`
`Before Sally C. Medley, KalyanK. Deshpande, and Arthur M. Peslak,
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`IPR2020‐01299 –U.S. Patent No. 8,630,761
`
`Patent Owners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2036
`BMW v. Paice
`IPR2020-01299
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`●Ground 3 –Severinksyin View of Graf
`
`●Ground 2 –Severinksyin View of Nii
`
`●Ground 1 –Severinskyin View of Quigley
`
`●Claim Construction
`
`●Technology Overview
`
`●Key Points
`
`Agenda
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`POR, 1‐4, 16; Sur‐reply, 1‐2, 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`–In doing so, BMW acknowledges that the prior art—which has nothing to do with patterns of
`
`road load—would not improve Severinsky’senergy management
`
`–In attempt to invalidate claims 4 and 10, BMW admits thatonly patterns of road load are
`
`useful for energy management
`
`●No motivation to combine
`
`●None of the prior art compares variations of patterns of road load experienced from day to
`
`–The historical vehicle data in the prior art has nothing to do with road load
`day as claims 4 and 10 require
`
`●None of the prior art derives a predicted near‐term pattern of operation as claims 1 and 7
`
`–For this reason, BMW has repeatedly attempted to vitiate the word “pattern”
`–The prior art (Quigley, Nii, Graf) at best derive a single predicted value
`–BMW agrees that Severinskydoes not disclose this feature
`require
`
`Key Points
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Technology Overview
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`POR, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Fig.3 (annotated)
`
`Controller
`
`Battery
`
`Wheels
`
`Engine
`
`Traction Motor
`
`Starter Motor
`
`●The ’761 patent is directed to hybrid electric vehicles and the control thereof
`
`Technology Background –Hybrid Architecture
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`POR, 5‐7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`–Mode V: motor and engine propulsion
`
`–Mode IV: engine propulsion
`
`–Mode I: motor only propulsion
`
`●The hybrid vehicle of the ‘761 patent can be operated
`
`motor, engine, or both, to propel the vehicle:
`in different “modes,” i.e. different combinations of
`
`Technology Background –Operating Modes
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`POR, 7
`
`BMW1001, Fig. 9 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`–RL > 100% MTO: Mode V
`
`–30% MTO < RL < 100% MTO: Mode IV
`
`–RL < 30% MTO: Mode I
`
`to propel the vehicle) to the setpointand MTO
`“road load” (the instantaneous torque required
`
`●The ’761 patent selects modes by comparing
`
`Technology Background –Mode Selection
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Fig. 7 (annotated)
`
`PAICE2016, ¶38; POR, 6‐7
`
`Setpoint
`
`Motor only propulsion
`
`Engine propulsion
`
`propulsion
`Engine + motor
`
`●The ’761 patent compares road load to the setpointto select operating modes
`
`Technology Background –Mode Selection
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`BMW1001, 39:48‐67 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 7‐8
`
`the setpoint
`load fluctuations above and below
`changes in road load such as road
`identifies and predicts a sequence of
`
`●For example, the ’761 patent
`
`operation
`predicts patterns of hybrid vehicle
`
`●The ’761 patent identifies and
`
`Technology Background: Pattern‐Based Mode Switching
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`POR, 8, 27‐28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`0 to 50%
`
`MTO
`
`MTO
`150%
`
`MTO
`20%
`
`road load increasing to150% MTO
`under 20% MTO followed by road load varying between 0 and 50% MTO followed by
`
`●The ’761 patent provides an exemplary pattern consisting of road load remaining
`
`Technology Background: Pattern‐Based Mode Switching
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`BMW1052, 58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 18
`
`modes
`be driven in different
`anticipates the vehicle will
`vehicle designer simply
