Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 33
`Entered: November 8, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
`AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 19, 2021
`___________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 33
`Entered: November 8, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
`AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 19, 2021
`___________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`VINCENT GALLUZZO, ESQ.
`SCOTT BITTMAN, ESQ.
`Crowell & Moring, LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`BRIAN LIVEDALEN, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson, PC
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, October
`19, 2021, commencing at 9:13 a.m., EDT, by video/by telephone, before
`Julie Souza, Notary Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE PESLAK: This is the oral hearing for IPR 2020 -
`
`01299. We're conducting this all video hearing as a result of the
`shutdown of the Patent Office facilities due to Covid 19. I'm
`Judge Peslak. With me are Judges Medley and Deshpande. Will
`counsel for Petitioner please state your name and firm affiliation
`for the record and also introduce anyone else who's on the line
`with you.
`
`MR. GALLUZZO: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Vince Galluzzo from Crowell & Moring on behalf of Petitioners.
`Also in the room with me are lead counsel Jeffrey Sanok and also
`back- up counsel Scott Bittman and Jacob Zambrzycki.
`
`JUDGE PESLAK: Thank you. Good morning, Mr.
`Galluzzo. Counsel for Patent Owner, please state your name and
`firm affiliation for the record and identify anyone else who's
`there with you.
`
`MR. LIVEDALEN: Good morning, Your Honor. Brian
`Livedalen from the law firm of Fish & Richardson representing
`Patent Owners Paice and Abell and with me here today is my
`colleague, Mr. Tim Riffe.
`
`JUDGE PESLAK: Good morning. Counsel, for Petitioner
`you have 60 minutes in accordance with the Hearing Order. Do
`you wish to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`
`MR. GALLUZZO: Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to reserve
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`ten minutes for rebuttal, please.
`
`JUDGE PESLAK: Ten minutes. So you have 50 minutes.
`You can begin when ready.
`
`MR. GALLUZZO: Thank you, Your Honors, and good
`morning. Again, my name is Vince Galluzzo from Crowel &
`Moring. I'll be starting us off here today but then I'll be passing
`it over to my colleague, Mr. Scott Bittman, for the majority of
`today's presentation. I'd like to begin with Petitioner's
`demonstrative slide No. 2. On this slide we see independent
`claim 1 which is of course one of the independent claims that are
`challenged in this proceeding and we've separated out in green
`and red coloring to show what's in dispute and what's not.
` As shown in green, this is the undisputed portion. This is
`what broadly claims a hybrid vehicle and as a point of reference,
`what's claimed in green here is much broader than the step point
`based control strategy of the '347 patent with its various modes
`of operation that I've presented on to Your Honors recently. All
`this requires is that there is a control of a flow of torque between
`components.
`In the red portion below limitations [e] and [f] I believe is
`how we note them in briefing. This is the disputed portion. This
`requires that the hybrid vehicle derive a predicted near-term
`pattern of operation and it requires that it does so by monitoring
`operation of the vehicle and this requires controlling operation
`responsive to that pattern. Now, again, this is very broadly
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`stated and claimed. It doesn't require any specifics about the
`monitoring. It doesn't say what to monitor, how to monitor it,
`when to monitor it, and what we're going to hear today because
`the claims are so broadly stated is what I like to call double
`speak from Patent Owners related to these pattern limitations.
`Patent Owners, rather than embracing the broad language of the
`claims that they negotiated with the Patent Office, will instead
`propose constructions of constructions in a way that twists the
`claim language from what the Patent Office granted. Because
`Patent Owners chose to claim their invention broadly, they must
`live with that decision now even in the face of invalidating prior
`art.
`
`Next to slide 3, we see a depiction of figure 3 of
`Severinsky against the undisputed portion. Now Severinsky is
`the base reference for all of the grounds here. It has all of the
`components of that broadly stated hybrid control strategy
`including the controller which we show here in purple which is
`critical for Petitioner's proposed combinations and Mr. Bittman
`will provide more detail about that in his presentation.
`Next to slide 4. We look at those disputed limitations
`again [e] and [f] and the Board's construction of predicted near-
`term pattern of operation has an expected pattern of operation.
