throbber
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
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`THE ’062 PATENT ........................................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6
`IV. CLAIMS 1 AND 29 ARE NOT ANTICIPATED BY ROMANO ................ 7
`A.
`Romano Does Not Disclose Using Both Sensor Channel
`Signals to Generate the Drive Signal ................................................... 9
`Romano’s Phase Adjustment Does Not Compensate for Time
`Delays Associated With Multiple Components ................................. 21
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 26
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Exhibit
`ProQuest Dialog Search Strategy, “Cash in on Flowmeter Innovation:
`there is an abundance of new technology, not only for sophisticated
`uses, but also for fundamental ones,” Marshall, 03/2003
`ISA Show products, 12/01/02
`MICRO MOTION WHITE PAPER, Explaining how two-phase flow
`affects mass flowmeters, 2004
`Press Information, Invensys Digital Coriolis Mass Flowmeter
`Receives Control Engineering Editors’ Choice Award, 01/30/03
`Chemical Engineering; Capitalizing on Cold Chemistry, Cash in On
`Flowmeter Innovation; 03/2003, INVENSYS0129339
`Model RFT9739 Rack-Mount Transmitter Instruction Manual, Version
`3 Transmitters, February 2000,” INVENSYS0111554
`MICRO MOTION WHITE PAPER, The Micro Motion® ELITE®
`Promise, Patten, 2005
`Micro Motion Press Releases, Emerson Announces Next Generation
`Enhancements to Micro Motion® Coriolis Flowmeters, 06/29/06
`IPR2013-00223, 08/15/13 Decision, Paper 9
`CBM2012-00003, 10/25/12 Order, Paper 7
`IPR2012-00006, 5/10/13, Paper 43
`IPR2013-00054, 4/8/13, Paper 12
`(Exhibit served on Petitioner and not filed with PTAB)
`(Exhibit served on Petitioner and not filed with PTAB)
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey S. Vipperman
`Datasheet for Philips MUX
`Datasheet for Maxim MUX
`Claim Construction “Memorandum Opinion and Order” (Dkt. No.
`203) from Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., CA.
`No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. Tex.)
`Excerpt from Horowitz & Hill, “The Art of Electronics” (2d ed. 1989)
`Excerpt from “Harris’ Shock And Vibration Handbook” (5th ed. 2002)
`Sidman 8/6/2014 Transcript from IPR2014-00170
`
`i
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`2020
`2021
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Sidman 8/7/2014 Transcript from IPR2014-00170
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,594 (Ex. 1001 in IPR2014-00390)
`Declaration of Dr. Michael D. Sidman (Ex. 1002 in IPR2014-00390)
`
`
`2022
`2023
`2024
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition in this inter partes review sought cancellation of twelve claims
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062 (the “’062 patent”, Ex. 1001). The Board instituted
`
`trial in this on only four claims: claims 1, 19, 40 and 45. In a separate motion,
`
`Patent Owner has canceled claims 40 and 45, leaving only claims 1 and 29 at issue.
`
`The only ground for which trial of claims 1 and 29 was instituted is anticipation
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Patent No. 4,934,196 (“Romano”, Ex. 1006) and
`
`thus only that ground remains at issue.
`
`Claim 1, from which claim 29 depends, includes a requirement to “adjust a
`
`phase of the drive signal to compensate for a time delay associated with
`
`components connected between the sensor and the driver.” The linchpin of
`
`Petitioner’s anticipation challenge to claim 1 over Romano is its expert’s assertion
`
`that signals from both velocity sensor signals are used to generate the drive signal
`
`in a digital drive embodiment of Romano, and thus a certain phase shift applied to
`
`digitized samples of the right velocity sensor signal for measurement purposes– the
`
`only phase shift identified in the Petition or the accompanying declaration -
`
`“propagates through” as a phase shift of the drive signal output in that
`
`embodiment. This assertion is demonstrably false. As discussed in detail below,
`
`and as distinct from measurement operations, Romano actually discloses that only
`
`one sensor signal – the left sensor signal – is used to generate the drive signal
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`output in the digital drive embodiment. This means that the phase shift applied to
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`the right sensor signal relied on by Petitioner has no effect on the phase of the
`
`drive signal. During cross examination in an earlier inter partes review for a
`
`nearly identical limitation, Petitioner’s expert could not identify any actual
`
`disclosure in Romano of using right sensor signals to generate the drive signal in
`
`this embodiment, and further admitted that it was not true that both velocity sensor
`
`signals are necessarily used to generate the drive signal in the embodiment in
`
`which the phase shift is applied to the right channel sensor. This admission, which
`
`is confirmed by Patent Owner’s expert, is fatal to Petitioner’s anticipation
`
`challenge. Furthermore, even if the right channel sensor signal were to be used to
`
`generate the drive signal in the digital drive embodiment, the phase shift applied to
`
`that signal would have no effect on the drive signal. Accordingly, because the only
`
`assertion regarding any phase adjustment of Romano’s drive signal identified in
`
`either the Petition or the accompanying expert declaration is false, Petitioner has
`
`not demonstrated that Romano anticipates claims 1 or 29.
