UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DYNACRAFT BSC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MATTEL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00039
`Patent 7,950,978
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL D. SIDMAN
`
`
`Dynacraft BSC, Inc.
`Exhibit 1017
`Dynacraft BSC, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc.
`IPR2018-00039
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i 
`I. 
`Scope of Work and Summary of Opinions ...................................................... 1 
`II. 
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 1 
`III.  Compensation .................................................................................................. 7 
`IV.  Materials on Which My Opinion is Based ...................................................... 7 
`V. 
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................... 8 
`VI.  Background ...................................................................................................... 9 
`VII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 20 
`VIII.  Applicable Legal Standards ........................................................................... 21 
`IX.  The ’978 Patent (Ex. 1001) ............................................................................ 24 
`X. 
`The Prior Art .................................................................................................. 29 
`A.  Bienz (Ex. 1003) ....................................................................................... 30 
`B.  Klimo (Ex. 1004) ...................................................................................... 32 
`C.  Ribbe (Ex. 1005) ...................................................................................... 34 
`XI.  Obviousness Opinion ..................................................................................... 36 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-14, 21, and 24 are
`Obvious over the Combination of Bienz and Klimo. ............................... 36 
`1.  Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 36 
`2.  Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 61 
`3.  Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 63 
`4.  Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 64 
`5.  Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 65 
`6.  Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 67 
`7.  Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 68 
`8.  Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 69 
`9.  Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 72 
`10. Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 74 
`11. Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 80 
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`12. Claim 24 .............................................................................................. 88 
`B.  Ground 2: Claim 6 is Obvious Over the Combination of
`Bienz, Klimo, and Ribbe. ......................................................................... 92 
`1.  Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 93 
`XII.  Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 95 
`Appendix A ........................................................................................................... A-1 
`Appendix B ............................................................................................................B-1 
`Appendix C ............................................................................................................C-1 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`The undersigned, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., resident at 6120 Wilson Road
`
`Colorado Springs, Colorado, declares the following:
`
`I.
`
`Scope of Work and Summary of Opinions
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the interdisciplinary field of “mechatronics” which
`
`encompasses mechanical, electronic, software, signal processing, and control
`
`systems technologies.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion concerning the patentability
`
`of certain claims of United States Patent No. 7,950,978 (“the ’978 patent”) (“the
`
`challenged claims”) and whether they would have been anticipated or obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art as of February 12, 2001. As explained below, I have
`
`concluded that each of the challenged claims would have been obvious in view of
`
`the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,859,509 (“Bienz”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,634,941 (“Klimo”) (“Ground 1”) and the combination of Bienz, Klimo, and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,994,853 (“Ribbe”) (“Ground 2”).
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`3. My current curriculum vitae is being filed contemporaneously with
`
`this Declaration as Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1018.
`
`4.
`
`I completed my undergraduate studies at Northeastern University,
`
`where I earned a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`concurrently in 1975.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`I earned my Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1986 as a Digital
`
`Equipment Corporation Fellow and University Resident. At Stanford, I developed
`
`an adaptive digital control system for a lightly-damped mechanism in the Stanford
`
`Aero/Astro Robotics Laboratory.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on eighteen U.S. patents relating to
`
`technologies including: control of head positioning actuators, active damping of
`
`mechanical resonances, servo correction for shock and vibration, runout correction,
`
`solid-state relay design, digital control systems, analog and digital electronics,
`
`sensing and position control, adaptive control, among other things. A complete list
`
`of those patents is attached to this Declaration in Appendix A.
`
`7.
`
`I have more than 40 years of experience in product design and applied
`
`research in mechatronics in a wide variety of commercial and other products and
`
`systems. Mechatronic products and systems often include an electric motor or
`
`actuator, a sensor, an embedded microcontroller, and power and signal processing
`
`electronics. I have authored numerous publications relating to these fields, and a
`
`list of selected publications is also attached to this Declaration in Appendix B.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of professional organizations dedicated to mechatronic
`
`and control systems technology. I am a Senior Member of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) where I am a member of the Control
`
`Systems Society. I am also a member of the American Society of Mechanical
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Engineers (ASME), where I was Chairman of the Pikes Peak Section and member
`
`of the Dynamic Systems and Control Division (DSCD).
`
`9.