`This is a broad claim construction and it is the claim
`construction that Patent Owner requested and the Board adopted.
`Patent Owner will argue today and has, if I counted right, half a
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`dozen slides or more trying to argue that Petitioners had some
`nefarious intent in its proposed claim construction of pattern.
`But the truth is that BMW was just using the language from the
`Board's prior decisions on the '347 patent in the four IPRs on
`how the Board had understood similar language. Patent Owner's
`arguments to the contrary, again, trying to impune BMW's intent
`is really just trying to escape the broad claim language and the
`construction that they proposed here. So to clear up any
`confusion whatsoever the Board should stick with its Institution
`decision construction and apply this broad construction to the
`prior art.
`Now, if we look specifically at limitation [e] shown at the
`top of the slide this requires that the deriving of the predicted
`pattern is done by monitoring operation of the hybrid vehicle.
`These claims are broad enough to cover a controller, the
`determined expected operation based on monitoring of past
`operation. In fact, isn't that the point of all of these systems?
`They study what went on in the past. They study what the
`vehicle did, they study what the driver did and then they use that
`collected and stored information in analysis to predict how the
`vehicle will perform in the future and then adjust control
`accordingly. Patent Owner's expert, Dr. Shahbakhti, admitted
`the same in his deposition when he testified that,
`"When you are using the word expected it's based on what
`you were observing. We expect that a trend will repeat."
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`
`That's Exhibit 1103, page 56, lines 7 to 9.
`As to the limitation at the bottom of the slides, limitation
`[f], this only requires that the control be "responsive to the
`expected pattern of operation." Again, this is very broad.
`There's no limitation in the claims relating to a number of
`patterns, they can just be one. That the expected pattern be
`restricted to a single trip or how the control is "responsive" to
`the pattern. The prosecution history also confirms this broad
`understanding of the claims and we'll see an excerpt of that in
`slide 5.
`Now on slide 5 we see an excerpt here where the Applicants
`emphasized the breadth of the claims in distinguishing over the
`prior art. So before I get into the details I do want to note that
`importantly Dr. Shahbakhti did not consider this submission on
`scope for the details for the file history in his analysis so his
`opinions are irrelevant to this point. But regardless of what Dr.
`Shahbakhti considered Patent Owner argued that the prior art
`was,
`
`"Not monitoring operation of the particular vehicle and
`using this data to predict future operational patterns
`accordingly."
`Yet prior art that BMW's brought to Your Honors today and
`in this proceeding including Quigley and Nii teach that exact
`process.
`Slide 6. We’ll see an overview of Quigley and as shown in
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`purple, Quigley is all about predicting the use of a hybrid
`vehicle. Patent Owners claim that Quigley is not predicting
`anything but look at the title shown on the right. Predicting is in
`the very title of Quigley. How Patent Owners can argue that
`Quigley is not about predicting is just without any merit.
`Now, Mr. Bittman will present more on this but as a quick
`overview, Quigley calls its predicted use a journey and as we see
`in figure 2 shown on the right, when Quigley predicts a journey
`it will have a controller strategy for that expected journey. That
`matches Patent Owner's characterization of its claims during
`prosecution and it matches the limitations of the challenged
`claims here.
`In slide 7 we see a brief overview of Nii against the
`challenged claims and Nii, like Quigley, also discloses the
`pattern limitations of the '761 patent. Much of the previous
`discussion on Nii that Your Honors and I had related to the '347
`patent is applicable here so I won't repeat it but sufficive to say
`for purposes of this challenge, Nii explicitly teaches and this is
`what's highlighted in purple on the right,
`"A travel pattern of recognition means for recognizing
`travel repeated in accordance with a specific pattern."
`This is not just a parameter. This discloses everything that
`Patent Owner says is missing from the prior art. Nii also doesn't
`just keep that pattern or analysis for safe keeping, it does
`something with it. It modifies its control strategy accordingly.
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`This is exactly in line with the challenged claims.
