PTAB

IPR2015-00722

Ford Motor Co v. Paice LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Hybrid vehicles
  • Brief Description: The ’634 patent describes methods for controlling a hybrid electric vehicle powertrain. The control strategy involves monitoring the vehicle's instantaneous road load (RL) and comparing it to a predetermined torque setpoint (SP) to switch between different operating modes: electric motor-only, internal combustion engine-only, or a combination of both to optimize efficiency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 33, 36, 42-44, 46, 50-52, 78, 161, 215, 228, 233, and 235-237 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 and the General Knowledge of a POSA

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ibaraki ’882 (Patent 5,789,882) and the general knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ibaraki ’882 discloses a control method for a hybrid vehicle that anticipates the core limitations of the challenged independent claims (33, 161, 215). Ibaraki ’882 teaches using a controller with a stored data map (e.g., Fig. 11) that selects an operating mode based on "vehicle drive torque" and "vehicle speed." Petitioner contended that Ibaraki’s "vehicle drive torque" is the same as the claimed "instantaneous road load (RL)." The boundary lines on Ibaraki's map (e.g., boundary line "B") that delineate operating modes function as the claimed "setpoint (SP)." Specifically, Ibaraki ’882 discloses:
      • A "MOTOR DRIVE mode" (electric motor only) when vehicle drive torque is below boundary line B (the setpoint).
      • An "ENGINE DRIVE mode" (engine only) when torque is between boundary line B and an upper boundary line C.
      • An "ENGINE-MOTOR DRIVE mode" (combined power) when torque is above boundary line C, which a POSA would understand corresponds to torque demands exceeding the engine's maximum torque output (MTO).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground primarily relied on Ibaraki ’882, with a POSA's general knowledge used to interpret its disclosures. For example, a POSA would understand that an engine has an MTO and that the operating ranges described in Ibaraki ’882 inherently place the setpoint substantially below the MTO to create a functional engine-only operating range. Petitioner also argued Ibaraki ’882 teaches varying the setpoint based on driving patterns (e.g., on a mountain path) by monitoring regenerative charging amounts over time, mapping to the limitations of claim 33.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have a high expectation of success in implementing the control strategy, as Ibaraki ’882 provides a detailed and functional blueprint for such a system.

Ground 2: Claims 55 and 239 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Ibaraki ’626 and the Knowledge of a POSA

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ibaraki ’882 (Patent 5,789,882) and Ibaraki ’626 (Patent 6,003,626).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 55 and 239, which add the limitation of operating the engine at torque levels below the setpoint during "abnormal and transient conditions" for drivability or safety. Ibaraki ’882 provided the base hybrid control system. Ibaraki ’626, which shares an assignee and inventors with Ibaraki ’882, disclosed a "SPECIAL CONTROL ROUTINE" for fault conditions, such as an electric motor failure. In this mode, the engine provides all required power, including at low torque levels where the electric motor would normally operate (i.e., below the setpoint), to ensure the vehicle remains safely operable.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine the normal operating logic of Ibaraki ’882 with the fault-mode logic of Ibaraki ’626 to create a more robust, reliable, and safe hybrid vehicle. Combining a standard control strategy with a fail-safe mode was a well-known engineering practice to address a predictable problem.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was predictable, as both references describe nearly identical control maps and systems, making the integration of the fault-mode logic into the primary system straightforward.

Ground 3: Claims 173 and 240 are obvious over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Suga ’104 and the Knowledge of a POSA

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ibaraki ’882 (Patent 5,789,882) and Suga ’104 (Patent 5,623,104).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 173 and 240, which require the vehicle's electric motor to be powerful enough to provide acceleration conforming to the "Federal urban cycle" without engine assistance. While Ibaraki ’882 disclosed the hybrid control system with a motor-only mode, Suga ’104 taught a testing apparatus and method for evaluating electric motor performance. Suga ’104 specifically described testing a motor's power and efficiency across the LA4 driving cycle—which a POSA would recognize as the Federal Urban Driving Schedule (FUDS)—to ensure it meets performance criteria.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA tasked with designing the hybrid vehicle of Ibaraki ’882 would be motivated to use the motor testing and selection methodology of Suga ’104. This was a routine design choice to ensure the selected electric motor was properly sized to meet established performance standards and provide the necessary torque for the vehicle's motor-only operating mode.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have a high expectation of success in selecting an appropriately powerful motor for the Ibaraki ’882 system using the well-defined testing procedures from Suga ’104.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 42 over Ibaraki ’882 in view of Masding 1988 and Applicant Admitted Prior Art, arguing a POSA would have found it obvious to translate Ibaraki's relative fuel efficiency setpoint into a specific MTO percentage (at least 30%) based on known engine parameters.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • road load (RL): Petitioner proposed construing this term as "the amount of instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle, be it positive or negative." This construction was argued to be consistent with prior PTAB decisions.
  • setpoint (SP): Petitioner argued for a construction of "predetermined torque value." This was presented as narrower than constructions used in district court litigation and was supported by arguments made by the patentee during the prosecution of the parent ’347 patent to overcome prior art.
  • abnormal and transient conditions: For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner construed this term based on the parent patent's definition as "comprising starting and stopping of the engine and provision of torque to satisfy drivability or safety considerations."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 33, 36, 42-44, 46, 50-52, 55, 78, 161, 173, 215, 228, 233, 235-237, and 239-240 of the ’634 patent as unpatentable.