Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and
`NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00667
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`Issue Date: January 21, 2003
`
`
`
`Title: Microelectromechanical System for Measuring Angular Rate
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,508,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1) ......................................... 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest Under §42.8(b)(1) ............................................. 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under §42.8(b)(2) ...................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3) .................................... 2 
`D. 
`Service Information .............................................................................. 3 
`E. 
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 3 
`FEE PAYMENT ............................................................................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 AND
`CONSIDERATIONS UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D) ............................... 4 
`A. 
`Standing ................................................................................................ 4 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge ................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`§§314 and 325(d) .................................................................................. 4 
`IV.  POSITA DEFINITION AND PRIOR ART OVERVIEW............................. 5 
`A. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Date Qualification of Prior Art ............................................................. 5 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 6 
`V. 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ........................... 6 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 Are Obvious Over Fujiyoshi in View
`of Kumar, Cox, and Townsend ............................................................ 6 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 9 
`(a) 
`“an angular rate sensor unit receiving dither driver
`signals, capacitive pickoff excitation signals and a
`displacement restoring signal and outputting angle
`rate signals in response to motion of said carrier
`and dither motion signals” (Claim 1[a]) ........................ 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`“a central circuitry receiving said angle rate signals
`in response to said motion of said carrier and said
`dither motion signals and outputting angular rate
`signals and digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals” (Claim 1[b]) ............................... 29 
`“a digital signal processing system analyzing said
`digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals and feeding back said dither
`driver signals to said angular rate sensor unit”
`(Claim 1[c]) ................................................................... 35 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 43 
`2. 
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 3 are Obvious Over Mitamura and
`Townsend ........................................................................................... 44 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 44 
`(a) 
`an angular rate sensor unit receiving dither driver
`signals, capacitive pickoff excitation signals and a
`displacement restoring signal and outputting angle
`rate signals in response to motion of said carrier
`and dither motion signals (Claim 1[a]); ......................... 47 
`a central circuitry receiving said angle rate signals
`in response to said motion of said carrier and said
`dither motion signals and outputting angular rate
`signals and digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals (Claim 1[b]); ................................ 59 
`a digital signal processing system analyzing said
`digital low frequency inertial element
`displacement signals and feeding back said dither
`driver signals to said angular rate sensor unit
`(Claim 1[c]). .................................................................. 70 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 78 
`2. 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 80 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,12 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1 to Hiram McCall, et al. (filed Sept. 15,
`2000, issued Jan. 21, 2003) (“’122” or “’122 patent”)
`
`1002 Declaration of Darrin Young, Ph.D. (with exhibits)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,945,599 A to Motohiro Fujiyoshi, et al. (filed Dec.
`12, 1997, issued Aug. 31, 1999) (“Fujiyoshi”)
`
`1004
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 99/14,557 to Kevin Townsend
`(filed Sept. 17, 1998, published March 25, 1999) (“Townsend”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,604,311 to Lalit Kumar, et al. (filed June 7, 1995,
`issued February 18, 1997) (“Kumar”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 3,838,346 to Donald Clyde Cox (filed Nov. 1, 1973,
`issued Sept. 24, 1974) (“Cox”)
`
`1007
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 9[1997]-42973 (filed Aug.
`1, 1995, published Feb. 14, 1997) (“Mitamura”)
`
`1008 Excerpts from Shmuel Merhav, Aerospace Sensor Systems and
`Applications (1996)
`
`1009 Certified English Translation of Exhibit 1007
`
`1010 Excerpts from Ljubisa Ristic (ed.), Sensor Technology and Devices
`(1994)
`
`1011 Excerpts from J.M. Slater, Inertial Guidance Sensors (1964)
`
`1012 Excerpts from Myron Kayton, Avionics Navigation Systems (2d Ed.
`1997)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐iv‐ 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,12 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1013 Excerpts from David Irwin, The Industrial Electronics Handbook
`(1997)
`
`1014 Excerpts from Anthony Lawrence, Modern Inertial Technology (1993)
`
`1015 Excerpts from Connie L. McClure, Theory of Inertial Guidance (1960)
`
`1016 Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, Ph.D. (with exhibits)
`
`1017 Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint, ECF No. 10, dated
`March 8, 2023, filed in American GNC Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., et
`al, Case No. 2:23-cv-00302-TL (W.D. Wash.)
