`Petitioner
`v.
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Cases IPR2014-00390, IPR2014-00392, IPR2014-00393
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,754,594; 8,000,906; 7,571,062
`
`Micro Motion’s Demonstratives
` for Oral Hearing
`
`Judge William V. Saindon
`Judge Michael R. Zecher
`Judge Jennifer M. Meyer
`
`March 12, 2015
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Summary of unpatentable claims
`
`
`
`
`‘594 patent
`
`
`Anticipation by Stadler
`
`
`Anticipation by Freeman
`
`
`Anticipation by Miller
`
`Obviousness in view of Cage and Romano
`
`
`
`‘062 patent
`
`Anticipation by Romano
`
`
`
`
`
`‘906 patent
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Miller
`
`Obviousness in view of Lindenbaum and Romano
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`13
`17
`20
`
`31
`32
`
`39
`41
`51
`
`57
`
`2
`
`
`
`Summary of Unpatentable Claims
`
`‘594 Patent
`Claims 3, 4, 6, 13, and 14 – anticipated by Stadler
`Claims 8-10 – anticipated by Freeman
`Claim 8 – anticipated by Miller
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, and 14 – obvious in view of Cage and Romano
`
`‘062 Patent – compensation for delay
`Claims 1, 29, 40, and 45 – anticipated by Romano
`
`‘906 Patent – “maintains oscillation”
`Claims 5 and 7 – anticipated by Lindenbaum
`Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 – obvious in view of Lindenbaum and Romano
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 – anticipated by Miller
`Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 – obvious in view of Model D Manual and Slug Flow Supplement
`
`3
`
`
`
`‘594 Patent
`
`‘ 94 Patent
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Claims 3, 4, 6, 13 and 14
`Are Anticipated by Stadler
`
`
`
`Claims 3 and 4
`
`(‘594 patent,
`Claims 3-4)
`
`6
`
`
`
`The signals are combined at summing stage ss1
`
`(8:66-9:13; ‘594 patent, Fig. 2)
`[Reply p. 1; Pet. 13, 18-19]
`
`7
`
`
`
`The combined signal is used
`to generate the drive signal
`
`(‘594 patent, Fig. 2; Ex.
`1067, 19:5-10)
`[Pet. 13-14; Reply p. 2]
`
`Digital processor
`
`Drive signal
`
`8
`
`
`
`A gain is applied to the combined signal
`by the PID in ar1
`
`Combined
`signal from
`band pass
`
`(‘594 patent, Figs. 2, 10;
`Ex. 1067, 20:8-10)
`[Pet. 12-14; Reply p. 2-3]
`
`9
`
`
`
`A gain is also applied to the combined signal
`by the multiplier mp6 and the PID in fr
`
`Combined
`signal from
`band pass
`
`(‘594 patent, Fig. 2, 10;
`Ex. 1067, 20:8-10)
`[Pet. 12-14; Reply p. 2-3]
`
`10
`
`
`
`Invensys’s expert agreed that a gain is applied to the
`combined signal by the PID in fr
`
`Combined
`signal from
`band pass
`
`(‘594 patent, Fig. 2, 10;
`Ex. 1067, 30:1-8) [Reply
`p. 2-3]
`
`11
`
`
`
`The drive signal in Stadler
`is created using digital processing
`
`(Ex. 1067,
`30:15-31:5)
`[Reply 7]
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ground 2 – Claims 8-10 Are Anticipated by Freeman
`
`
`
`Freeman discloses coarse initiation of motion using a
`default frequency
`
`(Freeman, 15:7-18)
`[Pet. 25]
`
`14
`
`
`
`Invensys’s expert agreed
`
`(Ex. 1067 34:20-35:8)
`[Reply at 9]
`15
`
`
`
`Freeman discloses sustaining motion using a
`feedback loop
`
`(Ex. 1067 37:1-12)
`[Reply at 8]
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ground 5 – Claim 8 Is Anticipated by Miller
`
`
`
`8. A digital flowmeter comprising:
`a vibratable conduit;
`
`Claim 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 drive signal.
