EXHIBIT J
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2011
`BMW v. Paice
`|PR2020-01386
`
`1
`
`PAICE 2011
`BMW v. Paice
`IPR2020-01386
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT J
`
`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`To the extent Severinsky ‘970 does not disclose any particular limitation below, or aspects thereof, expressly or inherently, such
`limitation(s) would have been known to a person of skill in the art and/or it would have been obvious to combine Severinsky ‘970
`with one or more of the prior art references identified and cited herein, including Adler, Anderson, Drozdz, Farrall, Frank, Friedmann,
`Graf, Hosaka ‘083, Hosaka ‘697, Kawamura, Lateur, Ma, Moroto, Nii, Onari, Paefgen, Probst, Quigley, Suga, Vittone, and
`Yamaguchi.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`
`33[pre]. A method for controlling a
`hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses a “Hybrid Electric Vehicle” and a “method of operating a
`hybrid electric vehicle.” Severinsky ‘970 at Abstract. Figure 3 illustrates the “schematic
`diagram of the principal components of [the disclosed] … hybrid vehicle drive system.”
`Severinsky ‘970 at 7:45-46.
`Severinsky ‘970 at Fig. 3:
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 (“Severinsky ‘970”)
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,533,583 (“Adler”); C. Anderson, et al., The Effects of APU Characteristics on the Design of Hybrid Control
`Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, SAE Technical Paper 950493 (1995) (“Anderson”); U.S. Patent No. 5,898,282 (“Drozdz”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,921 (“Farrall”); U.S. Patent No. 6,116,363 (“Frank”); U.S. Patent No. 5,788,004 (“Friedmann”); U.S. Patent
`No. 6,188,945 (“Graf”); U.S. Patent No. 4,721,083 (“Hosaka ‘083”); U.S. Patent No. 4,625,697 (“Hosaka ‘697”); U.S. Patent No.
`4,850,193 (“Kawamura”); U.S. Patent No. 5,823,280 (“Lateur”); WO 92/15778 (“Ma”); U.S. Patent No. 5,697,466 (“Moroto”); U.S.
`Patent No. 5,650,931 (“Nii”); U.S. Patent No. 5,189,621 (“Onari”); Paefgen, et al., Der Audi Duo – das erste serienmäßige
`Hybridfahrzeug, ATZ Automobiletechnische Zeitschrift 99 (1997) 6, p. 316-32 (“Paefgen”); U.K. Patent Application Publication No.
`2 318 105 (“Probst”); C.P. Quigley, et al., Predicting the Use of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle, IFAC Workshop on Intelligent
`Components for Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Vehicles 29(4) (1996) 129-134 (“Quigley”); U.S. Patent No. 5,623,104
`(“Suga”); O. Vittone, et al., Fiat Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Cars Design, 12th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (1994)
`(“Vittone”); U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263 (“Yamaguchi”).
`
`- 1 -
`
`2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT J
`
`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`
`[a] determining instantaneous road load
`(RL) required to propel the hybrid
`vehicle responsive to an operator
`command;
`
`“Like claim 23, Severinsky [‘970] discloses the essential components of a hybrid electric
`vehicle, including an internal combustion engine, an electric motor, a an electric motor, a
`battery, and a microprocessor for controlling the vehicle’s mode of operation, i.e., an all-
`electric mode, an engine-only mode, or a hybrid mode.” IPR2014-00571, Final Written
`Decision, page 14.
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, page 20 (“We find that this limitation
`is disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`Severinsky ’970 discloses that the “microprocessor 48” determines the “instantaneous
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” so that the engine is operated only within
`its most efficient operating range. Severinsky ’970 at 16:67-17:15. Severinsky ’970
`discloses that the “microprocessor 48” determines whether the “engine 40,” “motor 20”
`or both “the engine 40 and the motor 20” should be operated in order to provide the
`“instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle.” Severinsky ’970 at 10:25-
`43.
`
`- 2 -
`
`3
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`Severinsky ’970 also discloses that the vehicle is operated “responsive to an operator
`command,” such as application of “accelerator and brake pedals.” Severinsky ’970 at
`13:16-21.
`Severinsky ’970 discloses that the “microprocessor 48” determines that “the
`instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is negative “when the vehicle
`starts down a hill, and the operator lifts his foot from the accelerator pedal.” Severinsky
`’970 at 10:32-34. During such negative torque requirements, Severinsky ’970 discloses
`that “the kinetic energy of the vehicle and the engine’s excess torque may be used to
`drive the motor 20 as a generator so as to charge the batteries.” Severinsky ’970 at
`10:32-36. Severinsky ’970 also teaches a “regenerative braking or coasting mode.”