`patent”) in which the
`Severinsky(“the ’970
`
`●Applicant distinguished
`
`future pattern
`must be predicted, i.e., a
`confirms that the pattern
`
`●The ’761 file history
`
`Technology Background: Pattern‐Based Mode Switching
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`POR, 8‐9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Fig. 7 (annotated)
`
`60% MTO
`Adjusted to
`
`Setpoint
`
`BMW1001, 39:60‐67 (annotated)
`
`MTO
`’761 patent adjusts the setpointto 60%
`
`●Based on the predicted pattern, the
`
`Technology Background: Pattern‐Based Mode Switching
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim Construction
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`Claim Construction –“predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`Past vehicle operation
`
`ID, 12; POR, 15‐18
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`–The Board’s construction
`“expected pattern of operation”
`●The Board construed the term as
`
`derivation of a future pattern
`claim term relates to
`correctly confirms that the
`
`Claim Construction –“predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Reply, 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`pattern
`predicted, i.e., a future
`pattern must be
`
`●In its Reply, BMW does
`
`●BMW agrees that the
`Board’s construction
`not challenge the
`
`Claim Construction –“predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`Past vehicle operation
`
`POR, 17
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`–BMW’s proposed construction
`wrong claim construction
`
`●BMW’s Petition is based on the
`
`driver behavior”
`based onpast repetitive
`upcoming vehicle operation
`operation: “expected
`operation, not future
`focuses on past vehicle
`
`Claim Construction –“predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 17
`
`upcoming operation”
`by replacing “predicted near‐term pattern of operation with “expected
`–Unlike its District Court construction, BMW removed the word pattern
`–BMW’s construction vitiates the word “pattern”
`
`●BMW’s Petition is based on the wrong claim construction
`
`Claim Construction –“predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 15‐16; Sur‐reply, 1; ID, 12; Reply, 2
`
`●BMW removes the word “pattern” because the prior art does not derive any
`
`type of expected or predicted pattern
`
`–BMW’s rejected construction only requires that the controller derive
`
`“expected upcoming vehicle operation”
`
`–The Board’s construction makes clear that the controller derive an “expected
`
`patternof operation”
`
`●The Board’s construction is not broader than BMW’s rejected construction
`
`Claim Construction –“predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW’s Second Attempt To Vitiate the Word “Pattern”
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`Reply, 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur‐Reply, 8
`
`purely functional term governed by §112, ¶ 6.
`second shot at vitiating the word “pattern” by interpreting “pattern” as a
`●Because BMW does not challenge the Board’s construction, BMW takes a
`
`The Word “Pattern” Must Have Meaning
`
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2016, ¶ 52
`
`Sur‐Reply, 8‐9
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert
`Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`●BMW does not challenge Dr. Shahbakhti’stestimony that the plain meaning of
`
`“pattern of operation” requires an order or sequence of driving operations
`
`The Word “Pattern” Must Have Meaning
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`Sur‐Reply, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`0 to 50%
`
`MTO
`
`MTO
`150%
`
`MTO
`20%
`
`●The ’761 patent shows that the “pattern of operation” consists of an order or
`
`sequence of driving operations
`
`The Word “Pattern” Must Have Meaning
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`Past vehicle operation
`
`POR, 17
`
`operation
`predicts a pattern of
`●None of BMW’s prior art
`
`vehicle operation
`at past patterns of
`●The prior art only looks
`
`So Why Is BMW Trying To Remove the Word “Pattern” from the Claims?