`
`II. THE ’062 PATENT
`The inventions claimed in the ’062 patent and its family represent nothing
`
`less than landmark developments in the field of Coriolis flowmeters. The ’062
`
`patent family solved problems associated with disturbed flow conditions, including
`
`two-phase and batch flow, that had confounded the industry for decades. Two-
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`phase flow—which goes by many specific names, including aeration, entrained
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`gas, high gas void fraction, slug flow, stratified flow, bubbles in the flow, etc.—
`
`describes the presence of two phases of material (e.g., liquid and gas) flowing
`
`through the flowtube of a Coriolis flowmeter at the same time. Traditional
`
`Coriolis flowmeters simply failed in the presence of two-phase flow. For this
`
`reason, Petitioner and third-parties described the elusive solution to the two-phase
`
`flow problem as “one of the Holy Grails” of Coriolis flowmeter technology. (Ex.
`
`2001, Rebekkah Marshall, Cash in on Flowmeter Innovation, CHEM. ENG’G 25,
`
`27 (Mar. 2003, p.27).) Petitioner even derided the Patent Owner’s claims that it
`
`had solved the two-phase flow problem—this occurred about one year before
`
`Petitioner unveiled Coriolis flowmeters using the patented technology. (Ex. 2002,
`
`ISA | Show products (December 1, 2002); Ex. 2003 “MICRO MOTION WHITE
`
`PAPER Explaining how two-phase flow affects mass flowmeters,” (2004).)
`
`The ’062 patent teaches a control and measurement system for a digital
`
`flowmeter. A digital flowmeter is one that not only makes measurements
`
`digitally—that is generally a given—but also digitally generates a drive signal to
`
`control conduit oscillation. (Ex. 1001, 1:58-67, 3:4-14.) The ’062 patent discloses
`
`multiple embodiments of the mechanical components of a Coriolis flowmeter and
`
`digital control and measurement system. (Id. 3:15-7:17.) These embodiments
`
`each include (1) a vibratable conduit, (2) a digital controller to measure conduit
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`vibration and to generate a drive signal to control conduit vibration, (3) a sensor
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`between the conduit and digital circuitry to sense conduit vibration, and (4) a
`
`driver between the digital circuitry and the conduit to drive conduit vibration based
`
`on the drive signal from the digital controller. (Id. 3: 4-14.)
`
`An exemplary embodiment of the primary components of the digital
`
`flowmeter system is illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’062 patent (reproduced below).
`
`(Id. Fig. 1.)
`
`The digital controller above may be comprised of “a processor, a field-
`
`programmable gate array, an ASIC, other programmable logic or gate arrays, or
`
`programmable logic with a processor core.” (Id. 8: 29-33.)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`The ’062 patent discloses multiple features and capabilities created by the
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`
`
`digital circuitry that allow for precise measurement and control that facilitate
`
`accurate measurement in the presence of two phase flow. For example, the patent
`
`discloses the ability to digitally generate drive signals using multiple different
`
`drive modes. (Ex. 1001, 4:38-58.) The ’062 patent also discloses the ability to use
`
`a proportional-plus-integral (PI) control algorithm to control the motion of the
`
`conduit. (Id. 5:10-12.) The ’062 patent also discloses a control system capable of
`
`“apply[ing] a negative gain to the sensor signal to reduce motion of the conduit.”
