Paper 38
`Entered November 23, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered November 23, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Ford Motor Company (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,388
`B2 (Ex. 1001; “the ’388 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Paice LLC & The Abell
`Foundation, Inc. (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`instituted inter partes review of the ʼ388 patent, on December 11, 2014,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as to claims 1, 3, and 19 as obvious over Ehsani2
`and Vittone,3 claim 2 as obvious over Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni,4 claim
`6 as obvious over Ehsani, Vittone, and Fjällström,5 claim 12 as obvious over
`Ehsani, Vittone, and Yamaguchi,6 and claims 1, 3, 4, and 19 as obvious over
`Kawakatsu7 and Vittone. Paper 11 (“Dec.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 19, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner
`filed a Reply (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed both redacted and unredacted versions of its
`Preliminary Response. Papers 7, 8. Our Decision cites to the redacted
`version, i.e., Paper 8, which is marked “Public.”
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613, issued Dec. 24, 1996 (Ex. 1003) (“Ehsani”).
`3 Oreste Vittone, Fiat’s Conceptual Approach to Hybrid Car Design, 12TH
`INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE SYMPOSIUM (1994) (Ex. 1005)
`(“Vittone”).
`4 A. Caraceni et al., Hybrid Power Unit Development for Fiat Multipla
`Vehicle, SAE 981124 (1998) (Ex. 1006) (“Caraceni”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,120,282, issued June 9, 1992 (Ex. 1007) (“Fjällström”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,263, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1008) (“Yamaguchi”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 4,335,429, issued June 15, 1982 (Ex. 1004)
`(“Kawakatsu”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`(Paper 9, “Mot.”). Oral hearing was held on July 1, 2015, and the hearing
`transcript has been entered in the record. Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, 12, and 19 of the
`ʼ388 patent are unpatentable.
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’388 patent is the subject of the
`proceedings in Paice, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:14-cv-00492 (D. Md.)
`and Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 1:2012-cv-00499 (D. Md.).
`Pet. 1–2.
`Additionally, Petitioner indicates that this Petition is related to
`IPR2014-00568, IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00571, IPR2014-00579,
`IPR2014-00852, IPR2014-00884, IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01415, and
`IPR2014-01416. Pet. 2; Paper 10, 1.
`C. The ʼ388 Patent
`The ’388 patent describes a hybrid vehicle with an internal
`combustion engine, two electric motors (a starter motor and a traction
`motor), and a battery bank, all controlled by a microprocessor that directs
`torque transfer between the engine, the motors, and the drive wheels of the
`vehicle. Ex. 1001, 17:7–47, Fig. 4. The hybrid vehicle features a hybrid
`control strategy that runs the engine only under conditions of high
`efficiency, typically when the vehicle’s instantaneous torque demand (i.e.,
`the amount of torque required to propel the vehicle at a desired speed) is at
`least equal to 30% of the engine’s maximum torque output (“MTO”). Id. at
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`20:28–35, 35:5–14; see also id. at 13:44–46 (“the engine is never operated at
`less than 30% of MTO, and is thus never operated inefficiently”).
`Running the engine only under efficient operating conditions leads to
`improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. Id. at 13:35–37. To achieve
`such efficiency, the hybrid vehicle includes different operating modes that
`depend on the vehicle’s instantaneous torque demand, the battery’s state of
`charge, and other operating parameters. Id. at 19:31–33. For example, the
`hybrid vehicle operates in: (1) an all-electric mode, where only the traction
`motor provides the torque to propel the vehicle, whenever operation of the
`engine would be inefficient (i.e., stop-and-go city driving); (2) an engine-
`only mode, where only the engine provides the torque to propel the vehicle,
`whenever the engine can run at an efficient level (i.e., highway cruising);
`(3) a hybrid mode, where the traction motor provides additional torque to
`propel the vehicle beyond that already provided by the engine, whenever the
`instantaneous torque demand exceeds the maximum torque output of the
`engine (i.e., while accelerating, passing, and climbing hills); and (4) a
`battery recharge mode where the engine operates a generator to recharge the
`battery while the traction motor drives the vehicle. Id. at 35:6–64.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–4, 6, 12, and 19 of the ’388 patent. Pet.
