`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`
`Patent Owner; and
`
`ETHANOL BOOSTING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`
`Exclusive Licensee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: IPR 2019-01400
`Patent 8,069,839
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3100160.v1
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`A. U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839 ..................................................................... 6
`B.
`References Relied Upon in the Petition and Proposed Grounds
`for Institution ......................................................................................... 8
`1.
`Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Publication
`No. JPS63230920 to Takehiko Kiyota (“Takehiko”) (Ex.
`1029) ........................................................................................... 8
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,607 (“Kobayashi”) (Ex. 1005). ............... 9
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
`JP2002227697 (“Kinjiro”) (Ex. 1008). ..................................... 11
`German Patent Application No. DE19853799
`(“Rubbert”) (Ex. 1007). ............................................................ 12
`Bosch Automotive Handbook (3rd Ed.) (“Bosch”) (Ex.
`1031). ........................................................................................ 13
`Proposed grounds for institution ......................................................... 13
`C.
`THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`II.
`LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 1 – 8 OF THE ’839 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE .................................................................................................. 13
`A. Ground 1 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Takehiko renders Claims 1, 2 and 5-8
`unpatentable as anticipated .................................................................. 14
`1.
`Claims 1, 2 and 5-8; The Petitioner fails to show that
`Takehiko inherently discloses that “above a selected
`torque value the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to
`fuel that is port injected increases.” .......................................... 14
`Claims 1, 2 and 5-8; The Petitioner fails to show that
`Takehiko discloses “a spark ignition engine . . . operated
`at a substantially stoichiometric fuel/air ratio.” ........................ 18
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`2
`
`

`

`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`Ground 2 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Takehiko and Kobayashi render Claims 3 and 4
`unpatentable ......................................................................................... 21
`1.
`Claims 3 and 4; The Petitioner fails to show that the
`combination of Takehiko and Kobayashi teaches or
`suggests “a spark ignition engine . . . wherein above a
`selected torque value the ratio of fuel that is directly
`injected to fuel that is port injected increases… operated
`at a substantially stoichiometric fuel/air ratio.” ........................ 21
`Claims 3 and 4; The Petitioner fails to show that the
`combination of Takehiko and Kobayashi teaches or
`suggests “where the ratio of directly injected fuel is
`determined by a signal from a knock detector.” ....................... 22
`Claims 3 and 4; Petitioner fails completely to analyze the
`limitations of dependent Claim 2, from which Claims 3
`and 4 depend ............................................................................. 24
`Ground 3 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Kinjiro renders Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 unpatentable
`as anticipated ....................................................................................... 26
`1.
`The Petitioner fails to show that Kinjiro discloses
`“wherein above a selected torque value the ratio of fuel
`that is directly injected to fuel that is port injected
`increases.” ................................................................................. 26
`D. Ground 4 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Kinjiro and Kobayashi render Claim 5
`unpatentable ......................................................................................... 31
`Ground 5 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Rubbert and Bosch render Claims 1-5 and 8
`unpatentable ......................................................................................... 32
`1.
`Claims 1-5 and 8; The Petitioner fails to show that the
`combination of Rubbert and Bosch teach or suggest “a
`spark ignition engine . . . operated at a substantially
`stoichiometric fuel/air ratio.” .................................................... 32
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`
`
`3100160.v1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`CFTM, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............ 22
`
`Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............. 26
`
`Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
` .............................................................................................................................. 15
`
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 936 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................... 15, 16, 27, 30
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................. 13, 20
`
`In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .................................................. 15
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) .................................................................................................................... 26
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 13, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 6
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 38
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) ................................................................................................. 39
`
`
`
`
`3100160.v1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully submits this Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, responding to the Petition for inter partes review (the
`
`“Petition”) filed by Ford Motor Company (“Petitioner”) regarding the claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839 (the “’839 Patent”).
`
`This Preliminary Response focuses on a set of claim elements that easily and
`
`simply demonstrate that Petitioner fails to demonstrate a basis for Institution.