`Severinsky ’970 at 14:37-53. In this mode the “microprocessor 48” monitors the
`operator’s inputs and the vehicle’s performance and will determine “if excess engine
`torque is available.” Severinsky ’970 at 14:15-21. Specifically, “the instantaneous
`torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is negative during “downhill stretches” and
`“the kinetic energy of the vehicle will be fed back from the road wheels 34 … to the
`electric motor 20” and stored in the battery. Severinsky ’970 at 14:47-53.
`Severinsky ’970 further discloses that the “microprocessor 48” determines that “the
`instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” may be positive when the
`vehicle “starts to climb a hill.” Severinsky ’970 at 10:36-37. During such positive torque
`requirements “the motor 20 is used to supplement the output torque of engine 40.”
`Severinsky ’970 at 10:37-38. Severinsky ‘970 also discloses that the “microprocessor
`48” determines that “the instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” may
`also be positive when the vehicle is “accelerating and the like.” Severinsky ’970 at
`10:40. During this positive torque requirement the “motor 20” is again used to “supply
`additional power as needed for acceleration.” Severinsky ’970 at 9:52-57, 14:22-36.
`Severinsky ’970 accounts for external forces that act on the vehicle so that the
`“instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” may be determined in
`
`- 3 -
`
`4
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`response to an operator’s command and the correct vehicle operation may be provided.
`Severinsky ’970 at 14:9-18.
`A skilled artisan would have understood that “wind conditions, road grading and the like”
`are used to calculate the textbook definition of “road load.” Severinsky ’970 therefore
`specifically acknowledges that the textbook “road load” forces are accounted for
`“responsive to the operator’s control inputs” (e.g., operation of the accelerator or brake
`pedals) in order to determine the “instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.”
`It was known prior to September 1998 that the textbook “road load” forces may cause
`“the instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” to be either positive or
`negative. For instance, “the instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle”
`may be negative when traveling downhill, thereby requiring the driver to lift off the
`accelerator pedal or press down on the brake pedal in order to slow down the vehicle
`acceleration. Alternatively, “the instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the
`vehicle” may be positive when traveling up a hill or when the driver requests increased
`acceleration, thereby requiring the driver to press down the accelerator pedal.
`The ’634 Patent also confirms that Severinsky ’970 teaches a hybrid vehicle that selects
`an operational mode by determining “the instantaneous torque required to propel the
`vehicle.” ‘634 Patent at 35:3-17.
`The ’634 Patent itself states that the torque-based control strategy disclosed by
`Severinsky ’970 is employed by the hybrid vehicle disclosed in the ’634 Patent. ‘634
`Patent at 25:4-24.
`“Although Severinsky describes the use of ‘speed’ as a factor considered by the
`microprocessor, Severinsky makes clear that the microprocessor also uses the vehicle’s
`‘torque’ requirements in determining when to run the engine.” IPR2014-00571, Final
`Written Decision, at 16. “And, while Severinsky may not use the term ‘road load’
`expressly, its description of the engine’s operation being ‘responsive to the load imposed
`by the vehicle’s propulsion requirements’ is the same as the engine being employed in
`
`- 4 -
`
`5
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`[b] operating at least one electric motor
`to propel the hybrid vehicle when the
`RL required to do so is less than a
`setpoint (SP)
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`response to ‘road load,’ which we have construed to mean ‘the torque required for
`propulsion of the vehicle.’ As such, we find that Severinsky teaches an engine control
`strategy that depends on road load, or ‘RL,’ as required by claim 23. IPR2014-00571,
`Final Written Decision, at 16.
`See also Severinsky ‘970 at 17:11-15.
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, pages 20-23 (“[W]e find that [this
`limitation] is disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses that the engine is only operated under its “most efficient
`conditions of output power and speed” which are between “60-90% of [the engine’s]
`maximum torque ...” Severinsky ’970 at 7:8-16; 20:63-66.
`When the “instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is below the
`predetermined torque value of 60% of the maximum torque output of the engine,
`Severinsky ’970 discloses that the “electric motor alone drives the vehicle forward and
`the internal combustion engine is used only to charge the batteries as needed.”
`Severinsky ‘970 at 7:8-16.
