UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & BMW
`OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: To Be Assigned
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`___________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,237,634
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Page
`
`Introduction and Procedural Background ...................................................... 1
`I.
`Overview of the ’634 Patent ......................................................................... 3
`II.
`A.
`The Specification, Challenged Claims, and Relevant Prior IPRs ......... 3
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) ..................................... 7
`III. Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Issue Preclusion .................................................................................. 7
`IV. Terms Already Construed by the Board ........................................................ 8
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge .................................................................. 11
`V.
`VI. Technology Background ............................................................................. 13
`VII. Detailed Explanation of the Challenge ........................................................ 14
`A.
`Claims............................................................................................... 14
`B.
`Ground 1: Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of Nii ...... 16
`1.
`Claim 33 .................................................................................16
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................20
`C.
`Quigley ............................................................................................. 23
`1.
`Claim 33 .................................................................................23
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................26
`D. Ground 3: Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Graf .................................................................................................. 29
`1.
`Claim 33 .................................................................................29
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................33
`E.
`Quigley or (c) Graf ........................................................................... 35
`1.
`Claim 34 .................................................................................35
`
`Ground 4: Claims 34-38, 42-44, 46, 50, 52, 55 and 68 Are
`Obvious Over Severinsky in View of Any of (a) Nii, (b)
`
`Issue Preclusion Applies to Limitations of Previously Cancelled
`
`Ground 2: Claim 33 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Claim 35 .................................................................................35
`2.
`Claim 36 .................................................................................36
`3.
`Claim 37 .................................................................................38
`4.
`Claim 38 .................................................................................39
`5.
`Claim 42 .................................................................................39
`6.
`Claim 43 .................................................................................40
`7.
`Claim 44 .................................................................................42
`8.
`Claim 46 .................................................................................43
`9.
`10. Claim 50 .................................................................................44
`11. Claim 52 .................................................................................44
`12. Claim 55 .................................................................................45
`13. Claim 68 .................................................................................46
`View of Frank ................................................................................... 46
`1.
`Claim 39 .................................................................................47
`2.
`Claim 40 .................................................................................49
`3.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................50
`G. Ground 6: Claim 41 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Lateur ............................................................................................... 51
`1.
`Claim 41 .................................................................................52
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................53
`H. Ground 7: Claim 49 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Ma .................................................................................................... 55
`1.
`Claim 49 .................................................................................55
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................57
`I.
`Vittone .............................................................................................. 59
`
`Ground 5: Claims 39 and 40 Are Obvious Over Severinsky in
`View of Any of (a) Nii, (b) Quigley, or (c) Graf, and Further in
`
`Any of (a) Nii, (b) Quigley, or (c) Graf, and Further in View of
`
`Any of (a) Nii, (b) Quigley, or (c) Graf, and Further in View of
`
`Ground 8: Claim 53 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Any of (a) Nii, (b) Quigley, or (c) Graf, and Further in View of
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Ground 11: Claims 188-189, 199-203, 205-206, 208, 211 and
`
`Ground 9: Claim 54 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Any of (a) Nii, (b) Quigley, or (c) Graf, and Further in View of
`
`Claim 53 .................................................................................59
`1.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................62
`2.
`J.
`Yamaguchi ........................................................................................ 64
`1.
`Claim 54 .................................................................................64
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................65
`K. Ground 10: Claim 105 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Frank and Ma .................................................................................... 66
`L.
`213 Are Obvious Over Severinsky in View of Ma ............................ 67
`1.
`Claim 188 ...............................................................................67
`2.
`Claim 189 ...............................................................................67
`3.
`Claim 199 ...............................................................................68
`4.
`Claim 200 ...............................................................................68
`5.
`Claim 201 ...............................................................................68
`6.
`Claim 202 ...............................................................................68
`7.
`Claim 203 ...............................................................................68
`8.
`Claim 205 ...............................................................................68
`9.
`Claim 206 ...............................................................................68
`10. Claim 208 ...............................................................................69
`11. Claim 211 ...............................................................................69
`12. Claim 213 ...............................................................................69
`M. Ground 12: Claim 204 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Ma and Lateur ................................................................................... 69
`N. Ground 13: Claim 212 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Ma and Yamaguchi ........................................................................... 70
`O. Ground 14: Claim 214 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Ma and Suga ..................................................................................... 70
`1.
`Claim 214 ...............................................................................71
`2.
`Rationale for Combination ......................................................71
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground 15: Claim 242 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`
`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`P.