`
`Patent Owner does not address the numerous other arguments that Petitioner makes
`
`for Institution, but Patent Owner disagrees with those arguments. However, it is
`
`unnecessary to address all of Petitioner’s arguments because the below elements
`
`simply demonstrate that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that
`
`any of Claims 1 – 8 of the ’839 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`Generally, the efficiency of spark ignition (SI) gasoline engines can be
`
`increased by high compression ratio operation and by engine downsizing. Engine
`
`downsizing is made possible by using substantial pressure boosting from either
`
`turbocharging or supercharging. Such pressure boosting makes it possible to obtain
`
`the same performance in a significantly smaller engine, thereby increasing
`
`efficiency. The use of these techniques to increase engine efficiency, however, is
`
`3100160.v1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`limited by the onset of “engine knock.” Engine knock is the undesired detonation
`
`of fuel and can severely damage an engine. If engine knock can be suppressed,
`
`then higher compression ratio operation and higher-pressure boosting can be used
`
`to increase engine efficiency. See ’839 Patent at 1:18-32.
`
`The ’839 Patent discloses a fuel management system for a spark ignition
`
`engine that uses both port fuel injection and direct fuel injection, and that controls
`
`the direct fuel injection in such a way as to control knock and minimize the amount
`
`of directly injected fuel that is used. The invention improves over the prior art by
`
`disclosing how to suppress knock so that higher compression ratios or downsized
`
`engines with turbo- or supercharging can be used to increase the efficiency of the
`
`engine. See, e.g., ’839 Patent at 1:18-41; id. at 1:66 to 2:15. (“[A] fuel management
`
`system for efficient operation of a spark ignition gasoline engine including a
`
`source of an antiknock agent such as ethanol. An injector directly injects the
`
`ethanol into a cylinder of the engine and a fuel management system controls
`
`injection of the antiknock agent into the cylinder to control knock with minimum
`
`use of the antiknock agent… Wherever ethanol is used herein it is to be understood
`
`that other antiknock agents are contemplated”).
`
`3100160.v1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`B. References Relied Upon in the Petition and Proposed Grounds for
`Institution
`The Petition relies on five references in support of its five proposed grounds
`
`for institution:
`
`1.
`Unexamined Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
`JPS63230920 to Takehiko Kiyota (“Takehiko”) (Ex. 1029)
`Takehiko teaches a spark ignition engine. As background, Takehiko explains
`
`that, in prior art engines, “[t]o avoid knocking, these engines supply injected
`
`gasoline stratified along the cylinder wall (stratified charging) and attempt to
`
`improve fuel economy by achieving a high compression ratio.” Ex. 1029 at 2, ¶ 1.
`
`However, this stratified, high pressure injection approach caused problems with
`
`both emissions and with injection valve durability. See id. at 2, ¶ 1 (referring to
`
`“problems of exhausting a large amount of uncombusted hydrocarbons (HC) and
`
`smoke” and teaching that “there can be a problem with the durability of these fuel
`
`pumps, etc.”). As a result of these emissions and durability problems, “such
`
`engines have not yet reached mass production levels in commercially sold
`
`vehicles.” Id.
`
`Instead of stratified charging, Takehiko teaches placing the direct injection
`
`valve so that it is “positioned … [to] directly inject[] gasoline toward [the] exhaust
`
`valve.” Id. at 2, ¶ 4. By “cooling of the hotspot … around [the] exhaust valve,”
`
`“generation of knocking in the area around [the] exhaust valve [] is prevented.” Id.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`at 4, ¶ 1. To reduce fuel pump wear, Takehiko teaches that its direct injection is “of
`
`the low fuel pressure type.” Id. at 3, ¶ 4.
`
`Takehiko teaches “[e]ven when the air-fuel ratio” is “near the ideal air-fuel
`
`ratio, there is no danger of knocking…” Id. at 4, ⁋ 1 (emphasis added).
`
`Stating that with lower pressure direct injection “the amount of fuel supplied
`
`... from the [direct] injector [] is limited …,” id. at 4 ¶ 4, Takehiko teaches that “it
`
`is advantageous to add [a] sub-injector [port injector] along with the main [direct
`
`injector]….” Id. at 4 ¶ 4. At high loads, “[i]f the amount of fuel supplied by main
`
`injector 22 alone is insufficient, the lacking amount can be made up by supplying
`
`by injection to engine 1 from sub-injector 21.” Id. at 4 ¶ 2. “[A]t times of low-load
`
`driving … it is acceptable to supply injected fuel into intake port 16 from sub-
`
`injector 21 without supplying injection from main injector 22.” Id. at 4 ¶ 2.
`
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,607 (“Kobayashi”) (Ex. 1005).