`
`Since 1992, I have been working as an independent engineering
`
`consultant. I am currently President of Sidman Engineering, Inc. I provide
`
`engineering design services to manufacturers worldwide, which span a range of
`
`industries. This work has included the following: (1) optimizing and simulating
`
`mechatronic systems; (2) developing comprehensive custom design and dynamic
`
`system simulation tools including computer models of feedback control systems
`
`and the physical systems and processes they control; (3) teaching on-site technical
`
`short courses to design engineers and scientists; and (4) consulting on high-
`
`performance digital control systems design and problem resolution.
`
`10. Through Sidman Engineering, I provide interdisciplinary analysis and
`
`resolution of complex design issues. This may include providing clients with
`
`customized, comprehensive computer based design tools and simulation models of
`
`a variety of dynamic systems, including electromechanical products and systems.
`
`These comprehensive models integrate mechanical dynamics, digital control
`
`system dynamics, electronic circuitry, sensors, actuators, and signal processing. In
`
`this role, I have developed comprehensive electric motor, motion control and
`
`control system simulation models, and design tools. The design tools I provide
`
`generally are used by product or system design engineers to understand system
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`behavior and interactions and to optimize system parameters. As discussed below,
`
`I also provide on-site high level technical training courses for design engineers and
`
`scientists at companies.
`
`11. Some of the engineering projects I have been engaged as an
`
`independent engineering consultant relate to electric motor design and motor
`
`control systems in automotive and other applications, including for example
`
`electromechanically actuated valves, hydraulic control systems, fluid flow
`
`measurement, heat transfer, fluidic chemical process control, computer data
`
`storage peripherals, digital signal processing, and digital control system design and
`
`simulation. Examples of these projects include: mechanical and electrodynamic
`
`modeling and simulation of a wide range of electric motors and actuators,
`
`mechanical design and servo control of a dual-stage head positioning actuator for
`
`disk drives, automotive stepper motor actuated EGR valve simulation, dynamic
`
`modeling and design of a Eurotunnel rail cargo bomb scanning mechanism, fluidic
`
`servo valve profile design for a water brake automotive engine dynamometer,
`
`active damping adaptive control of a lightly damped mechanism, and simulation
`
`and analysis of web tension digital control system for textile factory machinery. A
`
`“servo” or “servomechanical” system is a type of control system that typically
`
`controls motion produced by an electric motor or actuator in an electromechanical
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`product or system. A representative list of those projects is attached to this
`
`Declaration in Appendix C.
`
`12. Before I became an independent engineering consultant, I spent 17
`
`years at Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) in roles spanning product
`
`development, advanced development, and research. I headed DEC’s Advanced
`
`Servo Development Group and Servo-Mechanical Advanced Development Group,
`
`both of which I founded. These groups developed and demonstrated technology
`
`involving, for example, position and velocity sensing, MEMS (micro-electro-
`
`mechanical systems) sensors, electronic circuit design, and microprocessor based
`
`servo control systems for hard disk drive head positioning actuators. In a prior
`
`product design development role, I was the Project Engineer for DEC’s RK07 disk
`
`drive product.
`
`13. At DEC, I served as DEC’s representative to the Berkeley Sensor and
`
`Actuator Center (BSAC), which conducts industry-relevant interdisciplinary
`
`research on micro- and nano-scale sensors with moving mechanical elements,
`
`fluidics and/or actuators constructed using integrated circuit technology. BSAC
`
`has pioneered work in a wide variety of integrated circuit based devices and
`
`sensors, including pressure sensors and accelerometers. I also sponsored applied
`
`research and/or researchers at Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, and the
`
`University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`14.
`
`I have taught numerous courses and seminars in the fields of
`
`mechatronics and digital servo systems to product and system design engineers
`
`who span a range of technical disciplines. Through Sidman Engineering, I have
`
`provided my on-site, customized Digital Servo System Short Courses and
`
`MATLAB / SIMULINK / Toolbox Laboratory Training Courses to product
`
`development and research engineers and scientists worldwide in a wide range of
`
`industries and government entities since 1993. These courses optionally include
`
`portions devoted to control systems or signal processing analysis and simulation. I
`
`also taught a graduate level course in Optimal Control at the University of
`
`Colorado in Colorado Springs.
`
`15. Prior to working at DEC in 1975, and as examples of my cooperative
`
`education work experience while attending Northeastern University, I performed
`
`testing and calibration of precision electronic manometers and developed a novel
`
`integral-cycling solid state relay for electric motors at Datametrics, Inc., and
`
`evaluated a prototype electric motor AC line switching apparatus and programmed
`
`magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator gas dynamics computer simulations at
`
`MEPPSCO, Inc.