`Now on slide 8, this will be my final slide but it's an
`overview of our grounds here today which Mr. Bittman will talk
`more about in a moment. The prior art disclosed deriving an
`expected pattern of operation for a vehicle in optimizing a
`control strategy based on those patterns. A person of skill in the
`art would have been motivated to optimize Severinski's
`controller strategy to similarly be responsive to expected
`patterns of operation.
`Why would a person of skill in the art do that? Well, we
`see the testimony from Dr. Davis on the left. That's a holy grail.
`If you know how a vehicle will operate you can make its control
`strategy more efficient. But not just from Dr. Davis, we also
`know from Dr. Shahbakhti, excerpt shown on the right that
`efficiency and increased fuel economy have been a goal of the
`industry for a long time. So unless the Board has any questions
`on these application of the independent claims in view of our
`prior presentation on the '347 patent, I'll now pass it over to Mr.
`Bittman for the remainder of today's presentation. Thank you,
`Your Honors.
`MR. BITTMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Scott
`Bittman from Crowell & Moring for Petitioner. I'd like to start
`with talking about ground 1. If you turn to slide 10. Now as just
`explained there's no dispute that Severinsky discloses the
`controller required in claim limitations 1A through D and again
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`that is the primary base reference that we're relying on for this
`ground and actually for all of our grounds. So I want to focus
`initially on the pattern related limitations of the independent
`claims. As shown in this slide, we've included an excerpt from
`the title and the abstract. Quigley specifically teaches predicting
`the use of a vehicle at the start of a journey using intelligent
`classification techniques and a knowledge base of previous
`journey histories and using those predictions to manage energy
`flow through the drive train. As you've just seen this is exactly
`what the Applicant's believe was novel in the '761 patent over
`Severinsky. In short, predicting that a pattern of operation and
`altering the vehicle control accordingly.
`Patent Owners will put up some graphics later today with
`different colored arrows whereby they will argue that Quigley
`only looks at past vehicle operation, not future operation. But
`that is divorced from reality and just looking at past operation to
`predict future operation as set forth in the title and described
`here in the abstract and it's doing that by monitoring operation of
`the hybrid vehicle which is exactly what the claims require. It's
`not looking at past operation just for informational purposes, it's
`effecting patterns for how it expects the vehicle will similarly
`operate in the future.
`Now if we turn to slide 11. Patent Owner's other main
`dispute against Quigley is that they assert it relates to what they
`call single data points and you'll likely hear that today when they
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`say repeatedly that Quigley only discloses predicting time of
`departure, journey duration and distance of a future trip. I'd like
`to focus on this slide for a few moments because it shows that
`that simply is not true and if the Board does not accept that
`argument of Patent Owner then I believe that all, or certainly
`most, of their arguments fall apart.
`Now if you look at the left hand excerpt on this slide from
`Quigley it shows that Quigley teaches looking at habitual usage
`characteristics to predict not only journey but its associated
`characteristics and again that's shown on the left hand excerpt
`and as shown in the right hand excerpt it teaches doing that by
`monitoring operation of the vehicle such as the throttle, brake,
`engine speed, road speed, et cetera and again it teaches doing
`that so the controller can analyze and predict patterns and
`enhance control. There would be no need for this information if
`the system only needs to look at distances, as Patent Owners
`argue.
`Now, I want to take a moment to discuss what the Quigley
`reference is. It is a research paper which is broken down into
`several sections. It explains the invention up front whereby the
`authors believe that a control system can be more efficient if the
`system used intelligent control techniques to predict operation
`and adjust control. It describes why that would be done, how it
`would be accomplished and then it provides certain vehicle
`experiments to successfully prove the concept that patterns can
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`be detected and utilized. Now, Patent Owner focuses only on the
`disclosed experiments. But of course those experiments are not
`limiting of Quigley's disclosure. A person of skill in the art
`would read the reference in its entirety for all that it teaches. A
`person of skill in the art would see from the disclosure shown
`here combined with the text previously identified including in
`the abstract that teaches predicting patterns' to optimize control.
