Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 68 PageID #: 3167
`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 68 Page|D #: 3167
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT L
`
`EXHIBIT L
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 68 PageID #: 3168
`
`Paper No. ________
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Issue Date: August 4, 2009
`Title: DIGITAL FLOWMETER
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET. SEQ.
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 68 PageID #: 3169
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ....................................................1
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST...............................................1
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS........................................................................1
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION................................................................1
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING..................................................................................2
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................2
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .........................3
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................3
`
`I.
`
`TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION ...................................................................3
`A.
`Coriolis Flowmeters..............................................................................3
`B.
`The Claims of the ’062 Patent...............................................................6
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`
`III. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY..................................................................................13
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 29, and 36 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 by Derby....................................................................................13
`
`Ground 2. Claims 1, 24, 29, 40, 43, and 45 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 by Romano ................................................................................24
`
`Ground 3. Claims 1, 12, 23-25, 29, 36, 40, 43, and 45 Are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kalotay..............................................................33
`
`Ground 4. Claim 13 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kalotay in View
`of Printed Publications Describing Signal Processing Using Overlap
`Techniques ..........................................................................................45
`
`Ground 5. Claim 30 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kalotay in View
`of Liu………………………………………………………………..47
`
`Ground 6. Claims 1, 23, 25, and 29 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Freeman...............................................................................................50
`
`Ground 7. Claims 40 and 45 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Miller 56
`
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................................60
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 68 PageID #: 3170
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. #
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001 U.S. Pat. No. 7,571,062 (“’062 Patent”)
`
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Michael D. Sidman
`
`1003 U.S. Pat. No. 5,373,745 (“Cage”)
`
`1004 U.S. Pat. No. 2,865,201 (“Roth”)
`
`1005 U.S. Pat. No. RE 31,450 (“Smith”)
`
`1006 U.S. Pat. No. 4,934,196 (“Romano”)
`
`1007 U.S. Pat. No. 4,679,947 (“Miller”)
`
`1008 U.S. Pat. No. 5,009,109 (“Kalotay”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`“How the Micro Motion Mass Flow and Density Sensor Works,” Micro
`Motion, Inc., 1990 (“How Article”)
`
`Invalidity Contentions, ’062 Patent Invalidity Claim Chart – Romano
`Reference served on September 13, 2013, Invensys Systems, Inv. v.
`Emerson Electric Co. et.al. Case No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. TX)
`
`Invalidity Contentions, ’062 Patent Invalidity Claim Chart – Kalotay
`Reference served on September 13, 2013, Invensys Systems, Inv. v.
`Emerson Electric Co. et.al. Case No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. TX)
`
`Invalidity Contentions, ’062 Patent Invalidity Claim Chart – Miller
`Reference, served on September 13, 2013, Invensys Systems, Inv. v.
`Emerson Electric Co. et.al. Case No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. TX)
`
`1013
`
`Excerpt from Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering, Fourth Edition,
`Nayler, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996
`
`1014
`
`“A Tutorial on MPEG/Audio Compression,” Davis Pan, Motorola Inc.,
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 5 of 68 PageID #: 3171
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`IEEE Multimedia Journal, Summer 1995
`
`1015 U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,649 (“Kalotay ’649”)
`
`1016 U.S. Pat. No. 5,555,190 (“Derby”)
`
`1017 U.S. Pat. No 5,734,112 (“Bose”)
`
`1018 U.S. Pat. No. 4,996,871 (“Romano ’871”)
`
`1019 U.S. Pat. No. 5,029,482 (“Lui”)
`
`1020 U.S. Pat. No. 4,872,351 (“Ruesch”)
`
`1021 U.S. Pat. No. 4,823,614 (“Dahlin”)
`
`1022 U.S. Pat. No. 5,143,257 (“Austin”)
`
`1023 U.S. Pat. No. 5,148,945 (“Geatz”)
`
`1024 U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,372 (“Kolpak”)
`
`1025 U.S. Pat. No. 5,317,928 (“Young”)
`
`1026 U.S. Pat. No. 4,733,569 (“Kelsey”)
`
`1027 U.S. Pat. No. 5,050,439 (“Thompson”)
`
`1028 U.S. Pat. No. 5,068,116 (“Gibney”)
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`“Introduction to Continuous and Digital Control Systems,” Saucedo &
`Schering, Macmillan, 1968
`
`“Electromechanical Control Systems and Devices,” Canfield, Robert E.