`
`16.
`
`I became a Third Party Provider for The MathWorks, Inc. in 1993 and
`
`authored an invited feature article, entitled “Control Design Made Faster and More
`
`Effective,” for MATLAB News and Notes, Summer/Fall 1994. MATLAB is a
`
`6
`
`

`

`mathematically oriented software platform that is now ubiquitously used in
`
`
`
`universities and industry.
`
`III. Compensation
`
`17.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in preparing this declaration at
`
`my usual and customary rate of $480 per hour plus reasonable expenses. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this action, and I have no
`
`financial interest in this case.
`
`IV. Materials on Which My Opinion is Based
`
`18.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I reviewed and relied on:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,950,978 (Ex. 1001);
`
` Prosecution history of the ’978 patent (Ex. 1002) including
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/677,529;
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,222,684 (Ex. 1015) and its prosecution history (Ex.
`1016);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,859,509 (Ex. 1003);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,634,941 (Ex. 1004);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,994,853 (Ex. 1005);
`
` Radio Engineering, Third Edition, Terman, McGraw-Hill Book
`Company, 1947 (Ex. 1006);
`
` DC Motors, Speed Controls, Servo Systems, Third Edition, Electro-
`Craft Corporation, 1975 (Ex. 1007);
`
` Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 2, First Edition, Graf,
`TAB Books, 1988 (Ex. 1008);
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
` Power MOSFET Transistor Data, Third Edition, Motorola, Inc., 1988
`(Ex. 1009);
`
` Power IC’s Databook, 1993 Edition, National Semiconductor
`Corporation, 1993 (Ex. 1010);
`
` IBM Dictionary of Computing, 10th Edition, August 1993 (Ex. 1011);
`
` LinkedIn Profile of David A. Norman (Ex. 1012);
`
` LinkedIn Profile of Robert H. Mimlitch, III (Ex. 1013); and
`
` LinkedIn Profile of Richard Torrance (Ex. 1014).
`V. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the patentability of an invention is determined in
`
`view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention, which in this case I understand to be no earlier than February 12,
`
`2001, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/268,447 (“the
`
`’447 application”), to which the ’978 patent claims priority. The relevant art is
`
`electric motor, battery-powered, ride-on or toy vehicles. Ex. 1001 at 1:16-31.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the following factors may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill:
`
` the educational level of the patent applicants;
`
` the type of problems encountered in the art;
`
` previous solutions to those problems;
`
` the rapidity with which innovations are made in the art;
`
` the sophistication of the relevant technology; and
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
` the educational level of active workers in the art.
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, which is based on my experience in mechatronic
`
`systems, the relevant art, and taking the above factors into account where
`
`applicable, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art as of February 12, 2001,
`
`would have had at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`mechanical engineering, physics, or an equivalent degree and at least three years of
`
`experience designing and developing mechatronic systems; or (2) equivalent
`
`training, education, or work experience, such as an advanced degree in engineering
`
`or a related technical field. Given my education and experience, I consider myself
`
`knowledgeable as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would view the prior art as
`
`of February 12, 2001.
`
`VI. Background
`
`22. To understand my opinions, it is necessary to understand certain
`
`background information about pulse width modulation (“PWM”) for DC motor
`
`control.
`
`23. Pulse Width Modulation for DC Motor Control. PWM is a
`
`conventional method used in power electronics that works by rapidly switching at
`
`least one power transistor on and off in such a way as to control or modulate the
`
`average voltage or current delivered to an electrical load, such as an electric DC
`
`(direct current) motor.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`24. A power transistor can act, for example, as a controllable on-off
`
`switch that can quickly close the electrical circuit path between a power source and
`
`a load. When the transistor “switch” is put into an “on” or conducting state, full
`
`voltage from the power source is placed across the load. Conversely, when the
`
`transistor is put into an “off” or non-conducting state, no current can pass through
`
`it from the power source to the load. If the transistor “switch” is alternately
`
`switched or toggled on and off at a relatively high frequency with equal time on
`
`and off, when viewed over a time period of many on-off cycles, the load would
`
`effectively “see” full power supply voltage on average 50% of the time. This 50%
`
`“duty cycle” of transistor conduction results in a time average of 50% of the full
`
`power supply voltage being applied to the load. If the power supply is, for
`
`example, a 12-volt battery, the average voltage applied to the load at a 50% duty
`
`cycle would be 50% of 12 volts, or 6 volts.
