MICRO MOTION, INC., Petitioner
`v.
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC., Patent Owner
`IPR2014-00390 - Patent No. 6,754,594
`IPR2014-00392 - Patent No. 8,000,906
`IPR2014-00393 - Patent No. 7,571,062
`INVENSYS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`for
`Oral Hearing on March 12, 2015
`
`Invensys Systems, Inc. Exhibit 2029
`1
`
`
`v.
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC., Patent Owner
`IPR2014-00390 - Patent No. 6,754,594
`IPR2014-00392 - Patent No. 8,000,906
`IPR2014-00393 - Patent No. 7,571,062
`INVENSYS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`for
`Oral Hearing on March 12, 2015
`
`Invensys Systems, Inc. Exhibit 2029
`1
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`’062 Patent
`claim 1
`Romano
`
`’594 Patent
`
`claim 9
`Freeman
`
`’906 Patent
`
`claims 8-9
`Miller
`Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`3
`3
`
`35
`37
`38
`
`53
`55
`56
`70
`
`2
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`• Only challenge to claim 1 is anticipation by Romano
`• Romano does not anticipate claim 1
`• Romano only applies a phase shift to the right
`sensor channel for measurement purposes
`• Romano’s sensor channel phase shift does not
`“propagate through” to the drive signal
`• Romano’s sensor channel phase shift only
`compensates for delay of a single component
`• Petitioner’s new arguments were improperly raised
`in the Reply and are wrong
`
`Paper 30 (PO Resp.) at 1, 5, 8-9; Paper 37 (Req. Oral Arg.) at 2; Paper 39 (Obs.) at 3-4
`
`3
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Ex.1001 (’062 Patent) at 55:20-40
`
`4
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The only phase shift identified in the Petition and Dr.
`Sidman’s original declaration is the 2π/128 radian
`phase shift applied to the right sensor signals:
`
`Ex. 1006 (Romano) at 22:10-32; cited in Ex. 1002 ¶196 and in Paper 30 at 7)
`
`5
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Because claim 1 requires applying a phase shift to
`the drive signal, Dr. Sidman opined that the 2π/128
`radian phase shift applied to the right sensor signal
`“propagates through” to the drive signal:
`
`Ex.1002 (Sidman Decl.) ¶197 (cited in Paper 30 at 7)
`
`6
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The 2π/128 radian phase shift theory is the only theory
`in the Petition or Dr. Sidman’s original declaration
`
`Both of Dr. Sidman’s assertions are wrong:
`• Romano discloses using only one sensor signal
`to generate the drive signal in the digital drive
`embodiment
`• Any phase adjustment of the right sensor signal
`would have no effect on the phase of the drive
`signal in the digital drive embodiment
`
`Paper 30 (PO Resp.) at 8
`
`7
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Dr. Sidman admitted on cross examination that
`Romano does not disclose using both the left and right
`channel sensor signals to generate the drive signal:
`
`Ex.2022 (Sidman Tr.) at 84:19-85:1 (cited in Paper 25 at 20)
`
`8
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Dr. Sidman admitted on cross examination that it was
`known in the art to digitally generate a drive signal
`using only one sensor channel signal:
`
`Ex.2022 (Sidman Tr.) at 44:17-20 (cited in Paper 30 at 17)
`
`9
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Fig. 4 of Kalotay shows a digital drive embodiment
`using a single sensor signal to generate a drive signal:
`
`Ex.1008 (Kalotay) at Fig. 4 (cited in Paper 30 at 17)
`
`10
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Romano explains how his digital drive embodiment
`generates a drive signal using only one sensor signal.