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ground 1 –Severinskyin View of Quigley
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`POR, 22‐26
`
`operation
`are not a pattern of
`journey parameters, which
`
`–Quigley merely derives
`
`–BMW agrees Severinsky
`pattern of operation
`derives a predicted near‐term
`●Neither Severinskynor Quigley
`
`feature
`does not disclose this
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1 and 7
`
`26
`
`
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`ID, 20
`
`POR, 23
`
`“journey”
`driver inputs to predict a
`
`–Quigley does not use
`
`trip
`and duration of a total
`is merely total distance
`a pattern of operation. It
`–Quigley’s “journey” is not
`regarding Quigley:
`
`●Clearing up confusion
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`Past vehicle operation
`
`POR, 22‐25
`
`upcoming trip
`distance and duration of
`
`–Quigley predicts total
`
`–Quigley uses a GPS logger to
`
`duration of previous trips
`track total distance and
`
`●Quigley merely derives predicted journey parameters
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 2, 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 22‐25
`
`●Quigley merely derives predicted parameters
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`29
`
`
`
`30
`
`Petition, 18, 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`●BMW admits that Quigley merely predicts parameters
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2016, ¶¶ 52‐53
`
`POR, 24‐25
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert
`Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`●Quigley’s journey parameters are single values, not a “pattern of operation”
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`Sur‐reply, 3‐4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 3, 5
`
`●Quigley explicitly says that the “journey” consists of total duration and distance
`●Quigley’s “journey” is not a pattern
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 2, 3; POR 24, 41
`
`–Quigley uses a GPS logger to predict journey
`
`parameters
`
`●Quigley does not use vehicle inputs (e.g., throttle
`
`–Quigley merely says these inputs are available
`brake, etc.) to predict journey parameters
`
`in modern day vehicles
`
`Quigley Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`33
`
`
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`POR, 36‐37
`Past vehicle operation
`
`BMW1001, Claim 2(annotated)
`
`–BMW focuses only on past
`
`vehicle operation
`
`●BMW’s Petition ignores the
`
`predicted pattern
`describe the derived
`–Claims 2 and 8 further
`claim language
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 2 and 8
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 35
`
`POR, 36‐37
`
`●BMW merely argues that the predicted operation is based on a
`
`repetitive pattern
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Quigley derives a repetitivepredicted near‐
`
`term pattern of operation
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 2 and 8
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 37‐42
`
`BMW1001, Claim 4 (annotated)
`
`compare patterns of variation in road load experienced from day to day
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Quigley monitors variation in road load or
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`–Quigley merely states that the throttle
`
`could be used as an input
`
`POR, 37‐42
`
`–Quigley does not say anything about road
`
`load
`
`–Severinskymerely considers the
`day to day
`of variation in road load experienced from
`variation in road load or compare patterns
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Quigley monitors
`
`instantaneous torque
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1088 (Davis Reply Dec.), ¶ 28
`
`POR, 37‐42; Sur‐reply, 16‐17
`
`Dr. Davis’s Testimony
`
`Quigley’s Actual Disclosure
`
`●Dr. Davis’s conclusory opinion cannot establish inherency
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 37‐42
`
`Akamai Techs. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`merely probably or possibly present.”
`it is necessarily present in the prior art, not
`“A claim limitation is inherent in the prior art if
`
`●Dr. Davis’s conclusory opinion cannot establish inherency
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2016, ¶64
`
`POR, 37‐42
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert
`Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`●No evidence of comparing patterns of variation in road load experienced
`
`from day to day
`
`Severinskyin View of Quigley Does Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`40
`
`
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 2
`
`BMW1088 (Davis Reply Dec.), ¶ 28
`
`POR, 37‐42; Sur‐reply, 2, 14
`
`parameters” for “optimal operation”
`load. Quigley explicitly uses “journey
`of pattern information related to road
`–But Quigley does not disclose any type
`
`on road load
`Quigley discloses pattern information
`–Dr. Davis asserts without evidence that
`
`managing the energy flow
`information on road load” is useful for
`
`–BMW admits that only“pattern
`Quigley’s predicted journey parameters
`
`●No reason to modify Severinskywith
`
`No Motivation To Combine Severinskyand Quigley
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 30‐36
`
`2.A POSA would not use Quigley’s journey parameters to modify Severinskyas
`
`BMW suggests
`
`1.BMW’s generic, unexplained assertion that Quigley’s “intelligent controller” will
`
`make Severinskymore efficient is deficient as a matter of law
`
`●BMW’s reasons to combine are flawed
`
`No Motivation To Combine Severinskyand Quigley
`
`42
`
`
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 13
`
`Sur‐reply, 11‐13
`
`–BMW’s conclusory statements do not explain “how” or “why” a POSA would combine Severinsky
`
`and Quigley
`
`more efficient is deficient as a matter of law
`1. BMW’s generic, unexplained assertion that Quigley’s “intelligent controller” will make Severinsky
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`43
`
`
`
`44
`
`POR, 30; Sur‐reply, 11‐13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(quoting Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012))
`TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(emphasis in original)
`
`be combined to produce the claimed invention.’”