`In an application related to the ’634 Patent, the patentee tried to distinguish over
`Severinsky ‘970 on the basis that the engine control and mode switching is only based on
`speed, not the torque required for the propulsion of the vehicle. To the extent that the
`patentee raises that argument here, it is incorrect. Again, Severinsky ’970 states that
`efficient operation is based on the output power and speed. Severinsky ‘970 at 7:8-16.
`Further, the ’634 Patent itself acknowledges that Severinsky ’970 discloses using the
`“electric motor powered by electrical energy stored in a substantial battery bank drives
`the vehicle” when the “instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is
`below the engine’s efficient predetermined torque value. ‘634 Patent at 25:4-24.
`
`- 5 -
`
`6
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`[c] operating an internal combustion
`engine of the hybrid vehicle to propel
`the hybrid vehicle when the RL
`required to do so is between the SP and
`a maximum torque output (MTO) of the
`engine,
`
`[d] wherein the engine is operable to
`efficiently produce torque above the SP,
`and
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, pages 23-24 (“[W]e find that [this
`limitation]…[is] disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses that the engine is only operated under its “most efficient
`conditions of output power and speed” which are between “60-90% of [the engine’s]
`maximum torque ...” Severinsky ’970 at 7:8-16; 20:63-66.
`The 60% of the engine’s maximum torque output value would be understood by a skilled
`artisan as a lower level predetermined torque value (i.e., “lower level SP”). Severinsky
`’970 thus discloses that the engine is employed to propel the vehicle when the
`“instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is between 60% and 90% of
`the maximum torque output of the engine.
`The ’634 Patent itself acknowledges that Severinsky ’970 discloses that the “engine is
`used to propel the vehicle” when the “instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the
`vehicle” is between the engine’s efficient predetermined lower torque value and
`maximum torque value. ‘634 Patent at 25:4-24.
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, pages 23-24 (“[W]e find that [this
`limitation]…[is] disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses an “engine 40” and relates to a hybrid vehicle that associates
`the “relative power outputs of the internal combustion engine and the electric motor”
`such that the engine is operated only within its most efficient operating range.”
`Severinsky ‘970 at 9:40-46. Severinsky ‘970 is able to restrict operation of the engine to
`its most efficient range by sizing the “internal combustion engine of a hybrid vehicle …
`to supply adequate power for highway cruising, preferably with some additional power in
`reverse, so that the internal combustion engine operates only in its most efficient
`operating range.” Severinsky ‘970 at 9:47-52.
`
`- 6 -
`
`7
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`Severinsky ‘970 also discloses, “the internal combustion engine is operated only under
`the most efficient conditions of output power and speed.” Severinsky ‘970 at 7:8-16.
`Severinsky ‘970 further recognizes that these conditions of “output power” and “speed”
`are met when the “internal combustion engine is run only in the near vicinity of its most
`efficient operational point, that is, such that it produces 60-90% of its maximum torque,
`whenever operated.” Severinsky ‘970 at 20:63-66, 7:8-16.
`The ‘634 patent itself states that Severinsky ‘970 teaches an engine that is “capable of
`efficiently producing torque at loads between a lower level SP and a maximum torque
`output MTO.” ‘634 patent at 25:11-24.
`A skilled artisan would have understood the lower limit of Severinsky ‘970’s range
`(60%) to be a “lower level” setpoint. IPR2014-00571, Final Written Decision, at 17.
`“Severinsky specifies that the microprocessor runs the engine ‘only in the near vicinity of
`its most efficient operational point, that is, such that it produces 60–90% of its maximum
`torque whenever operated.’” IPR2014-00571, Final Written Decision, at 17.
`“Severinsky’s ‘operational point’ for the engine is no different than the ‘setpoint,’ or
`‘SP,’ called for by claim 23. Indeed, just as Severinsky’s ‘operational point’ is expressed
`in terms of a percentage of maximum torque—‘60–90% of its maximum torque’—so too
`is the claimed ‘setpoint.’” IPR2014-00571, Final Written Decision, at 17. “That
`Severinsky describes the operational point for the engine in terms similar to, if not the
`same as, the claimed invention runs counter to Paice’s argument that Severinsky employs
`the engine based on speed alone.” IPR2014-00571, Final Written Decision, at 17.
`“Thus, we find that Severinsky fulfills the claim requirement of employing the engine to
`propel the vehicle when the torque demand, or road load, is between a lower level
`setpoint (SP) and the engine’s maximum torque output (MTO).” IPR2014-00571, Final
`Written Decision, at 17.