`
`25.
`
`If the load was, for example, a DC electric motor, there would be a
`
`commensurate reduction in the motor’s maximum speed as a result of the motor
`
`being connected to an effectively lower voltage power source. If the transistor was
`
`conducting, for example, 75% of the time, the duty cycle would be 75% and the
`
`load would see full power supply voltage 75% of the time for a time average of
`
`75% of 12 volts (i.e., 9 volts). The duty cycle of conduction could theoretically be
`
`set anywhere between 0% and 100% and itself varied over time as need be.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`26. Pulse width modulation was known in the field of radio
`
`communications in the 1940’s as a “method of employing pulses to transmit
`
`intelligence [i.e., a signal],” using “pulses of constant amplitude that have a [fixed]
`
`repetition frequency at least several times the highest frequency contained in the
`
`intelligence to be transmitted” and to “vary the width of the pulses in accordance
`
`with the signal to be transmitted, giving pulse width modulation.” Ex. 1006, Radio
`
`Engineering, Third Edition, Terman, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947, at
`
`pp.776-778.
`
`27. By the mid 1970’s, pulse width modulation found application in
`
`power electronics for DC motor speed control. Such a “PWM system usually
`
`utilizes a DC supply [e.g.., a battery], and the amplifier switches the supply voltage
`
`[battery voltage, v] on and off at a fixed frequency and at a variable ‘firing angle’ a
`
`(see Fig. 3.3.14a [below, illustrating the PWM signal]) so that an adjustable
`
`average voltage across the load (motor) is established. The amount of power
`
`transferred to the load (motor)” will depend in part on the average value of the
`
`PWM voltage waveform, which is governed by the DC power supply voltage “v”
`
`and by the modulated duty cycle of the PWM waveform:
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, DC Motors, Speed Controls, Servo Systems, Third Edition, Electro-Craft
`
`Corporation, 1975, at p. 3-21. If battery voltage “v” was 12 volts, the PWM signal
`
`would oscillate as a square wave between zero and 12 volts. Nevertheless, the
`
`average value of the voltage delivered to the motor could be modulated, e.g.,
`
`gradually varied or ramped, to any voltage between 0 to 12 volts, based on the
`
`PWM signal’s duty cycle. The duty cycle of the PWM signal shown here
`
`mathematically is the ratio of the time, α, that the motor experiences 12 volts to the
`
`fixed time period, t, of the complete PWM cycle. As the value of α would, for
`
`example, gradually increase in response to a gradual change in input to a PWM
`
`amplifier, the PWM duty cycle would gradually increase, the average voltage
`
`delivered to the motor’s terminals would gradually increase and the motor’s speed
`
`would gradually increase. Unlike the case when a manual on/off switch may be
`
`used to instantaneously apply and maintain battery voltage “v” to the motor,
`
`undesirable high motor acceleration and mechanical jerk (the rate of change of
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`acceleration) can be reduced using a PWM circuit that is controlled to limit the rate
`
`of change of the average voltage applied to the motor.
`
`28. Typically, the switching frequency of a pulse width modulated power
`
`control circuit can be set from several hundred cycles per second to several tens of
`
`thousands of cycles per second or more, i.e., very fast compared to the electrical
`
`response time of an electric motor. Accordingly, in pulse width modulated control
`
`of a DC motor, there should be relatively little variation or ripple in motor current
`
`during any single on-off cycle. Because the instantaneous electromagnetic torque
`
`(e.g., the source of acceleration) produced by a DC motor is determined by motor
`
`current, not motor voltage, a nearby casual observer should only notice a gradual
`
`and smooth transition between motor speeds – not high frequency PWM voltage
`
`switching. Of course, the maximum speed of a motor is generally limited by the
`
`average value of the PWM voltage applied across its terminals.