`explanation as to how or why the references would
`hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any
`“the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow
`
`–BMW’s conclusory statements do not explain “how” or “why” a POSA would combine Severinsky
`
`and Quigley
`
`more efficient is deficient as a matter of law
`1. BMW’s generic, unexplained assertion that Quigley’s “intelligent controller” will make Severinsky
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`44
`
`
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply, 32
`
`POR, 38; Sur‐reply, 1, 11‐13
`
`–BMW simply assumes that Quigley’s journey parameters would improve Severinsky’s
`BMW suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Quigley’s journey parameters to modify Severinskyas
`
`efficiency
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`45
`
`
`
`46
`POR, 32; Sur‐reply, 11‐13
`
`PAICE2016, ¶ 80
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert
`Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`–Dr. Shahbakhti testified that Quigley’s journey parameters have no use in Severinsky
`BMW suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Quigley’s journey parameters to modify Severinskyas
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`46
`
`
`
`47
`
`POR, 38
`
`PAICE2033, 38 (emphasis added)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`–Textbook evidence shows that Quigley’s journey parameters have no use in Severinsky
`BMW suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Quigley’s journey parameters to modify Severinskyas
`
`architecture
`because averages are not useful in complex systems like Severinsky’sparallel hybrid
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`47
`
`
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1088, ¶ 28
`
`Sur‐reply, 2, 14
`
`–BMW admits that only “pattern information on road load” is useful for managing the
`BMW suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Quigley’s journey parameters to modify Severinskyas
`
`energy flow
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`48
`
`
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1054 (Quigley), 2
`
`POR, 42‐43
`
`Petition, 32
`
`Quigley
`
`BMW’s Petition
`
`–But Quigley expressly does not use predicted journey parameters for mode selection
`
`–BMW claims Quigley’s “control strategy” would improve mode selection
`BMW suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Quigley’s journey parameters to modify Severinskyas
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`49
`
`
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ground 2 –Severinskyin View of Nii
`
`50
`
`
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`POR, 44‐50
`
`average power value
`–Niimerely derives an
`
`–BMW agrees Severinsky
`pattern of operation
`derives a predicted near‐term
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Nii
`
`feature
`does not disclose this
`
`Severinskyin View of NiiDoes Not Render Obvious Claims 1 and 7
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`POR, 46‐47
`Past vehicle operation
`
`output for upcoming trip
`–Niipredicts target power
`
`previous trips
`generator output over
`–Niicalculates average
`
`●Niimerely derives the average power output of a generator
`
`NiiDoes Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`52
`
`
`
`53
`
`ID, 27‐28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 45‐46
`
`–Not related to a predicted pattern
`
`of operation
`
`●Power consumption is not evidence
`predicts “power generation output”
`
`●The Board acknowledged that Nii
`
`result of the driving conditions
`variations thereof is just the
`
`–Power consumption and
`of a predicted pattern:
`
`NiiDoes Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`POR, 45‐46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2034 (Davis Tr.), 44:19‐23
`
`Petitioners’ Expert
`Dr. Gregory Davis
`
`BMW1022 (Nii), 2:43‐51
`
`admits
`parameters as BMW’s expert
`●Niimerely derives predicted
`
`NiiDoes Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`54
`
`
`
`55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 45‐46
`
`Petition, 52
`
`●BMW admits that Niimerely predicts the target power value based ona pattern
`
`NiiDoes Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`55
`
`
`
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2016, ¶91
`
`POR, 45‐46
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert
`Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`●Nii’starget output value is a single value, not a “pattern of operation”