`First, a DFT is used to determine the resonant
`frequency:
`
`Ex.1006 (Romano) at 24:36-45 (cited in Paper 30 at 10-11)
`
`11
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The DFT uses only a single sensor signal:
`
`Ex.1006 (Romano) at 29:13-30 (cited in Paper 30 at 12)
`
`12
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The DFT uses only a single sensor signal:
`
`Ex.1006 (Romano) at 29:30-40 (cited in Paper 30 at 13)
`
`13
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Even if the right sensor signals were used in the DFT,
`Dr. Vipperman’s unrebutted testimony establishes that
`any phase shift applied to those signals would have no
`effect on the fundamental frequency determination:
`
`Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 92 (cited in Paper 30 at 21); Paper 36 (Mot. Obs.) at 6-7
`
`14
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 78 (cited in Paper 30 at 13)
`
`15
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 79 (cited in Paper 30 at 13)
`
`16
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The fundamental frequency from the DFT is used to set
`a period for reading sine values from a table to
`generate the drive signal:
`
`Ex.1006 (Romano) at 26:45-54 (cited in Paper 30, PO Resp, at 10-11)
`
`17
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Paper 30 (PO Resp.) at 10 (citing Ex.1006 at Fig. 3)
`
`18
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Petitioner’s Reply includes several new arguments that
`should be ignored:
`
`IPR2013-00517, Paper 87, at 14
`
`19
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Improper new argument in Petitioner’s Reply:
`Romano discloses that the drive signal must be
`synchronized to the oscillation of the flow meter tube:
`
`Paper 32 (Pet. Reply) at 4
`
`20
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`But what this passage of Romano actually says is:
`
`Ex.1006 (Romano) at 18:42-55 (cited in Paper 32 at 4)
`
`21
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`And, Dr. Sidman has admitted that this passage of
`Romano does not apply to all Coriolis flowmeters:
`
`Ex. 2027 (Sidman Tr.) at 24:10-25:4 (cited in Paper 36 at 2-3)
`
`22
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`And, Dr. Sidman has admitted that this passage of
`Romano does not apply to all Coriolis flowmeters:
`
`Ex. 2027 (Sidman Tr.) at 24:10-25:4 (cited in Paper 36 at 2-3)
`
`23
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Romano’s analog embodiment does not perform any
`phase shift to the right sensor signal to compensate for
`component delays:
`
`Ex.1006 (Romano) at Fig. 4 (cited in Paper 30 at 15-16)
`
`24
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Dr. Sidman admits that Romano’s analog embodiment
`does not perform any phase shift to the drive signal:
`
`Ex. 2027 (Sidman Tr.) at 33:7-15 (cited in Paper 36, Mot. Obs., at 4-5)
`
`25
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Dr. Sidman admits that it is possible to begin generating
`this drive signal without any phase adjustment:
`
`Ex.2027 (Sidman Tr.) at 93:15-95: 23 (cited in Paper 36 at 3-4)
`
`26
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`. . .
`
`Ex.2027 (Sidman Tr.) at 93:15-95: 23 (cited in Paper 36 at 3-4)
`
`27
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Another improper new Reply argument:
`
`Paper 32 (Pet. Reply) at 7
`
`28
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Yet another improper new Reply argument:
`
`Paper 32 (Pet. Reply) at 8
`
`29
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`But: frequency ≠ phase
`density change ≠ component delay
`
`Paper 32 (Pet. Reply) at 9
`
`30
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`claim 1 requires adjusting the phase of the drive
`signal to compensate for a time delay associated
`with multiple components:
`
`but the 2π/128 radian phase shift applied to the right
`sensor signals only compensates for a time delay
`associated with a single component, the multiplexer
`
`Ex. 1001 (’062 Patent) at 55:37-40 (cited in Paper 30 at 21); Paper 30 (PO Resp.) at 25
`
`31
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`Ex. 2028 (cited in Paper 36 at 7)
`
`32
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The 2π/128 radian phase shift only compensates for
`the multiplexer 302:
`
`Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶¶ 104-105 (cited in Paper 30 at 22-24)
`
`33
`
`
`
`’062 Patent: claim 1/Romano
`
`The multiplexer 302 is a single component:
`
`Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 108 (cited in Paper 30 at 25)
`
`34
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-00390
`U.S. Patent 6,754,594
`
`IPR 2014-00390
`
`U.S. Patent 6,754,594
`
`I DLA PIPER
`
`35
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
` Claim 9 was allowed over Freeman, which was cited
`during prosecution.