`Kreiger Publishing Company, Original Edition 1965, Reprint 1977
`
`1031 U.S. Pat. No. 4,524,610 (“Fitzgerald”)
`
`1032
`
`“Integrated Electronics: Analog and Digital Circuits and Systems,”
`Jacob Millman and Christos Halkias, McGraw-Hill, 1972
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 6 of 68 PageID #: 3172
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`“Operational Amplifiers Design and Applications,” Graeme, Tobey and
`Huelsman, McGraw-Hill, 1971
`
`“Modern Control Engineering,” Chapter 5 Basic Control Actions and
`Industrial Automatic Controls, Ogata, Prentice-Hall, 1970
`
`“Automatic Control Systems,” Third Edition, Benjamin C. Kuo,
`Prentice-Hall, 1975
`
`“Computer Controlled Systems Theory and Design,” Astrom and
`Wittenmark, Prentice-Hall 1984
`
`“Digital Control of Dynamic Systems,” Franklin, Powell & Workman,
`Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Second Edition, 1990
`
`1038
`
`“Control Sensors and Actuators,” De Silva, Prentice-Hall, 1989
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`“Digital Signal Processing,” Alan V. Oppenheim, Ronald W. Schafer,
`Prentice-Hall, January 1975
`
`“Programs for Digital Signal Processing,” IEEE Acoustics, Speech, and
`Signal Processing Society, John Wiley and Sons, 1979
`
`“The Fourier Transform and its Applications,” Bracewell, McGraw-Hill,
`Second Edition, 1978
`
`1042 U.S. Pat. No. 4,536,809 (“Sidman”)
`
`1043 Analog Devices Data-Acquisition Databook
`
`1044
`
`“Convert all your synchro channels to digital with a single μP-based
`system,” Arthur Berg, Micro Networks, ELECTRONIC DESIGN 25,
`December 6, 1976
`
`1045 U.S. Pat. No. 4,817,448 (“Hargarten”)
`
`1046
`
`“Digital Signal Processing,” Proakis and Manolakis, Macmillian
`Publishing Company, Second Edition, 1992
`
`1047 U.S. Pat. No. 4,655,089 (“Kappelt”)
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 7 of 68 PageID #: 3173
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`“Local Cosine Bases in Two Dimensions”, Jelena Kovacevic, IEEE
`Trans. on Image Proc., Vol. 6, No. 11, November 1997
`
`“The Use of Fast Fourier Transform for the Estimation of Power
`Spectra: A Method Based on Time Averaging Over Short, Modified
`Periodograms," Peter Welch, IEEE Tras. Audio and Electroacoust.,
`Vol. AU-15, pp. 70-73, June 1987
`
`1050 U.S. Pat. No. 4,799,385 (“Hulsing”)
`
`1051 U.S. Pat. No. 6,311,136 (“’136 Patent”)
`
`1052 U.S. Pat. No. 5,231,884 (“Zolock”)
`
`1053 U.S. Pat. No. 5,767,665 (“Morita”)
`
`1054 U.S. Pat. No. 5,804,741 (“Freeman”),
`
`1055 U.S. Pat. No. 3,251,226 (“Cushing”)
`
`1056 U.S. Pat No. 5,469,748 (“Kalotay ’748”)
`
`1057 U.S. Pat. No. 5,570,093 (“Aker”)
`
`1058 U.S. Pat. No. 5,479,933 (“Atarius”)
`
`1059 U.S. Pat. No. 5,365,592 (“Horner”)
`
`1060 U.S. Pat. No. 5,646,960 (“Sonohara”)
`
`1061 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Costakos
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 8 of 68 PageID #: 3174
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel: Andrew S. Baluch (Reg. No. 57,503); Tel. 202-672-5520.
