “Integrated microprocessor
`
`control of a hybrid i.c. engine/battery-electric automotive power train,” Transactions
`
`of the Institute of Measurement and Control, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Jan. 1990), 128-46 (Ex.
`
`1018) (“Bumby V”).
`
`5.
`
`In rendering my opinions, I considered the ’347 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
`
`Engineering at Michigan Technological University. At these two universities, I
`
`serve as the Director of Energy Mechatronics Laboratory that conducts research in
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 7 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Hyundai,
`
`Cummins, Westport, IAV GmbH, Hitachi, and Denso.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 8 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`covers various engine types including spark ignition (e.g., gasoline), compression
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 9 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 10 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 11 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 12 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 13 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`• 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
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 14 of 131
`
`
`
`peer-reviewed publications. These research publications have been recognized and
`
`cited over 2600 times from over 45 different countries (Source: Google Scholar).
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 15 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 16 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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 ’347 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
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 17 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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 ’347 PATENT
`
`30. The ’347 patent (Ex. 1001), entitled “Hybrid Vehicles,” issued on July
`
`3, 2007 from an application that claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`September 14, 1998. The ’347 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 ’347 patent claims priority to a provisional application filed
`
`on September 14, 1998. I understand that in analyzing the validity of the ’347 patent,
`
`that date should be used to gauge the skill of those in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 18 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`“road load”), state of charge of the battery bank, and other variables. Ex. 1001 (’347
`
`patent) at 35:21-35.
`
`31. The ’347 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 ’347 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 (’347 patent) at 26:13-24; 29:12-20.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 19 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 patent) at Fig. 4.
`
`32. These components are controlled by microprocessor 48. Ex. 1001
`
`(’347 patent) at 25:53-26:3. 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
`
`(’347 patent) at 28:25-49; 29:44-64.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 20 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`33. The ’347 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 (’347 patent) at 35:66-
`
`36:4; 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 (’347 patent) at 36:8-22; 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 (’347 patent) at 36:23-39; 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 (’347 patent) at 36:40-46; Fig. 8(d). Exemplary
`
`illustrations of Modes I, II, IV, and V are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 (reproduced
`
`below).
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 21 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 patent) at Figs. 8(a) - 8(d).
`
`37. The ’347 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 (’347 patent) at
`
`43:50-44:8. The “road load” is instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.
`
`An exemplary disclosure in the ’347 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 22 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’347 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`BMW v. Paice, IPR2020-01299
`BMW1102
`Page 23 of 131
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00994
`
`
`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 (’347 patent) at 2:54-56. 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 ’347 patent, reproduced below, is an exemplary
`
`embodiment of a high-level flowchart containing t