`Vittone .............................................................................................. 74
`Q. Ground 16: Claim 268 Is Obvious Over Severinsky in View of
`Yamaguchi ........................................................................................ 75
`VIII. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ................................................. 75
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ...................................................................... 75
`Related Matters ................................................................................. 75
`B.
`C.
`Identification of Counsel and Service Information ............................ 77
`IX. Grounds for Standing and Procedural Statement (37 C.F.R.
`§42.104(a)) ................................................................................................. 77
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §§42.103 and 42.15(a)(1)) .............................. 78
`X.
`XI. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 78
`Claim Appendix of Challenged Claims ................................................................. 80
`Certification of Word Count ............................................................................... 100
`Certificate of Service .......................................................................................... 101
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
`
`BMW1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634, including Inter Partes Review
`Certificates issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K1 and U.S.
`Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`BMW1002 USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`K2
`
`BMW1003 Reserved
`
`BMW1004 Reserved
`
`BMW1005 Reserved
`
`BMW1006 Reserved
`
`BMW1007 Reserved
`
`BMW1008 Declaration of Dr. Gregory W. Davis in Support of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 K2
`
`BMW1009 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gregory W. Davis
`
`BMW1010 Reserved
`
`BMW1011 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2014-00884, Paper 38, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015)
`
`BMW1012
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 K2
`
`BMW1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky” or “Severinsky ’970”)
`
`BMW1014 Reserved
`
`BMW1015 Reserved
`
`BMW1016 Reserved
`
`BMW1017 Reserved
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
`
`BMW1018 Reserved
`
`BMW1019 Reserved
`
`BMW1020 U.S. Patent No. 6,188,945 (“Graf”)
`
`BMW1021
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 92/15778 (“Ma”)
`
`BMW1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,650,931 (“Nii”)
`
`BMW1023
`
`BMW1024
`
`BMW1025
`
`Innovations in Design: 1993 Ford Hybrid Electric Vehicle
`Challenge, Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-94/980,
`Davis, G.W. et al., “United States Naval Academy, AMPhibian”
`(Feb. 1994), 277-87
`
`1996 Future Car Challenge, Society of Automotive Engineers,
`SAE/SP-97/1234, Swan, J. et al., “Design and Development of
`Hyades, a Parallel Hybrid Vehicle for the 1996 FutureCar
`Challenge” (Feb. 1997), 23-30
`
`1997 Future Car Challenge, Society of Automotive Engineers,
`SAE/SP-98/1359, Swan, J. et al., “Design and Development of
`Hyades, a Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle for the 1997 FutureCar
`Challenge” (Feb. 1998), 29-39
`
`BMW1026 U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 60/100,095 (Filed Sep. 11, 1998)
`
`BMW1027 Wakefield, E.H., Ph.D., History of the Electric Automobile –
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Society of Automotive Engineers,
`SAE/SP-98/3420 (1998), 17-34 (Chapter 2: The History of the
`Petro-Electric Vehicle)
`
`BMW1028 Unnewehr, L.E. et al., “Hybrid Vehicle for Fuel Economy,”
`Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-76/0121 (1976)
`
`BMW1029 Burke, A.F., “Hybrid/Electric Vehicle Design Options and
`Evaluations,” Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-92/0447,
`International Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michigan (Feb. 24-
`28, 1992)
`
`BMW1030 Duoba, M, “Challenges for the Vehicle Tester in Characterizing
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” 7th CRC On Road Vehicle Emissions
`Workshop, San Diego, California (Apr. 9-11, 1997)
`
`BMW1031 Electric and Hybrid Vehicles Program, 18th Annual Report to
`Congress for Fiscal Year 1994, U.S. Department of Energy (Apr.
`1995)
`
`BMW1032 Bates, B. et al., “Technology for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles,”
`Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-98/1331 (Feb. 1998)
`
`BMW1033
`
`Stodolsky, F. et al., “Strategies in Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
`Design,” Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-96/1156,
`Kozo, Y. et al., “Development of New Hybrid System – Dual
`System,” SAE/SP-96/0231 (Feb. 1996), 25-33
`
`BMW1034 Leschly, K.O., Hybrid Vehicle Potential Assessment, Volume 7:
`Hybrid Vehicle Review, U.S. Department of Energy (Sep. 30,
`1979)
`
`BMW1035 Reserved
`
`BMW1036 Masding, P.W., et al., “A microprocessor controlled gearbox for
`use in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles,” Transactions of the
`Institute of Measurement and Control, Vol. 10, No. 4 (July –Sep.