`
`(Id. 5:43-45.) And, as recited in claim 1, the digital circuitry of ’062 patent also
`
`discloses the ability to compensate for time delays “associated with components
`
`connected between the sensor and the driver” in the digital flowmeter. (Id. 7:14-
`
`18.) These are just some of the features and capabilities disclosed in the ’062
`
`patent that can be used to achieve precise measurement and control.
`
`The ’062 patent acknowledges that prior flowmeter control mechanisms
`
`lacked sufficient control capability, precision and adaptability to adjust the conduit
`
`drive signal to overcome problems induced by variations in material flow within
`
`the conduit associated with two phase flow. (Ex. 1001, 2:1-6, 47:40-53.)
`
`Processing separate batches of fluid through the flowtube is another instance in
`
`which the digital flowmeter is vastly superior to prior analog flowmeters. (Ex.
`
`1001, 51:5-26.) Thus, the digital flowmeters disclosed in the ’062 patent are
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`substantially superior to previous analog drive flowmeters for multiple
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`applications.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim should be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification during an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). However,
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with
`
`the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165
`
`F.3d 1353, 1358, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.
`
`In the Related Matter identified in the parties’ respective filings to this
`
`Board (Paper No. 2, p.1; Paper No. 8, p.2), Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson
`
`Electric Co., et al., CA. No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. Tex.), the court issued a
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. 203) which construed certain claim
`
`terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646 (“the ’646 Patent”); 7,136,761 (“the ’761
`
`Patent”); 6,311,136 (“the ’136 Patent”); 7,505,854 (“the ’854 Patent”); 6,754,594
`
`(“the ’594 Patent”); 7,571,062 (“the ’062 Patent”); and 8,000,906 (“the ’906
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 2018). However, none of the terms in that order are relevant to the
`
`terms of the claims at issue herein. With respect to claims 1 and 29 of the ’062
`
`patent, Patent Owner respectfully submits that all terms should be interpreted in
`
`accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 34.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`IV. CLAIMS 1 AND 29 ARE NOT ANTICIPATED BY ROMANO
`Claim 1 includes a requirement to “adjust a phase of the drive signal to
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`compensate for a time delay associated with components connected between the
`
`sensor and the driver.” Ex. 1001 at 55:37-40. In order to show that Romano
`
`disclosed this limitation of claim 1, the Petition first identifies a 2π/128 radian
`
`phase shift applied to the digitized right channel sensor signal samples for
`
`measurement purposes. Petition at 28 (citing Ex. 1002 (Sidman Decl.) at ¶ 196).1
`
`Applying a phase shift to the right channel sensor signal is not, of course, adjusting
`
`a phase of the drive signal. In order to bridge this gap between the disclosure of
`
`Romano and the requirements of claim 1 of the ’062 patent, the Petition asserts that
`
`both the right and the left velocity sensor signals are “used to generate the drive
`
`signal” in the digital drive embodiment and “thus the correction of the phase shift
`
`in the right channel propagates through as a phase shift of the drive signal.”
`
`Petition at 28 (citing Ex. 1002 (Sidman Decl.) at ¶ 198). Neither the Petition nor
`
`Dr. Sidman’s declaration identify anything other than this 2π/128 radian phase
`
`
`1 The portion of Romano relied on by Petitioner and Dr. Sidman refers to a phase
`
`shift of 2P/128 radians. The “P” in this phase shift would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to refer to π. Ex. 2022 (8/7/14 Sidman Tr.) at 68:12-21.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`shift applied to the right channel signal as satisfying the “adjust a phase of the
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`drive signal” limitation.
`
`However, the assertions of Petitioner and Dr. Sidman are objectively false.
`
`Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 48-100. Unlike for measurement purposes, Romano does not disclose
`
`that both the right and the left channel signals are used to generate the drive signal
`
`in the digital drive embodiment. Rather, Romano discloses that only one sensor
`
`signal, the left sensor signal, is used to generate the drive signal in this digital drive
`
`embodiment. Thus, the phase shift Romano teaches applying to the right sensor
`
`signal for measurement purposes cannot “adjust the phase of the drive signal,”
`
`since the right channel signal is not used to generate the drive signal.