`Kobayashi teaches a premixed compression ignition engine. Ex. 1005 at
`
`1:33-44. As background, Kobayashi explains that “internal combustion engines…
`
`are… widely used,” id. at 1:18-19, and that “reducing the emission of air
`
`pollutants” and “reduction of [] fuel consumption” from these engines has been
`
`“demanded”, id. at 1:27-33.
`
`According to Kobayashi, this demand could be met with a type of internal
`
`combustion engine called the “premix internal combustion engine,” operating with
`
`3100160.v1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`lean air-fuel ratios. Id. at 1:38-42. “[T]he premix compression ignition combustion
`
`system combusts the air-fuel ratio having a large excess air ratio and thus
`
`significantly reduces the emission of air pollutants….” Id. at 23:5-7; accord id. at
`
`21:49-52 (explaining that the “excellent characteristics” of the premix compression
`
`ignition engine in reducing both emissions and fuel consumption “may be ascribed
`
`to three factors, ‘increased isovolume level,’ ‘increased excess air ratio,’ and
`
`‘increased specific heat.’”).
`
`However, a limitation on the use of these engines is that “[u]nder some
`
`driving conditions … the timing of auto-igniting the air-fuel mixture is too early,
`
`and the air-fuel mixture is undesirably auto-ignited in the course of compression.
`
`This leads to the occurrence of severe knocking.” Id. at 1:44-49; see also id. at
`
`5:5-25.
`
`Kobayashi purports to solve this problem by using an especially lean fuel
`
`mixture at higher loads to prevent auto-ignition due to compression by the piston
`
`alone. See id. at 15:25-40, 15:60-64. To trigger autoignition at the desired time,
`
`Kobayashi then adds a module to the compression ignition engine that causes a
`
`rapid pressure increase in the cylinder. See id. at 16:16-26 and 17:22-25. This
`
`module works by directly injecting fuel into the cylinder “in the vicinity of top
`
`dead center” of the compression stroke and then igniting it. “Combustion of even a
`
`small quantity of the fuel thus effectively heightens the internal pressure.” Id. at
`
`3100160.v1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`20:21 and 20:23-25. This pressure spike causes compression ignition of the fuel
`
`mixture.
`
`Kobayashi teaches that with the addition of its module, the lean-burn premix
`
`compression ignition engine can be used across a range of loads, with attendant
`
`efficiency and emissions advantages:
`
`The engine 10 of the embodiment enables the air-fuel mixture to be
`compressed and auto-ignited under the high loading conditions as well
`as under the low loading conditions. Adoption of the premix
`compression ignition combustion system significantly reduces the
`emission of the air pollutants from the internal combustion engine and
`the fuel consumption of the internal combustion engine. The engine 10
`of the embodiment allows the air-fuel mixture to be compressed and
`auto-ignited, regardless of the engine loading level. This arrangement
`ensures more effective reduction of the emission of the air pollutants
`and the fuel consumption.
`
`Id. at 19:17-26.
`
`3.
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2002227697
`(“Kinjiro”) (Ex. 1008).
`Kinjiro teaches a spark ignition engine. According to Kinjiro, knocking in
`
`spark ignition engines is dependent on the temperature and pressure in the
`
`combustion chamber, as well as on the air-fuel ratio. Ex. 1008 at ¶0002. Kinjiro
`
`identifies engine speed and load as variables that influence the tendency of an
`
`engine to knock: “At low engine speeds, the mixture is exposed to a high
`
`3100160.v1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`temperature combustion chamber wall for a long time, the mixture temperature
`
`rises, so it is easy to self-ignite, therefore it is extremely prone to knocking under
`
`low speed and high load conditions.” Id. at ¶0003.
`
`4.
` German Patent Application No. DE19853799 (“Rubbert”)
`(Ex. 1007).
`Rubbert teaches a spark ignition engine. According to Rubbert, direct
`
`injection spark ignition engines suffered disadvantages such as “higher HC, CO,
`
`and soot emissions,” and “deposits on intake valves and on the injection valve.”
`
`Ex. 1007 at ¶3. “It is the problem of the invention to propose an improved method
`
`of mixture formation for a mixture-compressing, external-ignition internal
`
`combustion engine with fuel injection.” Id. at ¶4.