`
`1018 Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 55, dated
`March 2, 2021, filed in American GNC Corp. v. OnePlus Tech.
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Case No. 6:20-cv-00171-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`1019 Patent Owner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 57, dated
`April 6, 2021, filed in American GNC Corp. v. OnePlus Tech.
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00171-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`1020 Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 92, dated
`January 30, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. LG Electronics Inc.,
`et al, No. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
`
`1021 Patent Owner’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 97,
`dated February 13, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. LG
`Electronics Inc., et al, No. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
`
`1022 Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 111, dated
`February 21, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et
`al, Case No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐v‐ 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,508,12 B2
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1023 Patent Owner’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 122, dated
`March 14, 2018, filed in American GNC Corp. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., et al,
`No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1024 File history for U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 B1
`
`1025 Additional pages from Shmuel Merhav, Aerospace Sensor Systems and
`Applications (1996) (not included with EX1008)
`
`1026 Petitioner’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence,
`dated January 29, 2024, in American GNC Corp. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:23-cv-00302-TL (W.D. Wash.)
`
` 
`
`
`
`‐vi‐ 
`
` 
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests institution of inter partes review of claims 1
`
`and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,508,122 (the “’122 patent”), as shown below.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under §42.8(b)(1)
`Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`
`are the real parties-in-interest to this IPR petition.
`
`B. Related Matters Under §42.8(b)(2)
`The ’122 patent is the subject of the following pending litigation involving
`
`Petitioner: American GNC Corporation v. Nintendo Co., No. 2:23-cv-00302-TL
`
`(W.D. Wash.). Petitioner was served on March 8, 2023. (EX1017.)
`
`The ’122 patent was formerly the subject of the following actions: American
`
`GNC Corporation v. ZTE Corporation., No. 2:17-cv-00107 (E.D. Tex.) (terminated
`
`September 5, 2017); American GNC Corporation v. ZTE Corporation., No. 4:17-cv-
`
`00620 (E.D. Tex.) (terminated September 12, 2018); American GNC Corporation v.
`
`LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00119 (E.D. Tex.) (terminated June 17, 2017);
`
`American GNC Corporation v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01090 (S.D. Cal.)
`
`(terminated February 20, 2019); American GNC Corporation v. GoPro, Inc., No.
`
`3:18-cv-00968 (S.D. Cal.) (terminated November 6, 2018); American GNC
`
`Corporation v. GoPro, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-06778 (N.D. Cal.) (terminated February
`
`19, 2019); American GNC Corporation v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,
`
`No. 6:20-cv-00171 (W.D. Tex.) (terminated June 23, 2021).
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under §42.8(b)(3)
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Matthew J. Brigham (Reg. No. 44,047)
`mbrigham@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5677
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Andrew C. Mace (Reg. No. 63,342)
`amace@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5808
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Patrick. W. Lauppe (Admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`plauppe@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5226
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Dena Chen (Admission pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`dchen@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5135
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Mark R. Weinstein (Admission pro hac
`vice to be requested)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5007
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`Stephen Smith (Admission pro hac vice
`to be requested)
`stephen.smith@cooley.com
`COOLEYLLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
`Washington D.C. 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8035
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`D.
`Service Information
`This Petition is being served by Federal Express to the attorneys of record for
`
`the ’122 patent, DAVID AND RAYMOND PATENT FIRM, 108 N. Ynez Ave, Suite 128,
`
`Monterey Park, CA 91754. This Petition is also being served on litigation counsel
`
`identified in the Certificate of Service. Petitioner consents to electronic service at
`
`the addresses provided above for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`E.
`Power of Attorney
`Filed concurrently per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`FEE PAYMENT
`Petitioner requests review of two claims, with a $41,500 payment.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 AND CONSIDERATIONS
`UNDER §§ 314(A) AND 325(D)
`A.
