`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`- vs. -
`
`BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`IPR2026-00333
`_____________________________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,374,508
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 11,374,508
`i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`A. Parties-in-Interest ...................................................................................... 1
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... 1
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 1
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 2
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF .............................................. 3
`A. ’508 Patent Summary ................................................................................ 3
`B. Prosecution History ................................................................................... 6
`C. Priority Date .............................................................................................. 7
`D. Challenged Claims .................................................................................... 7
`E. Sotera Stipulation ...................................................................................... 8
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES ......................................... 8
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 10
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-17 ARE UNPATENTABLE ...................................................... 10
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 are anticipated by
`Tsuzuki .................................................................................................... 11
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 11
`a) Tsuzuki ........................................................................... 11
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art ..................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 11,374,508
`ii
`(2) General Overview................................................. 11
`2. Element-by-Element Invalidity Analysis ......................................... 13
`a) Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 13
`b) Dependent Claim 2 ......................................................... 31
`c) Dependent Claim 4 ......................................................... 32
`d) Independent Claim 7 ....................................................... 33
`e) Dependent Claim 8 ......................................................... 36
`f) Independent Claim 12 ..................................................... 36
`g) Dependent Claim 13 ....................................................... 40
`h) Dependent Claim 15 ....................................................... 40
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 would have been
`obvious over Tsuzuki .............................................................................. 40
`C. Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 would have been
`obvious over Tsuzuki in view of Reynolds ............................................. 42
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 42
`a) Tsuzuki ........................................................................... 42
`b) Reynolds ......................................................................... 42
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art ..................................... 42
`(2) General Overview................................................. 43
`2. Motivation to Combine Tsuzuki with Reynolds .............................. 43
`3. Element-by-element analysis ............................................................ 44
`a) Independent Claims 1 and 12 ......................................... 44
`b) Independent Claim 7 ....................................................... 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 11,374,508
`iii
`c) Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 13, and 15 ............................. 46
`D. Ground 4/4a: Claims 12, 13, and 15 would have been obvious over
`Tsuzuki in view of Imai (or Tsuzuki in view of Reynolds and Imai)
` ................................................................................................................. 46
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 46
`a) Tsuzuki ........................................................................... 46
`b) Imai ................................................................................. 47
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art ..................................... 47
`(2) General Overview................................................. 47
`2. Motivation to Combine Tsuzuki with Imai ...................................... 47
`3. Element-by-element analysis ............................................................ 49
`a) Independent Claim 12 ..................................................... 49
`b) Dependent Claims 13 and 15 .......................................... 50
`E. Ground 5/5a: Claims 3, 9 and 14 of the ’508 Patent would have
`been obvious over Tsuzuki in view of Ashtiani (or Tsuzuki in view
`of Reynolds and Ashtiani) ....................................................................... 50
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 50
`a) Tsuzuki ........................................................................... 50
`b) Ashtiani ........................................................................... 51
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art ..................................... 51
`(2) General Overview................................................. 51
`2. Motivation to Combine Tsuzuki with Ashtiani ................................ 51
`3. Element-by-Element Analysis .......................................................... 52
`a) Claim 3 ............................................................................ 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 11,374,508
`iv
`b) Claims 9 and 14 .............................................................. 53
`F. Ground 6/6a: Claims 5, 10, and 16 of the ’508 Patent would have
`been obvious over Tsuzuki in view of Satoru (or Tsuzuki in view
`of Reynolds and Satoru) .......................................................................... 53
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 53
`a) Tsuzuki ........................................................................... 53
`b) Satoru .............................................................................. 53
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art ..................................... 53