`1988), 177-86
`
`BMW1037 Reserved
`
`BMW1038 U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672 (“Severinsky ’672”)
`
`BMW1039 Davis, G.W., Ph.D. et al., Introduction to Automotive Powertrains,
`Chapter 2: Road Loads (2000), 27-68
`
`BMW1040 Ehsani, M. et al., “Propulsion System Design of Electric
`Vehicles,” Texas A&M University, Department of Electrical
`Engineering (1996), 7-13
`
`BMW1041 Ehsani, M. et al., “Propulsion System Design of Electric and
`Hybrid Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
`Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb. 1997), 19-27
`
`BMW1042 Bauer, H., ed., Automotive Handbook, Robert Bosch Gmbh (4th
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
`Ed. Oct. 1996), Excerpts
`
`BMW1043 Design Innovations in Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicles,
`Society of Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-96/1089, Anderson, C.,
`et al, “The Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid
`Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” SAE/SP-95/0493
`(Feb. 1995), 65-71
`
`BMW1044 U.S. Patent No. 5,656,921 (“Farrall”)
`
`BMW1045
`
`Stone, R., Introduction to Internal Combustion Engines, Chapter
`9: Turbocharging (2nd Ed. 1995), 324-53
`
`BMW1046 Bauer, H., ed., Automotive Handbook, Robert Bosch Gmbh (4th
`Ed. Oct. 1996), Excerpts
`
`BMW1047 Heisler, H., Advanced Engine Technology, Chapters 6.7-6.10
`(1995), 315-47
`
`BMW1048 Reserved
`
`BMW1049 Reserved
`
`BMW1050 Reserved
`
`BMW1051 U.S. Patent No. 5,823,280 (“Lateur”)
`
`BMW1052 Reserved
`
`BMW1053 Reserved
`
`BMW1054 Quigley, et al., “Predicting the Use of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle
`(“Quigley”)
`
`BMW1055 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.
`
`BMW1056 U.S. Patent No. 5,189,621 (“Onari”)
`
`BMW1057 U.S. Patent No. 4,625,697 (“Hosaka”)
`
`BMW1058 U.S. Patent No. 5,533,583 (“Adler”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
`
`BMW1059 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2014-01416, Paper 26, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2016)
`
`BMW1060 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00722, Paper 13,
`Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2015)
`
`BMW1061 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00787, Paper 12,
`Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2015)
`
`BMW1062 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00791, Paper 12,
`Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2015)
`
`BMW1063 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2014-00904, Paper 41, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015)
`
`BMW1064 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00758, Paper 28, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2016)
`
`BMW1065 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00785, Paper 31, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)
`
`BMW1066 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00801, Paper 28, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)
`
`BMW1067 Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2015-00606, Paper 33, Final
`Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2016)
`
`BMW1068 U.S. Patent No. 5,842,534 (“Frank”)
`
`BMW1069 Vittone, Oreste, “Fiat Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Cars
`Design,” 12th International Electric Vehicle Symposium, Volume
`2 (1994)
`
`BMW1070 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263 (“Yamaguchi”)
`
`BMW1071 U.S. Patent No. 5,623,104 (“Suga”)
`
`BMW1072 Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Appeal Nos. 2017-1387, 2017-
`1388, 2017-1390, 2017-1457, 2017-1458, Doc. 70-2, Opinion
`(Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2018)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
`
`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`BMW1073 Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Appeal Nos. 2016-1746, 2016-2034
`Doc. 57-2, Opinion (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2017)
`
`BMW1074 An, F. and Barth, M., “Critical Issues in Quantifying Hybrid
`Electric Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Consumption,” Society of
`Automotive Engineers, SAE/SP-98/1902 (Aug. 1998)
`
`BMW1075 Heywood, J.B., Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,
`(McGraw-Hill 1998).