`
`Paper 10 at 29
`
`36
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`I DLA PIPER
`
`B. A digital flotymeter comprising:
`a yihratahle conduit;
`
`a driver connected to the conduit and operable to impart
`motion to the conduit;
`
`a sensor connected to the conduit and operable to sense
`the tttotion of the conduit; and
`
`a control and measttrertte nt system connected to the driver
`and the sensor, the control and measurement system
`comprising circuitry to:
`receive a sensor signal from the sensor,
`generate a drive signal based on the sensor signal using
`digital signal processing,
`supply the drive signal to the driver. and
`generate a measurement of a property of ntaterial
`flowing through the conduit based on the sensor
`signal;
`wherein the control and measurement system initiates
`motion of the conduit by using a first mode of signal
`generation to generate the drive signal, and sustains
`motion of the conduit using a second mode of signal
`generation to generate the driye signal.
`Exhibit 1001 at 55:4-29
`9. The digital flownteter of claim 5, wherein the first mode
`of signal generation comprises synthesis of a periodic signal
`having a flflil‘flil property and the second mode of signal
`generation oornprises using a feedback loop including the
`
`
`
`
`
`37
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Drive generation is carried out in means 40 (DSP chip 62).
`
`Paper 28 at 19-21, 25; Exhibit 1054 at 7:45-51; Figure 2
`
`38
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Exhibit 1054 at 8:10-18; Figure 5
`
`39
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Paper 28 at 22
`
`40
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Paper 28 at 22; Exhibit 2020 at 116:13-25
`
`41
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Paper 28 at 23; Exhibit 2020 at 117:1-11
`
`42
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Paper 28 at 23; Exhibit 2021 at 8:9-15 and 9:2-4
`
`43
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`• Drive signal 72 is the only drive signal in Freeman.
`
`• Petitioner’s expert (Sidman) admits that drive signal 72
`is a “synthesized” signal.
`
`Paper 28 at 22 (citing Exhibit 2020 at 118)
`
`44
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Vipperman declaration, Exhibit 2015 at 51; Paper 28 at 26
`
`45
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Petitioner’s expert (Sidman) admits that the feedback loop and
`phase lock loop are always operating while generating drive
`signals.
`
`Paper 28 at 26; Exhibit 2021 at 4
`
`46
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
` Freeman doesn’t disclose two modes
`
`Vipperman declaration, Exhibit 2015 at 50; Paper 28 at 25
`
`47
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
` Freeman doesn’t disclose how it initiates motion, nor does it tie
`the “modes” Petitioner identifies as initiating motion
`
`Paper 28 at 23-24; Exhibit 2015 at 49
`
`48
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Petitioner’s expert (Sidman) admits that Freeman does not address initiating
`motion of the flowtubes
`
`Paper 28 at 23-24; Exhibit 2020 at 128
`
`49
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Paper 28 at 23; Exhibit 1002 at 90-91
`
`50
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Petitioner’s only explanation is that “initializing the phase locked
`loop” somehow equals (“i.e.”) “initiating motion of the conduit”
`
`Paper 28 at 23; Exhibit 1002 at 91
`
`51
`
`
`
`’594 Patent: claim 9 / Freeman
`
`Freeman Summary
`1. Drive signal 72 is the only drive signal generated in Freeman
`2. Drive signal 72 is synthesized using phase estimate 94 and
`frequency estimate parameters 92 – always
`3. Freeman does not disclose the way drive signal 72 is
`“generated” from the parameter inputs
`4. Fig. 5 is the only “way” disclosed in Freeman to generate the
`parameters
`5. Freeman does not disclose how it initiates motion of the
`flowtubes
`
`Paper 28 at 22-24; Ex.1054 at Figures 2 and 5; Ex.2020 at 114-118, 128; Ex. 2021 at 8-11; Ex. 2015 at 49
`
`52
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-00392
`U.S. Patent 8,000,906
`
`IPR 2014-00392
`
`U.S. Patent 8,000,906
`
`I DLA PIPER
`
`53
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9
`
`Miller (anticipation)
`• Miller does not disclose a “Coriolis-effect” flowmeter
`• Miller never discloses the flowtube transitioning from substantially empty of
`liquid to substantially full of liquid nor “batching”
`• Miller does not disclose that it “maintains oscillation” during a transition
`
`Model D Manual + Slug Flow (obviousness)
`• Neither Petitioner, nor their expert, define the ordinary level of skill
`• Slug Flow inhibits the determination of a flow rate
`
`Lindenbaum (anticipation)
`• Does not disclose a system that can maintain oscillation