`Standing
`Petitioner certifies that the ’122 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenge
`Petitioner requests institution of IPR based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis under §103
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 3
`
`1, 3
`
`Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, Townsend
`
`Mitamura, Townsend
`
`Submitted with this Petition is the Declaration of Darrin J. Young (EX1002)
`
`(“Young”), a qualified technical expert (Young, ¶¶4-10, Ex. A), and the Declaration
`
`of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (EX1016).
`
`C.
`§§314 and 325(d)
`No basis exists under either §314(a) or §325(d) for discretionary denial.
`
`§314(a): The General Plastic factors do not apply because Petitioner has not
`
`previously filed an IPR petition against the ’122 patent. With respect to the Fintiv
`
`factors, the pending litigation is in early stages and no claim construction rulings
`
`have issued. A trial date has been set for May 19, 2025. Mindful of the Board’s
`
`limited resources, this Petition challenges only two claims, corresponding to the
`
`claims asserted in the pending litigation. To allay concerns regarding duplication of
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`efforts, Petitioner provides a Sotera stipulation that, in the event of IPR institution,
`
`Petitioner will not pursue in district court any grounds of invalidity against the
`
`challenged claims that were or reasonably could have been asserted in IPR.
`
`§325(d): None of the prior art cited in the grounds identified in Part III.B
`
`above was previously presented during prosecution.
`
`IV. POSITA DEFINITION AND PRIOR ART OVERVIEW
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A skilled artisan would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or similar degree, with two to three years of practical experience
`
`designing and/or implementing systems that include sensors for measuring
`
`movement, including rotation. (Young, ¶¶12-15.) A skilled artisan could also have
`
`had more formal education and less practical experience, or vice versa. (Id., ¶14.)
`
`B. Date Qualification of Prior Art
`Each of the relied-upon references qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA rules.
`
`Kumar and Cox qualify as prior art under §102, because they are patents issuing
`
`more than one year before the earliest application to which the ’122 patent claims
`
`priority. Fujiyoshi qualifies as prior art under §102(e) because it issued from an
`
`application filed before the earliest application for the ’122 patent. Townsend
`
`qualifies as prior art under § 102(a) (pre-AIA) because it was published before the
`
`earliest application for the ’122 patent.
`
`Mitamura qualifies as prior art under at least §102(b) because it is a Japanese
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`patent application published more than one year before the earliest application for
`
`the ’122 patent. Because Mitamura (EX1007) was originally published in Japanese,
`
`Petitioner has provided a certified English translation (EX1009). All citations to
`
`Mitamura below refer to the certified English translation.
`
`Petitioner has cited to other documents (EX1008, EX1010-1015, 1025), not
`
`to supply limitations missing from the prior art but to confirm the knowledge and
`
`understanding of skilled artisans. These references nevertheless qualify as prior art
`
`because they were published before the earliest application for the ’122 patent.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`No claim construction rulings have issued in the pending litigation between
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner. Patent Owner has proposed constructions in past
`
`litigations, but no claim construction has taken place. (EX1018-EX1023.)
`
`Petitioner does not believe any term requires express construction at this time
`
`because, as shown below, the claims are obvious even if the Board adopted the prior
`
`constructions proposed in district court.
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 3 Are Obvious Over Fujiyoshi in View of
`Kumar, Cox, and Townsend
`Petitioner’s obviousness analysis below relies on various embodiments in
`
`Fujiyoshi. Federal Circuit law is clear that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed
`
`adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.”
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Boston Sci. v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, as shown
`
`below, all limitations of claim 1 are disclosed or rendered obvious by Fujiyoshi’s
`
`second embodiment as well as his seventh embodiment—a differential configuration
`
`using two instances of Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment. (Fujiyoshi, 24:33-63;
`
`Young, ¶107.) Additionally, some of the descriptions in Fujiyoshi’s first
`
`embodiment are relevant to the second and seventh embodiments, which is
`
`substantially similar to Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment, including in that both are
`
`microelectromechanical (MEMS) systems. (Young, ¶107.)