`
`BMW1076
`
`Pulkrabek, W.W., Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal
`Combustion Engine, Excerpts (Prentice Hall 1997)
`
`BMW1077 Hawley, G.G., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Excerpts (9th
`Ed. 1977)
`
`BMW1078 Brown, T.L. and LeMay, H.E., Jr., Chemistry: The Central
`Science, Chapter 3: Stoichiometry (3rd Ed. 1985)
`
`BMW1079 Engh, G.T. and Wallman, S, “Development of the Volvo Lambda-
`Sond System,” SAE/SP-77/0295 (1978)
`
`BMW1080
`
`Stefanopoulou, A.G., et al., “Engine Air-Fuel Ratio and Torque
`Control Using Secondary Throttles,” Proceedings of the 33rd
`Conference on Decision and Control (Dec. 1994)
`
`BMW1081 Takaoka, T., et al.., “A High-Expansion-Ratio Gasoline Engine for
`the TOYOTA Hybrid System,” Toyota Technical Review, Vol. 47,
`No. 2 (Apr. 1998), 53-61
`
`BMW1082
`
`Palm III, W.J., Control Systems Engineering, Excerpts (John
`Wiley & Sons 1986)
`
`BMW1083
`
`Jurgen, R.K., Ed., Automotive Electronics Handbook, Excerpts
`(McGraw Hill 1995)
`
`BMW1084 U.S. Patent No. 5,479,898 (“Cullen”)
`
`BMW1085 Kruse, R.E. and Huls, T.A., “Development of the Federal Urban
`Driving Schedule,” Automobile Engineering Meeting, SAE/SP-
`73/0552 (1973)
`
`x
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`Petitioners Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft and BMW of
`
`North America, LLC (collectively, “BMW”) challenge Claims 33-44, 46, 49-50,
`
`52-54, 55, 68, 105, 188-189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242 and 268 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,237,634 K2 (“’634 patent”) (BMW1001), which are being asserted by Patent
`
`Owners Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc. (BMW1002) in a parallel
`
`district court litigation.1
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Procedural Background
`
`The ’634 patent purports to disclose a “new ‘topology’ for a hybrid vehicle”
`
`requiring “a first electric ‘starting’ motor” and “[a] second ‘traction’ motor.”
`
`BMW1001, 11:50-61. This purportedly “new ‘topology’” is disclosed as a two-
`
`motor “series-parallel” hybrid. BMW1001, 16:5-11. The Challenged Claims,
`
`however, require only a single-motor configuration, which the ’634 patent admits
`
`already existed in prior art such as U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky”)
`
`
`1 Patent Owners recently asserted the 38 total claims after initially identifying only
`
`claim 33. The 38 claims necessitated the “chart” format used herein for the
`
`numerous features previously found unpatentable in order to address all 38 claims
`
`in a single petition. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 59,
`
`40.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`(BMW1013), which issued to one of the ’634 patent’s named inventors.
`
`BMW1001, 17:30-36; BMW1008, ¶¶189-95.
`
`The ’634 patent also identifies a control strategy to operate the engine and
`
`electric motor “in accordance with the vehicle’s instantaneous torque demands so
`
`that the engine is run only under conditions of high efficiency.” BMW1001,
`
`Abstract. But this control strategy, too, was known. BMW1008, ¶¶189-95. In fact,
`
`the specification acknowledges that the purportedly “inventive control strategy”
`
`causes the vehicle to operate “in different modes depending on the torque
`
`required…and other variables,” “as in the case of the hybrid vehicle system shown
`
`in” Severinsky. BMW1001, 35:3-9; 25:11-24. Indeed, Severinsky was the base
`
`reference in numerous IPRs finding unpatentable numerous claims directed to the
`
`control strategy of the ’634 and related patents, and is also the base reference used
`
`here.
`
`Although the ’634 patent contains 300+ claims, these are not reflective of
`
`extensive innovation, but rather a seeming determination by Patent Owners to
`
`recycle well-known hybrid vehicle features into the supposedly novel control
`
`strategy, resulting in a tangled mishmash of claim permutations. This overly
`
`repetitive claiming strategy extends not only across claims, but also patents, as
`
`related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,104,347 (“’347 patent”) and 8,630,761 (“’761 patent”)
`
`include the same or similar well-known limitations.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`The Board has already found 156 of the 171 previously challenged claims of
`
`the ’634 patent unpatentable during 26 prior IPR proceedings. The vast majority of
`
`those cancelled claims’ limitations are identical to the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims here. Accordingly, Petitioners rely here on the exact same prior
`
`art already found to disclose the exact same limitations (appearing in different
`
`claims), and the same expert opinions. Thus, the Board’s prior findings with
`
`respect to those identical limitations should have preclusive effect.
`
`The only “new” limitations for the Board to consider pertain to (1)
`
`monitoring patterns of driver operation over time and varying a setpoint
`
`accordingly, and (2) using a turbocharger in a hybrid vehicle to increase the
`
`engine’s maximum torque output (“MTO”) when desired. But these, too, were well
`
`known in the art, as disclosed, for example, (1) by each of the Nii, Quigley, and
`
`Graf prior art references, and (2) by the Ma prior art reference, respectively. And,
`
`while a few limitations in three claims were not previously before the Board, they
`
`nevertheless tread over similar ground already found to have been disclosed in the
`
`prior art.