`(2) General Overview................................................. 54
`2. Motivation to Combine Tsuzuki with Satoru ................................... 54
`3. Element-by-Element Analysis .......................................................... 56
`a) Claim 5 ............................................................................ 56
`b) Claims 10 and 16 ............................................................ 57
`G. Ground 7/7a: Claims 6, 11, and 17 of the ’508 Patent would have
`been obvious over Tsuzuki in view of Zing (or Tsuzuki in view of
`Reynolds and Zing) ................................................................................. 57
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 57
`a) Tsuzuki ........................................................................... 57
`b) Zing ................................................................................. 57
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art ..................................... 57
`(2) General Overview................................................. 58
`2. Motivation to Combine Tsuzuki with Zing ...................................... 58
`3. Element-by-Element Analysis .......................................................... 60
`a) Claim 6 ............................................................................ 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 11,374,508
`v
`b) Claims 11 and 17 ............................................................ 62
`H. Ground 8: Claims 1 and 12 are anticipated by Imai ............................... 62
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 62
`a) Imai ................................................................................. 62
`2. Element-by-Element Invalidity Analysis ......................................... 62
`a) Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 62
`b) Independent Claim 12 ..................................................... 71
`I. Ground 9: Claims 1 and 12 would have been obvious over Imai in
`view of Reynolds ..................................................................................... 74
`1. Overview of Prior Art ....................................................................... 74
`a) Imai ................................................................................. 74
`b) Reynolds ......................................................................... 74
`2. Motivation to Combine Imai with Reynolds .................................... 74
`3. Element-by-element analysis ............................................................ 75
`a) Independent Claims 1 and 12 ......................................... 75
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 76
`X. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 11,374,508
`
`1
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`EX1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,374,508 (the ‘508 Patent)
`EX1002 Prosecution History of the ‘508 Patent
`EX1003 CV of Mahdi Shahbakhti
`EX1004 Declaration of Mahdi Shahbakhti, dated April 6, 2026
`EX1005 JP2010-036880 (“Tsuzuki”)
`EX1006 JP2010-221979 (“Imai”)
`EX1007 U.S. Patent No. 8,618,752 (“Zing”)
`EX1008 US2006/0098390 (“Ashtiani”)
`EX1009 JP2001-218380 (“Satoru”)
`EX1010 US2014/0100726 (“Reynolds”)
`EX1011 Ehsani, Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Parties-in-Interest
`The Petitioner is Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”).
`Toyota, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
`are the real parties in interest.
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC (“BHT”) has asserted U.S.
`Patent No. 11,374,508 (“the ‘508 Patent”) against Toyota, Toyota Motor North
`America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. in Bunker Hill Technologies,
`LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01133 (E.D. Tex.). That case
`is currently pending.
`Petitioner is not aware of any other related matters.
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`Alexander B. Englehart
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street
`Suite 600
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`
`
`Phone: 703-684-2500
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`aenglehart@merchantgould.com
`USPTO Reg. No.: 62,031
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`John S. Kern
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street
`Suite 600
`
`
`
`Phone: 703-684-2500
`Fax: 612-332-9081
`jkern@merchantgould.com
`USPTO Reg. No.: 42,719
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake Phone: 404-954-5100
`MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C. Fax: 612-332-9081
`191 Peachtree Street NE jblake@merchantgould.com
`Suite 3800 USPTO Reg. No. 58,884
`Atlanta, Georgia 30303
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at
`toyota508ipr@merchantgould.com. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘508 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`The complaint in the parallel district court action ( Bunker Hill Technologies,
`LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al. , Case No. 2:25 -cv-01133 (E.D. Tex.)) was filed
`on November 18, 2025, and served thereafter. Accordingly, this petition is being
`filed less than one year after Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging
`infringement of the ‘508 patent, and the petition is not time-barred. See 35 U.S.C. §
`315(b).
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioner requests that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`analysis, institute a trial for an inter partes review of claims 1-17 of the ‘508 Patent
`(“the Challenged Claims”), and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`The Challenged Claims of the ‘508 Patent are anticipated and/or would have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of their priority
`date, and are therefore unpatentable. The claims of the ‘508 Patent recite nothing
`more than an existing or at least obvious combination of electric drive system
`elements and functions that had been known and used by POSITAs for many years
`prior to the filing of the ‘508 Patent.
`This Petition’s showing that the cited art renders the Challenged Claims
`unpatentable is fully supported by the Declaration of Mahdi Shahbakhti (EX1004),
`a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alberta. EX1004, ¶¶5-
`24. Professor Shahbakhti is familiar with the state of the art before the ‘508 Patent
`was filed, and fully agrees with and supports the showing herein that the claims at
`issue are anticipated by, and obvious over, the cited art. EX1004, ¶¶25-330.