`
`Because Fujiyoshi states that its seventh embodiment is nothing more than
`
`“two angular velocity sensors 501 as shown in the embodiment 2” connected via
`
`connecting portion 116, Fujiyoshi’s teachings regarding its second embodiment are
`
`applicable to the seventh embodiment. (Fujiyoshi, 24:38-42 (emphasis added).) To
`
`the extent Ground 1 combines disclosures from Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh
`
`embodiments to meet the claim limitations, therefore, it would have been natural and
`
`obvious to combine these disclosures about Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh
`
`embodiments, for example, by implementing the seventh embodiment using
`
`circuitry and components from the second embodiment shown in Figure 9. (Young,
`
`¶108; Fujiyoshi, 24:38-42.) It would also have been obvious that Fujiyoshi’s seventh
`
`and second embodiments would have used the same circuitry and components.
`
`(Young, ¶108.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, a POSITA would have considered Fujiyoshi’s teachings related to its
`
`first embodiment to apply to its second and seventh embodiments. To the extent any
`
`obviousness analysis is necessary, it would have been obvious to combine
`
`Fujiyoshi’s teachings about its first embodiment with disclosures about its second
`
`and seventh embodiments. (Young, ¶109.) Fujiyoshi’s first embodiment is
`
`substantially similar to the second embodiment, with additional frequency adjusting
`
`hardware being the main difference. (Fujiyoshi, 17:45-49; Young, ¶109.) This is
`
`shown in the below side-by-side comparison of Fujiyoshi’s Figures 3 and 8, where
`
`differences between the two embodiments are highlighted:
`
`
`
`(Fujiyoshi, Figs. 3, 8 (highlighting and annotations added); Young, ¶109.) As
`
`Figures 3 and 8 also indicate, there are many common and commonly numbered
`
`elements between Fujiyoshi’s first and second embodiments. For these elements a
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`POSITA would have understood that Fujiyoshi’s descriptions regarding its first
`
`embodiment would have been applicable to its second (and therefore seventh)
`
`embodiments. (Young, ¶109.) A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`commonly numbered elements function the same or substantially the same in both
`
`embodiments, so Fujiyoshi’s descriptions for the first embodiment are equally
`
`applicable to the second embodiment. (Id.)
`
`1.
`Claim 1
`The preamble recites “[a] microelectromechanical system (MEMS) for
`
`measuring angular rate of a carrier, comprising.” If limiting, the preamble is
`
`disclosed by Fujiyoshi. (Young ¶¶110-16.)
`
`Fujiyoshi’s embodiments, including the second and seventh embodiments, are
`
`microelectromechanical system[s]. (Young, ¶¶111-13.) Fujiyoshi’s embodiments
`
`use “micro machine technology for silicon.” (Fujiyoshi, 11:57-59, Figs. 6A-E,
`
`13:57-14:40.) The ’122 patent indicates that micromechanical systems are
`
`constructed via micromachining on a silicon wafer. (’122, 6:15-17, 6:24-25, 1:41-
`
`43; 1:46-50.) Similarly, Fujiyoshi discloses fabricating its embodiments “using a
`
`micro machine technology for silicon” in which its sensor architecture “float[s] on a
`
`substrate surface.” (Fujiyoshi, 11:57-62, Young, ¶111.)
`
`Fujiyoshi is directed to embodiments of a sensor for measuring angular rate.
`
`(Young, ¶114.) For example, Fujiyoshi discloses a second embodiment that is an
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`“angular velocity sensor.” (Fujiyoshi, Fig. 8, 17:42-44; see also Fig. 9, 20:28-34
`
`(describing outputting “angular velocity”).) Fujiyoshi also discloses a seventh
`
`embodiment—which contains two instances of Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment in a
`
`differential arrangement—that outputs “angular velocity.” (Fujiyoshi, 24:54-57.) A
`
`POSITA would have understood “angular velocity” to be the same as “angular rate.”
`
`(Young, ¶114.)
