Filed on behalf of Invensys Systems, Inc.
`By: Jeffrey L. Johnson (Jeffrey.johnson@dlapiper.com )
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.425.8400
`Facsimile: 713.425.8401
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Issue Date: August 4, 2009
`
`Title: DIGITAL FLOWMETER
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Jeffrey L. Johnson (Jeffrey.johnson@dlapiper.com )
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.425.8400
`Facsimile: 713.425.8401
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Issue Date: August 4, 2009
`
`Title: DIGITAL FLOWMETER
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As authorized by the Board in its Order of August 4, 2014, IPR 2014-00393,
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Paper No. 17, Patent Owner submits the following Observations on Exhibit 2027
`
`(the transcript for the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Michael D. Sidman dated
`
`November 11, 2014). This cross-examination was taken in connection with
`
`IPR2014-00170 after Micro Motion submitted the Supplemental Declaration of Dr.
`
`Michael D. Sidman as Exhibit 1154 in IPR2014-00170. In view of the fact that the
`
`identical declaration (including the caption for IPR2014-00170) was submitted by
`
`Micro Motion and relied on in its Reply (Paper 32) in this inter partes review as
`
`Ex. 1068, Patent Owner believes it is authorized to file this Motion For
`
`Observations, and requests consideration of the same.
`
`II. OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 24:10-25:4, Dr. Sidman admitted that the statement in
`
`Romano (Ex. 1006) at 18:46-49 that the analog drive circuit of Figs. 2 and 4 of
`
`Romano “produces a drive signal that is in phase with the sum of the left and right
`
`velocity sensor waveforms” is not true with respect to all Coriolis flow meters.
`
`This admission is relevant because it contradicts the assertion in paragraph 5 of Dr.
`
`Sidman’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1068) that Romano discloses that the
`
`drive signal must be synchronized to the oscillation of the flow tube in a Coriolis
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`flow meter, and the assertion in that same paragraph that the Romano’s digital
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`drive embodiment also must “use the left and right sensor signals to produce an in-
`
`phase drive signal.” This testimony therefore undermines Dr. Sidman’s assertion
`
`that Romano’s digital drive embodiment (the only embodiment relied on in his first
`
`declaration and the Petition) anticipates claim 1 because, without a disclosure in
`
`Romano that the right velocity sensor signal is used to generate the drive signal,
`
`there is no basis for Dr. Sidman’s assertion that phase adjustment applied to the
`
`right velocity sensor signal in the digital drive embodiment would propagate
`
`through to the drive signal.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 110:17-25, Dr. Sidman admitted that he didn’t know
`
`whether it was necessary to use both the left and right velocity sensor signals to
`
`generate a drive signal in order to have a commercially acceptable Coriolis flow
`
`meter. This testimony is relevant because it further undermines any implication in
`
`paragraph 5 of Dr. Sidman’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1068) that one of skill
`
`in the art would understand that Romano’s digital drive embodiment necessarily
`
`uses both the left and right channel sensor signals to produce an in-phase drive
`
`signal.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 91:12-95:23, Dr. Sidman admitted that it would be
`
`possible that Romano’s digital drive embodiment could begin generating a drive
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`signal that was initially out of phase with the motion of the Coriolis meter flow
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`tube by as much as the maximum phase difference of 180 degrees, and that in
`
`response to this drive signal the Coriolis meter flow tube would, after a transition
`
`period, vibrate at the same phase as the drive signal. This admission is relevant
`
`because it contradicts the implied assertion in paragraph 5 of Dr. Sidman’s
`
`Supplemental Declaration (an assertion not found in the Petition or in Dr. Sidman’s
`
`original declaration) that Romano’s digital drive embodiment must adjust the
`
`phase of the drive signal to synchronize it to the oscillation of the flow tube to
`
`compensate for any delay in any component connected between the sensor and the
`
`driver. Dr. Sidman’s admission is further relevant because it also makes clear that
`
`Romano’s digital drive embodiment could, once the resonant frequency is
`
`determined using a discrete Fourier transform (DFT), begin generating a drive
`
`signal precisely as described at 24:32-60 of Romano without making any phase
`
`adjustment to synchronize the drive signal to the oscillation of the flow tube,
`
`contrary to the assertion in paragraph 5 of Dr. Sidman’s Supplemental Declaration.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 33:7-15, Dr. Sidman admitted that the analog drive circuit
`
`of Figs. 2 and 4 of Romano does not adjust the phase of the drive signal. This
`
`admission is relevant because, if one of skill in the art were to interpret Romano’s
`
`digital drive embodiment to use the “same scheme” as Romano’s analog drive