`Patent Owners are trying to say that a person of skill in the art
`would look at the experiment with blinders on but ignore the rest
`of the disclosure, but of course that is not the proper analysis
`and by presenting that argument Patent Owner appears to fault
`Quigley for having a lengthy description supported by
`experiments compared to the cursory description in its own
`patent.
`Additionally, Patent Owners admit that Quigley states that
`the controller could monitor these driver operation inputs but it
`argues that certain experiments don't actually use this data and
`this is on Patent Owner response, page 23 and you may hear this
`later today. But the issue is what a person of skill in the art
`would understand from these references. Here, and in the prior
`slide, Quigley is clearly explaining why you would determine the
`expected pattern of use of the vehicle what information would be
`needed by the control system and Dr. Shahbakhti at his
`deposition even admitted that a person of skill in the art would
`know what this information would be used for and he referenced
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`Severinsky as providing an example and that's at BMW 1103 at
`page 123, lines 7 through 13, and of course the reference should
`be read from the perspective of a person of skill in the art. A
`person of skill in the art would not ignore the broad teachings
`and just focus on the proof of concept experiments to limit the
`disclosure.
`I'd like to turn next to slide 12. Now, as demonstrated on
`the prior slide Quigley's disclosure is broader than just looking
`at the distances of travel. But I want to take a moment to focus
`on the experiments described in Quigley. As shown in the
`figures and the excerpts identified on this slide, Quigley clearly
`discloses looking at patterns related to daily travel for a person's
`commute. Here it even uses the words no obvious pattern and
`then data corresponding to a morning journey to work as well as
`high expectation of future journey of particular time and distance
`and I don't believe that there's any dispute on those points. But
`as we've already discussed, the claim language is very broad and
`we've captured the travel distances. A vehicle's operation
`includes how far it travels.
`Dr. Shahbakhti even admits and we've included an excerpt
`from his deposition on the bottom portion of this slide, that
`distances of travel can be an expected pattern of operation. In
`his answer shown here was in response to a question about a
`vehicle that travels five miles on odd number days and ten miles
`on even number days and of course the system would determine
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`that that is a pattern and that similar pattern of expected
`operation would be travelled in the future and, again, that's
`determined based on its monitoring of vehicle operation as
`shown in the figures.
`Now we turn next to slide 13. This is an excerpt from the
`'761 patent specification and we'd just like to point that
`Quigley's commuting pattern matches the example of a commute
`in the '761 patent. On this slide we've included the support for
`the patent related limitations and you'll likely see a reference to
`the road load clause on the left hand portion of the slide in
`Patent Owner's slides today. But if you read the rest of the
`passage it's talking about looking for a repetitive driving pattern
`over days or weeks and it specifically identifies a commute as an
`example of an expected pattern. Again, the claims are broad and
`not limited to any type of pattern. We'd also like to focus on the
`bottom two lines of this left hand portion of the slide, that
`excerpt, that specifically refers to travel distances covered each
`day. Again, this is showing that travel distance is within the
`scope of the disclosed expected pattern of operation. Certainly
`there's nothing in the claims that excludes this as being an
`example.
`Turn next to slide 14, please. So this slide at the top of the
`slide we've included an excerpt of figure 2 from Quigley, but
`below that we've included the requirements of what we've called
`claim 1[f]. Again, this requires the control of operation
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`responsive to the derived near- term predicted pattern of
`operation and this was described in the passages earlier but it's
`shown clearly on figure 2. As shown in the purple highlighted
`box, this refers to the expected patterns of operation that we've
`just laid out earlier. Now, it teaches that if the system is to
`expect the pattern the controller should go to the yellow box and
`specifically implement a controller strategy for that expected
`journey. In other words, it will control operation responsive to
`the predicted pattern as required by the claims.
`Now if you turn to slide 15, please. We submit that our
`proposed combination really is common sense and we've tried to
`illustrate that simply on this slide. Starting up top on the top
`right this is figure 3 from Severinsky and again there's no
`dispute that Severinsky discloses a control strategy based on a
`general purpose algorithm. It describes the control strategy to
`select the mode of operation for maximum efficiency, whether it
`be motor only, engine only or motor plus engine. But that
`strategy for determining which mode the vehicle operating is a
`one size fits all general purpose algorithm. Indeed, that's how
`Applicant's tried to distinguish their claims around Severinsky
`during prosecution.
