1
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