`15–60. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
`1. A hybrid vehicle, comprising:
`at least two wheels, operable to receive power to propel
`said hybrid vehicle;
`a first alternating current (AC) electric motor, operable to
`provide power to said at least two wheels to propel said hybrid
`vehicle;
`a second AC electric motor;
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`
`an engine coupled to said second electric motor, operable
`to provide power to said at least two wheels to propel the
`hybrid vehicle, and/or to said second electric motor to drive the
`second electric motor to generate electric power;
`a first alternating current-direct current (AC-DC)
`converter having an AC side coupled to said first electric motor,
`operable to accept AC or DC current and convert the current to
`DC or AC current respectively;
`a second AC-DC converter coupled to said second
`electric motor, at least operable to accept AC current and
`convert the current to DC;
`an electrical storage device operable to store energy
`converted to DC by said AC-DC converters and to provide
`energy to be converted to AC by at least said first AC-DC
`converter to power at least said first electric motor; and
`a controller;
`wherein a rate of change of torque output of said engine
`is limited to a threshold value, wherein when a rate of change of
`road load exceeds said threshold value of the rate of change of
`torque output of the engine, said controller is operable to
`operate said first motor and/or said second motor to supply
`additional power to at least said two wheels to supply
`remaining required torque.
`Ex. 1001, 56:42–57:5.
`E. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly
`approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the
`AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Under
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`1. “road load (RL)”
`The term “road load” or “RL” is found in independent claims 1 and
`19. The specification describes “road load” as “the vehicle’s instantaneous
`torque demands, i.e., that amount of torque required to propel the vehicle at
`a desired speed.” Ex. 1001, 12:24–28 (emphasis added). Petitioner and
`Patent Owner agree that this definition of “road load” is consistent with its
`plain meaning and as it is commonly understood in the art. See PO Resp.
`23–24; Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner argues “road load” should additionally
`account for external forces acting on the vehicle. PO Resp. 26–28 (citing
`Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 76–78); see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Although external forces may
`play a role in the amount of torque required to propel the vehicle, we need
`not address them in order to construe the term “road load.” We see no
`reason to depart from the ʼ388 patent specification’s express definition of
`“road load” in terms of an amount of torque, such that “road load” is “the
`amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.” See
`Ex. 1001, 11:46–48, 12:24–28, 35:14–17, 12:57–13:3, 37:13–15, 37:45–47,
`38:5–10.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claims 1, 3, and 19 – Obvious over Ehsani and Vittone
`1. Overview
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, and 19 of the ʼ388 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ehsani and Vittone.
`Pet. 15–36. Petitioner provides citations for where each claim limitation is
`disclosed by Ehsani and Vittone. Id. Petitioner also articulates reasoning
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`with rational underpinnings on why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention would have combined Ehsani and Vittone. Id. We
`have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence and find that Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, and 19 are
`obvious over Ehsani and Vittone. See id.
`2. Ehsani (Ex. 1003)
`Ehsani discloses an electrically peaking hybrid system and method of
`generating hybrid electric-combustion power. Ex. 1003, 1:14–17. The
`hybrid electric-combustion system includes an engine to generate
`mechanical energy, a battery to store and deliver electric energy, a drive
`mechanism coupled to the engine, and an electric machine coupled to the
`engine and battery. Id. at 2:45–56. The system has two modes of operation:
`in the first mode, the power requirements of the system exceed the power
`available from the engine and the electric motor draws energy from the
`battery to provide the engine with additional power; in the second mode, the
`power requirements are less than that being supplied by the engine and the
`electric motor acts as a generator to convert excess mechanical energy to
`electrical energy to be stored in the battery. Id. at 4:20–53.
`3. Vittone (Ex. 1005)
`Vittone discusses various motivations behind the development of
`hybrid cars, where parallel configuration of the propulsion system allows for
`short trips using only the electric motor driveline and long trips with
`performance close to that of conventional cars, but lower emissions.
