UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Caterpillar Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Wirtgen Gmbh.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01264
`Patent No. 9,879,390
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF WILLIAM SINGHOSE IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`CATERPILLAR EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 1 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .................................. 1
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 7
`V.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 8
`C. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 9
`VI. THE ’390 PATENT ....................................................................................... 11
`A. Overview of the ’390 Patent ................................................................ 11
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 15
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PETITION GROUNDS ...................................................... 18
`A. GROUND 1: Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22 Are Obvious over
`OMM and Samuelson .......................................................................... 18
`1.
`Summary of PM-465 OMM ...................................................... 18
`a.
`Technical Disclosure ...................................................... 18
`b.
`OMM is a Publicly Accessible Printed Publication ........ 27
`Summary of Samuelson ............................................................ 27
`Rationale for Implementing Sensor-integrated Cylinders
`Like Samuelson’s on the PM-465 Machine Described in
`OMM ......................................................................................... 30
`
`2.
`3.
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 162
`
`

`

`
`
`4.
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`a. Motivations to Use Sensor-integrated Cylinders on
`Side Plates ....................................................................... 32
`b. Motivations to Use Sensor-integrated Cylinders on
`the Moldboard ................................................................. 45
`c. Motivations to Use Sensor-integrated Cylinders
`Inside the PM-465’s Legs ............................................... 48
`Claim-by-Claim Analysis ......................................................... 60
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 60
`i.
`[1pre]: “A self-propelled
`road milling
`machine, comprising:” ......................................... 60
`[1a]: “a machine frame;” ...................................... 61
`[1b]: “at least two front ground engaging
`supports, and at least one rear ground
`engaging support;” ............................................... 61
`[1c]: “front and
`rear
`lifting columns
`supporting
`the frame from
`the ground
`engaging supports;” .............................................. 62
`[1d]: “a milling roller supported from the
`frame for treatment of a ground surface;” ............ 64
`[1e]: “a height adjustable stripping plate
`arranged behind
`the milling roller and
`operable to be lowered, during operation, into
`a milling track generated by the milling
`roller;” .................................................................. 65
`[1f]: “first and second height adjustable side
`plates arranged on opposite sides of the
`milling roller; and” ............................................... 70
`[1g]: “a plurality of position sensors, each of
`the first and second side plates including at
`least two of the position sensors spaced apart
`
`ii.
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`vii.
`
`viii.
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 162
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`in a traveling direction of the milling
`machine, wherein each position sensor
`generates position
`signals
`representing
`changes in position for a respective side
`plate.” ................................................................... 72
`Claim 2: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 1, further comprising a controller operably
`associated with the position sensors and configured
`to measure, based at least in part on the position
`signals from the position sensors, displacement of
`the side plates with respect to the machine frame.” ....... 77
`Claim 3: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 2, wherein the plurality of position sensors
`are integrated with hydraulic piston/cylinder units
`for lifting or lowering the respective side plates.” ......... 78
`Claim 4: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to
`control the milling depth of the milling roller by
`generating control signals to vertically adjust one or
`more of the lifting columns.” .......................................... 79
`Claim 5: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 1, wherein the stripping plate comprises
`one or more position sensors configured to generate
`position signals representing changes in position for
`the stripping plate.” ......................................................... 80
`Claim 6: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 5, wherein the stripping plate further
`comprises one or more piston/cylinder units
`integrating the one or more position sensors.” ............... 82
`Claim 8: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 1, wherein each of the lifting columns
`includes an integrated position sensor configured to
`directly detect a lifted condition of its associated
`lifting column.” ............................................................... 83
`
`iii
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Page 4 of 162
`
`