`See also Severinsky ‘970 at 20:63-67.
`
`- 7 -
`
`8
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`[e] wherein the SP is substantially less
`than the MTO;
`
`[f] operating both the at least one
`electric motor and the engine to propel
`the hybrid vehicle when the torque RL
`required to do so is more than the MTO;
`and
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, pages 23-24 (“[W]e find that [this
`limitation]…[is] disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses that the engine is disclosed as being efficiently operated when
`the output power of the engine is between “60-90% of its maximum torque...”
`Severinsky ‘970 at 20:63-66. A skilled artisan would have understood the 60%
`predetermined torque value (i.e., “setpoint (SP)”) as being “substantially less than the
`MTO of the engine.”
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, pages 23-24 (“[W]e find that [this
`limitation]…[is] disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses that “electric motor 20” and “engine 40” are operated “when
`torque in excess of the capabilities of engine 40 is required.” Severinsky ’970 at 4:15-18.
`Therefore, Severinsky ’970 discloses that the engine and motor are employed to propel
`the vehicle when the “instantaneous torque required for propulsion of the vehicle” is
`more than the maximum torque output (MTO) of the engine. Severinsky ’970 at 14:23-
`36.
`The ’634 Patent acknowledges that Severinsky ’970 discloses that “both [the motor and
`engine are] operated simultaneously” when the “instantaneous torque required for
`propulsion of the vehicle” is above the engine’s and motor’s maximum torque output
`value. ‘634 Patent at 25:11-24.
`See also IPR2015-00801, Final Written Decision, pages 24-25 (“[W]e find that [this
`limitation] is disclosed by Severinsky ‘970.”).
`
`[g] monitoring patterns of vehicle
`operation over time and varying the SP
`accordingly.
`
`The ‘634 patent states that “[i]t is…within the scope of the invention for the
`microprocessor to monitor the vehicle’s operation over a period of days or weeks and
`reset this important setpoint in response to a repetitive driving pattern. For example,
`suppose the operator drives the same route from a congested suburban development to a
`
`- 8 -
`
`9
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`workplace about the same time every morning; typically the road load might remain
`under 20% of MTO for the first few minutes of each day, then vary between 0% and 50%
`of MTO for another few minutes as the operator passes through a few traffic lights, and
`then suddenly increase to 150% of MTO as the operator accelerates onto a highway.”
`‘634 patent at 40:50-61.
`The ‘634 patent admits that it is within the skill of a skilled artisan “to program a
`microprocessor to record and analyze such daily patterns, and to adapt the control
`strategy accordingly.” ‘634 patent at 40:61-63. The ‘634 patent gives an example where
`“the transition point might be adjusted to 60% of MTO; this would prevent repetitive
`engine starts as the road load exceeded 30% of MTO for a few hundred yards at a time,
`as might often occur in suburban traffic. Similarly, the engine starting routine might be
`initiated after the same total distance has been covered each day.” ‘634 patent at 40:63-
`41:3.
`The ‘634 patent also describes that the SP may be a function of engine speed. E.g., ‘634
`patent at claim 12. This is consistent with the Board’s decision in IPR2014-00904, which
`reasoned as follows: “Paice argues that Ford glosses over Severinsky’s disclosure that
`the engine is turned off during ‘low speed’ or ‘traffic’ situations, and turned on during
`‘moderate speed’ or ‘highway cruising’ situations. Those disclosures, however, do not
`foreclose Severinsky from teaching that the engine’s torque requirements as a
`determinative factor of when to employ the engine. In other words, torque and speed are
`not mutually exclusive concepts. Indeed, the ’634 patent itself speaks of ‘speed’ when
`describing the vehicle’s various operating modes, stating that ‘the traction motor provides
`torque to propel the vehicle in low-speed situations’ and ‘[d]uring substantially steady-
`state operation, e.g., during highway cruising, the control system operates the engine.’
`Thus, just as ‘speed’ plays some role in the modes of operation in the ’634 patent, so too
`does it in Severinsky.” IPR2014-00904, Final Written Decision, pages 15-16 (citations
`omitted); see also ‘634 patent at 17:47-48, 19:45-46.