`Now if you look at the bottom right, again this is figure 2
`that we just looked at from Quigley, Quigley also discloses a
`general purpose algorithm and we've highlighted that in the
`bottom picture in red. That's what Quigley said should be used
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`if there's no journey or pattern related information, but Quigley
`also teaches that if a pattern is indeed determined for the
`predicted future use then a control strategy for that expected
`journey should be selected and again, that's shown in yellow. In
`other words, the controller strategy should be responsive to the
`expected pattern of operation and the modification is shown most
`simply with the arrows on the right hand portion of the slide.
`Simply the general purpose control algorithm used by
`Severinsky's controller would be modified to incorporate a
`controller strategy for an expected journey as described in
`Quigley and the abstract discussed earlier even lays that out.
`If we turn next to slide 16. We have included here an
`excerpt from KSR which I know the Board is well aware, but I
`want to focus on this particular holding from KSR. It says that,
`"If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`improve similar devices in the same way, using a technique is
`obvious unless the actual application is beyond his or her skill."
`And we submit that this combination presents the
`application of that principle. But let's look at the bottom clause,
`in this case our excerpt, as to whether the technique would be
`beyond the level of skill of a person of skill in the art.
`I'd like to skip one slide and turn to slide 18 next. So on
`this slide we look at whether a person of skill in the art would
`have had an expectation of success and including whether the
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`application were beyond the skill of a person of skill in the art.
`If you look at the bottom left excerpt on this slide, this is
`directly from the '761 patent specification and this specification
`admits it's within the skill of the art to record and analyze but
`also to adopt the control strategy responsive to patterns. So this
`shows clearly here that they've admitted that it's not beyond the
`level of skill of a person of skill in the art which is the language
`of KSR.
`But we've also shown elsewhere on this slide that a person
`of skill in the art would have had an expectation of success.
`Starting with the top excerpt which is from Quigley, again that
`explains that the modification uses signals derived from
`technology already in modern day vehicles. If you look at the
`top right Dr. Davis explains that a person of skill in the art
`would only need to modify the logic reflecting the predicted
`journey. If you look at the bottom right Dr. Shahbakhti, who is
`Patent Owner's expert, he testified that pattern recognition is a
`very broad area and that there's a whole field of engineering
`dedicated to it.
`Now, if you turn back one slide to slide 17. Now, Mr.
`Galluzzo in his slides identified some of the well known
`motivations that would be recognized for this application but
`we've identified additional support within the references
`themselves on this slide 17. Starting at the top left we've
`included an excerpt from Severinsky. An express goal of
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`Severinsky's disclosure was to optimize parameters to ensure that
`the engine is operated at its maximum point of efficiency. It
`expressly states that there are a number of parameters that are
`relevant to that performance and one of them is including
`optimizing the control algorithm which is exactly what we are
`proposing here. If you look at the top right we've included two
`excerpts from Quigley. Quigley talks about how to obtain
`optimum control. It says if you look for parameters available
`upon journey completion then you could obtain the optimum
`control. In other words, you want to tailor the control system to
`how it predicts the vehicle will be operating and by doing so you
`could obtain optimal operation with respect to exhaust emissions
`and fuel consumption. So the motivation is clear from the
`references themselves but Dr. Davis also testifies that a person
`of skill in the art would make the combination for fuel efficiency
`reasons. Accordingly, we submit that claim 1 is obvious over
`Severinsky in view of Quigley. I'll pause for questions on this
`claim if there are any, otherwise I'll move next to the dependent
`claims.