`
`NiiDoes Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`56
`
`
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Future vehicle operation
`
`Present vehicle operation
`
`Past vehicle operation
`
`POR, 59
`
`BMW1001, Claim 2(annotated)
`
`–BMW focuses only on past
`
`vehicle operation
`
`●BMW’s Petition ignores the
`
`pattern
`describe the predicted
`–Claims 2 and 8 further
`claim language
`
`Severinskyin View of NiiDoes Not Render Obvious Claims 2 and 8
`
`57
`
`
`
`58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 56
`
`POR, 59
`
`●BMW merely argues that the predicted operation is based on a
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`repetitive pattern
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Niiderives a repetitivepredicted near‐term
`
`pattern of operation
`
`Severinskyin View of NiiDoes Not Render Obvious Claims 2 and 8
`
`58
`
`
`
`59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 59‐61
`
`BMW1001, Claim 4 (annotated)
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Niimonitors variation in road load or compare
`
`patterns of variation in road load experienced from day to day
`
`Severinskyin View of NiiDoes Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`59
`
`
`
`60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 59‐61
`
`Petition 57; Reply, 26
`
`●Niidoes not say anything
`●Niiuses only average power
`
`●BMW cannot rely on
`variation of road load
`comparing patterns of
`about road load, much less
`
`establish inherency
`conclusory statements to
`
`Severinskyin View of NiiDoes Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`60
`
`
`
`61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2016, ¶106
`
`POR, 59‐61
`
`Patent Owners’ Expert
`Dr. Mahdi Shahbakhti
`
`●No evidence of comparing patterns of variation in road load experienced
`
`from day to day
`
`Severinskyin View of NiiDoes Not Render Obvious Claims 4 and 10
`
`61
`
`
`
`62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1088, ¶ 28
`
`Sur‐reply, 1‐2, 23
`
`–Niidoes not disclose any type of pattern information related to road load
`
`–BMW admits that only “pattern information on road load” is useful for managing
`
`the energy flow
`
`●No reason to modify Severinskywith Nii’saverage power
`
`No Motivation To Combine Severinskyand Nii
`
`62
`
`
`
`63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 48‐57
`
`2.A POSA would not use Nii’s“average power” information to modify Severinsky
`information” will make Severinskymore efficient is deficient as a matter of law
`
`1.BMW’s generic, unexplained assertion that Nii’sundefined “pattern
`
`as BMW suggests
`
`●BMW’s reasons to combine are flawed
`
`No Motivation To Combine Severinskyand Nii
`
`63
`
`
`
`64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 48‐49
`
`Petition, 53 (annotated)
`
`–BMW’s conclusory statements do not explain “how” or “why” a POSA would combine Severinsky
`
`and Nii
`
`Severinskymore efficient is deficient as a matter of law
`1. BMW’s generic, unexplained assertion that Nii’sundefined “pattern information” will make
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`64
`
`
`
`65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 54‐55 (annotated)
`
`POR, 50‐51
`
`–Patent Owners’ rebuttal on this point is not a “bodily incorporation” argument
`
`–BMW identifies “average power” as the so‐called “pattern information”
`
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’s“average power” information to modify Severinskyas BMW suggests
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`65
`
`
`
`66
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 11, 14, 49‐51
`
`BMW1022 (Nii), Title (annotated); PAICE2016, ¶¶ 121‐22
`
`BMW1008 (Davis Dec.), ¶ 72 (annotated)
`
`–Using average power in Niimakes sense because the engine just keeps the battery charged
`
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’s“average power” information to modify Severinskyas BMW suggests
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`66
`
`
`
`67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 13‐14, 49, 50; PAICE2016, ¶ 129
`
`BMW1022 (Nii), Fig. 1 (annotated)
`
`BMW1022 (Nii), Abstract (annotated); PAICE2016, ¶¶ 119‐21
`
`Battery
`
`Generator
`
`–Using average power in Niimakes sense because the engine just keeps the battery charged
`
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’s“average power” information to modify Severinskyas BMW suggests
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`67
`
`
`
`68
`POR, 11, 13‐14, 50; PAICE2016, ¶115