`
`- 9 -
`
`10
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses that the “[m]icroprocessor 48 monitors the operator’s inputs
`and the vehicle’s performance.” Severinksy ‘970 at 14:15-22. Severinksy ‘970 also
`discloses a “speed-responsive hysteresis in mode switching” where in certain
`circumstances “it is preferable to use the engine somewhat inefficiently rather than to
`discharge the batteries excessively, which would substantially reduce the battery
`lifetime.” Severinsky ‘970 at 18:23-42. This case exists “[a]t moderate speeds, as
`experienced in suburban driving,” where “the speed of the vehicle on average is between
`30-45 mph.” Severinsky ‘970 at 18:34-36. “The vehicle will operate in a highway mode
`with the engine running constantly after the vehicle reaches a speed of 30-35 mph. The
`engine will continue to run unless the engine speed is reduced to 20-25 mph for a period
`of time, typically 2-3 minutes.” Severinsky ‘970 at 18:36-40. To employ the hysteresis
`mode switching, Severinsky ‘970 further teaches that “[t]he engine will continue to run
`unless the engine speed is reduced to 20-25 mph for a period of time, typically 2-3
`minutes.” Id. at 18:36-40. Severinsky ‘970’s method must monitor the speed pattern at
`which the driver is operating the vehicle over time to make a determination that suburban
`driving is occurring, in which case the setpoint is varied so that the engine is not
`repeatedly started and shut-off, as it would if left unchanged in highway mode.
`Adler:
`Adler discloses a control system for a hybrid vehicle that alters the operating point of the
`internal combustion engine in an “optimal” manner. Adler at Abstract. Adler explains
`that the control unit in the vehicle may contain a “learning function.” Adler at 4:45-48.
`“The control unit counts the occurrence of braking and accelerating processes within a
`determined time window. If the average occurrence exceeds a threshold value, a "city
`driving" mode, i.e. a quasi exclusive electromotive drive, is automatically switched on,
`wherein, depending on its charge state, the storage is only charged occasionally by
`switching on the internal combustion engine.” Id. at 5:48-55.
`Adler specifies that “[i]f the average frequency of braking and accelerating processes
`exceeds a threshold value, the control unit 20 automatically switches to an operation in
`
`- 10 -
`
`11
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`which the internal combustion engine 4 is only switched on to recharge the accumulator
`22. In principle, the drive is effected exclusively with output from the accumulator 22.
`The latter is not only charged by the internal combustion engine, but also by current
`generated by the electric motors 12 and 16 which operate as generators when braking or
`in thrusting operation of the vehicle. Adler at 9:17-32.
`Drozdz:
`Drozdz discloses a control system that “utilizes a strategy modified in real time
`depending on the input from sensors measuring the vehicle speed, the current and voltage
`levels at different locations in the system. An onboard computer continuously calculates
`the state of charge of the energy storage device such as the battery and the motor load and
`analyzes the statistical parameters of the energy storage device and motor load history.
`An expert system algorithm is provided to detect patterns and current operating
`conditions.” Drozdz at 2:30-39.
`Drozdz describes that “vehicle speed, motor voltage and current, auxiliary power unit
`voltage and current and battery voltage and current data are sampled and stored in data
`buffers. The sampling frequency and the length of the buffers may vary depending on the
`system characteristics and vehicle's operating regime. Two types of data buffers are used:
`a short one (30-90 seconds) for control purposes and a long one (300-500 seconds) for
`driving pattern recognition.” Id. at 6:18-26.
`Drozdz refers to three typical driving modes: “high load”; “low load”; and “regenerative
`braking mode.” It also explains that there may be other modes. Drozdz at 3:54-4:16.
`Drozdz discloses a control system that “provides a dynamic control of the hybrid vehicle
`to ensure the best utilization of the onboard energy resources for the given operating
`conditions. This can be accomplished by controlling the output level of the auxiliary
`power unit (primary energy source) to ensure the highest possible combined efficiency of
`primary energy generation and energy exchange with the storage device. For example, in
`a system consisting of an engine/generator set and an electrochemical battery, the engine
`
`- 11 -
`
`12
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`output should be selected to minimize thermal and mechanical engine losses and reduce
`the battery use to minimum regardless of road load conditions. The control system
`utilizes a strategy modified in real time depending on the input from sensors measuring
`the vehicle speed, the current and voltage levels at different locations in the system. An
`onboard computer continuously calculates the state of charge of the energy storage device
`such as the battery and the motor load and analyzes the statistical parameters of the
`energy storage device and motor load history. An expert system algorithm is provided to
`detect patterns and current operating conditions. The control program defines the
`conditions under which the control strategy is modified and performs the hardware
`control functions.” Drozdz at 2:19-46.