`
`Backup Counsel: Jeffrey N. Costakos (Reg. No. 34,144); Tel. 414-297-5782.
`
`Address: Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K St. NW, Suite 600,
`
`Washington, D.C. 20007. FAX: 202.672.5399.
`
`NOTICE OF EACH REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST
`
`The real-parties-in-interest for this Petition are Micro Motion, Inc. and
`
`Emerson Electric Co.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`The ’062 patent is asserted in the litigation styled Invensys Systems, Inc. v.
`
`Emerson Electric Co. et al., CA. No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Micro Motion has filed concurrent petitions for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,311,136 (Case No. 2014-00170); U.S. Patent No. 6,754,594 (Case No.
`
`2014-00390); U.S. Patent No. 7,124,646 (Case No. 2014-00179); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,136,761 (Case No. 2014-00178); U.S. Patent No. 7,505,854 (Case No. 2014-
`
`00167); and U.S. Patent No. 8,000,906 (Case No. 2014-00392).
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown
`
`above. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at: abaluch@foley.com
`
`and jcostakos@foley.com.
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 9 of 68 PageID #: 3175
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30,
`
`36, 40, 43, and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062 (“the ’062 patent”)(Ex. 1001) be
`
`cancelled based on the following grounds of unpatentability, explained in detail:
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 29, and 36 Are Anticipated Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 by Derby.
`
`Ground 2. Claims 1, 24, 29, 40, 43, and 45 Are Anticipated Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 by Romano.
`
`Ground 3. Claims 1, 12, 23-25, 29, 36, 40, 43, and 45 Are Obvious Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kalotay.
`
`Ground 4. Claim 13 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kalotay in
`
`View of Printed Publications Describing Signal Processing Using Overlap
`
`Techniques.
`
`Ground 5. Claim 30 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kalotay in
`
`View of Liu.
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 10 of 68 PageID #: 3176
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Ground 6. Claims 1, 23, 25, and 29 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`by Freeman.
`
`Ground 7. Claims 40 and 45 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`
`Miller.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Petition meets this threshold.
`
`All elements of claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 36, 40, 43, and 45 of the ’062
`
`patent are taught in the prior art as explained below in the proposed grounds of
`
`unpatentability, and reasons to combine are established for each ground based on
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION
`
`The following technical introduction is supported by the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Michael D. Sidman (“Sidman Decl.”) attached as Exhibit 1002, ¶¶ 22-158.
`
`A.
`
`Coriolis Flowmeters
`
`The ’062 patent describes a Coriolis type flowmeter (“Coriolis flowmeter”),
`
`which may be a mass flowrate meter or a densitometer. (Ex. 1001, 1:27-30; 6:25-
`
`27.) Such flowmeters make use of the Coriolis effect induced on fluid flowing
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 11 of 68 PageID #: 3177
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`through a vibrating tube. For example, by measuring a phase difference in the
`
`sinusoidal oscillation of the tube between two points on the tube, it is possible to
`
`determine the mass of the fluid flowing through the tube.
`
`Coriolis flowmeters were first commercialized by petitioner Micro Motion
`
`in the late 1970s and early 1980s. See U.S. Pat. No. 5,373,745, Ex. 1003, 1:24-25
`
`(“[Coriolis flowmeters were] first made commercially successful by Micro Motion,
`
`Inc. of Boulder, Colorado.”) Coriolis flowmeters include the following basic
`
`components: a vibratable tube (which can have various shapes and sizes) through
`
`which fluid flows; an electromechanical drive mechanism (including one or more
`
`electromagnetic drivers or actuators) for vibrating the tube; one or more sensors
`
`that transduce the vibration of the tube; and electronics for controlling the drive
`
`mechanism and for analyzing signals from the sensors.