`
`Fujiyoshi also discloses that its embodiments can measure angular rate of a
`
`carrier. (Young, ¶115.) Fujiyoshi discloses that its embodiments can be used to
`
`detect angular rate “acting on a vehicle such as an automobile [or] airplane.”
`
`(Fujiyoshi, 1:7-9.) Specifically, Fujiyoshi teaches that its embodiments can be
`
`“mounted on vehicles or the like.” (Id., 18:10-13.) Consistent with the ’122
`
`disclosures regarding vehicle applications, Fujiyoshi thus teaches that its sensor
`
`embodiments can measure angular rate of a carrier—i.e., an automobile or airplane
`
`that carries the sensor. (’122, 2:54-57; Young, ¶115.)
`
`(a)
`
`“an angular rate sensor unit receiving dither driver
`signals, capacitive pickoff excitation signals and a
`displacement restoring signal and outputting angle rate
`signals in response to motion of said carrier and dither
`motion signals” (Claim 1[a])
`This limitation would have been obvious based on Fujiyoshi alone or in light
`
`of Kumar. (Young, ¶¶117-54.)
`
`The following annotated version of Fujiyoshi’s Figure 9 circuit shows how
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment discloses limitations of claim 1[a]:
`
`
`
`(Fujiyoshi, Fig. 9 (highlighting and annotations added); Young, ¶118.)
`
`Fujiyoshi discloses an angular rate sensor unit. (Young, ¶119.) Fujiyoshi
`
`discloses embodiments—including its first, second, and seventh embodiments—for
`
`measuring angular rate. (Fujiyoshi, 17:42-44; see also Figs. 9, 17; 20:28-34, 24:38-
`
`57.) This angular rate sensing is performed by the green-highlighted hardware
`
`shown in Figure 9, which vibrates mass portion 1 in the vertical direction, leading to
`
`a Coriolis force that displaces the mass portion 1 in the horizontal direction when
`
`the system undergoes an angular rotation. (Id., 19:63-20:34; Young, ¶119.) The
`
`green-highlighted hardware senses the magnitude of that displacement—indicating
`
`angular rate. (Fujiyoshi, 20:28-34; Young, ¶119.) Accordingly, the green-
`
`highlighted components in Figure 9 constitute an angular rate sensor unit.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Fujiyoshi discloses an angular rate sensor unit that receiv[es] dither driver
`
`signals. The ’122 patent indicates that “dither” motion is vibration back and forth
`
`of an inertial element in one axis such that when the system undergoes angular
`
`rotation, the Coriolis force will move the inertial element in a different axis. (’122,
`
`Fig. 2, 5:6-20 (“vibrating (dither)”), 4:65-66.) This effect is shown in annotated
`
`versions of Figure 2 of the ’122 patent and Figure 8 of Fujiyoshi below:
`
`
`
`(Young, ¶¶120-21; ’122, Fig. 2 (annotations and highlighting added); Fujiyoshi, Fig.
`
`8 (rotated; annotations and highlighting added).)
`
`Similar to the ’122 patent, Fujiyoshi discloses that its second and seventh
`
`embodiments contain inertial elements (mass portions 1) that are vibrated back-and-
`
`forth along one axis (the “exciting direction”) so that when the system undergoes
`
`angular rotation, the inertial elements are displaced along a different axis (the
`
`“detecting direction”) by the Coriolis force. (Fujiyoshi, 19:63-20:19; Young, ¶121.)
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The angular rate sensor unit in Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments
`
`receiv[es] dither driver signals to drive the dither motion of mass portion 1.