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`embodiment as asserted in paragraph 4 of Dr. Sidman’s Supplemental Declaration
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`(Ex. 1068), such a person could conclude that Romano’s digital drive embodiment
`
`also does not adjust the phase of the drive signal and therefore does not anticipate
`
`claim 1 of the ‘062 patent.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 46:20-47:2; 48:23-49:19 and 51:5-66:20, Dr. Sidman
`
`admitted
`
`that: (1)
`
`it was his position
`
`that Romano disclosed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`microprocessor 330 adds the left and right velocity sensor signals to generate the
`
`drive signal; (2)
`
`that Romano describes
`
`the software executed by
`
`the
`
`microprocessor 330 in Figs. 6-13; and (3) that he could not find any disclosure in
`
`Figs. 6-13, or in the corresponding detailed description of those figures in the
`
`specification from 26:52 through 41:45, of the microprocessor 330 adding the left
`
`and right velocity sensor signals to generate the drive signal. This admission is
`
`significant because it directly contradicts Dr. Sidman’s assertion in paragraph 5 of
`
`Ex. 1068 that Romano discloses that Romano’s digital drive embodiment combines
`
`the left and right velocity sensor signals to generate the drive signal, and therefore
`
`undermines Dr. Sidman’s assertion that Romano’s digital drive embodiment
`
`anticipates claim 1 of the ’062 patent.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 70:11-71:16, Dr. Sidman admitted that the DFT routine
`
`700 described in Romano at 30:47-32:13 is the software routine executed by the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`microprocessor 330 to perform the DFT function described in Romano at 24:36-
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`42. This admission is relevant because it establishes that the functioning of the
`
`digital drive embodiment described in Romano at 24:32-60 is further explained by
`
`the description of the software executed by the microprocessor 330 starting at
`
`26:62 of Romano, and further confirms that there is no disclosure in Romano that
`
`this software in the digital drive embodiment combines the left and right velocity
`
`sensor signals to generate the drive signal as discussed in the previous paragraph.
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 123:11-23, Dr. Sidman admitted that he had reviewed Dr.
`
`Vipperman’s Declaration in IPR2014-00170 (Ex. 2013), which is very similar to
`
`Dr. Vipperman’s Declaration in this inter partes review (Ex. 2015), and that
`
`nothing prevented him from responding to any of the assertions in Dr.
`
`Vipperman’s declaration. This is relevant because it means that Dr. Vipperman’s
`
`testimony at ¶¶ 73, 74, 81 and 82 of Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) that the DFT
`
`routine 700 uses only a single velocity sensor signal to calculate the resonant
`
`frequency for generating the drive signal, and Dr. Vipperman’s testimony at ¶¶ 92-
`
`99 of Ex. 2015 that the 2π/128 radian phase shift applied to the right velocity
`
`sensor signal would have no effect on the DFT magnitude computation or the drive
`
`signal even if the right velocity sensor signal were to be used in the DFT routine
`
`700, both stand unrebutted and render the opinions in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Dr.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Sidman’s Supplemental Declaration irrelevant.
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`
`
`In Exhibit 2027 at 41:2-47:2 and 95:24-97:21, and in Exhibit 2028 (referred
`
`to as Ex. 2019 in Dr. Sidman’s testimony in Ex. 2027), Dr. Sidman illustrated in
`
`Fig. 3 of Romano the signal path along which the left and right velocity sensor
`
`signals 165L and 165R travel to the microprocessor 330, and the signal path along
`
`which the drive signal travels from the microprocessor 330 to the drive coil 180.
`
`This testimony is relevant because the paths of those signals as explained by Dr.
`
`Sidman do not pass through either the timer 340 or the “divide by five counter”
`
`315. This testimony therefore contradicts the assertion in Petitioner’s Reply (at 10-
`
`12) that the timer 340 or the “divide by five counter” 315 can constitute
`
`“components connected between the sensor and driver” as required by claim 1 of
`
`the ’062 patent.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the foregoing observations be
`
`considered by the Board when issuing a final decision in this inter partes review.
`
`Dated: February 2, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DLA PIPER LLP
`
`
`/Jeffrey L. Johnson/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Jeffrey L. Johnson (Registration No. 53,078)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.425.8400
`Facsimile: 713.425.8401
`Jeffrey.Johnson@dlapiper.com
`
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing instrument
`
`
`
`
`
`was served on Petitioner, Micro Motion, Inc., by emailing a copy to counsel at the
`
`email addresses listed below:
`
`Andrew S. Baluch
`abaluch@foley.com
`
`Jeffrey N. Costakos
`jcostakos@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jeffrey L. Johnson/
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`Reg. No. 53,078
`Jeffrey.johnson@dlapiper.com
`Counsel for Invensys Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 2, 2015
`
`
`EAST\90270573.1
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