`
`Coriolis (and other) flowmeters were originally implemented with analog
`
`electronic components. E.g., U.S. Pat. No. 2,865,201, Ex. 1004. To do the
`
`necessary signal processing and control, such an analog flowmeter uses analog
`
`components to process signals from the sensors and to control the drive
`
`mechanism. As digital electronic components became more readily available,
`
`flowmeters also incorporated digital components. (See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. Re.
`
`31,450, Ex. 1005, which discloses a predominantly analog system incorporating
`
`some digital components.) Digital components include digital logic and
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 12 of 68 PageID #: 3178
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`programmable digital devices (e.g., microprocessors). E.g., U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,679,947 (“Miller”), Ex. 1007, Fig. 4; U.S. Pat. No. 4,934,196 (“Romano”), Ex.
`
`1006, Fig. 3; U.S. Pat. No. 5,009,109 (“Kalotay”), Ex. 1008, Fig. 4; U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,555,190 (“Derby”), Ex. 1016, Fig. 20; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,804,741 (“Freeman”),
`
`Ex. 1054, Fig. 2. A digital flowmeter may include analog and digital components.
`
`For example, a digital flowmeter may process signals from the sensors using
`
`digital components but control the drive signal using analog components. A digital
`
`flowmeter may alternatively control the drive signal using digital components.
`
`The flowmeter must process the sensor signals to extract information of
`
`interest from other information in the signals. Thus, all flowmeters, whether analog
`
`or digital, perform signal processing on the sensor signals. For example, in a
`
`Coriolis flowmeter, fluid flowing through an oscillating flowtube may cause a
`
`phase shift in the flowtube oscillation due to the Coriolis effect, and the flowmeter
`
`processes the sensor signals to extract the information related to the Coriolis effect
`
`from other information in the signals, to determine mass flow rate. If the signal
`
`processing is performed in digital components, then the signal processing is digital
`
`signal processing.
`
`The oscillatory motion of the flow tubes in a Coriolis flowmeter is analog,
`
`whereas data processed by way of digital signal processing is digital. To enable
`
`digital signal processing, analog motion must be transduced to electrical signals
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 13 of 68 PageID #: 3179
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`and then converted to digital format via analog-to-digital (A/D) conversion. It was
`
`well known that A/D converters introduce error into the digital output, and because
`
`the conversion takes time, the conversion also introduces delay into the digital
`
`output. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 99-144.) It was also well known that errors
`
`and delay of an A/D converter and other electronic components in the system must
`
`be accounted for in the design of the system, including accounting for the time for
`
`the signal processor to process the signals. (Id.)
`
`B.
`
`The Claims of the ’062 Patent
`
`The ’062 patent includes several independent claims. As related to this
`
`petition, claims 1, 40 and 45 are independent claims; claims 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 29,
`
`30, and 36 depend from claim 1. Claim 43 depends from claim 40.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 40 begin by reciting nearly identical language,
`
`followed by a “wherein” clause specific to the claim (paragraph letters added for
`
`reference):
`
`A digital flowmeter comprising:
`[a] a vibratable conduit;
`[b] a driver connected to the conduit and operable to impart
`motion to the conduit;
`[c] a sensor connected to the conduit and operable to sense the
`motion of the conduit; and
`[d] a control and measurement system connected to the driver
`and the sensor, wherein the control and measurement system is
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 14 of 68 PageID #: 3180
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`configured to:
`[e] receive a sensor signal from the sensor,
`[f] generate a drive signal based on the sensor signal using
`digital signal processing,
`[g] supply the drive signal to the driver, and
`[h] generate a measurement of a property of material flowing
`though the conduit based on the [sensor signal][signal from the
`sensor] . . .
`
`Claim 45 is a method claim, which begins by similarly reciting:
`
`passing a material through a vibratable conduit;
`imparting motion to the conduit using a driver connected to the
`conduit;
`receiving a sensor signal from a sensor connected to the conduit
`and operable to sense the motion of the conduit;
`generating a drive signal based on the sensor signal using
`digital signal processing;
`supplying the drive signal to the driver;
`generating a measurement of a property of the material flowing
`through the conduit based on the sensor signal . . .