`
`BMW1008, ¶¶69‐70 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioners’ Expert
`Dr. Gregory Davis
`
`–BMW’s expert admitted that the engine in a series hybrid is controlled independently of
`
`driving conditions
`
`–No dispute that Niiis a “series hybrid”
`
`suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’s“average power” information to modify Severinskyas BMW
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`68
`
`
`
`69
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW, 1022 (Nii) 1:40‐57; 2:13‐24 (annotated); PAICE2016, ¶¶ 126‐27; POR, 50
`
`–Because Nii’sengine is controlled independently of driving conditions, it can simply set the
`
`engine at a single constant value and use historical averages to set that value
`
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’s“average power” information to modify Severinskyas BMW suggests
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`69
`
`
`
`70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`PAICE2020, 83 (pg. 250 in original) (annotated); PAICE2016, ¶¶ 137‐38; POR, 54
`
`power
`Instantaneous
`
`●Instantaneous torque can be high
`
`when the average power is low
`
`torque requirement
`information to the instantaneous
`
`●The average power provides no
`
`●A POSA will not use Nii’s average
`
`Severinsky
`power requirement to modify
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`70
`
`
`
`71
`
`POR, 52
`
`PAICE2033, 38 (emphasis added)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`–Textbook evidence shows that Nii’saverage power value has no use in Severinskybecause
`suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’saverage power value to modify Severinskyas BMW
`
`averages are not useful in complex systems like Severinsky’sparallel hybrid architecture
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`71
`
`
`
`72
`
`Sur‐reply, 22‐23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW 1013, 18:34‐43 (annotated)
`
`–BMW’s assertion that Severinskywould use average power to further vary a “setpoint” is
`suggests
`2. A POSA would not use Nii’saverage power value to modify Severinskyas BMW
`
`unintelligible
`
`BMW’s Reasons To Combine Are Flawed
`
`72
`
`
`
`73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ground 3–Severinskyin View of Graf
`
`73
`
`
`
`74
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1001, Claim 1(annotated)
`
`POR, 62‐65
`
`pattern of operation
`derives a predicted near‐term
`
`●Neither Severinskynor Graf
`
`Severinskyin View of Graf Does Not Render Obvious Claims 1 and 7
`
`74
`
`
`
`75
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`ID, 35‐36 (annotated)
`
`●BMW fails to show that Graf necessarily derives a predicted near‐term pattern of
`
`operation
`
`Graf Does Not Derive a “predicted near‐term pattern of operation”
`
`75
`
`
`
`76
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`BMW1020, Fig. 2 (annotated); POR, 63‐64
`
`BMW1020, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`operation
`near‐term pattern of
`Graf necessarily predicts a
`
`●Graf merely shows a box
`
`●BMW fails to show that
`Driver Type and Desire”
`labeled “Determining
`
`Graf Does Not Disclose Monitoring Patterns of Vehicle Operation
`
`76
`
`
`
`77
`
`Sur‐reply, 24‐25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`arguments and evidence not found in the petition)
`do more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument” and instead provide new
`00737, 2016 WL 4375267 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2016) (holding that “Petitioner’s arguments
`(emphasis added); see also Nestle Purina PetcareCo. v. Oil‐DriCorp. of Am., IPR2015‐
`AriosaDiagnostics v. VerinataHealth, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`distinct contention.”
`portions of a prior‐art referenceto make a meaningfully
`reliance, in its Reply submissions,on previously unidentified
`“We seenoerrorin the Board's rejection of Ariosa's
`
`●BMW’s newly introduced evidence, BMW1090, is improper, because BMW could have
`
`identified the evidence in its petition as it is referenced in Graf
`
`Graf Does Not Disclose Monitoring Patterns of Vehicle Operation
`
`77
`
`
`
`78
`
`BMW1090, 13:18‐20; Sur‐reply, 25‐26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`●In any event, BMW1090 does not disclose any evidence of driving a predicted near‐term
`
`pattern of operation
`
`Graf Does Not Disclose Monitoring Patterns of Vehicle Operation
`
`78
`
`
`
`79
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Thank You
`
`79
`
`