`
`And, even if the right channel signal were to be used to generate the drive
`
`signal, which is not disclosed in Romano, the 2π/128 radian phase shift applied to
`
`the right channel signal would have no effect on the phase of drive signal. For the
`
`reasons discussed below, the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) Romano discloses
`
`for generating the drive signal is not affected by the phase of the sensor signal;
`
`therefore, the phase shift applied to the right channel signal would essentially be
`
`lost and would not “propagate through” to the drive signal as asserted by Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Sidman.
`
`Further, to the extent that the 2π/128 radian phase shift applied to the right
`
`channel signal compensates for any delay, it is a delay associated with a single
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`component, the multiplexer, rather than a delay associated with multiple
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`“components” connected between the sensor and the driver as required by claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish anticipation of claim 1 for at least
`
`these reasons.
`
`A. Romano Does Not Disclose Using Both Sensor Channel Signals to
`Generate the Drive Signal
`
`In support of its assertion that Romano discloses using both sensor channels
`
`to generate the drive signal in the digital drive embodiment of Fig. 3 of Romano,
`
`the Petition and Dr. Sidman cite three portions of Romano. The Petition and Dr.
`
`Sidman first cite Romano at 24:32-60 (Petition at 28; Ex. 1002 ¶ 198). This
`
`portion of Romano discloses that “a digitally based drive circuit, shown in dotted
`
`lines and formed of latch 388, digital-analog (D/A) converter 390, filter 392 and
`
`amplifier 394 could be used in lieu of analog drive circuit 40 shown in Fig. 4.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 24:32-36; Ex. 2015 ¶ 67. The components referred to in this passage are
`
`shown in the lower right hand corner of Fig. 3, reproduced below (annotations in
`
`red added):
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`microprocessor
`
`
`
`digitally based drive circuit
`
`
`
`The remainder of the cited passage of Romano is set forth below:
`
`As discussed in detail below, microprocessor 330, as shown in Fig. 3,
`calculates the magnitude of a succession of frequency components,
`using the DFT – specifically using equation 4 above, to locate the
`frequency at which the flow tubes resonantly vibrate, i.e., that
`frequency component at which the magnitude of the DFT reaches a
`peak value. Therefore, once this frequency component is known,
`microprocessor 330 can readily generate a quantized sinusoidal
`waveform at exactly this frequency. Specifically, once the frequency
`component is found, microprocessor 330 could easily set the period at
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`which a sine look up table (not shown and which can either be
`situated internal to or more likely external to the microprocessor) is
`successively and consecutively indexed, through well known circuitry
`not shown, to produce a continuous series of multi-bit digital values
`that represent this waveform. Each of these values would be applied
`to latch 388 which, in turn, would apply the value to D/A converter
`390. This converter would produce an equivalent analog voltage. This
`analog voltage would then be applied to low pass filter 392 to remove
`unwanted high frequency noise. The resulting filtered value would
`then be amplified by amplifier 394 to an appropriate drive level and
`thereafter routed, via lead 396, to drive coil 180.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 24:36-60; Ex. 2015 ¶ 68. Nothing in this description of the digitally
`
`based drive discloses the use of both sensor channels to generate the drive signal.
`
`In fact, Romano makes clear that only a single sensor signal—the left channel
`
`sensor signal—is used by the microprocessor 330 to generate the drive signal.2 Ex.
`
`Ex. 2015 ¶ 69.
`
`
`
`Romano discusses the software executed by the microprocessor 330 of Fig.
`
`3 above starting at col. 26, line 60. This passage discloses that the microprocessor
`
`2 The reference to Equation 4 in this passage further confirms that only a single
`
`sensor signal is used to calculate the DFT. Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 69.
`
`Equation 4, which appears in Ex. 1006 at 12:7-13 and which gives the magnitude
`
`at a particular frequency, references only a single signal, s(KT). Ex. 2015 ¶ 69.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`330 first executes an initialization that involves, among other things, determining
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`the natural frequency at which the flow tubes are vibrating. Ex. 1006 at 26:67-
`
`27:3. This natural frequency is the resonance frequency discussed in the passage
`
`of Romano at 24:36-60 reproduced above. Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶¶ 71-72.
`
`
`
`The initialization routine 600 is discussed in detail at 28:26-30:45. After
`
`performing a number of diagnostics, the initialization routine first determines the
`
`“fundamental frequency” at which both flow tubes vibrate by calling the DFT
`
`Routine 700 at step 625. Ex. 1006 at 29:13-30; Ex. 2015 ¶ 73. This “fundamental
`
`frequency” is yet another name for the resonance frequency discussed in the
`
`passage of Romano at 24:36-60 reproduced above. Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶
`
`73. In particular, Romano discloses that only the left sensor channel is used by
`
`the microprocessor 3330 to determine this resonance frequency:
`
`To save processing time, a power spectrum is computed at a fairly
`"coarse" resolution, using the discrete fourier transform, for one of the
`velocity waveforms, illustratively that produced by the left velocity
`sensor. This operation occurs within block 625 which invokes DFT
`Routine 700 which, when executed and as discussed in detail shortly
`in conjunction with FIGS. 7A-7B, samples one of the velocity
`waveforms at a fixed sampling rate and calculates the magnitude
`(squared--for reasons that will become clearer later) of all the
`frequency components, from n=1, . . . , N-1 (here N-1 equals the value
`"63") that comprise the discrete fourier transform of the waveform
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`produced by the left velocity sensor. The coarse search is preferably
`undertaken with a sampling frequency of 640 Hz which, with "64"
`samples per measurement interval, provides 32 different frequencies
`at a resolution (1/NT) of approximately 5 Hz. Once the coarse power
`spectrum has been computed, execution proceeds, as shown in FIGS.
`6A-6B, to block 630 which determines the maximum value within
`that spectrum and selects the frequency corresponding to that
`maximum (nmax) as being the initial fundamental frequency at which
`both flow tubes resonantly vibrate.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 29:17-40 (emphasis added); Ex. 2015 ¶ 74. This description the
`
`Initialization Routine 600 and the DFT Routine 700 corresponds to Romano’s
`
`disclosure at col. 24, lines 36-42, that “as discussed in detail below,
`
`microprocessor 330 . . . calculates the magnitude of a succession of frequency
`
`components, using the DFT . . . to locate the frequency at which the flow tubes
`
`resonantly vibrate, i.e., that frequency component at which the magnitude of the
`
`DFT reaches a peak value.” Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶¶ 74-80.
`
`
`
`This disclosure that only the left sensor channel is used to determine the
`
`resonance frequency is confirmed in the detailed discussion of the DFT Routine
`
`700 discussed in Ex. 1006 at 30:46-32:13. Ex. 2015 ¶ 81. The passage discloses
`
`that “this routine samples one of the velocity waveforms at a fixed sample rate and
`
`calculates the magnitude of all frequency components . . . that comprise the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`discrete Fourier transform of the waveform produced by the left velocity sensor.”
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`Ex. 1006 at 30:49-54 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Thus, the passage of Romano at 24:32-60 relied on by the Petition and Dr.
`
`Sidman as support for the assertion that both sensor channels are used by the
`
`microprocessor 330 to generate the drive signal is clearly incorrect. The
`
`calculation of the DFT to determine the resonance frequency in the DFT Routine
`
`700 of Romano is performed using only a single sensor channel, the left sensor
`
`channel. Ex. 2015 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶ 82. Nothing else in this cited passage
`
`discloses using both sensor channels for generating the drive signal. Accordingly,
`
`the first section of Romano cited by Petitioner and Dr. Sidman does not support the
`
`assertion that Romano discloses that the microprocessor 330 uses both sensor
`
`channels to generate the drive signal; in fact, it proves the opposite: only a single
`
`sensor channel is used to generate the drive signal.