`
`According to Rubbert, these goals are achieved through “a combination of
`
`induction pipe [port] injection and direct injection through partial injection
`
`amounts controlled or regulated based on load.” Id. at ¶8. Rubbert teaches the
`
`following load ranges: “idling and partial” and “full.” In the idling/partial load
`
`range “the greater portion of fuel in the mixture is injected by induction pipe [port]
`
`than by direct injection.” Id. at ¶9. In the full load range “the fuel portion in the
`
`mixture can be mostly or completely injected by direct injection.” Id. at ¶10.
`
`Rubbert does not teach or suggest how, if at all, either direct injection or port
`
`injection varies within each of the ranges.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`5.
`Bosch Automotive Handbook (3rd Ed.) (“Bosch”) (Ex. 1031).
`Bosch is a general-purpose engine handbook.
`
`C. Proposed grounds for institution
`The proposed grounds are summarized in the table below:
`
`’839 Patent
`Claims
`1, 2 & 5-8
`3 & 4
`1 – 4, 6 & 7
`5
`1-5 & 8
`
`Primary
`Reference
`Takehiko
`Takehiko
`Kinjiro
`Kinjiro
`Rubbert
`
`Secondary
`Reference(s)
`
`Kobayashi
`
`Kobayashi
`Bosch
`
`Type of Challenge
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 102
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`II. THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY OF CLAIMS 1 – 8 OF THE ’839 PATENT
`IS UNPATENTABLE
` “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to
`
`show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic
`
`Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity...
`
`the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The
`
`Petition should be denied institution because it fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that any of Claims 1 – 8 of the ’839 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`A. Ground 1 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Takehiko renders Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 unpatentable as
`anticipated
`The Petition fails to explain with the requisite particularity to support
`
`Institution how Takehiko renders Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 unpatentable as anticipated
`
`by Takehiko.
`
`1.
`Claims 1, 2 and 5-8; The Petitioner fails to show that
`Takehiko inherently discloses that “above a selected torque value
`the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to fuel that is port injected
`increases.”
`Petitioner relies entirely on an inherency argument in asserting that
`
`Takehiko discloses this claim limitation. According to Petitioner, Takehiko teaches
`
`that, “[a]t low loads, PI alone may be used,” and that “[a]t higher loads, DI may be
`
`used either alone or in combination with PI depending on the injection volume of
`
`[the] main injector.” Pet. at 15. However, because “Takehiko does not explicitly
`
`describe how the above engine operation is controlled,” Ex. 1003 ¶ 110, as
`
`Petitioner’s expert expressly acknowledges, Petitioner is forced to rely on a two-
`
`part inherency argument to contend that Takehiko implicitly discloses the claim
`
`limitation. Pet. at 15-16.
`
`First, Petitioner asserts that “A POSITA would understand that Takehiko
`
`implicitly teaches the use of open loop control to manage its engine operation, as
`
`Takehiko necessarily has a load or torque value whereby its engine begins to rely
`
`on DI to prevent knock.” Pet. at 16 (emphasis added). Second, Petitioner asserts
`
`3100160.v1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`further that “the engine of Takehiko is necessarily programmed to switch from PI
`
`only to DI at a predetermined (i.e., selected) threshold computed from variables
`
`including load value.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner is wrong that both elements are necessarily taught by Takehiko,
`
`relies on conclusory and unsupported assertions to support its inherency argument,
`
`and fails to acknowledge the high bar for establishing a claim element by
`
`inherency. Specifically, “[a]n element may be inherently disclosed only if it is
`
`necessarily present, not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.”
`
`Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 936 F.3d 1353, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2019) (citations and quotation marks omitted). “Inherency…may not be
`
`established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Cont’l Can Co. USA,
`
`Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added)
`
`(quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)).
`
`Petitioner fails to even establish the premise for its inherency argument: that
`
`open loop control is necessarily present in Takehiko. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`asserts that Takehiko necessarily relies on “open loop control to manage its engine
`
`operation,” because “Takehiko is silent on the use of knock detectors….” Pet. at
`
`16. In other words, Petitioner implies that because Takehiko does not disclose
`
`knock detectors, open loop control would be needed to control the engine, and that
`
`3100160.v1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`if open loop control were used, then the engine would be programmed to switch
`
`from PI only to DI at a predetermined threshold. Id.; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 110 (“Without
`
`a knock detection apparatus, to prevent knock Takehiko would need to anticipate
`
`circumstances or parameters indicative of knock, and this would be implemented
`
`through open loop control.”). Petitioner fails to explain, however, why Takehiko’s
`
`engine is necessarily “implemented through open loop control.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 110.