`Ex. 1005,8 20. In hybrid mode, both the electric motor and the thermal
`
`8 Ex. 1005 includes page numbers indicated by the publication itself and
`different page numbers provided by Petitioner. Our references are to the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`engine are active and the torque is split between the two drivelines to assure
`good drivability, to optimize the consumptions, and to reduce emissions. Id.
`at 26. The thermal engine is set to a maximum torque and the electric motor
`supplies additional torque to meet the total torque required. Id. at Fig. 8.
`4. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, and 19 of the ʼ388 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ehsani and Vittone.
`Pet. 15–36. Petitioner provides citations for where each claim limitation is
`disclosed by Ehsani and Vittone, contending that each of the claim
`limitations are disclosed by Ehsani, except for the “wherein” limitation. Id.
`Petitioner argues that Vittone discloses the “wherein” limitation. Id.
`Petitioner also articulates reasoning with rational underpinnings on why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`combined Ehsani and Vittone. Id. We have reviewed the Petition and
`supporting evidence and find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance
`of the evidence that claims 1, 3, and 19 are obvious over Ehsani and Vittone.
`See id.
`Patent Owner argues that (a) Vittone fails to disclose “road load,” (b)
`Vittone fails to disclose limiting a rate of change of engine torque output to a
`threshold value, (c) Vittone fails to disclose operating the first and/or second
`AC motor to supply the remaining required torque when a rate of change of
`“road load” exceeds the threshold value, and (d) a person with ordinary skill
`in the art would not have combined Ehsani and Vittone in the manner
`
`
`page numbers provided by Petitioner and not the page numbers printed on
`the publication itself.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`asserted by Petitioner. PO Resp. 20–38. Patent Owner presents these same
`arguments for claim 3. PO Resp. 37–38. For the foregoing reasons, we are
`not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that claims 1, 3, and 19 are
`patentable over Ehsani and Vittone.
`a. “Road Load”
`Patent Owner argues that Vittone fails to disclose “road load.” Id. at
`22–28. Patent Owner explains that Vittone discloses a “driveability torque
`requirement,” and Petitioner argues that “driveability torque requirement” is
`equivalent to “road load.” Id. at 22–23. Patent Owner further explains that
`Vittone discloses that “that the accelerator pedal position defines the
`requested torque to the drivetrain and that the driver, through the accelerator
`pedal position, sets the total traction torque, which is referred to as the
`driveability torque requirement.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–69).
`Patent Owner argues the total traction torque or the driveability torque
`requirement represents the accelerator pedal position, but does not represent
`“road load.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–69). Patent Owner argues that the
`accelerator pedal position controls the flow of fuel and air into the engine,
`which has “nothing to do with using ‘road load’ as part of a vehicle control
`strategy.” Id. at 24–26 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 68–69). Patent Owner argues
`that accelerator pedal position represents the driver’s request, not the
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle. Id. at 27 (citing
`Ex. 2003 ¶ 74).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed
`above, we have interpreted “road load” to mean “the amount of
`instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.” See Section I.E.1.
`Vittone discloses the “driveability torque requirement” and the “total
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`traction torque,” and we agree with Petitioner that the plain meaning of
`“driveability torque requirement” and “total traction torque” is the torque
`required to propel the vehicle. Pet. Reply 2–3. Although Patent Owner
`argues that “driveability torque requirement” and “total traction torque” are
`represented by the accelerator pedal position (PO Resp. 24–26), Patent
`Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Hannemann, fail to provide any
`persuasive argument or evidence that the “driveability torque requirement”
`and the “total traction torque” do not represent the torque required to propel
`the vehicle.
`We further credit the testimony of Dr. Stein, who explains that a
`person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`“driveability torque requirement” and the “total traction torque” represent
`the instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle. Pet. Reply 2–3
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 173); Pet. 22–24. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument,
`Dr. Stein explains that, although Vittone discloses the “driveability torque
`requirement” and the “total traction torque” are based on accelerator pedal
`position, “driveability torque requirement” and “total traction torque” are
`based also on other factors, including brake pedal position. Pet. Reply 3–4
`(citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 20–30); Pet. 22–24. Therefore, the “driveability torque
`requirement” and the “total traction torque” do not only represent the
`accelerator position.
