Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 105-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2673
`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 105-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 5 Page|D #: 2673
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 105-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2674
`EXHIBIT C
`
`Summary of Expert Witness Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez and Dr. Pol Spanos
`
`Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez of the University of Arizona may opine on the level of ordinary
`
`
`
`skill in the art with respect to the Patents-in-Suit, including the ’136, ’761, ’906 and ’131
`
`patents. Dr. Rodriguez may also opine as to what one of ordinary skill would have understood to
`
`be the meaning of certain well known terms of the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`For example, Dr. Rodriguez may opine that the ’136, ’761, and ’906 patents explicitly
`
`relate to digital Coriolis flowmeter devices. He may opine that one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the inventions would have understood that a digital Coriolis flowmeter as disclosed in
`
`the patents is a device that includes a vibratable conduit, a driver connected to the conduit and
`
`operable to impart motion to the conduit, a sensor connected to the conduit and operable to sense
`
`the motion of the conduit, and a control and measurement system connected between the driver
`
`and the sensor, where the control and measurement system includes circuitry to receive a sensor
`
`signal from the sensor and to generate a drive signal based on the sensor signal using digital
`
`signal processing. Dr. Rodriguez may testify that the ’761 and ’906 patents disclose maintaining
`
`oscillation of the vibratable conduit when flowmeter operation is impacted by changes to fluid
`
`flow conditions such as, for example, batch flow, aeration, and empty-to-full. He may opine that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that maintaining oscillation of the
`
`vibratable flowtube during these changing fluid flow conditions necessarily involves periodic
`
`sensing of conduit motion and periodic adjustments by the digital processor to the resulting drive
`
`signal to maintain conduit motion and, for example, prevent the flowmeter from stalling. Dr.
`
`Rodriguez may also opine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’136 patent
`
`would have understood that “a PI control algorithm” is a term of art used to describe a
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`1
`
`EAST\69192878.2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 105-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2675
`EXHIBIT C
`
`proportional plus integral control algorithm and that the ’136 patent discloses multiple methods
`
`for determining the value of each component in the proportional plus integral control algorithm.
`
`
`
`With respect to the ’131 patent, Dr. Rodriguez may provide testimony regarding the
`
`general background of the ’131 patent and the technical problems that the ’131 patent purports to
`
`solve. Dr. Rodriguez may provide testimony on general signal processing techniques for
`
`Coriolis flowmeters at the time of the alleged invention of the ’131 patent, and offer testimony
`
`on the disclosed subject matter of the ’131 patent within that context.
`
`
`
`Dr. Rodriguez may opine that the term “normalized pulsation” in the ’131 patent is not a
`
`term of art and that there is an express definition provided by the patentee acting as his own
`
`lexicographer. Dr. Rodriguez may opine on the meaning of various terms in the equations within
`
`that definition provided by the patentee, as would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in
`
`view of the specification. Dr. Rodriguez may opine that in view of the specification,
`
`“normalized pulsation” is a single parameter (i.e. a single number) for a given sequence of
`
`samples for a signal (a sequence of numbers). Dr. Rodriguez may opine that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, in light of the specification and the express definition of normalized
`
`pulsation, would understand that the term “center frequency” must be a frequency greater than
`
`zero.
`
`
`
`Dr. Rodriguez may also testify that the ’131 patent does not disclose how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time (or now) would be able to calculate a dot product of a normalized
`
`pulsation and the signals to translate the signals to a center frequency, as claimed in the ’131
`
`patent. Dr. Rodriguez may opine that at the time of the purported inventions in the ’131 patent,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that calculating a dot product requires
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`2
`
`EAST\69192878.2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 105-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2676
`EXHIBIT C
`
`equal length sequences of numbers, for example when calculating the dot product of two vectors.
`
`He may also provide testimony that it is not possible to calculate a dot product of a scalar value
`
`(a single number, such as the normalized pulsation) and a vector (a sequence of numbers, such as
`
`the signals), as claimed in the ’131 patent. Dr. Rodriguez may also provide testimony that to the
`
`extent any kind of product can be calculated between the normalized pulsation and the signals,
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time would not understand or recognize the result of that
`
`calculation “to translate the signals to a center frequency” as claimed in the ’131 patent. Dr.
`
`Rodriguez may opine that in view of intrinsic evidence as well as the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, the claim phrase “calculating dot
`
`products of said normalized pulsation and said signals from said first pick-off sensor and said
`
`second pick-off sensor to translate said signals to said center frequency” as a whole is insolubly
`
`ambiguous and indefinite as to the scope of the claim.
`
`
`
`Dr. Pol Spanos of Rice University may opine on the level of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the Patents-in-Suit, including the ’190 patent. Dr. Spanos may also opine as to what
`
`one of ordinary skill would have understood to be the meaning of certain well known terms of
`
`the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`For example, Dr. Spanos may provide testimony regarding the general background of the
`
`’190 patent and the technical problems that the ’190 patent purports to solve. Dr. Spanos may
`
`provide testimony on general signal processing techniques for Coriolis flowmeters at the time of
`
`the alleged invention of the ’190 patent, and offer testimony on the disclosed subject matter of
`
`the ’190 patent within that context including, for example, filtering.
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`3
`
`EAST\69192878.2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 105-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2677
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`Dr. Spanos may provide testimony regarding the structures disclosed in the ’190 patent
`
`that correspond to the functions recited in means-plus-function elements of the ’190 claims. For
`
`example, he may opine that the “digital notch filtration means” and “digital filtration means”
`
`relate to two disclosed embodiments of adaptive notch filters disclosed in ’190 patent. He may
`
`also opine that the ’190 patent’s disclosure does not provide an algorithm to calculate mass flow
`
`for the “mass flow measurement means.” Dr. Spanos may also opine on the scope of the term
`
`“enhanced value[s]” within the context of the ’190 patent.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`4
`
`EAST\69192878.2