`
`
`
`Although not cited in either the Petition or Dr. Sidman’s declaration, it
`
`appears from questions asked of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Vipperman, during
`
`cross examination in IPR2014-00170 that Petitioner may attempt to rely on the
`
`Frequency Tracking Routine 1300 described in Romano at 40:11-41:45, and in
`
`particular the passage of Romano at 40:25-29 (“[f]requency changes are
`
`proportional to the phase difference between the real and imaginary components of
`
`either one of the velocity sensor waveforms measured with respect to the zero
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`crossing of that waveform.”) as support for the proposition that the right channel
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`sensor signal is used to generate the drive signal and/or that the phase shift applied
`
`to the right channel sensor signal propagates through to the drive signal. This
`
`assertion is incorrect. As explained by Dr. Vipperman, the Frequency Tracking
`
`Routine 1300 has no effect on the generation of the drive signal because (1) the
`
`Frequency Tracking Routine 1300 is not used in the generation of the drive signal,
`
`and (2) even if Frequency Tracking Routine 1300 were to be used in the generation
`
`of the drive signal, and even if the right channel sensor signal were to be used in
`
`the Frequency Tracking Routine 1300, the drive signal would be unaffected by the
`
`2π/128 radian phase shift applied to the right channel sensor signal. Ex. 2015 ¶¶
`
`83-86.
`
`
`
`The second portion of Romano cited by the Petition and Dr. Sidman as
`
`support for the proposition that the “right and left channel signals are both used by
`
`the microprocessor 330 to generate the drive signal” is the passage at 25:26-30.
`
`Petition at 28, citing Ex. 1002 (Sidman Decl.) ¶ 197. This passage of Romano
`
`appears in the description of an analog drive circuit 40 shown in Fig. 4 of Romano.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 25:21-23. This analog drive circuit 40 is what is replaced by the
`
`digitally based drive circuit discussed above. Id. at 24:32-36. The analog drive
`
`circuit 40 does use both the left and the right channel sensors to generate the drive
`
`signal. See ex. 1006 at Fig. 4 (showing left and right channels signals being input
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`to summer 405). However, as admitted by Dr. Sidman during cross examination in
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`IPR2014-00170, the 2π/128 radian phase shift applied to the digitized right channel
`
`sensor signals in Fig. 3 is not applied to the analog right channel sensor signals in
`
`Fig. 4. Ex. 2022 (8/7/14 Sidman Tr.) at 81:22-82:5; see also Ex. 2015 (Vipperman
`
`Decl.) ¶ 87. Thus, Fig. 4 of Romano does not disclose that the 2π/128 radian phase
`
`shift identified by the Petition and Dr. Sidman propagates through to the drive
`
`signal in the analog drive embodiment. Ex. 2015 ¶ 86.
`
`
`
`Although not identified or explained in either the Petition or Dr. Sidman’s
`
`declaration, during cross examination in IPR2014-00170 Dr. Sidman asserted a
`
`new argument that he believed that the statement in Romano that the digitally
`
`based drive circuit disclosed in Figure 3 could be used in lieu of the analog drive
`
`circuit 40 disclosed in Figure 4, coupled with Dr. Sidman’s belief that Romano
`
`“teaches no alternative” to using both sensor signals to generate the drive signal,
`
`was a disclosure that both sensor signals are used to generate the drive signal. Ex.
`
`2022 (8/7/14 Sidman Tr.) at 82:10-84:4.3
`
`
`3 This testimony that Romano “teaches no alternative” to using both sensor signals
`
`occurred before Dr. Sidman was directed to the description of the DFT Routine
`
`700 discussed above.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`However, Dr. Sidman’s belief that Romano discloses no alternative to using
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`
`
`
`both sensor signals is not sufficient to demonstrate anticipation of claim 1 for at
`
`least two reasons. First, prior art systems (both analog and digital) that used only
`
`one sensor signal to generate a drive signal were known in the art. For example,
`
`the Kalotay patent discloses both an analog circuit (Fig. 3) and a digital circuit
`
`(Fig. 4) that generate a drive signal using only the left sensor signal. Ex. 1008 at
`
`Fig. 3 and 4; see also Ex. 2021 (8/6/14 Sidman Tr.) at 136:5-17 , Ex. 2022 (8/7/14
`
`Sidman Tr.) at 44:11-20, and Ex. 1013 (Vipperman Decl.) ¶¶ 88-89. Thus, even if
`
`it were true (which it is not) that Romano did not disclose any alternative to using
`
`both sensor signals to generate the drive signal, there can be no argument that
`
`generating a drive signal inherently requires using both the left and the right
`
`velocity sensor signals. Second, and more importantly, Dr. Sidman’s assertion is
`
`simply wrong because Romano itself discloses that the DFT Routine 700 executed
`
`by the microprocessor 330 uses only a single sensor channel to generate the drive
`
`signal. Ex. 2015 ¶ 89. Accordingly, this second passage of Romano cited by the
`
`Petition also does not support the assertion that Romano discloses that both sensor
`
`signals are used by the microprocessor 330 to generate the drive signal. In reality,
`
`Dr. Sidman’s testimony is an obviousness argument, and is therefore not sufficient
`
`to support the anticipation ground that is the subject of this inter partes review.