`
`Romano + Lindenbaum (obviousness)
`• Neither disclose maintaining oscillation during transitions
`• Romano doesn’t even disclose transitions
`• Neither disclose batching
`
`Paper 7 at 10-12, 16-18, 30-32, 35-40, 52; Paper 23 at 15-53
`
`54
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9
`
`EM
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9
`
`8. A Coriolis effect flowmeter comprising:
`a vibratable flowtube;
`at least one sensor coupled to the vibratable flowtube;
`an input module operable to receive a sensor signal from
`the sensor, the sensor signal related to a fluid flow
`through the flowtube;
`a signal processing system operable to receive the sensor
`signal, determine sensor signal characteristics, and out—
`put drive signal characteristics for a drive signal applied
`to the flowtube;
`an output module operable to output the drive signal to the
`flowtube;
`a control system operable to modify the drive signal and
`thereby maintain oscillation of the flowtube during a
`transition from a first state in which the flowtube is
`
`substantially empty ot‘liquid to a second state in which
`the flowtube is substantially full of liquid; and
`wherein the control system is further operable to modify
`the drive signal and thereby maintain oscillation of the
`flowtube while separate batches of the fluid flow are
`Exhibit 1001 at 54:41-64
`processed through the flowtube, wherein the flowtube is
`substantially empty in between the separate batches.
`9. The flowmeter ofclaim 8 wherein the control system is
`a digital control system.
`
`55
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9 / Miller
`
`• Miller is not a Coriolis-effect
`flowmeter
`
`• Petitioner provides zero evidence
`that Miller is a Coriolis-effect
`flowmeter
`
`Paper 7 at 35; Paper 25 at 17 19-20; Exhibit 1007, Figure 3.
`
`56
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9
`
`Exhibit 1001 at 1:24-42; Paper 7 at 35; Paper 25 at 17.
`
`57
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9 / Miller
`
`Paper 25 at 17
`
`58
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9 / Miller
`
`• Claims 1 and 8 require
`the flowmeter to modify
`the drive signal to
`maintain oscillation
`during empty-full
`transitions AND while
`batching
`
`Paper 25 at 13; Exhibit 1001 at 53:50 – 54:64
`
`59
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3, 8 and 9 / Miller
`
`Miller does not disclose the flowtube going from substantially
`empty of liquid to substantially full of liquid.
`
`• Petition’s only argument:
`
`Transition = changes in mass
`
`Paper 1 at 35-36
`
`60
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Miller
`
`“rapid changes in mass” is what the Board based its Decision
`on in finding this element disclosed
`
`Paper 13 at 20-21
`
`61
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Miller
`
`• Reply abandons the Petition argument and asserts a
`completely different argument
`
`Paper 27 at 4-5
`
`62
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims / Miller
`
`• Petitioner’s new argument
`
`Saturated steam wet steam (two-phase flow) liquid water
`
`Paper 27 at 4-5; Exhibit 1007 at 1:36-48 and 1:60-2:14
`
`63
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Miller
`
`• Every description within Miller of the actual invention says
`that it uses and requires wet steam (two-phase steam).
`
`Paper 25 at 11-13; Exhibit 1007 at 8:42-61,10:55-63
`
`64
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9 / Miller
`
`• Petitioner’s expert (Sidman) confuses obviousness and
`anticipation
`
`Paper 25 at 15-16
`
`65
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9 / Miller
`
`• Petitioner’s expert (Sidman) admits Miller doesn’t
`disclose batching
`
`Paper 25 at 15-16
`
`66
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9
`
`• Claims 1-3 and 8-9 require
`
`“a control system operable to modify the drive signal and
`thereby maintain oscillation of the flowtube during a
`transition of the flowtube from substantially empty state to
`a substantially full state”
`
`“wherein the control system is further operable to modify
`the drive signal and thereby maintain oscillation of the
`flowtube while separate batches of the fluid flow are
`processed through the flowtube, wherein the flowtube is
`substantially empty in between the separate batches”
`
`Paper 25 at 13; Exhibit 1001 at 53:50 – 54:64
`
`67
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9
`
`maintain oscillation - “the flowtube continues oscillating”
`
`•
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification”. 37 C.F.R. Sec 42.100(b)
`
`• Meaningless, writes the limitation out of the claims
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Ignores the entire point of the invention, the problem it solved and the
`teachings of the specification.