`

`
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`Claim 9: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 8, further comprising a controller
`configured to automatically control the lifted
`condition of at least one of the lifting columns to
`establish a predetermined inclination front to rear of
`the machine frame.” ........................................................ 87
`Claim 10: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 9, wherein the predetermined inclination
`comprises the machine frame being parallel to the
`ground surface or a milling track.” ................................. 91
`Claim 11: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 9, wherein the predetermined inclination
`comprises the machine frame being parallel to a
`horizontal plane.” ............................................................ 91
`Claim 12: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 8, further comprising a controller
`configured to automatically control the lifted
`condition of at least one of the lifting columns.” ........... 92
`Independent Claim 13 ..................................................... 92
`i.
`[13pre]: “A self-propelled road milling
`machine, comprising:” ......................................... 93
`[13a] “a machine frame;” ..................................... 93
`[13b] “at least two front ground engaging
`supports, and at least one rear ground
`engaging support;” ............................................... 93
`[13c1] “front and rear
`lifting columns
`supporting
`the frame from
`the ground
`engaging supports,” .............................................. 93
`[13c2] “wherein each of the front and rear
`lifting columns comprise a hydraulic
`piston/cylinder unit having an integrated
`position sensor configured
`to generate
`
`ii.
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 162
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`n.
`
`v
`
`vi.
`
`vii.
`
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`viii.
`
`position signals representing a lifted position
`of the respective lifting column;” ......................... 93
`[13d] “a milling roller supported from the
`frame for treatment of a ground surface;” ............ 94
`[13e] “a height adjustable stripping plate
`arranged behind
`the milling roller and
`operable to be lowered, during operation, into
`a milling track generated by the milling
`roller; and” ............................................................ 94
`[13f1] “first and second height adjustable
`side plates arranged on opposite sides of the
`milling roller” ....................................................... 94
`[13f2] “wherein at least one of the side plates
`comprises
`first and
`second hydraulic
`piston/cylinder units spaced apart
`in a
`traveling direction of the milling machine,” ........ 95
`[13f3] “each piston/cylinder unit having an
`integrated position sensor configured to
`generate position
`signals
`representing
`changes in position for the respective at least
`one side plate.” ..................................................... 95
`m. Claim 14: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 13, further comprising a controller
`operably associated with the position sensors and
`configured to determine displacement of the at least
`one of the first and second side plates with respect
`to the machine frame, based at least in part on the
`generated position signals from one or more of the
`position sensors.” ............................................................ 96
`Claim 15: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to
`control the milling depth of the milling roller by
`
`Page 6 of 162
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`o.
`
`generating control signals to vertically adjust one or
`more of the lifting columns.” .......................................... 97
`Claim 16: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 13, wherein the stripping plate comprises
`one or more position sensors configured to generate
`position signals representing changes in position for
`the stripping plate.” ......................................................... 97
`Claim 17: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 16, wherein the stripping plate further
`comprises one or more piston/cylinder units
`integrating the one or more position sensors.” ............... 97
`Claim 19: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 13, further comprising a controller
`configured to automatically control the lifted
`condition of at least one of the lifting columns to
`establish a predetermined inclination front to rear of
`the machine frame.” ........................................................ 98
`Claim 20: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 19, wherein the predetermined inclination
`comprises the machine frame being parallel to the
`ground surface or a milling track.” ................................. 98
`Claim 21: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 19, wherein the predetermined inclination
`comprises the machine frame being parallel to a
`horizontal plane.” ............................................................ 98
`Claim 22: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 13, further comprising a controller
`configured to automatically control the lifted
`condition of at least one of the lifting columns.” ........... 99
`B. GROUND 2: Claims 7 and 18 Are Obvious over OMM,
`Samuelson, and Zarniko ...................................................................... 99
`1.
`Summary of U.S. Patent No. 4,943,119 to Zarniko ................100
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`t.
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Rationale for Combining OMM and Samuelson with
`Zarniko ....................................................................................102
`Claim-by-Claim Analysis .......................................................104
`a.
`Claim 7: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 5, further comprising a controller
`configured to determine a relative displacement
`between one or more of the side plates and the
`stripping plate based on generated position signals
`from their respective position sensors.” .......................104
`Claim 18: “The self-propelled road milling machine
`of claim 16, further comprising a controller
`configured to determine a relative displacement
`between one or more of the side plates and the
`stripping plate based on generated position signals
`from their respective position sensors.” .......................106
`
`b.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`I, William Singhose, have been retained as an independent expert by
`
`Caterpillar Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Caterpillar”) in connection with an inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,879,390 (the “’390 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I