`Patent Owner further argues that Vittone fails to disclose “road load”
`because Vittone’s “driveability torque requirement” does not take into
`account external torque requirements, such as driving conditions and also
`does not take into account operating conditions. PO Resp. 27–28 (citing
`Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 72, 75). We are not persuaded by this argument because we
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`decline to import “external torque requirements” into our interpretation of
`“road load,” as discussed above. See Section I.E.1.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner that “driveability torque
`requirement” and “total traction torque” represent the instantaneous torque
`required to propel the vehicle and, therefore, Vittone discloses “road load.”
`b. “Rate of Change of Torque Output of Said Engine is Limited
`to a Threshold Value”
`Patent Owner argues Vittone fails to disclose limiting a rate of change
`of engine torque to a threshold value. PO Resp. 28–31. Patent Owner
`specifically argues that Vittone discloses that the “the total traction torque is
`split between the engine and the electric motor and that the electric motor is
`used to assist the engine when the pedal position changes (i.e., during
`acceleration) and when the pedal position indicates that the total traction
`torque is greater than the maximum engine torque,” however, Vittone does
`not disclose that the slope of the engine torque output is limiting the rate of
`change of engine torque to a threshold value. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 2003
`¶ 77). Patent Owner also argues that, although Vittone discloses “how the
`total traction torque is split between the engine and electric motor, it does
`not specify the management strategy of the IC engine,” and Vittone does not
`disclose how “steady state” management of the thermal engine is
`accomplished. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 79).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Vittone
`discloses that the “driveability torque requirement” or the “total traction
`torque” (i.e., “road load”) is split between the two drivelines, the thermal
`engine and the electric motor. See Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 26). Vittone
`further discloses that in order to reduce emissions, a “steady state”
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`management is used during transient phases, where the thermal engine is
`supported by the electric motor in order to meet the required torque. See id.
`at 23–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 26, 29, 30); Pet. Reply 7–10. We further credit
`the testimony of Dr. Stein, who explains that Vittone discloses that during
`transient phases, the “driveability torque requirements” or “road load”
`increases at a constant rate. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 177–178, 181 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig.
`8); Pet. Reply 7–10. Dr. Stein further explains that Vittone discloses that
`during two different transient phases, each transient phase representing a
`different rate of change of “road load,” the rate of change of torque output of
`the engine is approximately the same value. Id. Dr. Stein explains that this
`common rate of change of torque output of the engine is due to the “steady
`state” management of the thermal engine that limits its rate of change of
`torque output and the common value is a threshold value. Id. Therefore, Dr.
`Stein concludes that Vittone discloses “rate of change of torque output of
`said engine is limited to a threshold value.”
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner that a person with
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Vittone’s “steady state
`management” of the thermal engine meets the limitation of the “rate of
`change of torque output of said engine is limited to a threshold value.”
`c. Operating the Motor to Supply Remaining Required Torque
`When a Rate of Change of Road Load Exceeds the
`Threshold Value
`Patent Owner argues that Vittone fails to disclose “using the motor to
`supply remaining required torque when a rate of change of road load
`exceeds the threshold value.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 81). Patent
`Owner specifically argues that a person with ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that Vittone discloses “the electric motor is used to assist
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`the engine when there is a change in pedal position (i.e., during acceleration)
`and when the pedal position indicates that the total traction torque is greater
`than the engine’s maximum torque,” but Vittone fails to disclose using the
`electric motor to supply the remaining required torque when a rate of change
`of road load exceeds the threshold value. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1005, 25–
`26).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed
`above, we are persuaded by Petitioner that Vittone discloses “road load” and
`the “rate of change of torque output of said engine is limited to a threshold
`value.” See Sections II.A.4.a, II.A.4.b. Vittone further discloses that when
`the rate of change of “driveability torque requirements” or “road load”
`exceeds the threshold of the rate of change of the engine torque output, the
`electronic control unit operates the electric motor to supply the remaining
`required torque to meet the “driveability torque requirements” or “road
`load.” See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005, 26, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 182–188); Pet.