`
`
`18
`
`a control and measurement 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 material
`flowing through the conduit based on the sensor
`signal;
`
`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 motion of the conduit; and
`
`(‘594 patent,
`(‘594 patent,
`Claim 8)
`Claim 8)
`
`
`
`Claim 8 is anticipated by Miller
`
`Miller discloses two
`ways of generating
`drive signals:
`(1) wide band sweep
`to initiate
`motion, and
`(2) narrow band to
`sustain motion
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 13:22-32)
`[Pet. 18]
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 13:12-21)
`[Pet. 17-18, 20-21]
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ground 4 – Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 13 and 14 Are Obvious over
`Cage in View of Romano
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`
` 1. A digital flowmeter comprising:
`
`
`a vibratable conduit;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a driver connected to the conduit and operable to impart
`motion to the conduit;
`
`circuitry associated With the driver for measuring current
`supplied to the driver;
`
`a sensor connected to the conduit and operable to sense
`the motion of the conduit; and
`
`a control and measurement 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 material
`flowing through the conduit based on the sensor
`s1gnal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(‘594 patent,
`(‘594 patent,
`Claim 1)
`Claim 1)
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Cage discloses circuitry for measuring current
`supplied to the driver
`
`(Cage, Ex. 1003, 26:43-
`54) [Pet. 54]
`
`22
`
`
`
`Invensys’s expert agreed
`
`(Ex. 1067, 46:10-15)
`[Reply at 10]
`
`23
`
`
`
`Cage discloses use of his invention with curved tubes
`
`(Cage Fig. 42, 27:12-53)
`[Reply at 12]
`
`24
`
`
`
`Cage discloses digital signal processing
`to generate the drive signal
`
`(Cage Fig. 26, 23:33-50)
`[Pet. 43, 52; Reply at 13]
`
`(Ex. 1067, 46:10-15)
`Reply 10
`
`25
`
`
`
`Invensys’s expert agreed
`
`(Ex. 1067, 59:16-60:20)
`[Reply at 13]
`
`26
`
`
`
`Romano shows that digital control of the drive signal
`would have been obvious
`
`Romano’s disclosure
`of a digital control
`system that modifies
`the drive signal:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 24:32-25:7)
`[Pet. 44]
`
`27
`
`
`
`Cage discloses application of gain
`to the combined signal
`
`Gain means the
`difference between
`the input amplitude
`and the output
`amplitude:
`
`(Ex. 1067 at 8:22-9:15)
`[Reply at 14]
`
`28
`
`
`
`Cage discloses application of gain
`to the combined signal
`
`Cage discloses
`modifying the
`amplitude to keep it
`“at a prescribed
`level” – i.e., “applying
`a gain”:
`
`(Cage at 22:53-68)
`[Pet. 55]
`
`29
`
`
`
`Romano discloses application of gain
`to the combined signal
`
`Romano discloses
`multiplying the drive
`signal – i.e., “applying
`a gain”:
`
`(Romano at 24:32-59)
`[Reply at 14]
`
`30
`
`
`
`‘062 Patent
`
`‘062 Patent
`
`
`
`Ground 2 – Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`
`(‘062 patent, Claim 1)
`
`33
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`
`Romano teaches that
`the drive signal must
`be in phase with the
`sensor signal:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 18:42-49)
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 25:23-33)
`[Pet. 25; Reply at 8]
`
`34
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`
`Romano discloses
`compensation for
`delay:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 22:10-32)
`[Pet. 27-28]
`
`35
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`
`Compensation for
`delay was well known:
`
`[Reply at 2-3]
`
`36
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`
`Romano teaches using the sum of both
`sensor signals to generate the drive signal:
`
`Romano also teaches using one sensor
`signal, which can be the sensor signal
`which has been compensated for delay:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 18:46-49, 22:19-22,
`40:26-32)
`[Pet. 25, 28; Reply at 4, 6-7]
`
`37
`
`
`
`Claim 1 Is Anticipated by Romano
`The delay in Romano is
`caused by multiple
`components:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 22:10-32; Fig. 3)
`[Pet. 28; Reply at 10-11]
`
`38
`
`
`
`‘906 Patent
`
`‘06 Patent
`
`
`
`Claim 8
`
`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 of 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
`processed through the flowtub e, wherein the flowtube is
`substantially empty in between the separate batches.