`
`II. Overview of the ’634 Patent
`
`A. The Specification, Challenged Claims, and Relevant Prior IPRs
`
`The ’634 patent “describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal combustion
`
`engine, an electric motor, and a battery bank, all controlled by a microprocessor.”
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`BMW1059, 3. The “microprocessor monitors the vehicle’s instantaneous torque
`
`requirements, also known as ‘road load (RL),’ to determine whether the engine, the
`
`electric motor, or both, will be used as a source to []propel the vehicle.” Id.
`
`Specifically, the microprocessor “compares the vehicle’s torque requirements
`
`against a predefined ‘setpoint (SP)’ and uses the results of the comparison to
`
`determine the vehicle’s mode of operation.” Id., 4. The “microprocessor utilizes a
`
`hybrid control strategy that runs the engine only in a range of high fuel efficiency,
`
`such as when the torque required to drive the vehicle, or road load (RL), reaches a
`
`setpoint (SP) of approximately 30% of the engine’s maximum torque output
`
`(MTO).” Id. According to the ’634 patent, operating “the engine in a range above
`
`the setpoint (SP), but substantially less than the” MTO “maximizes fuel efficiency
`
`and reduces pollutant emissions of the hybrid vehicle.” Id., 4-5.
`
`Challenged independent Claims 33 and 188, and previously cancelled
`
`independent Claims 80, 241, and 267, are generally directed to a “method for
`
`controlling a hybrid vehicle” in the above-described manner.
`
`Claim 33 additionally requires that the claimed control strategy comprises
`
`“monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time and varying the SP
`
`accordingly.” Claims 49, 105, and 188 additionally recite operating a
`
`“turbocharger controllably coupled to the engine…to increase the MTO of the
`
`engine when desired.” The remaining claims recycle well-known hybrid vehicle
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`features, the vast majority of which have already been found by the Board to be
`
`present in the prior art during the 26 previous IPR proceedings, as represented in
`
`red in the claim trees below.2
`
`
`
` The grounds presented here are not duplicative of those in previous IPRs,
`
`which did not involve any of the real parties-in-interest here or find any of the
`
`claims challenged here to be patentable.
`
`Claims 33-36, 38-44, 46, 50, and 52-55 were previously included in grounds
`
`that were denied institution because the Board found independent Claim 33’s
`
`limitation of “monitoring patterns of vehicle operations over time” not to have
`
`2 The crossed-out claims were previously cancelled in FWDs affirmed by the
`
`Federal Circuit. See §VII.A,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`been taught by the “Ibaraki ’882” reference (not used in any grounds here).
`
`BMW1060; BMW1061; BMW1062. But, as Petitioner demonstrates below, Claim
`
`33 with its “monitoring” limitation is obvious over the combinations of Severinsky
`
`with any of Nii, Quigley, or Graf, which have never been considered by the
`
`Examiner or the Board.
`
`Dependent Claims 49 and 105, and independent Claim 188, have never
`
`been previously challenged and add a turbocharger requirement. This additional
`
`turbocharger limitation is taught by the obvious combination of Severinsky and
`
`Ma, which has also never been considered by the Examiner or the Board.
`
`None of Claims 37, 44, or 202 has been previously challenged. Their
`
`respective limitations, however—operating the engine to propel the vehicle and
`
`using any excess torque to charge the battery when needed (Claims 37 and 202),
`
`and coupling/decoupling the engine to/from the wheels when it is/is not providing
`
`torque (Claim 44)—were well-known and expressly disclosed by Severinsky.
`
`Lastly, dependent Claims 68 and 268 were previously found obvious over a
`
`primary reference not asserted here, in view of Severinsky, which was found to
`
`disclose their respective limitations. Following a remand on a priority issue, the
`
`parties settled.
`
`Thus, as denoted by green highlighting in the claim trees above, there are
`
`very few claims with limitations that the Board needs to consider for the first time.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`Each of the claims highlighted in red contains only limitations the Board has
`
`previously found to have been disclosed by the same prior art asserted for those
`
`limitations here. See §VII.A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”)
`
`A POSA would have either: (1) a graduate degree in mechanical, electrical
`
`or automotive engineering with at least some experience in the design and control
`
`of combustion engines, electric or hybrid electric vehicle propulsion systems, or
`
`design and control of automotive transmissions, or (2) a bachelor’s degree in
`
`mechanical, electrical or automotive engineering and at least five years of
`
`experience in the design of combustion engines, electric vehicle propulsion
`
`systems, or automotive transmissions. BMW1008, ¶¶44-47.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Claim terms in IPRs “shall be construed using the same claim construction
`
`standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`B.