`
`have prepared this declaration in connection with Caterpillar’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, this document contains my opinions about the technology
`
`claimed in claims 1-22 of the ’390 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) and the
`
`grounds against these claims that have been asserted by Caterpillar. I was
`
`not asked to provide any opinions that are not expressed herein.
`
`II.
`
`3.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`This declaration considers the Challenged Claims of the ’390 patent. Below,
`
`I set forth the opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached, and
`
`the bases for these opinions and conclusions. I believe the statements
`
`contained in this declaration to be true and correct to the best of my
`
`knowledge.
`
`4.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art at the time of the applicable
`
`priority date, analysis of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and references, and
`
`the understanding a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had of the
`
`claims in light of the specification as of the applicable priority date, it is my
`
`1
`
`Page 9 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’390 patent would have been
`
`obvious over the asserted grounds.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $700 per hour. This
`
`compensation is in no way contingent upon the nature of my findings, the
`
`presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this matter
`
`based upon my educational and work experience.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`I am a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology (“Georgia Tech”). I received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1990. I then
`
`received an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University in
`
`1992. Finally, I received a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT in
`
`1997. After receiving my Ph.D., I was a postdoctoral researcher at MIT
`
`before becoming a professor at Georgia Tech in 1998.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my work experience, described in my curriculum vitae and in more
`
`detail below, I am knowledgeable about the subject matter of the ’390
`
`patent, and the related prior art. Specifically, my qualifications as an expert
`
`in the fields of heavy machinery, automation, control systems, and product
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`design stem from my prior industry work experience, as well as my
`
`experience as a Professor in the Woodruff School of Mechanical
`
`Engineering at Georgia Tech performing research, teaching, and consulting.
`
`I have several patents and dozens of publications that are directed toward
`
`understanding and improving heavy machinery, including their sensors and
`
`control systems.
`
`10.
`
`In my current position at Georgia Tech, I teach courses in mechanical
`
`design, system dynamics, controls, and rehabilitation engineering. I also lead
`
`teams of professors, post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduate
`
`students that conduct research in mechanical design, dynamics, controls,
`
`automation, robotics, spacecraft, human-machine interfaces, and
`
`rehabilitation engineering. During my more than 20 years at Georgia Tech, I
`
`have also had visiting appointments at MIT, Stanford, the Polytechnic
`
`University of Madrid, and the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
`
`11. Throughout my upbringing, I was exposed to a wide range of construction
`
`equipment and heavy machinery. My mother was a truck driver and my
`
`father was an operator of many types of heavy machinery. Our family owned
`
`log trucks, road graders, excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, truck-
`
`mounted hoists, and tractors. I worked in road construction for more than
`
`two years at my family-owned road-construction company. I operated many
`
`3
`
`Page 11 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`types of road construction equipment, including paving machines, dump
`
`trucks, steam rollers, and compactors.
`
`12.
`
`I also worked one summer as a lab technician at Riverside Cement
`
`Company. My job responsibilities there included preparing various types of
`
`concrete mixtures and testing their mechanical properties under various
`
`conditions and over extended periods of time. These activities required me
`
`to operate forklifts, cement pumps, sand sifters, flat-bed trucks, climatic test
`
`chambers, and compression testing machines.
`
`13. Regarding the road-milling machines of concern in this matter, I have
`
`observed, inspected, and worked alongside such machines many times.
`
`During road construction, I worked in conjunction with road-milling
`
`machines wherein I had the opportunity to observe them closely in operation
`
`and understand their functions. Since that time, have observed, inspected,
`
`and analyzed road-milling machines on many additional occasions.
`
`14. Throughout my engineering career, I have worked with heavy machinery
`
`and large automated systems. Before starting my teaching career at Georgia
`
`Tech, I worked as a full-time mechanical engineer for several companies,
`
`including Walt Disney World, Apple Computers, Inc., and Convolve, Inc.
`
`15.
`
`In my role at Walt Disney World, I designed and developed a number of
`
`structures and components for the parks’ rides, including operational control
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`procedures for the Body Wars simulators. These simulators were rooms that
`
`held about 40 people at a time. The entire rooms, and the guests seated
`
`within, were automatically moved up, down, and side-to-side through a
`
`series of preprogrammed motions using six large linear hydraulic cylinders.
`
`The machines were equipped with numerous sensors that accurately
`
`measured the cylinder positions and enabled accurate feedback control of the
`
`structure.
`
`16. For Convolve, Inc., I analyzed the dynamics of automated robots, satellites,
`
`and NASA high-altitude balloons. I also developed automated control
`
`systems for manufacturing machines, large-scale coordinate measuring
`
`machines, and laser interferometer sensors. One of my Convolve projects
`
`required the development and installation of a system to control a crane at
`
`the Savannah River Nuclear facility. The crane was a large overhead bridge
`
`structure that moved barrels of nuclear waste. The control system we
`
`developed and installed reduced the unwanted pendulum swing of the
`
`barrels. As part of this project, I used a string potentiometer (yo-yo) sensor
`
`to measure motion of the crane. Such sensors are commonly used in
`
`machinery with extending and contracting lift cylinders in order to measure
`
`the position of the machine components.
`
`5
`
`Page 13 of 162
`
`