`
`(‘906 patent, Claim 8)
`(‘906 patent, Claim 8)
`
`40
`
`
`
`Ground 4 – Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`The Board properly found that Miller is
`a flowmeter (Decision at 21)
`
`(‘906 patent, 1:24-31)
`[Decision at 21]
`
`42
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`Dr. Vipperman’s testimony that the
`sensor signal in Miller is “related to a
`fluid flow through the tube”:
`
`(Ex. 1075 at 98:22-99:8)
`[Reply at 3]
`
`43
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`Miller discloses transition from empty
`of liquid to full of liquid:
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 1:36-47)
`[Reply at 3]
`
`44
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`Miller discloses modifying the drive signal
`as frequency (i.e., density) changes:
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 13:14-21)
`[Pet. 37]
`
`45
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`Miller discloses modifying the drive signal
`during “rapid, high magnitude
`fluctuation[s] of fluid density”:
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 13:21-32)
`[Pet. 38]
`
`46
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`Miller thus discloses that “the flow
`tube continues oscillating,” as
`required by the claims:
`
`(Decision at 11)
`
`47
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 Are Anticipated by Miller
`
`Because Miller is structurally identical
`to what is claimed in the ‘906 patent,
`the burden is on the Patent Owner to
`show the prior art does not perform
`the claimed functions:
`
`Where, as here, an element is defined functionally and there is
`reason to believe the element is performed by the prior art, the
`applicant has the burden “to prove that the subject matter shown to
`be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.” In
`re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`See also Foundation for Taxpayer Rights v. Wisc. Alumni Res.
`Found., Reexam. Control 95/000,154 (B.P.A.I. 2010) (applying
`same burden shifting to inter partes PTO proceedings)
`
`[Pet. 12-13]
`
`48
`
`
`
`The preamble of claim 8 is not limiting
`
`(‘906 patent, Claim 8)
`
`49
`
`
`
`Claim 9 Is Anticipated by Miller
`
`Miller discloses a digital
`control system, as required
`by claim 9:
`
`(Ex. 1007 at Fig, 4, 12:21-33, 13:3-11)
`[Pet. 40; Reply at 7-8]
`
`50
`
`
`
`Ground 3 – Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 Are Obvious in View of
`Lindenbaum and Romano
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 Are Obvious in View of
`Lindenbaum and Romano
`
`Lindenbaum discloses
`oscillation throughout
`the transition from
`empty to full:
`
`(Ex. 1011 at Fig. 2 and 2:1-7)
`[Pet. 30]
`
`52
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 Are Obvious in View of
`Lindenbaum and Romano
`
`Dr. Vipperman’s
`testimony that
`Lindenbaum shows
`production of pulses
`during transition from
`empty to full:
`
`(Ex. 1065 at 151:7-10 and 152:4-7)
`[Reply at 9]
`
`53
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 Are Obvious in View of
`Lindenbaum and Romano
`
`Romano discloses the
`same structure and
`techniques as the claimed
`invention:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 25:64-26:3)
`[Pet. 29-30, 16, 12]
`In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
`1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`54
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 Are Obvious in View of
`Lindenbaum and Romano
`
`Romano’s disclosure
`of a digital control
`system that modifies
`the drive signal:
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 24:32-60)
`[Pet. 32]
`
`55
`
`
`
`Invensys’s Secondary Considerations
`Evidence Is Not Probative
`
`No nexus:
`Evidence relating to “two phase flow” is not commensurate with the scope of the
`claims
`No evidence that either the Invensys product or the Micro Motion product is
`covered by the claims of any patent at issue
`
`Dr. Vipperman is not qualified to render an opinion regarding
`secondary considerations:
`
`Ex. 1065 at 11:17-17:16;
`Ex. 1066 at 314:15-315:4
`[Reply at 14-15]
`
`56
`
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Motion to Exclude
`
`
`
`Invensys’s Motion to Exclude Should Be Denied
`
`
`Invensys never served any objection against Exhibit
`1067, and never identified any such objection in its
`motion, thus violating both 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`and § 42.64(c), respectively.
`Any objection under Fed. R. Evid. 106 is meritless
`because the full two-day transcript is already of
`record as Exhibits 2022-2023.
`The “motion” is an obvious attempt at a substantive
`sur-reply and observations on Invensys’s own
`witness, both of which are improper.
`
`
`[Paper 39]
`
`58
`
`