`Accordingly, the Board should institute trial and cancel the Challenged
`Claims.
`A. ’508 Patent Summary
`The ‘508 Patent generally describes an electric drive system with an energy
`storage system (ESS), a power conversion system, and an alternating current (AC)
`traction system. EX1001, abstract. The ‘508 Patent’s overall system also includes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`an energy management system (EMS) that manages the flow of energy among the
`overall system’s components. Id.
`The AC traction system includes a first electric motor and a second electric
`motor, both of which are coupled to the power conversion system and ultimately to
`the ESS. EX1001, id., claim 1. The ESS may include a plurality of energy storage
`units, such as a battery and an ultra-capacitor. EX1001, abstract. The ‘508 Patent’s
`Fig. 1 is annotated below in color to highlight the key components:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
` The ‘508 Patent also discloses designs where, instead of two separate loads as
`shown in Fig. 1, there is only a single load that is driven through a power split device
`connected to both motors (potentially via an additional transmission device). This
`is shown in Fig. 2, annotated in color below:
`
`The system’s EMS enable s and manages multiple modes of operation.
`EX1001, 8:54-63, 11:7-41. In some modes, only the first electric motor operates to
`drive the vehicle . Id. In other modes, both the first and second electric motors
`operate to drive the vehicle. Id. For example, when the vehicle is starting from a
`stop or cruising, only one of the motors may be active. Id. at 11:16-24, 31-36. On
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`the other hand, when the vehicle is accelerating or going uphill, both motors may be
`active. Id. at 11:25-30.
`B. Prosecution History
`The ‘508 Patent issued June 28, 2022, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`16/866,028, filed May 4, 2020. EX1001, cover. The patent claims priority to
`application No. 14/094,086, filed on December 2, 2013. Id. It further claims priority
`to Chinese Application No. 2012-10509493.2, filed December 3, 2012. Id.
`On December 24, 2021, the pending claims were rejected for obviousness -
`type double patenting. EX1002 at 218-222. Pending claims 1- 4, 7-9, and 12- 15
`were also rejected as obvious over Iida (US 2009/0115375) in view of Shimizu (US
`2005/0070401). Id. at 222- 223. Pending claims 5, 10, and 16 were rejected as
`obvious over Iida in view of Shimizu and King (US 7,595,597). Id. at 224. Pending
`claims 6, 11, and 17 were rejected as obvious over Iida in view of Shimizu and
`Aizawa (US 2005/0082992). Id.
`On February 4, 2022, the applicant amended the claims to require that “only”
`the first electric motor operate to drive the vehicle when the vehicle is crui sing. Id.
`at 278-282. The applicant argued that none of the cited prior art references disclosed
`something that satisfied the claims as amended. Id. at 283-286.
`On February 18, 2022, the Examiner issued a final rejection maintaining the
`existing obviousness rejections. Id. at 301-303. In response to applicant’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`arguments, the Examiner noted that Shimizu teaches that only a single motor is
`driven when the vehicle is cruising. Id. at 303-304.
`On April 8, 2022, the applicant filed an RCE and further amended the claims
`to include a new limitation requiring that only the first electric motor operate to drive
`the vehicle “when the vehicle is starting.” Id. at 328- 333. The applicant
`distinguished Shimizu by pointing out that Shimizu requires that both a first motor
`and a second motor (not the first motor only) drive the vehicle when the vehicle is
`starting. Id. at 337-339.
`On May 13, 2022, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance. The Examiner
`noted that he found persuasive the applicant’s argument that Shimizu did not
`disclose the new limitation added to the independent claims in the previous
`amendment. Id. at 409. Accordingly, the ‘508 Patent issued on June 28, 2022
`C. Priority Date
`All of the references cited in the instant Petition qualify as prior art based on
`the assumed priority date of December 3, 2012, the filing date of the Chinese
`application to which the ‘508 Patent claims foreign priority.