`
`And indeed, Petitioner relies on logical fallacies to support its conclusion.
`
`First, Petitioner assumes that because a knock detector is not mentioned in
`
`Takehiko, it must be the case that, instead of relying on a knock detector, Takehiko
`
`must instead rely on open-loop control. Id. But Petitioner’s logic is fatally and
`
`incurably flawed, because by Petitioner’s own admission, the engine control
`
`necessary to satisfy this limitation can be implemented at least through either (a) a
`
`knock detector, or (b) open loop control. And because at least these two means can
`
`be used, it follows that open-loop control is not “necessarily present” in Takehiko.
`
`Guangdong Alison, 936 F.3d at 1364 (element not inherently disclosed if it is
`
`“merely probably or possibly present”). Specifically, Petitioner acknowledges that
`
`neither a knock detector nor open loop control is taught by Takehiko, because
`
`“Takehiko does not explicitly describe how the above engine operation is
`
`controlled.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 110.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`Because open loop control is not necessarily used in Takehiko—which is the
`
`premise of Petitioner’s inherency argument—the remainder of Petitioner’s
`
`inherency argument also fails. Because open loop control is not necessarily used,
`
`then the engine does not necessarily switch from PI only to DI at a predetermined
`
`threshold. For this reason alone, the claimed limitation is not necessarily present
`
`in Takehiko.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner admits that engine operation could be controlled by use of
`
`a knock detector. Id. (“It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that Takehiko implicitly teaches the use of open loop control to
`
`manage its engine operation because Takehiko is silent on the use of any knock
`
`detection apparatus.” (emphasis added)). For Petitioner’s own logic to hold any
`
`water, Takehiko would have to expressly disclaim the use of a knock detector. But
`
`because Takehiko simply does not “describe how the…engine operation is
`
`controlled,” id., Takehiko necessarily permits its engine to be controlled by at least
`
`a knock detector or open loop control. Thus, Takehiko does not necessarily require
`
`implementation through open-loop control, which is necessary to Petitioner’s
`
`subsequent assertion that Takehiko is “necessarily programmed to switch from PI
`
`only to DI at a predetermined (i.e., selected) threshold computed from variables
`
`including load value.” Pet. at 16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 110.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish even the first premise of its
`
`argument that Takehiko teaches that “above a selected torque value the ratio of fuel
`
`that is directly injected to fuel that is port injected increases.”
`
`For at least the above reasons, Petitioner fails to show that independent
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Takehiko. It follows that claims dependent on Claim 1
`
`likewise are not anticipated, for at least the same reasons. The Petition thus fails to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are unpatentable over
`
`Takehiko.
`
`2.
`Claims 1, 2 and 5-8; The Petitioner fails to show that
`Takehiko discloses “a spark ignition engine . . . operated at a
`substantially stoichiometric fuel/air ratio.”
`Petitioner argues that Takehiko discloses an engine “operated at a
`
`substantially stoichiometric fuel/air ratio.” In support, Petitioner relies Takehiko’s
`
`statement “[e]ven when the air-fuel ratio” is “near the ideal air-fuel ratio, there is
`
`no danger of knocking…” Id. at 4, ⁋ 1 (emphasis added); Pet. at 18.
`
`Petitioner then asserts that “[t]he term ‘ideal air-fuel ratio’ is synonymous
`
`with the term ‘stoichiometric air-fuel ratio,’” and that this passage thus necessarily
`
`teaches “a spark ignition engine . . . operated at a substantially stoichiometric
`
`fuel/air ratio.” Pet. at 19. Petitioner is wrong.
`
`Petitioner asserts without any explanation that Takehiko’s single reference to
`
`“near” an “ideal air-fuel ratio” necessarily teaches engine operation that is
`
`3100160.v1
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`“substantially stoichiometric” within the meaning of the claims. Petitioner’s
`
`failure to address this key issue is a striking omission, given that the other
`
`references Petitioner relies on appear to suggest that “substantially stoichiometric”
`
`operation requires engine operation that fluctuates in a narrow window about a
`
`stoichiometric mean. For instance, in Exhibit 1028, cited by Petitioner at Page 25
`
`of the Petition, the reference discloses that “[t]he air/fuel mixture does not stabilize
`
`at 14.7:1 precisely. Instead, the air/fuel ratio continually switches between rich and
`
`lean on each side of 14.7:1.” Ex. 1028 at 4:59-61; see also id. at FIG. 3A (showing
`
`fluctuations between 14.5 and 14.9 on either side of 14.7); see also Ex. 1031 at 481
`
`(Bosch Handbook) (teaching that there is a “narrow” “window” around the
`
`“stoichiometric mixture” that is compatible with “[t]he three-way or selective
`
`catalytic converter”). Takehiko does not disclose what constitutes “a value…near
`
`the ideal air-fuel ratio.”