`
`(Young, ¶122.) The dither vibration of the mass portion 1 in Fujiyoshi’s Figure 9
`
`circuit is controlled by “[a]lternating voltage supplied through an amplitude control
`
`circuit 177 and an alternating amplifier 179 from the self-exciting circuit 176 []
`
`applied to the exciting electrode 51, so that the mass portion 1 is vibrated to the
`
`exciting direction.” (Fujiyoshi, 19:63-67, 12:35-44, 21:29-33.) The dither vibration
`
`is controlled via an alternating voltage (the dither driver signals) “applied to the
`
`exciting electrode 52,” as highlighted in purple in annotated Figure 9 above. (Id.,
`
`21:29-33.) Similar to the language of claim 1, Fujiyoshi describes the alternating
`
`voltage as controlling the “[d]rive” of the angular velocity sensor. (Id., 19:55-59,
`
`10:49-52, 24:47-50; Young, ¶122.) Since exciting electrodes 51 and 52 are part of
`
`the angular rate sensor unit in Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments (green-
`
`highlighted components in annotated Figure 9), the angular rate sensor unit
`
`receiv[es] dither drive signals. (See, e.g., Fujiyoshi, Fig. 8 (including exciting
`
`electrode 52), 10:32-34 (describing Fig. 8 as “view which shows a resonance type
`
`angular velocity sensor”).)
`
`To the extent there is any argument that claim 1 of the ’122 patent requires
`
`plural dither driver signals, Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments satisfy
`
`this requirement. Over time, the alternating voltage applied to electrode 52 in
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment is multiple signals, because it changes over time in
`
`response to the dither motion of mass portion 1 “in such a manner as to make the
`
`amplitude of the vibration constant on the basis of the excitation control signal.”
`
`(Fujiyoshi, 20:4-11; Young, ¶123.) Further, Fujiyoshi’s seventh embodiment has
`
`two alternating voltage dither driver signals for dither driving:
`
`
`
`(Fujiyoshi, Fig. 17 (highlighting and annotations added); Young, ¶147.)
`
`Patent Owner’s construction for “dither driver signals” in prior litigation
`
`further supports that the alternating voltage applied to exciting electrode 52 in
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments satisfies this limitation. (Young
`
`¶125.) In multiple district court cases, Patent Owner proposed that “dither driver
`
`signals” should be construed as “signals used to oscillate, or vibrate, an inertial
`
`element in the angular rate sensor unit.” (Id.) The mass portion 1 in Fujiyoshi’s
`
`second and seventh embodiments is an “inertial element.” (Young, ¶125.) The mass
`
`portion 1 is similar to the “proof masses” disclosed by the ’122 patent, which it
`
`discusses as “inertial elements.” (’122, 8:3-6, 10:25-28, 11:3-6; see also id., Fig. 2,
`
`2:58-3:6, 5:6-20, 5:47-67.) Further, as discussed, the alternating voltage applied to
`
`exciting electrode 52 in Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments comprises
`
`“signals used to oscillate, or vibrate” mass portion 1. Accordingly, Fujiyoshi meets
`
`Patent Owner’s previously proposed construction for “dither driver signals.”
`
`Fujiyoshi discloses an angular rate sensor unit that receiv[es] a
`
`displacement restoring signal. (Young, ¶¶126-34.) The ’122 patent indicates that
`
`a displacement restoring signal is derived from the signals indicating the
`
`displacement of an inertial element caused by the Coriolis force, and the
`
`displacement restoring signal is used to drive the inertial element. (’122, 8:40-9:4.)
`
`While the ’122 patent does not explicitly define the term displacement restoring
`
`signal, a POSITA would have understood that a displacement restoring signal is a
`
`signal used to restore the position of an inertial element to its approximate original
`
`(i.e., pre-Coriolis force) location following the displacement of the inertial element
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`by the Coriolis force. (Young, ¶126.)
`
`Per this understanding, Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments include
`
`an angular rate sensor that receives a displacement restoring signal. (Young,
`
`¶127.) The angular rate sensor unit in Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments
`
`receives a “control voltage” from alternating amplifier 180 that “make[s] the
`
`displacement of the mass portion 1 zero on the basis of the detected output” from
`
`the capacity detecting circuit 173 (discussed further below). (Fujiyoshi, 20:20-27;
`
`see also id., 13:21-24, 16:33-36; Young, ¶127.) This control voltage from
`
`alternating amplifier 180 constitutes a displacement restoring signal, since it
`
`restores mass portion 1 to its original position—after displacement of mass portion
`
`1 by the Coriolis force. (Young, ¶¶127, 132.) Fujiyoshi’s displacement restoring
`
`signal is shown in the annotated Figure 9 below:
`
`(Fujiyoshi, Fig. 9 (highlighting and annotations added); Young, ¶127.) Also, similar
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`to the ’122 patent’s disclosures regarding the displacement restoring signal, the
`
`yellow-highlighted signal in annotated Figure 9 above is derived from the
`
`displacement of the inertial element (mass portion 1) caused by the Coriolis force.