`
`Elements [a]-[h] and the similar language of claim 45 are referred to herein
`
`as the “common features” of the independent claims. Most of the common features
`
`are disclosed as prior art by the ’062 patent itself.
`
`The Background section of the ’062 patent describes previously known
`
`flowmeters and the “well-known Coriolis effect” as follows: “Flowmeters provide
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 15 of 68 PageID #: 3181
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`information about materials being transferred through a conduit. . . Coriolis-type
`
`mass flowmeters are based on the well-known Coriolis effect, in which material
`
`flowing through a rotating conduit becomes a radially travelling mass that is
`
`affected by a Coriolis force and therefore experiences an acceleration. . . Energy is
`
`supplied to the conduit by a driving mechanism that applies a periodic force to
`
`oscillate the conduit. . . An oscillating flowmeter may use a feedback loop in which
`
`a sensor signal that carries instantaneous frequency and phase information related
`
`to oscillation of the conduit is amplified and fed back to the conduit using the
`
`electromechanical driver.” (Ex. 1001, 1:24-54.)
`
`Thus, the ’062 patent admits that the prior art includes a flowmeter including
`
`a “vibratable conduit,” “a driver . . . to impart motion to the conduit,” “a sensor . . .
`
`to sense the motion of the conduit,” and “a control and measurement system [to]
`
`receive a sensor signal from the sensor, generate a drive signal based on the sensor
`
`signal [and] generate a measurement of a property of material flowing through the
`
`conduit based on the [sensor signal][signal from the sensor],” as recited in claims 1
`
`and 40, and recited using similar language in claim 45. See Pharmastem
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(“Admissions in the specification regarding the prior art are binding on the
`
`patentee for purposes of a later inquiry into obviousness.”); MPEP § 2129
`
`(admitted prior art “can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 16 of 68 PageID #: 3182
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`determinations”); Ex parte McGaughey, 6 USPQ2d 1334, 1337 (B.P.A.I. 1988)
`
`(upholding the use of patent owner admissions in reexamination).
`
`The Background section of the ’062 patent does not disclose that it was well
`
`known to generate the drive signal in a Coriolis flowmeter “using digital signal
`
`processing” as recited in claims 1, 40 and 45. However, this feature was well
`
`known in the art at the time of the filing of the ’062 patent application, as will be
`
`discussed in more detail below.
`
`The independent claims differ in the final clause of each claim. However,
`
`the features recited in the final clauses were also well known in the art at the time
`
`of the filing of the ’062 patent, as will be discussed below. For example,
`
`independent claim 1 concludes with “use digital processing to adjust a phase of the
`
`drive signal to compensate for a time delay associated with components connected
`
`between the sensor and the driver.” As explained in the Declaration of Dr. Sidman,
`
`component time delay is an inherent part of any electronic system, and it was well
`
`known to compensate for component time delays. (Sidman Decl, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 100-
`
`119.)
`
`Independent claims 40 and 45 conclude with “initiat[e][ing] motion of the
`
`conduit by applying a first drive signal to the driver, and sustain[ing] motion of the
`
`conduit by applying a second drive signal to the driver, wherein the second drive
`
`signal is different from the first drive signal.” As explained in the Declaration of
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 17 of 68 PageID #: 3183
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Dr. Sidman, the prior art disclosed that a drive signal technique optimized for
`
`maintaining oscillation of an oscillatory system may be inadequate for initiation of
`
`oscillation, and it was well known to use different techniques (e.g., drive signals)
`
`to initiate and maintain oscillation. (Sidman Decl, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 46-47, 62.)
`
`The features recited in the dependent claims were also well known in the art
`
`at the time of the filing of the ’062 patent, as discussed below. Claim 13, for
`
`example, claims data processing techniques that were well known. Claim 13
`
`depends from dependent claim 12 and base claim 1, and further recites “wherein
`
`consecutive sets include data for overlapping cycles of the periodic sensor signal.”