`
`29. As illustrated in the figure below, the resulting motor current ripple
`
`can be relatively quite small compared to the continuous zero to 100% square wave
`
`oscillation of the PWM voltage applied to the motor. This happens because the
`
`electrical time constant of the motor, which is determined by the motor’s resistance
`
`and inductance, acts to significantly smooth out the resulting motor current
`
`waveform, Iav, delivered to the motor by the PWM amplifier. “Fig. 3.3.17 shows a
`
`steady-state relationship of current and voltage.” Ex. 1007 at p. 3-23. “[T]he
`
`13
`
`

`

`supply voltage” can be “switched on and off at a [pulse] high frequency” to reduce
`
`motor current ripple further than shown in this figure. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`30. Although a PWM amplifier may be used to control the speed of a DC
`
`motor without any sensors or feedback, it was known in industry by the mid-1970s
`
`that a PWM system may be further incorporated as part of a more sophisticated
`
`feedback speed control system. “A typical block diagram of a [motor speed
`
`tachometer plus motor current feedback] PWM speed control system is shown in
`
`Fig. 3.3.15,” below. Ex. 1007 at p. 3-23. The motor speed feedback control
`
`system illustrated below controls the PWM voltage applied to a DC motor such
`
`that the motor’s actual speed matches and tracks a desired or reference speed
`
`command input signal. The reference speed command signal input, Vε, is
`
`compared to the actual motor speed measured by tachometer T. This speed
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`difference or error, then amplified by a voltage amplifier, becomes a motor current
`
`reference command signal (not shown) that is compared to actual motor current
`
`measured by a current sense resistor (e.g., a current feedback control system within
`
`a motor speed feedback control system) and converted to a PWM signal by a DC-
`
`to-pulse-width-converter. The power amplifier accepts this PWM signal and
`
`accordingly delivers a PWM voltage to a DC motor. The motor’s speed is
`
`governed by the average PWM voltage at its terminals. Simply put, motor speed
`
`control is achieved by controlling motor current with a PWM based current control
`
`system. A motor current feedback control system within the motor speed feedback
`
`control system energizes the motor via a PWM amplifier so as to produce a
`
`resulting motor current that tracks or follows a desired motor current reference
`
`command signal.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Id. at 3-22. It was well known in the 1970s that “transistor-operated PWM
`
`switching amplifiers [were] used in most high performance, high power speed
`
`control systems and servo sytems [sic].” Id.
`
`31. By the late 1980’s, discrete Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect
`
`Transistors (MOSFETs) were marketed to designers in manufacturer product
`
`application notes by Motorola, a semiconductor manufacturer, for their
`
`advantageous use in “PWM DC speed control” amplifier circuits. Ex. 1008,
`
`Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 2, First Edition, Graf, TAB Books,
`
`1988, at p. 376. Motorola also suggested utilizing “microprocessor or digital
`
`logic” to generate “the incoming digital signal” to the PWM motor speed circuit
`
`below to “control power applied to the motor.” Id.
`
`Id. The circuit above illustrates a DC motor (with voltage clamping diode D3) that
`
`receives a pulse width modulated power supply voltage from a pair of parallel
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`connected TMOSTM power transistors1 Q1 and Q2, which are connected in series
`
`with the motor and a power supply, e.g., a battery. One terminal of the motor is
`
`directly connected to a positive power supply, while the transistors, which are
`
`directly connected to the other terminal of the motor, commutate the voltage of that
`
`motor terminal to ground with a PWM voltage derived (via a FET gate drive
`
`circuit) from digital logic or a microprocessor. At this time, it was well known that
`
`“[s]peed control [can be] accomplished by pulse width modulating the gates of two
`
`. . . TMOS devices. Therefore, motor speed is proportional to the pulse width of
`
`the incoming digital signal, which can be generated by a microprocessor or digital
`
`logic. The incoming signal is [used to] . . . drive the two TMOS devices, which, in
`
`turn, control power applied to the motor armature.” Id.
`
`32. By 1988, Motorola taught in another product application note how a
`
`basic, off-the-shelf, logic chip could be used to generate an adjustable speed PWM
`
`drive signal in a “Power MOSFET Motor Speed Control Circuit.” Ex. 1009,
`
`Power MOSFET Transistor Data, Third Edition, Motorola, Inc., 1988, at pp. 1-8-
`
`22 to 1-8-23. “FETs can be used to considerable advantage for simplifying
`
`permanent-magnet motor speed control. The circuit shown in Figure 8-31 provides
`
`1 The MGP20N45 TMOSTM GEMFETTM power transistor was a type of Gain-
`
`Enhanced MOS Field-Effect Transistor produced by Motorola for use in high
`
`current motor controls.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`efficient pulse-width modulated control with a minimum number of components.
`
`The key feature is direct drive of the power FET from a CMOS control IC. The
`
`result is a control system with minimized parts count. The control system is based
`
`upon the MC14528B dual monostable multivibrator.” Id. at p. 1-8-22.