`
`The Petitioner’s attempt to rely on a conclusory assertion by its expert is
`
`critically incomplete on this claim limitation. Petitioner’s expert states: “A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term ‘ideal air-fuel ratio’ is
`
`synonymous with the term ‘stoichiometric air-fuel ratio’.” Exhibit 1003, ⁋ 113.
`
`However, merely asserting that “ideal” is synonymous with “stoichiometric,” even
`
`taken at face value, is critically lacking in a showing that “near ideal” is the same
`
`as “substantially stoichiometric.” The Petitioner has therefore failed to show any
`
`3100160.v1
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`evidence of this claim limitation in Takehiko: the Petitioner has failed to show a
`
`teaching of “substantially stoichiometric” (emphasis added) in the reference.
`
`In view of this lack of analysis, Petitioner has failed to make a showing for
`
`institution on this ground and therefore has not met its burden. See Harmonic Inc.
`
`v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable”;
`
`requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity... the evidence
`
`that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)).
`
`For this additional reason, Petitioner therefore fails to show that independent
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Takehiko. It follows that claims dependent on Claim 1
`
`likewise are not anticipated, for at least the same reasons. The Petition therefore
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are
`
`unpatentable over Takehiko.
`
`3100160.v1
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`B. Ground 2 should be denied for failure to establish a reasonable
`likelihood that Takehiko and Kobayashi render Claims 3 and 4
`unpatentable
`1.
`Claims 3 and 4; The Petitioner fails to show that the
`combination of Takehiko and Kobayashi teaches or suggests “a
`spark ignition engine . . . wherein above a selected torque value
`the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to fuel that is port injected
`increases… operated at a substantially stoichiometric fuel/air
`ratio.”
`Here, as it did for Claim 1, Petitioner relies on Takehiko to “implicitly
`
`disclose[] using open loop control to determine the ratio of DI to PI fuel,” Pet. at
`
`26 (Claim 3); accord Pet. at 28 (Claim 4), as a basis for its showing that “above a
`
`selected torque value the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to fuel that is port
`
`injected increases.” In support of an alleged motivation to combine, Petitioner
`
`states “it would be apparent to a POSITA to utilize both open loop control, as in
`
`Takehiko, and closed loop control, as in Kobayashi.” Pet. at 25.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments fail for at least the same reasons as stated above for
`
`Ground 1 (regarding Claims 1, 2 and 5-8): Takehiko fails to inherently disclose
`
`open loop control, and hence Petitioner’s argument for “above a selected torque
`
`value the ratio of fuel that is directly injected to fuel that is port injected increases,”
`
`fails for at least the same reasons as for Claim 1. In addition, Petitioner’s
`
`arguments for Claim 3 and 4 do not remedy its failure to address the limitation of
`
`“substantially stoichiometric” operation in Claim 1, and Petitioner again relies
`
`3100160.v1
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR 2019-01400
`U.S. Patent No. 8,069,839
`solely on Takehiko. Petitioner does not attempt to argue that Kobayashi teaches
`
`this limitation.
`
`The Petition thus fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Takehiko,
`
`alone or in combination with Kobayashi, renders the claims obvious. See CFTM,
`
`Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]bviousness
`
`requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”).
`
`2.
`Claims 3 and 4; The Petitioner fails to show that the
`combination of Takehiko and Kobayashi teaches or suggests
`“where the ratio of directly injected fuel is determined by a signal
`from a knock detector.”
`
`In addition to the critical omissions identified above, Petitioner also fails to
`
`show that the combination of Takehiko and Kobayashi teaches or suggests “where
`
`the ratio of directly injected fuel is determined by a signal from a knock detector,”
`
`which is a common element for dependent Claims 3 and 4. For this element,
`
`Petitioner concedes that Takehiko is “silent regarding a need for a knock detector”
`
`(Pet. at 23) and relies entirely on Kobayashi to argue that Kobayashi teaches
`
`determining the ratio of dir