`
`See Net Moneyin, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`([a]nticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim).
`
`
`
`It is also noteworthy that Dr. Sidman did not allege that Romano disclosed
`
`combining the right and left sensor signals and using them to generate the drive
`
`signal in a digital drive embodiment when he had the chance to do in IPR2014-
`
`00390, as he did during the aforementioned cross examination when he had no
`
`other choice to support his theory that the phase shift applied to the right channel
`
`“propagate through” to the drive signal for claim 1. In IPR2014-00390, Dr.
`
`Sidman alleged that one claim that required only using a single sensor channel in a
`
`digital drive was obvious over Romano alone, but did not allege that a second
`
`claim with the only additional requirement that left and right sensor signals be
`
`combined and used to generate the drive signal in a digital drive was obvious over
`
`Romano alone. Ex. 2015 ¶ 90. The combination of the left and right sensor
`
`signals in the analog embodiment of Fig. 4 is the very disclosure that Dr. Sidman
`
`relies on here in order to support his theory that Romano’s digital drive
`
`embodiment in Fig. 3 also combines the left and right sensor signals to generate the
`
`drive signal. If Dr. Sidman really believed that Romano also disclosed combining
`
`the left and right channel sensor signals to generate the drive signal in the
`
`embodiment of Fig. 3 as he did during cross examination, he would have alleged
`
`that Romano alone made claim 3 of the ‘594 patent obvious because this is the
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`only limitation in claim 3 not also found in claim 1. That he did not even make an
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`obviousness argument highlights that fact that Romano does not disclose that his
`
`digital drive embodiment of Fig. 3 uses both sensor signals to generate the drive
`
`signal. Id.
`
`
`
`The third passage cited in the Petition and Dr. Sidman’s declaration to
`
`support the assertion that Romano discloses that both sensor signals are used to
`
`generate the drive signal is Fig. 3. Petition at 28, citing Ex. 1002 (Sidman Decl.)
`
`¶ 197. However, during cross examination in IPR2014-00170, Dr. Sidman
`
`admitted that Romano did not “restrict his digital implementation [as shown in Fig.
`
`3] in that way.” Ex. 2022 (8/7/14 Sidman Tr.) at 89:7-21. That is, there is no
`
`disclosure in Romano that the digital implementation in Figure 3 uses both sensor
`
`signals to generate the drive signal. Accordingly, the third passage of Romano
`
`cited by the Petition and Dr. Sidman also fails to support the assertion that Romano
`
`discloses that both sensor signals are used to generate the drive signal. Ex. 2015 ¶
`
`91.
`
`
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, the assertion in the Petition and Dr.
`
`Sidman’s declaration that both sensor signals are used to generate the drive signal
`
`is wrong. Indeed, Dr. Sidman admitted during cross examination that Romano
`
`does not disclose that the digitally based drive circuit discussed at 24:32-60 uses
`
`both sensor signals:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPR 2014-00393
`U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062
`
`
`
`Ex. 2022 (8/7/14 Sidman Tr.) at 84:19-85:1 (emphasis added). And, after he was
`
`pointed to the description of the DFT Routine 700 discussed above, Dr. Sidman
`
`again admitted that it was possible to use only one sensor signal to generate the
`
`drive signal. Ex. 2022 (8/7/14 Sidman Tr.) at 107:8-108:7.
`
`
`
`These admissions are fatal to Petitioner’s assertion that Romano

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket