`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Issue Date: August 4, 2009
`Title: DIGITAL FLOWMETER
`_________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00393
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062
`
`
`Petitioner Docket No. 087886-0122
`
`
`
`Petitioner Micro Motion submits this response to Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observations (“Motion”) filed on February 2, 2015 (Paper 36). In general, the
`
`Motion violates the directive in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756) that the observations be concise and not re-argue issues. (Id. at
`
`48768.) The response below will follow the order of paragraphs in the Patent
`
`Owner’s observations.
`
`(1)
`
`Page 2: The Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Sidman’s deposition
`
`testimony is inconsistent with statements in paragraph 5 of Dr. Sidman’s
`
`Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1068). It is not. Dr. Sidman testified that the
`
`statement in Romano that production of a “drive signal that is in phase with the
`
`sum of the left and right velocity sensor waveforms” is not necessarily true with
`
`respect to all Coriolis flow meters. (Ex. 2027 at 24:10-25:4.) He said in his
`
`declaration that “the drive signal still must be synchronized to the oscillation of the
`
`tube …” (Ex. 1068, ¶ 5). Those statements are not inconsistent. The drive signal
`
`must be synchronized to the oscillation of the tube, but it need not in every case be
`
`in phase with the sum of the left and the right velocity sensor waveforms. It would
`
`be possible, for example, to drive the flow tube based only on the left or the right
`
`sensor signal. In addition, contrary to the second part of the observation, this
`
`statement also does not undermine the opinion that claim 1 of ’062 patent is
`
`anticipated. Romano only teaches the use of the sum of both sensor signals to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062
`
`generate the drive signal in Figures 2 and 4 (Ex. 1068, ¶ 5), and one of skill in the
`
`Petitioner Docket No. 087886-0122
`
`
`
`art would have understood the digital drive embodiment to work the same way.
`
`(Id.) In addition, even if only the right sensor signal were used, Romano teaches
`
`compensating for delay of that signal. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.)
`
`(2)
`
`Page 3, first observation: This observation is incorrect for the reasons
`
`stated above.
`
`(3)
`
`Page 3, second observation: The Patent Owner claims that Dr.
`
`Sidman “admitted it would be possible that Romano’s digital drive embodiment
`
`could” work in a particular way. That is incorrect. Dr. Sidman testified, in
`
`response to what he said was an incomplete hypothetical (Ex. 2027, 95:14-15), that
`
`he could “speculate” (id., 95:21) that it would be “possible” (id., 95:22-23) that “a
`
`Coriolis flowmeter could be built that would have a response to the situation I [the
`
`questioner] described, exactly in the way I described it.” (Id., 95:8-12.)
`
`Speculation about whether a hypothetical device could be built does not contradict
`
`anything Dr. Sidman said. In addition, contrary to the second part of the
`
`observation, Dr. Sidman’s testimony also does not “make[] 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.” (Mot. at 4.) The
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062
`
`hypothetical question posed in connection with this testimony specifically asked
`
`Petitioner Docket No. 087886-0122
`
`
`
`Dr. Sidman to “assume the resonant frequency of the tube does not change during
`
`the period of time we’re talking about.” (Ex. 2027, 94:12-18.) Thus, this
`
`testimony says nothing about what would happen in the hypothetical device once
`
`the frequency began to change.
`
`(4)
`
`Page 4, first observation: The testimony does not discuss adjustment
`
`of phase. However, the figure of Romano that illustrates the digital drive (Figure
`
`3) expressly discusses adjusting the phase of the right sensor signal. (Ex. 1006,
`
`22:10-32; Ex. 1068, ¶¶ 3-4.)
`
`(5)
`
`Page 5, first observation: Contrary to Patent Owner’s apparent
`
`argument, claim 1 of the ’062 patent does not require combining the left and the
`
`right sensor signals to generate the drive signal. However, Dr. Sidman testified
`
`that, if one used the right sensor signal, which is expressly taught by Romano as an
`
`alternative, Romano teaches to compensate for a phase delay. (Ex. 1068, ¶¶ 6-8.)
`
`(6)
`
`Page 5, second observation: This observation is irrelevant because, as
`
`stated previously, Romano expressly teaches using the right sensor signal as an
`
`alternative (Ex. 1068, ¶¶ 6-8; Ex. 1006, 29:17-21, 40:26-31), and also teaches that
`
`if the right sensor signal is used, a phase shift is applied. (Ex. 1068, ¶¶ 8, 3; Ex.
`
`1006, 22:10-32.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062
`
`
`Petitioner Docket No. 087886-0122
`
`
`
`(7)
`
`Page 6 first observation: Dr. Vipperman’s opinions have been
`
`rebutted by Dr. Sidman’s two declarations. (Ex. 1002 and 1068.)
`
`(8)
`
`Page 7: This observation is improper because it was outside the scope
`
`of Dr. Sidman’s nine-paragraph supplemental declaration (one paragraph of which
`
`was his name, a second paragraph of which was a quote from the claim, and a third
`
`paragraph of which was the required statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001). In any
`
`event, the timer 340 and the divide-by-five counter 315 indisputably control the
`
`timing of the switching of the multiplexer 302. (Ex. 1006, 22:33-23:37; Ex. 1077,
`
`244:7-19.) In other words, those elements cause the delay that must be
`
`compensated for in Romano. The timer 340 is connected to the bus that connects
`
`the sensors to the driver and it serves as an input to the input circuit 310 which
`
`includes the multiplexer. (Ex. 1006, Fig. 3.) The divide-by-five counter 315 is
`
`also a part of the input circuit 310 and also serves to control the timing of the
`
`multiplexer 302. (Id.; Ex. 1077, 244:7-19.) These components are therefore
`
`“components connected between the sensor and the driver” under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of that phrase.
`
`
`
`Date: February 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew S. Baluch /
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Registration No. 57,503
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062
`
`
`Petitioner Docket No. 087886-0122
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR OBSERVATION, was
`
`served on counsel of record on February 17, 2015, by filing this document through
`
`the Patent Review Processing System as well as delivering a copy via email to the
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`jeffrey.johnson@dlapiper.com
`Invensys_Micro_IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ebony Jennings/
`Ebony Jennings
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