`
`Claim 12 recites that the system “is configured to process the sensor signal in sets,
`
`wherein each set includes data for a complete cycle of the periodic sensor signal.”
`
`Several prior art references disclose signal processing using overlap
`
`techniques, for example, to speed up processing, to improve the signal-to-noise
`
`ratio, or to better track changes of data. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 145-157.) It
`
`would have been obvious under at least KSR rationale D to apply an overlap
`
`technique to achieve the predictable results of faster processing, improved tracking
`
`of changes in the sensor signals, and/or noise reduction for the signal processing
`
`used in flow meters.
`
`For example, A/D converters and other components in the electronics of a
`
`flowmeter inherently introduce error into the sampled data representation of the
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 18 of 68 PageID #: 3184
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`flowtube oscillation. It would have been obvious to improve the signal-to-noise
`
`ratio for improved measurement and control. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 148-
`
`150.) Aker (U.S. Pat. No. 5,570,093)(Ex. 1057) discloses an overlap technique to
`
`reduce signal-to-noise ratio of microwave (i.e., “periodic”) signals. (Sidman Decl.,
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 150.) It would have also been obvious to identify error so as to adjust
`
`for it, such as identifying and adjusting for low-amplitude error introduced by A/D
`
`quantization. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 150.) Atarius (U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,479,933)(Ex. 1058) describes an overlap technique for processing periodic
`
`signals to expose low amplitude structures in the signals. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 151.)
`
`For another example, because flowmeters drive flowtube oscillation at the
`
`resonant frequency, the signal processing must react to changes in the resonant
`
`frequency due to changes in the fluid flow, and so must identify the resonant
`
`frequency as it is changing. Horner (U.S. Pat. No. 5,365,592)(Ex. 1059) describes
`
`an overlap technique to increase the rate of identification of a cepstrum in an audio
`
`(i.e., “periodic”) signal. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 152.)
`
`Common overlap techniques, such as the modified discrete cosine transform
`
`(MDCT), are also described in the prior art. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 153-154.)
`
`For example, Sonohara (U.S. Pat. No. 5,646,960)(Ex. 1060) describes an MDCT
`
`“signal transforming device for executing fast calculation of linear transformation
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 19 of 68 PageID #: 3185
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`on digital signals” (1:12-14), which calculation includes the use of data sets
`
`overlapping by 50%. MDCT techniques using 50% overlap were also described by
`
`two articles in the mid-1990s (“A Tutorial on MPEG/Audio Compression”, Davis
`
`Pan, Motorola Inc., 1995 (Ex. 1014); “Local Cosine Bases in Two Dimensions”,
`
`Jelena Kovacevic, IEEE Trans. on Image Proc., Vol. 6, No. 11, 1997 (Ex. 1048),
`
`footnote 1.) (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 153-154.)
`
`Another well-known overlap technique is the Welch method, described in a
`
`1967 article by Peter Welch (Ex. 1049), and taught in digital signal processing
`
`textbooks. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 155-156.) For example, the Proakis
`
`textbook includes the Welch method (pp. 877-878) in a book “suitable for either a
`
`one-semester or a two-semester undergraduate-level course in discrete systems and
`
`digital signal processing.” (Proakis, Ex. 1046, preface, p. v.) (Sidman Decl., Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 154.)
`
`In sum, the prior art abounds with examples of overlap techniques.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In accordance with the Trial Practice Guide, petitioner hereby provides “a
`
`simple statement that the claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with
`
`the disclosure.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48764. Moreover, “because the Board applies the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard, the Board’s construction may not be the
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 20 of 68 PageID #: 3186
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`same as that adopted by a district court, which may apply a different standard.”
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innov. Sci., Inc., IPR2013-000569, Paper 9 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 30, 2013).
`
`III. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 36, 40, 43, and 45 are unpatentable as
`
`shown in the following Grounds.