`Reply 10–11. Vittone discloses that this “steady state” management is done
`during transient phases in order to reduce emissions. Ex. 1005, 26, Fig. 8;
`See Pet. 26.
`d. Combination of Ehsani and Vittone
`Patent Owner argues that “it would not have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the control strategy of Ehsani with the
`control strategy of Vittone,” because Ehsani and Vittone are directed to very
`different engine control strategies. PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 83).
`Patent Owner explains that Ehsani discloses an engine that operates at a
`constant power output and uses the electric motor to supplement the engine
`when needed, or uses excess engine power for storage in the battery,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`whereas Vittone discloses a hybrid mode, where both the electric motor and
`the engine are used based on accelerator position, and absent hindsight, “[i]t
`is even difficult to imagine what that system would look like.” Id. at 33–37
`(citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 84–86). Patent Owner argues that a person with ordinary
`skill in the art would not have combined Ehsani and Vittone because
`“maintaining constant power would require changing torque to keep the
`power output constant.” Id. at 35.
`We disagree with Patent Owner. Both Ehsani and Vittone are directed
`towards hybrid vehicles. See Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–30; Ex.
`1005, 26). Ehsani and Vittone are directed also towards reducing emissions.
`Id. Ehsani discloses that a controller controls the engine with a
`predetermined trajectory of speed and power in order to improve efficiency
`and reduce emissions. Ex. 1003, 7:25–30. Vittone discloses expressly the
`“steady state” management of the thermal engine in order to reduce
`emissions. Ex. 1005, 26. We credit the testimony of Dr. Stein, who
`explains that “implementing a particular control strategy is a simple
`substitution of (or modification of) an existing control strategy that may not,
`and likely does not, even require changes to the underlying system
`architecture.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 253–254; Ex. 1028 ¶ 51. A person with ordinary
`skill in the art would have combined the elements of Ehsani and Vittone,
`and, therefore, such a reconstruction is not based in hindsight. A person
`with ordinary skill in the art would have looked to even further reduce the
`emissions of the Ehsani hybrid vehicle by implementing Vittone’s “steady
`state” management strategy. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that both
`Ehsani and Vittone are concerned with the same problem of reducing
`emissions in hybrid vehicles, and a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`would have been motivated to further reduce Ehsani’s emissions by
`implementing Vittone’s “steady state” management control strategy.
`Patent Owner further argues that Ehsani eliminates the need for a
`transmission, and, therefore, teaches away from Vittone’s use of a
`transmission. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 2:59–63). Therefore, Patent Owner
`specifically argues that Ehsani is critical of a transmission and teaches away
`from Vittone. Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, Petitioner
`does not argue for modifying Ehsani’s hybrid vehicle to include Vittone’s
`transmission. See Pet. 35–36. Rather, Petitioner proposes the simple
`substitution or modification of Ehsani’s control strategy with Vittone’s
`control strategy. Id. Accordingly, whether Ehsani teaches away from the
`use of a transmission is not relevant.
`Furthermore, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person
`of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
`following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
`divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v.
`Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations
`omitted). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general
`preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the
`ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
`investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). Ehsani proposes an advantage that can be gained without
`the use of a transmission, but does not discredit or discourage the use of a
`transmission. In fact, Ehsani discloses an embodiment that uses a
`transmission. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:6–11).
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`
`5. Conclusion
`We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence, along with
`Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, and determine that Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, and 19 are
`obvious over Ehsani and Vittone. See Pet. 15–38.
`B. Obviousness of Claim 2 over Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni
`1. Overview
`Petitioner contends that claim 2 of the ʼ388 patent is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni.
`Pet. 36–39. Petitioner provides citations for where each claim limitation is
`disclosed by Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni. Id. Petitioner also articulates
`reasoning with rational underpinnings on why a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention would have combined Ehsani, Vittone,
`and Caraceni. Id. We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence
`and find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claim 2 is obvious over Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni. See id.