`

`
`17. Throughout my years at Georgia Tech, I have worked as an engineering
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`consultant or research partner for numerous companies. For example, I
`
`worked with Boeing for several years to improve the safety of their overhead
`
`bridge cranes. The crane controllers that I developed have been deployed at
`
`multiple Boeing manufacturing facilities. One of the Boeing cranes that I
`
`personally operated included four large rotary slew drives that enabled the
`
`controlled rotation of very large aircraft components. I have also worked on
`
`several projects involving boom cranes that travel on crawler tracks.
`
`18.
`
`In addition to my engineering experience as a professor and an engineer, I
`
`have commercialized technology developed in my research group at Georgia
`
`Tech by founding two companies: CAMotion Cranes and InVekTek.
`
`CAMotion Cranes designed and installed crane control systems that decrease
`
`payload swing, automatically avoid obstacles, and improve crane safety.
`
`These improvements are achieved through sensor systems and control
`
`methods that my research group developed, patented, and deployed.
`
`CAMotion Cranes was acquired by PAR Systems in 2013. InVekTek
`
`develops and commercializes control systems for large robotic and industrial
`
`material-handling systems. InVekTek products include control systems that
`
`read sensor signals and accurately control machine actuators.
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`19. My opinions are based on my experience, knowledge of the relevant art, the
`
`’390 patent and prosecution history, the documents identified in Appendix
`
`B, and the documents discussed in this declaration.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`20.
`
`I am not a lawyer. My understanding of the legal standards to apply in
`
`reaching the conclusions in this declaration is based on discussions with
`
`counsel for Petitioner, my experience applying similar standards in other
`
`patent-related matters, and my reading of the documents related to this
`
`proceeding. In preparing this declaration, I have tried to faithfully apply
`
`these legal standards to the Challenged Claims.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`21.
`
`I have been instructed that the terms appearing in the ’390 patent should be
`
`interpreted in view of the claim language itself, the specification, the
`
`prosecution history of the patent, and any relevant extrinsic evidence. I
`
`understand that the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, which I have
`
`assumed here is December 22, 2006. While claim limitations cannot be
`
`“read in” from the specification, the specification is the single best guide to
`
`7
`
`Page 15 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`the meaning of claim terms. I have followed these principles in reviewing
`
`the claims of the ’390 patent and forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`22.
`
`I understand a person of ordinary skill in the art is determined by
`
`considering issues such as (i) the type of problems encountered in the art; (ii)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (iii) rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made; (iv) sophistication of the technology; and (v) educational level of
`
`active workers in the field.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) pertinent to
`
`the ’390 patent would have had at least a four-year degree in mechanical
`
`engineering or a closely related field and at least two years of experience
`
`designing, developing, servicing or operating heavy machinery, including
`
`their components and control systems. Additional education could substitute
`
`for professional experience, and significant work experience—such as
`
`working with, servicing, or operating heavy machinery in the field—could
`
`substitute for formal education.
`
`24.
`
`I was at least a POSITA as of December 22, 2006.
`
`8
`
`Page 16 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`25.
`
`I have been told that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim may be obvious
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`26.
`
`I have been told that a proper obviousness analysis involves:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims
`
`at issue;
`
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Considering evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`(if available).
`
`27.
`
`I have been told that the relevant time for considering whether a claim would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`invention. For my obviousness analysis, counsel for Petitioner instructed me
`
`to assume that the date of invention for the Challenged Claims is December
`
`22, 2006. My opinions would not change if I assumed a later date of
`
`invention.
`
`9
`
`Page 17 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`28.
`
`I have been told that a reference may be modified or combined with other
`
`references or with a POSITA’s own knowledge if the person would have
`
`found the modification or combination obvious. I have also been told that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the relevant prior
`
`art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`29.
`
`I have been told that whether a prior art reference renders a patent claim
`
`obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I have also been told that there is no requirement that the prior art
`
`contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the
`
`claimed invention. However, suggestions to combine known elements to
`
`achieve the claimed invention may come from the prior art as a whole, or
`
`individually, and may consider the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I understand that
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements and
`
`must include some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I have been told that there is no rigid rule that a reference or combination of
`
`references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine
`
`references. But I also have been told that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`10
`
`Page 18 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`motivation” test can be used in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. I have also been told to be aware of distortions
`
`caused by hindsight bias, and that reading into the prior art the teachings of
`
`the patent at issue is improper.
`
`VI. THE ’390 PATENT
`
`A. Overview of the ’390 Patent
`
`31. The ’390 patent claims certain types of self-propelled road milling machines.
`
`Such machines mill, or grind off, the top surface of roads so that a new top
`
`layer can be securely applied to the road. The exemplary road milling
`
`machine shown in Figure 1 of the ’390 patent is reproduced below for
`
`convenience.
`
`[Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.]
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 19 of 162
`
`