`Drozdz also explains that the controller calculates a required generator output based on
`analysis of road load history which is determined from motor current and voltage data.”
`Id. at 4:52-55.
`Farrall:
`Farrall describes a control method for a vehicle include “an electric motor powered by an
`electrical power source and an engine powered by combustible fuel.” Farrall at 1:59-62.
`Farrall notes that “[e]missions regulations which must be met by vehicles are becoming
`increasingly strict” and hybrid vehicles are useful to meeting those regulations. Farrall at
`1:10-23. Farrall notes as background four different zones where the motor and engine are
`used in differing combinations: (1) where “the electric part of the powertrain will be
`unable to make a useful contribution because of the amount of power and energy
`required,” (2) where the internal combustion engine can make no contribution” in a “zero
`emission zone,” (3) where “[t]he power for propelling the vehicle could be drawn partly
`from the internal combustion engine and partly from the electric motor,” and (4) where
`the electric motor is used “to oppose the internal combustion engine of the vehicle, in
`order to increase the state of charge of the battery used to power the electric motor.”
`Farrall at 1:29-46.
`
`- 12 -
`
`13
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`Farrall describes that its powertrain controller can be dependent on “fuzzy rules [that] are
`repeatedly modified after a period of time called the adaptation interval…which can be
`50 seconds for example.” Farrall at 4:58-60. During this adaptation interval, the
`powertrain controller “uses the pedal movement value and the engine speed to calculate”
`values to be used by the controller during a “controller sampling interval.” Farrall at
`4:66-5:4. Depending on these various values and their changes over time during the
`adaptation interval, the “fuzzy rules” are modified accordingly. Farrall at 5:4-18.
`In other words, Farrall discloses that its “driving rules are identified by the use of the
`controller 20 over an adaptation interval and, since this use will vary depending upon the
`driver of the vehicle and the route being driven, the hybrid vehicle powertrain can adapt
`to use the energy resources of the vehicle in the correct ratio for different drivers over
`different routes.” Farrall at 5:66-6:5. Farrall thus discloses that its powertrain controller
`can “adapt to the different driving characteristics between drivers” and “allows the
`vehicle performance to meet the requirements of different drivers.” Farrall at 6:34-37.
`Farrall further describes that its “adaptive hybrid powertrain controller is very useful in
`the mode where the electric motor 16 assists the internal combustion engine 14.” Farrall
`at 6:54-56. “Many vehicle users have a fixed pattern of vehicle usage which does not
`vary greatly from day to day. For such users there is a considerable advantage in being
`able to deplete their battery to a reasonably low, but safe, depth of discharge every day
`and recharge the battery overnight. The signal Fd can be provided by a potentiometer, or
`some other device that the user of a vehicle can adjust to bias the actions of the
`powertrain controller 20 more towards the electric motor 14 or the internal combustion
`engine 16 of the vehicle. Over a period of a few days the user of the vehicle can adjust
`the value of Fd so that the desired depth of battery discharge is obtained over daily
`monitoring. Where the user varies the customary usage of the vehicle, a different mode
`of powertrain operation could be selected.” Farrall at 6:56-7:3.
`Frank:
`
`- 13 -
`
`14
`
`

`

`Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 Claims 33-44, 46, 49, 50, 52-55, 68, 105, 188, 189, 199-206, 208, 211-214, 242, and 268
`over Severinsky ‘970 in View of One or More of Secondary References
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634
`
`Severinsky ‘9701 + One or More Secondary References2
`Frank describes a method to “control[] fuel consumption” for “hybrid powered vehicles.”
`Frank at 1:15-18. Frank has the goal of “provid[ing] a control system for a hybrid
`electric vehicle powertrain which can provide super fuel and energy efficiency.” Frank at
`4:46-48. Frank states that it is possible with its methods to achieve fuel savings of 95-
`97%. Frank at 3:41-56.
`Frank discloses a method of operating a hybrid vehicle, and particularly “operating the
`electric motor (EM) and internal combustion engine (ICE) in a hybrid electric vehicle
`(HEV) separately or together depending upon the driving conditions.” Frank at 1:15-18,
`2:18-22, Fig. 10.
`Frank at Fig. 10:
`
`Frank includes a microprocessor which “receives signals from an accelerator pedal
`330…and signals from a brake pedal 340. … Based on these inputs, microprocessor 320
`then outputs co