`Okay. So if we could turn to slide 25. So we've laid out in
`our petition the obviousness arguments for claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 11
`and 12. As we note on this slide Patent Owners have not
`disagreed with any of those arguments. So we'd like to focus
`now on the claims they have disputed and I'd like to first talk
`about claim 2 and claim 8 but we're focusing on claim 2 because
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`the language of claim 8 is the same. Claim 2 adds the
`requirement that the derived predicted pattern include at least
`one repetitive pattern and we've included an excerpt here from
`Quigley. It says Quigley monitors travel for habitual
`characteristics and I don't believe that habit can exist without
`repetition. So we submit that habitual uses characteristics would
`include at least one repetitive pattern. Quigley also shows --
`JUDGE PESLAK: Mr. Bittman?
`MR. BITTMAN: Yes.
`JUDGE PESLAK: What's the difference between a
`predicted pattern and a repetitive pattern in this claim?
`MR. BITTMAN: Well, Your Honor, we submit that a
`repetitive pattern is a predicted pattern and we've shown that the
`patterns, you know, claim 1 is broader, claim 2 should be
`narrower but we believe we've met both. Again, the habitual
`characteristics would be a repetitive pattern. You know, there
`may be some reason why the pattern would be broader but we
`believe that our references show patterns that would be
`repetitive.
`JUDGE PESLAK: Okay.
`MR. BITTMAN: On this slide Quigley also shows that a
`pattern can be determined from repeating travel on a commute.
`Again, that is repetitive pattern which matches the '761 patent
`example. Now, Patent Owner's argument here is that Quigley is
`only based on the repetitive pattern but of course the claims
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`require that the pattern is determined based on monitoring of
`vehicle operations. That's directly in the claims and we show a
`quote here from Dr. Shahbakhti that of course the way these
`systems work are by expecting that a monitor trend will repeat.
`Again, it looks at the pattern of the past and expects the system
`will behave similarly in the future.
`If we turn next to slide 26 and let's address claims 4 and 10
`and again these have the same wording so I'd like to focus on
`claim 4. Again, this claim is broad. It really just adds to the
`prior claims that the controller monitors and compares variations
`of road load.
`If we turn next to slide 27. Now it's important to remember
`that the combination of ground 1 starts with the controller of
`Severinsky and we've included an excerpt here from Severinsky
`on the top of the page. Severinsky discloses that the
`microprocessor determines the load at all times. As this Board
`has previously determined, Severinsky teaches an engine control
`strategy that depends on road load and the reason Severinsky
`uses road load is compare those values to set points to determine
`which mode to operate in, whether it be engine, motor only or
`both. So if the controller is already monitoring the road load for
`its control strategy, the person of skill in the art viewing Quigley
`would understand that systems could be made intelligent and
`more efficient based on expected patterns of operation. Common
`sense would dictate that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`modifying Severinsky will look for and utilize the patterns of the
`road load.
`JUDGE PESLAK: Mr. Bittman, but aren't you asking us to
`use common sense though to make a finding on a claim limitation
`because this is a method claim and it requires this specific
`comparison and I don't see Quigley talking about road load and I
`don't see that kind of comparison in Severinsky. I don't think we
`can use common sense to find a claim limitation.
`MR. BITTMAN: Well, Your Honor, we believe that claim
`limitation, and I think I address that point on the next slide if I
`could talk to that and of course --
`JUDGE PESLAK: Sure, sure that --
`MR. BITTMAN: -- if you don't feel that I've addressed it.
`If you turn to slide 28. Now on slide 28 we show some of the
`evidence directly from Quigley and Dr. Davis further supporting
`that point. Again, Quigley explains that its teachings can be
`used to manage energy flow through the hybrid drive train for
`optimum control and the way it teaches doing that is by using
`intelligent classification techniques and knowledge-based
`previous journey histories.
`Now, Patent Owners argue and I think this was along the
`lines of your question, and you'll see this also as one of the key
`points that they highlight on their slides today, that the prior art
`is silent with regard to maintaining a historical record
`concerning the road load. But again as shown here Quigley
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2020-01299
`Patent 8,630,761 B2
`
`expressly teaches you determine the expected journey by looking
`at the knowledge of previous journeys. So of course a person
`skilled in the art modifying Severinsky's road load based control
`strategy to incorporate Quigley's pattern related teachings would
`maintain a historical record of road load and that's how the
`controller would be able to determine whether p
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