`D. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-17 of the ’508 Patent are challenged. An index reciting the
`limitations of Claims 1-17 is attached to this Petition for convenience.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`E. Sotera Stipulation
`Petitioner stipulates that, if this IPR is instituted, Petitioner will not raise in
`the parallel district court action ( Bunker Hill Technologies, LLC v. Toyota Motor
`Corp. et al., Case No. 2:25- cv-01133 (E.D. Tex.)) any ground raised or that could
`have been reasonably raised in the IPR.
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Terms not construed in the discussion below have their plain and ordinary
`meaning consistent with the claim construction standards set forth under Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`Ground #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’508 Patent are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA) by JP2010-036880 (“Tsuzuki,”
`EX1005).
`Ground #2: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’508 Patent would have
`been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki.
`Ground #3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’508 Patent would have
`been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre -AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of
`US2014/0100726 (“Reynolds,” EX1010).
`Ground #4: Claims 12, 13, and 15 of the ’508 Patent would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of JP2010- 221979
`(“Imai,” EX1006).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`Ground # 4a: Claims 12, 13, and 15 of the ’508 Patent would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of Reynolds and
`Imai.
`Ground #5: Claims 3, 9, and 14 of the ’508 Patent would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre -AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of US2006/0098390
`(“Ashtiani,” EX1008).
`Ground #5a: Claims 3, 9, and 14 of the ’508 Patent would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of Reynolds and Ashtiani.
`Ground #6: Claims 5, 10, and 16 of the ’508 Patent would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of JP2001-218380 (“Satoru,”
`EX1009).
`Ground # 6a: Claims 5, 10, and 16 of the ’508 Patent would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of Reynolds and
`Satoru.
`Ground #7: Claims 6, 11, and 17 of the ’508 Patent would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,618,752
`(“Zing,” EX1007).
`Ground # 7a: Claims 6, 11, and 17 of the ’508 Patent would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Tsuzuki in view of Reynolds and
`Zing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`Ground #8: Claims 1 and 12 of the ’508 Patent are anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA) by Imai.
`Ground #9: Claims 1 and 12 of the ’508 Patent would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA) over Imai in view of Reynolds.
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As of December 3, 2012, a POSITA would have had at least a b achelor’s
`degree in electrical engineering or mechanical engineering and at least three years
`of technical experience in designing, implementing, testing, or otherwise working
`with, automotive powertrains, electric drive systems , or a related field. EX1004,
`¶41. Additional higher graduate education could substitute for work experience, and
`additional work experience/training could substitute for formal education. Id.
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-17 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`This petition’s showing that the cited art renders the challenged claims
`unpatentable is fully supported by the Declaration of Dr. Shahbakhti (EX1004), a
`Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alberta . Id., ¶5-24.
`Professor Shahbakhti is familiar with the state of the art before the ’508 Patent’s
`priority date , and fully supports the showing herein that the claims at issue are
`anticipated and obvious. Id., ¶¶25-330.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 are anticipated by
`Tsuzuki
`1. Overview of Prior Art
`a) Tsuzuki
`(1) Qualification as Prior Art
`Tsuzuki was published on February 18, 2010. EX1005. Accordingly,
`Tsuzuki qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) at least because it
`was published more than one year before the priority date of the ’508 Patent
`(December 3, 2012). Id. Tsuzuki was neither cited nor considered by the Examiner
`during prosecution of the ’508 Patent.
`(2) General Overview
`Tsuzuki generally discloses a hybrid driving apparatus. EX1005, t itle. The
`system includes an engine and two electric motor/generators that provide driving
`force to a vehicle. Id., abstract. A battery or other power storage system supplies
`power to the electric motors by way of inverters. Id., [0050]. One electric motor
`(MG2) provides power to the vehicle’s wheels by way of a planetary gear unit that
`functions as a reduction gear. Id. , [0056]. The other electric motor (MG1) is
`connected to a separate planetary gear unit that is also connected to the engine. Id.,
`[0053]. This separate planetary gear unit functions as a power split device, and is
`further connected to the first electric motor (MG2) by way of a transmission chain.