`
`Inconsistent with and ignores the implications and meaning of the term
`“maintain.”
`
`• Micro Motion has failed to show that any reference
`actually discloses maintaining oscillation during a
`transition
`Paper 7 at 8-11; Paper 25 at 5-9
`
`68
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9 / Miller
`
`Miller Summary
` Miller is NOT a Coriolis-effect Flowmeter
` Miller does not disclose the entire flowtube transitioning from empty to
`full
` Miller does not disclose “batching”
` Nothing in Miller suggests that it is capable of maintaining oscillation
`during empty to full transitions while also experiencing batching
`
`Paper 7 at 35; Paper 25 at 11-13, 15-17, 19-20
`
`69
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`Claim 8 and 9 are not obvious
`
`1. No motivation to modify or combine the two references
`2. Lindenbaum isn’t digital
`3. Lindenbaum doesn’t disclose ”modifying a drive signal”
`4. Romano does not disclose situations where an entire
`flowtube transition from substantially empty to substantially
`full
`5. Neither reference discloses batching
`6. Lindenbaum admits that it gets false measurements during
`transitions and, thus, is not “maintaining oscillation” (under
`the adopted construction or Invensys’ proposed
`construction)
`
`Paper 7 at 23-25, 30-34, 38-46; Paper 25 at 18-35
`
`70
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9
`
`Paper 1 at 23-24
`
`71
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claim 9
`
`Paper 25 at 30 (citing Exhibit 2012 - IPR 2013-0054, Apr. 8, 2013 Decision at pp. 14-15)
`
`72
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claim 9
`
`EM
`
`”906 Patent: claim 9
`
`8. A Coriolis effect flowmeter comprising:
`a vibratable flowtube;
`at least one sensor coupled to the vibratable flowtube;
`an input module operable to receive a sensor signal from
`the sensor,
`the sensor signal related to a fluid flow
`through the flowtube;
`a signal processing system operable to receive the sensor
`signal, determine sensor signal characteristics, and out-
`put drive signal characteristics for a drive signal applied
`to the flowtube;
`an output module operable to output the drive signal to the
`flowtube;
`a control system operable to modify the drive signal and
`thereby maintain oscillation of the flowtube during a
`transition from a first state in which the flowtube is
`
`substantially empty ofliquid to a second state in which
`the flowtube is substantially full of liquid; and
`wherein the control system is further operable to modify
`the drive signal and thereby maintain oscillation of the
`flowtube while separate batches of the fluid flow are
`Paper 25 at 19; Exhibit 1001 at 53:50 – 54:64
`processed through the flowtube, wherein the flowtube is
`substantially empty in between the separate batches.
`9. The flowmeter ofclairn 8 wherein the control system is
`a digital control system.
`
`73
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8 and 9
`
` Petitioner admits that Lindenbaum doesn’t disclose
`“driving” the flowtubes, thus, is cannot disclose
`“modifying the drive signal”
`
`“Lindenbaum is focused on measurement during
`batching, and thus does not provide details of the driving
`of the flow tube oscillation.” [Paper 1 at 25]
`
` Instead, Petitioner relies on Romano for
`“modification”
`
`Paper 1 at 23-26; 30-32; Paper 25 at 18-35
`
`74
`
`
`
`‘906 Patent: Claim 3 and 9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 25 at 19
`
`75
`
`
`
`‘906 Patent: Claim 9 / Lindenbaum/Romano
`
` Petitioner’s argument
`1. Modify Lindenbaum
`2. With Romano’s digital drive
`3. To continue to maintain oscillation during empty-full AND
`batching
`
` BUT
`1. Neither reference maintains oscillation during transitions
`2. Neither reference addresses maintaining in between batches
`3. Romano doesn’t disclose a functional digital drive control
`system capable of modifying the drive signal
`4. Romano doesn’t disclose empty-full situations or batching
`
`Paper 1 at 23-26; 30-32; Paper 25 at 20-30
`
`76
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9
`
`• Claims 1-3 and 8-9 require
`
`“a control system operable to modify the drive signal and
`thereby maintain oscillation of the flowtube during a
`transition of the flowtube from substantially empty state to
`a substantially full state”
`
`“wherein the control system is further operable to modify
`the drive signal and thereby maintain oscillation of the
`flowtube while separate batches of the fluid flow are
`processed through the flowtube, wherein the flowtube is
`substantially empty in between the separate batches”
`
`Paper 25 at 13; Exhibit 1001 at 53:50 – 54:64
`
`77
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9
`
`maintain oscillation - “the flowtube continues oscillating”
`
`•
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification”. 37 C.F.R. Sec 42.100(b)
`
`• Meaningless, writes the limitation out of the claims
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Ignores the entire point of the invention, the problem it solved and the
`teachings of the specification.