`
`(Fujiyoshi, 20:12-27; Young, ¶128.)
`
`The displacement restoring signal in Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh
`
`embodiments is further receiv[ed] by the angular rate sensor unit, which is shown
`
`in green highlighting in the annotated Figure 9 above. (Young, ¶129.) The control
`
`voltage from alternating amplifier 180 is received by electrode pads 43 and 46,
`
`which are part of the angular rate sensor unit as shown by the green highlighting in
`
`the annotated Figure 9 above. (See Fujiyoshi, Fig. 8, 10:32-34, 20:20-27, 13:13-21;
`
`Young, ¶129.)
`
`To the extent there is any question that Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment
`
`receives a displacement restoring signal, either of the two signals received from
`
`alternating amplifier 180 is a displacement restoring signal. (Young, ¶130.)
`
`Further, Fujiyoshi’s seventh embodiment satisfies the displacement restoring
`
`signal limitation. (Id., ¶131.) Either of the two constituent sensors (each according
`
`to Fujiyoshi’s second embodiment) receives the control voltage from alternating
`
`amplifier 180. (Fujiyoshi, Fig. 17.)
`
`Fujiyoshi meets the construction of “displacement restoring signal” Patent
`
`Owner proposed in prior litigation: “signal that is used to restore displacement of
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`the inertial element(s).” (Young, ¶133.) The control voltage from alternating
`
`amplifier 180 in Fujiyoshi’s second and seventh embodiments restores mass portion
`
`1 to its original position—after displacement of mass portion 1 by the Coriolis force.
`
`(Fujiyoshi, 20:12-19; Young, ¶133.)
`
`Fujiyoshi also meets the construction that Petitioners have proposed in the
`
`pending district court litigation against Patent Owner: “electrical signal used to
`
`oppose displacement of inertial element(s) caused by angular rotation.” (EX1025.)
`
`The control voltage from alternating amplifier 180 constitutes electrical signals
`
`(voltage) used to oppose displacement of mass portion 1 caused by angular rotation,
`
`since it restores mass portion 1 to its original position—after displacement of mass
`
`portion 1 by the Coriolis force. (Fujiyoshi, 20:12-19; Young, ¶134.)
`
`Fujiyoshi teaches or renders obvious an angular rate sensor unit that
`
`receiv[es] capacitive pickoff excitation signals. (Young, ¶¶135-48.) The concept
`
`of “capacitive pickoff excitation signals” was not an invention of the ’122 patent,
`
`but well-known in the field of angular rate sensors such as gyroscopes. (Id., ¶135.)
`
`For example, the textbook J.M. Slater, Inertial Guidance Sensors (1964) (“Slater”,
`
`EX1011), in a chapter entitled “Gyros,” teaches that “[c]apacitor pickoff systems
`
`typically include as the sensing element a differential-type capacitor of variable
`
`effective area or (and more usually) variable gap.” (Slater at 72.) Based on the ’122
`
`patent, capacitive pickoff excitation signals can include oscillator signals provided
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`to variable capacitors to measure how the capacitance changes over time. (’122,
`
`5:10-17, 5:35-38, 8:20-22; Young, ¶135.)
`
`Fujiyoshi does not explicitly use the term “capacitive pickoff excitation
`
`signals” in describing signals received by the angular rate sensor unit. But these
`
`signals would have been obvious based on Fujiyoshi’s disclosures about its
`
`capacitive sensing mechanism. (Young, ¶136.) Fujiyoshi teaches that the angular
`
`rate sensor units in its second and seventh embodiments include capacity detecting
`
`electrodes 30, 32, 33, and 36. (See Fujiyoshi, Figs. 5, 8, 17; 20:42-45; Youn