`

`
`32. The milling machine of the ’390 patent contains a machine frame, two front
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`ground engaging supports, and at least one rear ground engaging support.
`
`These ground engaging supports are labeled 2 and 3 in Figure 1 above. The
`
`machine has front and rear lifting columns 12 and 13 that support the frame
`
`from the ground engaging supports. In order to treat a road surface, the
`
`machine has a milling roll 6 supported from the machine frame. Behind the
`
`milling roller is a height-adjustable stripping means 14 that can be lowered
`
`into the milling track to help clear the milled material and block material
`
`from being ejected out the back. On each side of the milling roller there are
`
`height-adjustable side plates that block material from being ejected out the
`
`sides of the machine. [Ex. 1001, 4:7-29.]
`
`33. The machine structure and components described above have been
`
`commonplace in the industry for decades. Furthermore, every feature
`
`described above is in the prior art, as the specification admits. [Id., 1:25-44.]
`
`34.
`
`In addition to the physical components described above, prior-art road
`
`milling machines also had “control means for controlling the milling depth
`
`of the milling roll.” [Id., 1:43-44.]
`
`35. The ’390 patent states that an object of its invention is to “improve the
`
`accuracy of measuring the milling depth during the operation of a road
`
`12
`
`Page 20 of 162
`
`

`

`
`
`milling machine and to thereby minimize deviations from the predetermined
`
`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`milling depth.” [Id., 1:64-67.]
`
`36. Given the high degree of similarity between the prior art machines described
`
`in the ’390 patent and the milling machine claimed as inventive by the ’390
`
`patent, there are very few claimed features that might be considered as
`
`novel.
`
`37. To address the problem of sensing and controlling milling depth, the ’390
`
`patent describes a design where the movement of various machine
`
`components is sensed, and that sensed information is used by the controller
`
`to ensure the milling roller is positioned at the predetermined depth set by
`
`the operator. [Id., 3:18-30.] More specifically, the side plates, stripping
`
`means, and lifting columns can be raised and lowered by hydraulic
`
`cylinders. [Id., 3:7-17, 4:13-17.] Alternatively, the side plates and stripping
`
`means can rest under the force of gravity on the ground surfaces without
`
`being actively controlled by the hydraulic cylinders. [Id., 3:7-10.]
`
`38. The ’390 specification states that the linear extension and retraction of these
`
`hydraulic cylinders can be measured with integrated sensors that are
`
`configured to directly detect the extension length of the cylinders. The ’390
`
`patent describes the use of such hydraulic cylinders to move the stripping
`
`means as follows:
`
`13
`
`Page 21 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`
`The hydraulic means are formed by piston/cylinder units 26, 28 with
`
`an integrated position sensing system. This means that the
`
`piston/cylinder units 26, 28 not only allow for the stroke movement of
`
`the stripping means, but moreover generate a position signal.
`
`[Id., 5:5-9.]
`
`39. This disclosure indicates that movement of cylinders with integrated sensors
`
`results in two outputs: i) stroke movement of the cylinder and ii) generation
`
`of a position signal. Here, the term “integrated” sensors describes the
`
`coupling of a hydraulic cylinder and a position sensor. Such integrated
`
`sensors allow the controller to continually know the position of the
`
`components to which the cylinders are attached (e.g., the side plates,
`
`stripping means, and lifting columns). [Id., 4:45-52; 3:40-46.]
`
`40. The ’390 patent describes different ways to use the information sensed by
`
`the integrated cylinder sensors. For instance, the sensors on the side plates
`
`are used to determine if the appropriate milling depth is being achieved.
`
`[See, e.g., id., 3:25-30.] The relative displacement between a side plate and
`
`the stripping means can also be measured directly, or calculated from
`
`multiple sensor measurements to gauge the milling depth. [See, e.g., id.,
`
`2:59-64.]
`
`14
`
`Page 22 of 162
`
`

`

`
`Declaration of William Singhose
`
`
`41. The ’390 patent describes various sensor placements for controlling milling
`
`depth. For example, the specification describes sensors spaced apart in the
`
`traveling direction, that is, the front-to-back direction. Such a configuration
`
`allows the control to measure the longitudinal inclination, which is
`
`commonly referred to as the “grade.” [Id., 3:31-39.]. Using such
`
`measurements of the inclination, the controller can adjust the front and rear
`
`lifting columns to match a predetermined inclined position that is set by the
`
`machine operator. [Id., 4:13-16.]. The ’390 patent also describes sensors
`
`being spaced horizontally apart on a beam that is transverse to the travel
`
`direction. [Id., 4:53-67.] This configuration allows the