`Id., [0057]. This overall structure is shown in Tsuzuki’s Fig. 1, annotated below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Tsuzuki further discloses that its hybrid drive system can operate under
`different modes. Id. , [0063]. Some of these modes involve using only one of the
`electric motors to drive the vehicle , while other modes involve using both electric
`motors to drive the vehicle. Id. For example, Tsuzuki discloses a “second EV mode”
`where only MG2 drives the vehicle. Id., [0089]. Tsuzuki also discloses a “first EV
`mode” where both MG2 and MG1 together may drive the vehicle. Id. , [ 0080].
`Tsuzuki discloses that when starting the vehicle or traveling at a moderate speed
`with a relatively low accelerator opening, the vehicle operates in the second EV
`mode, such that only MG2 drives the vehicle. Id. , [0063], Fig. 3. However, when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`the accelerator is depressed further (relatively higher accelerator opening), the
`vehicle enters the first EV mode, which may require that both MG1 and MG2 drive
`the vehicle. Id. This is shown conceptually in Tsuzuki’s Fig. 3, annotated below:
`
`
`2. Element-by-Element Invalidity Analysis
`a) Independent Claim 1
`[1.0] A drive system for a vehicle, comprising:
`Tsuzuki discloses a drive system for a vehicle . EX1004, ¶¶107 -08. For
`example, Tsuzuki discloses that “[t]he present invention relates to a hybrid drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`device comprising of an input member connected to an engine, an output member
`connected to wheels, a first rotating electrical machine, a second rotating electrical
`machine, and a differential gear device having three rotating elements…. ” EX1005,
`[0001]. Further, “[a]ccording to this characteristic configuration, by switching
`between the continuously variable transmission mode and the first rotating electrical
`machine drive mode, as well as the two gears provided in the first rotating electrical
`machine drive mode, depending on the vehicle’s driving condition and vehicle speed
`range, it is possible to drive the vehicle with high energy efficiency while outputting
`sufficient driving force in a variety of vehicle driving conditions and vehicle speed
`ranges.” Id., [0009].
`[1.1] an energy storage system (ESS);
`Tsuzuki discloses an energy storage system (ESS). EX1004, ¶¶109-10. For
`example, Tsuzuki discloses a “ battery 21 that supplies power to the first motor
`generator MG1 and the second motor generator MG2.” EX1005, [0051]. A
`POSITA would have understood that a battery is an “energy storage system.”
`[1.2] a power conversion device coupled to the ESS;
`Tsuzuki discloses a power conversion device coupled to the ESS. EX1004,
`¶¶111-13. For example, Tsuzuki discloses that MG1 and MG2 are connected to the
`battery 21 “via inverters 22a and 22b, respectively.” EX1005, [0050]. This is shown
`in Fig. 2, annotated below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`A POSITA would have understood that an inverter or group of inverters is a “power
`conversion device.” I n Tsuzuki, inverter 22a and inverter 22b collectively form a
`“power conversion device.” See, e.g. , Monterey Rsch., LLC v. Vidal , No. 2022-
`1577, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32712, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2023) (affirming
`PTAB final written decision of anticipation in an IPR and noting that “t he Board
`reasonably concluded from the evidence on the record that nothing in the claims or
`specification of the ‘226 patent indicated that a ‘multiqueue storage device’ must be
`one physical component and, similarly, that nothing in the patent required any
`minimum level of access between multiple components to be considered one
`device.”) (citing Cross Med. Prods. Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`1293, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). A POSITA would have understood that Tsuzuki’s
`power conversion device (inverters 22a and 22b) converts the DC power supplied
`by battery 21 into AC power that MG1 and MG2 can use. Indeed, the fact that the
`claimed power conversion device is coupled to both the ESS (which supplies DC
`power) and the first and second electric motors (which need AC power) indicates
`that the power conversion device can be (and here, is) made up of inverters.
`[1.3] a first electric motor coupled to the power conversion
`device;
`Tsuzuki discloses a first electric motor coupled to the power conversion
`device. EX1004, ¶¶114 -15. For example, Tsuzuki di scloses “motor-generator
`MG2” that can function as a motor. EX1005, [0052]. MG2 is coupled to the power
`conversion device (group of inverters 22a and 22b collectively), as shown in Fig. 2.