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 29, and 36 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 by Derby
`
`Claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 29, and 36 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190 (“Derby”)(Ex. 1016). The Derby patent issued
`
`September 10, 1996 to assignee Micro Motion. The ’062 patent claims an earliest
`
`priority date of November 26, 1997. Thus, Derby is prior art to the ’062 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 167-168.)
`
`Derby discloses the common features of independent claims 1, 40, and 45 of
`
`the ’062 patent. (See also the claim chart below.) Derby discloses: “The present
`
`invention relates to mass flow rate measurement and in particular to the use of
`
`digital signal processing adaptive filtration methods and apparatus in Coriolis mass
`
`flow meters.” (Derby, Ex. 1016, 1:7-10.)
`
`It is known to use Coriolis mass flowmeters to measure mass flow and
`other information for materials flowing through a conduit. . . . Each
`flow tube is driven to oscillate at resonance . . . As material begins to
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 21 of 68 PageID #: 3187
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`flow, Coriolis accelerations cause each point along the flow tube to
`have a different phase. . . Sensors are placed on the flow tube to
`produce sinusoidal signals representative of the motion of the flow
`tube. The phase difference between two sensor signals is proportional
`to the mass flow rate of material through the flow tube.
`
`(Id., 1:14-41.) With reference to Fig. 20, Derby discloses a digital signal
`
`processing (DSP) device: “Digital signal processor 2000 of FIG. 20 is a computing
`
`device much like any common microprocessor but with special purpose functions
`
`tuned for application to signal processing tasks. Many such DSP processor devices
`
`are known to those skilled in the art.” (Id., 14:3-7.) The DSP device drives the flow
`
`tubes based on the sensor signal inputs. “Processor 2000 determines the
`
`appropriate fundamental frequency at which the flow tubes are vibrated and applies
`
`a proportional signal to path 2058. Driver circuit 2008 converts the signal applied
`
`to path 2058 into a signal appropriate to drive the flow tubes to vibrate and applies
`
`the signal to path 156.” (Id., 14:47-52.) (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 169.)
`
`Thus, Derby discloses the common features of independent claims 1, 40, and
`
`45 of the ’062 patent. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 170.)
`
`Independent claim 1 concludes with to “use digital processing to adjust a
`
`phase of the drive signal to compensate for a time delay associated with
`
`components connected between the sensor and the driver.” Derby also discloses
`
`these additional features. (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 171.)
`
`4832-1779-2023.4
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-13 Filed 02/07/14 Page 22 of 68 PageID #: 3188
`Patent No. 7,571,062
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`Derby describes, with respect to the prior art, that the drive signal is based
`
`on the sensor signals and must be phase shifted: “The flowmeter’s drive signal is
`
`typically derived from one of the sensor output signals after it is conditioned, phase
`
`shifted and used to produce the sinusoidal drive voltage for the drive coil of the
`
`meter.” (Derby, Ex. 1016, 3:6-9.) (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 172.)
`
`Sources of delay described by Derby which must be compensated for by a
`
`phase shift include A/D converters (Derby, Ex. 1016, 14:37-43) and analog filters,
`
`which “alter the amplitude and phase of the signals . . .” (Id., 2:65); and Derby
`
`teaches against using “filters having unknown or varying amplitude and/or phase
`
`characteristics . . .” (Id., 3:1-3). Instead of using analog filters with unknown phase
`
`characteristics in the signal processing, Derby discloses a digital signal processing
`
`(DSP) technique, which is used to determine an “enhanced signal representing the
`
`sensor output signal waveform at the fundamental frequency . . .” (Id., 5:2-3.) The
`
`DSP technique takes time to process the sensor signals.
`
`The length of a window represents a tradeoff between response time
`and rejection of signal noise and leakage. A larger number of cycles
`accumulated . . . provides for additional rejection of noise but requires
`additional delay to achieve causality . . . Fewer samples reduces the
`delay and therefore improves the speed of response . . .
`(Derby, Ex. 1016, 12:9-14.) The selecte