`
`Id. at p. 1-8-23. With this design solution, Motorola demonstrated how to use a
`
`simple (i.e., low-cost) logic chip to perform PWM-based variable speed control of
`
`
`
`a DC motor.
`
`33. By 1993, PWM circuitry for motor control was fully integrated in a
`
`commercially available programmable motion control chip—National
`
`Semiconductor’s “LM629 Precision Motion Controller” integrated circuit—which
`
`featured the ability to control the speed of a DC motor using PWM with user-
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`programmed acceleration and deceleration. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, Power IC’s
`
`Databook, 1993 Edition, National Semiconductor Corporation, 1993, at p. 4-28
`
`(“The . . . LM629 [is a] dedicated motion-control processor designed for use with a
`
`variety of DC and brushless DC servo motors, and other servomechanisms. . . . The
`
`part[] perform[s] the intensive, real-time computational tasks required for high
`
`performance digital motion control. The host control software interface is
`
`facilitated by a high-level command set. . . . The components required . . . are
`
`reduced to the DC motor/actuator, . . . [and] a power amplifier [in] . . . [a]n
`
`LM629-based system . . . .”); see also id. (“Features [include]: 32-bit position,
`
`velocity, and acceleration registers, . . . 8-bit sign-magnitude PWM output data
`
`(LM629), [i]nternal trapezoidal velocity profile generator, [v]elocity . . .
`
`parameters may be changed during motion, . . . [and] velocity modes of operation .
`
`. . [may be selected] .”). Use of a PWM-based DC motor motion controller that
`
`limits or regulates motor acceleration and deceleration consequentially produces
`
`smooth, gradual transitions in motor speed. See, e.g., id. at p. 4-35 (“VELOCITY
`
`PROFILE (TRAJECTORY) GENERATION - The trapezoidal velocity profile
`
`generator computes the desired position of the motor versus time. . . . [T]he host
`
`processor specifies acceleration [and] maximum velocity. . . . The deceleration
`
`rate is equal to the acceleration rate. At any time during the move the maximum
`
`velocity and/or the target position may be changed, and the motor will accelerate
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`or decelerate accordingly. Figure 10 illustrates two typical trapezoidal velocity
`
`profiles. . . . When operating in the velocity mode, the motor accelerates to the
`
`specified velocity at the specified acceleration rate and maintains the specified
`
`velocity until commanded to stop.”).
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`34.
`
`In forming my opinions, I applied the following claim construction at
`
`the request of counsel:
`
`Term
`“binary throttle signal”
`
`
`
`Construction
`a throttle signal pertaining to a selection, choice, or
`condition that has two possible different values or
`states, i.e., throttle in neutral position /throttle not in
`neutral position, throttle signal is produced / throttle
`signal is not-produced
`
`20
`
`

`

`35. For all other claim terms, I applied the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`that each term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`
`
`alleged invention.
`
`VIII. Applicable Legal Standards
`
`36.
`
`I am not an attorney, but in forming my opinions in this case, I used
`
`the following legal standards that were provided to me by counsel.
`
`37. Anticipation, 35 U.S.C. § 102. I understand that a patent claim is
`
`invalid as anticipated (i.e., the claimed invention is not new or not novel) when a
`
`single prior art reference (e.g., a patent, or publication) discloses within the
`
`document every limitation recited in the claim arranged or combined in the same
`
`way as recited in the claim. If that prior art reference teaches all the limitations
`
`combined or arranged as recited in the claim in a manner that would enable one
`
`skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention, that claim is not new, but is
`
`“anticipated” by the prior art reference.
`
`38. For a prior art reference to “teach” the limitations of a claim, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art must recognize the limitations as disclosed in that single
`
`reference and, to the extent the claim specifies a relationship between the
`
`limitations, the disclosed limitations must be in the same relationship as recited in
`
`the claim. Additionally, a disclosure can “teach” a limitation only if the disclosure
`
`of the reference is enabling. This means that a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`having become familiar with the prior art, must be enabled thereby to practice the
`
`invention without undue experimentation.
`
`39. Obviousness, 35 U.S.C. § 103. I understand that a claim is invalid
`
`for obviousness if the differences between it and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the claimed invention. I understand that obviousness is a question
`
`of law that requires underlying factual determinations of:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art;
`
`the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`the nature of the differences (if any) between the asserted claim and
`
`the prior art.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`when it