`2. Caraceni (Ex. 1006)
`Caraceni discloses a hybrid vehicle that features a power train that
`integrates a thermal engine with an electric motor. Ex. 1006, 29.9 Caraceni
`discloses a “Dual mode” configuration that includes the addition of an
`independent electric power train on the thermal vehicle, where the electric
`and thermal power trains operate in the alternative to meet the torque
`
`
`9 Ex. 1006 includes page numbers indicated by the publication itself and
`different page numbers provided by Petitioner. Our references are to the
`page numbers as they are printed on the publication itself and not the page
`numbers provided by Petitioner.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`requirements. Id. at 30–31. The driver selects between four operating
`modes: hybrid mode, electric mode, economy mode, and recharge mode. Id.
`at 33–34. The driver, through the accelerator pedal position, sets the
`required traction torque. Id. at 34. In hybrid mode, the torque requirements
`are split between the engine and motor to optimize fuel economy, emission,
`and driveability. Id.
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claim 2 of the ʼ388 patent is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni.
`Pet. 36–39. Claim 2 recites “said threshold value is no more than about 2%
`per revolution.” Petitioner argues that Caraceni discloses this limitation. Id.
`Petitioner also articulates reasoning with rational underpinnings on why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`combined Ehsani, Vittone, and Caraceni. Id. We have reviewed the Petition
`and supporting evidence and find that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is obvious over Ehsani, Vittone,
`and Caraceni. See id.
`Patent Owner argues that Caraceni discloses an “absolute” rate of
`change, whereas claim 2 requires a “relative” change. PO Resp. 39–40.
`Patent Owner explains that Caraceni discloses “torque gradients,” which are
`expressed as deca-Newton Meters per second. Id. Patent Owner argues that
`deca-Newton Meters per second are an absolute rate of change threshold,
`which is “fundamentally and mathematically different from the ‘2% per
`revolution’ threshold of claim 2.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 93).
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Claim 2 recites
`“said threshold value is no more than about 2% per revolution.” Claim 1
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`defines the “threshold value” as “a rate of change of torque output of said
`engine.” We agree with Petitioner that claim 2 does not require the rate of
`change to be expressed only as a “relative” change. See Pet. Reply 15. The
`“threshold value,” as defined by claim 1, broadly requires a “rate of change”
`without specifying whether that rate of change is “absolute” or “relative.”
`Patent Owner has not provided persuasive evidence that the scope of claim 2
`is narrowed to require a “relative” change. Accordingly, we are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that attempt to distinguish Caraceni
`from the claim 2 based on a “relative” rate of change of torque output from
`the engine.
`Patent Owner further argues that Dr. Stein’s calculations are flawed
`because Dr. Stein should not have used the maximum torque output
`(“MTO”) of the engine in calculating a rate of change threshold. PO Resp.
`41–42. Patent Owner specifically argues that a person with ordinary skill in
`the art would not have used MTO in calculating a rate of change of increase
`because the engine cannot increase its torque output at MTO. Id. (citing Ex.
`2003 ¶ 96). Patent Owner further argues that limiting the rate of change of
`torque output of the engine at MTO would be unsafe. Id.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed
`above, claims 1 and 2 do not limit the scope of the “threshold value” such
`that it cannot be applied from the MTO. Although Patent Owner argues that
`limiting the rate of change of torque output of the engine at MTO is unsafe,
`the claims do not address the consideration of safety.
`Petitioner contends that Caraceni discloses “torque gradient” values
`that can be converted to “% per revolution” values using engine speed and
`torque values, and “[f]orty of the forty-two torque gradient values disclosed
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00875
`Patent 7,559,388 B2
`
`in Fig. 14 of Caraceni satisfy the ‘no more than about 2% per revolution’
`limitation of claim 2.” Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1006, 4, Table 2; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 255–273). We credit the testimony of Dr. Stein and are persuaded by Dr.
`Stein’s calculations in determining that Caraceni discloses “said threshold
`value is not more than about 2% per revolution.” See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 255–273.
`C. Obviousness of Claim 6 over Ehsani, Vittone, and Fjällström
`1. Overview
`Petitioner contends that claim 6 of the ʼ388 patent is unpatentable
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