`
`Issue Preclusion
`
`Issue preclusion prevents a party from re-litigating a position in an IPR
`
`previously decided against it in another IPR. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1250-51 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Issue
`
`preclusion applies where: there is an “(1) identity of the issues in a prior
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`proceeding; (2) the issues were actually litigated; (3) the determination of the
`
`issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and, (4) the party defending against
`
`preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.” In re Trans Texas
`
`Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`IV. Terms Already Construed by the Board
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`IPR
`
`“road load”/“RL”
`
`“amount of instantaneous
`
`E.g., BMW1063, 6-10;
`
`torque required to propel
`
`BMW1059, 7-10;
`
`the vehicle[, be it positive
`
`BMW1064, 9-12;
`
`or negative]”
`
`BMW1065, 8-11;
`
`“setpoint”/“SP”
`
`“a predetermined [or
`
`predefined] torque value
`
`that may or may not be
`
`reset”
`
`“mode I”/“low-load
`
`“a mode of operation of
`
`E.g., BMW1065, 11-16;
`
`operation mode I”
`
`the vehicle, in which all
`
`BMW1066 11-16
`
`torque provided to the
`
`wheels [is] supplied by an
`
`electric motor”
`
`“high-way cruising
`
`“a mode of operation of
`
`operation mode IV”
`
`the vehicle in which all
`
`torque provided to the
`
`wheels [is] supplied by
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`IPR
`
`the internal combustion
`
`engine”
`
`“acceleration operation
`
`“a mode of operation in
`
`mode V”
`
`which the torque provided
`
`to the wheels is supplied
`
`by the internal
`
`combustion engine and at
`
`least one electric motor”
`
`“abnormal and transient
`
`these conditions include
`
`conditions”
`
`starting the engine and
`
`stopping the engine
`
`“maximum DC voltage”
`
`“a voltage under load”
`
`BMW1067, 7.
`
`“monitoring patterns of
`
`“monitoring a driver’s
`
`E.g., BMW1060, 6-8;
`
`vehicle operation over
`
`repeated driving
`
`BMW1061, 7-9;
`
`time”
`
`operations over time”
`
`BMW1062, 7-9.
`
`
`
`All but the last of these terms was construed in a FWD on the ’634 patent;
`
`the “monitoring patterns” limitation was construed in numerous IDs. It was also
`
`construed in this manner in a FWD concerning the related ’347 patent. BMW1011.
`
`In each instance, the Board considered the term’s “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by [a POSA] in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure.” E.g., BMW1063, 5; BMW1060, 6; BMW1066, 7.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`The Board went on to apply its constructions in the FWDs to cancel
`
`numerous claims, consisting mostly of the same limitations at issue in the
`
`Challenged Claims here. Those construed terms should therefore be used
`
`consistently here.
`
`As for the “monitoring patterns of vehicle operation over time” limitation,
`
`the Board agreed with Patent Owners that the limitation “refers to how the operator
`
`actually drives the car over some period of time, as opposed to monitoring an
`
`internal data point of the vehicle” (such as battery state of charge). E.g.,
`
`BMW1060, 6-8. Based on that construction, Patent Owners succeeded in having
`
`the Board deny institution of Claim 33 based on a reference not asserted here. E.g.,
`
`id., 16-17.
`
`Petitioners adopt the Board’s constructions of the terms above, and accord
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning to the remaining terms. To wit, each of the Board’s
`
`decisions regarding the ’634 patent consistently construed “road load” and
`
`“setpoint” as reflected in the bracketed portion of the chart above. In contrast,
`
`some of the Board’s decisions regarding the ’347 patent also alternatively
`
`construed “road load” and “setpoint” to mean “amount of instantaneous torque
`
`required for propulsion of the vehicle” and “a predefined torque value that may or
`
`may not be reset,” respectively. See IPR2020-00994, Paper 1, 6-7. Though
`
`Petitioner adopted the latter constructions in IPR2020-00994 because they
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`appeared in the relevant FWDs on the ’347 patent, there is no substantive
`
`difference between the two sets of constructions. IPR2020-00994, Paper 1, 7 n.4.
`
`V.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge3
`
`Ground Basis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Claim 33: obvious over Severinsky in view of Nii
`
`Cla