`
`Inconsistent with and ignores the implications and meaning of the term
`“maintain.”
`
`• Micro Motion has failed to show that any reference
`actually discloses maintaining oscillation during a
`transition
`Paper 7 at 8-11; Paper 25 at 5-9
`
`78
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 25 at 20
`
`79
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Petitioner’s argument is essentially that Lindenbaum
`inherently discloses maintaining oscillation by
`disclosing erroneous or continuous measurement as
`the tube begins to fill with raw material.
`
`• Assumes that Lindenbaum necessarily maintains
`oscillation, but fails to make any showing that it is
`inherent
`
`• Assumes that Lindenbaum is continuing to measure
`
`Paper 7 at 31-34
`
`80
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 25 at 22-23; Exhibit 1011
`
`81
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`• Not “batching” as
`required by the
`claims
`
`• Regardless,
`nothing indicates
`that Lindenbaum is
`even running in
`between “batches”
`
`Paper 25 at 22-23; Exhibit 1011
`
`82
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 5-9 / Miller
`
`• Petitioner ignores the
`“in between”
`
`• Missing the entire point
`of the invention
`
`Paper 25 at 13-16, 18; Exhibit 1001 at 53:50 – 54:64
`
`83
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 25 at 22-23; Exhibit 2015 at 47-50
`
`84
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 25 at 22-23; Exhibit 2015 at 47-50
`
`85
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`Petitioner’s ASSUMPTION:
`
`Erroneous non-sensical measurements = oscillation
`
`Paper 7 at 32
`
`86
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 7 at 31-32
`
`87
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 7 at 31-32
`
`88
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Lindenbaum
`
`The system “continues to measure”
`
`Paper 7 at 32; Exhibit 1011 at 3:34-39
`
`89
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`Paper 7 at 32
`
`90
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`“false measurements” and “synthetic signal
`measurements”
`
`Paper 7 at 31-32; Paper 25 at 20-23; Exhibit 1011 at 2:1-19, 27-31 and 1:25-29
`
`91
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 8-9 / Romano/Lindenbaum
`
`Inherency
`
`Paper 25 at 30-31
`
`92
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Romano
`
`Petitioner recognizes that Romano doesn’t address or disclose in any way
`flowtubes transitioning from substantially empty to substantially full
`
`Paper 1 at 16
`
`93
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Romano
`
` Petitioner’s argument is NOT that Romano discloses a device that is
`maintaining oscillation during a transition, instead it is that because
`Romano alleges that it is immune or unaffected by noise it MUST be
`capable of maintaining oscillation (Paper 7 at 40-46; Paper 23 at 27, 29-32)
`
` “. . . substantially immune to noise, and more particularly, to such a
`meter that is substantially unaffected by noise.” (Abstract)
`
`1. Inherency requirements have not been addressed or met (Paper 7 at
`40-46; Paper 23 at 27, 29-32)
`
`2. Romano doesn’t teach maintaining oscillation of the flowtubes to
`overcome the noise, it teaches “IGNORING” the noise (Abstract; 41:36-39;
`Paper 7 at 40-46 ; Paper 23 at 27, 29-32)
`
`94
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Romano
`
`Inherency
`
`Paper 25 at 30-31
`
`95
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Romano
`
`Paper 25 at 27; Exhibit 2015 at 61
`
`96
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Romano
`
`Paper 25 at 30; Exhibit 2017 at 63-64
`
`97
`
`
`
`’906 Patent: claims 1-3 and 8-9 / Romano
`
` Petitioner never argues that Romano actually discloses
`batching
`
`[Paper 1 at 27]
`
`98
`
`
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