`Id., [0050].
`[1.4] a second electric motor coupled to the power conversion
`device;
`Tsuzuki discloses a second electric motor coupled to the power conversion
`device. EX1004, ¶¶116 -17. For example, Tsuzuki discloses “motor- generator
`MG1” that can function as a motor. EX1005, [0052]. MG1 is coupled to the power
`conversion device (group of inverters 22a and 22b collectively), as shown in Fig. 2.
`Id., [0050].
`[1.5] a transmission device coupled to the first electric motor;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`Tsuzuki discloses a transmission device coupled to the first electric motor .
`EX1004, ¶¶118-19. For example, Tsuzuki discloses:
`The second planetary gear device P2 is a single -pinion
`planetary gear mechanism that is arranged coaxially with
`the output member O. … The sun gear s2 is connected to
`rotate integrally with a second rotor shaft 17, which is the
`rotation shaft of the rotor Ro2 of the second motor-
`generator MG2. The carrier ca2 is connected to the output
`member O and the differential case of the output
`differential gear device DF so as to rotate integrally with
`them. … As a result, the second planetary gear device
`P2 functions as a reduction device that reduces the
`rotation speed of the second rotor shaft 17 at a constant
`reduction ratio, outputs it from the carrier ca2, and
`transmits it to the output member O and the
`differential case of the output differential gear device
`DF.
`EX1005, [0056] (emphasis added) . A POSITA would have understood that the
`second planetary gear device P2 is a “transmission device ” because it transmits
`power between MG2 and the output differential gear device DF. See EX1004, ¶118.
`This is shown in Fig. 1, annotated below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`[1.6] a power split device coupled to the transmission device
`and the second electric motor, the power split device comprising
`one or more planetary sets; and
`Tsuzuki discloses a power split device coupled to the transmission device and
`the second electric motor, the power split device comprising one or more planetary
`sets. EX1004, ¶¶120-24. For example, Tsuzuki discloses:
`[T]he first planetary gear device P1 is a single -pinion
`planetary gear mechanism that is arranged coaxially with
`the input shaft I. … The sun gear s1 is connected to rotate
`integrally with a first rotor shaft 13, which is the rotation
`shaft of the rotor Ro1 of the first motor -generator MG1.
`… The ring gear r1 is connected to the drive gear 14 so as
`to rotate integrally with it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`EX1005, [0053]. A POSITA would have understood that the first planetary gear
`device P1 is a “power split device” because it splits power among the engine and
`MG1. In particular, MG1 is connected to P1’s sun gear, the engine is connected to
`P1’s carrier via the intermediate shaft 12, and MG2 is connected to P1’s ring gear
`via the drive gear 14, transmission chain 16, and driven gear 15. Id., [0053], [0057],
`Fig. 1.
`Tsuzuki also discloses that “[i]n the split mode, the first planetary gear device
`P1 operates to distribute the rotational driving force of the engine E to the output
`member O and the first motor- generator MG1. That is, as shown in FIG. 6, in the
`first planetary gear device P1, the carrier ca1, which is intermediate in the order of
`rotation speed, rotates integrally with the engine E. The rotation of the carrier ca1 is
`distributed to the sun gear s1, which is at one end in the order of rotation speed, and
`the ring gear r1, which is at the other end in the order of rotation speed. ” EX1005,
`[0068] (emphasis added). Thus, the planetary gear device P1 is a power split device
`to split (distribute) engine power to MG1 and output member O.
`Moreover, P1 is coupled to the transmission device (P2) by way of the drive
`gear 14 and transmission chain 16:
`Meanwhile, the driven gear 15 is fixed to the second rotor
`shaft 17 so as to rotate integrally therewith. A transmission
`chain 16 is wound around the driven gear 15 to connect
`the drive gear 14, which rotates integrally with the ring
`gear r1 of the first planetary gear device P1, to the driven
`gear 15. As a result, the drive gear 14 and the driven gear
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`15 are connected via the transmission chain 16 so that a
`driving force can be transmitted.
`EX1005, [0057]. This is also shown in the following annotated