Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 66 PageID #: 2865
`Case 6:l2—cv—00799—JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 1 of 66 Page|D #: 2865
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 2 of 66 PageID #: 2866
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 7,505,854
`Issue Date: March 17, 2009
`Title: STARTUP TECHNIQUES FOR A 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.
`
`
`
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 3 of 66 PageID #: 2867
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`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 .......................................................................................................................1 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................................................................2 
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review .............................................................................2 
`Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested .....................................................................................3 
`
`I. 
`A. 
`
`II. 
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`TECHNICAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................3 
`The Claims of the ’854 Patent .............................................................................................6 
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS ................................................................................7 
`Digital Transmitter ...............................................................................................................7 
`System Disturbance ...........................................................................................................10 
`Drive Signal Generating Mode ..........................................................................................12 
`Positive Feedback Mode, Digital Synthesis Mode ............................................................13 
`
`III. 
`
`Ground 2. 
`
`Ground 3. 
`Ground 4. 
`
`Ground 5. 
`
`Ground 6. 
`
`CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY ......................................................................................................14 
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`Ground 1. 
`byMiller..................................................................................................................14 
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Romano. .................................................................................................................23 
`Claims 7, 14 and 21 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Romano. ........31 
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Kalotay. ..................................................................................................................33 
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`byHori. ...................................................................................................................42 
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by
`Maginnis. ...............................................................................................................49
`
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................59 
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 4 of 66 PageID #: 2868
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. #
`1001 U.S. Pat. No. 7,505,854 (“’854 Patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Michael 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
`“How the Micro Motion Mass Flow and Density Sensor Works,” Micro
`Motion, Inc., 1990 (“How Article”)
`Translation of JP H07-286880
`1010
`PCT Publication No. WO 01/06918A2 (“Maginnis”)
`1011
`1012 App. Ser. No. 11/458,251, Brief On Appeal of March 17, 2008
`1013 App. Ser. No. 11/458,251 Application of July 18, 2006
`1014
`Invalidity Contentions, ’854 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, ’854 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)
`Invalidity Contentions, ’854 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, ’854 Patent Invalidity Claim Chart – Kanagawa
`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, ’854 Patent Invalidity Claim Chart –Maginnis
`Reference served on September 13, 2013, Invensys Systems, Inv. V.
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 5 of 66 PageID #: 2869
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1030
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Emerson Electric Co. et.al. Case No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. TX)
`JP H07-286880 (“Hori”)
`1019
`1020 U.S. Pat. No. 4,872,352 (“Alden”)
`1021 U.S. Pat. No. 4,823,614 (“Dahlin”)
`1022 U.S. Pat. No. 5,143,257 (“Austin”)
`1023 U.S. Pat. No. 5,146,945 (“La Rosa”)
`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
`“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
`“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
`“Control Sensors and Actuators,” De Silva, Prentice-Hall, 1989
`“Digital Signal Processing,” Alan V. Oppenheim, Ronald W. Schafer,
`Prentice-Hall, January 1975
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 6 of 66 PageID #: 2870
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1041
`
`1040
`
`“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 U.S. Pat. No. 4,872,351 (“Ruesch”)
`1047 U.S. Pat. No. 4,996,871 (“Romano ’871”)
`1048 U.S. Pat. No. 5,379,649 (“Kalotay ’649”)
`1049 U.S. Pat. No. 5,555,190 (“Derby”)
`1050 U.S. Pat. No. 5,734,112 (“Bose”)
`1051 U.S. Pat. No. 6,311,136 (“’136 Patent”)
`1052 U.S. Pat. No. 7,124,646 (“’646 Patent”)
`1053 Declaration of Jeffrey N. Costakos
`
`
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 7 of 66 PageID #: 2871
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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
`
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 of the ‘854 patent are 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, U.S. Patent No. 7,124,646, and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,136,761.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 8 of 66 PageID #: 2872
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`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, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,505,854 (“the ’854 patent”)(Ex. 1001) be cancelled based on the
`
`following grounds of unpatentability, explained in detail in the next section:
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) by Miller.
`
`Ground 2. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20 and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) by Romano.
`
`Ground 3. Claims 7, 14 and 21 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Romano.
`
`Ground 4. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) by Kalotay.
`
`Ground 5. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) by Hori.
`
`Ground 6. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) by Maginnis
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A petition for inter partes review must demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 9 of 66 PageID #: 2873
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`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, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 of the ’854 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 under 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 Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 22-103.
`
`The ’854 patent describes a Coriolis type flowmeter (“Coriolis flowmeter”),
`
`which may be a mass flowrate meter or a densitometer. (Ex. 1001, 1:28-45; 7:10-
`
`12.) Such flowmeters make use of the Coriolis effect induced on fluid flowing
`
`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
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 10 of 66 PageID #: 2874
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`programmable digital devices (e.g., microprocessors). E.g., U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,934,196 (“Romano”), Ex. 1006, Fig. 3; U.S. Pat. No. 4,679,947 (“Miller”), Ex.
`
`1007, Fig. 4; U.S. Patent No. 5,009,109 (“Kalotay”), Ex. 1008, Fig. 4; Japan Pat.
`
`Pub. 7-286880 (“Hori”), Ex. 1019, Transl. Ex. 1010, Fig. 7; PCT Pub. No. WO
`
`01/69185A5 (“Maginnis”), Ex. 1011, Fig. 3. 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
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 11 of 66 PageID #: 2875
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`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 or density. If the
`
`signal processing is performed in digital components, then the signal processing is
`
`digital signal processing.
`
`The specification of the ’854 describes a “digital transmitter.” Independent
`
`claims 1 and 15 recite a “digital transmitter,” but independent claim 8 is not limited
`
`to a digital implementation. The background section of the specification of the
`
`’854 describes both analog and digital Coriolis flowmeters. Indeed, as will be
`
`discussed below, digital Coriolis flowmeters, including Coriolis flowmeters using
`
`digital signal processing, have been known since long prior to the filing of the ’854
`
`patent.
`
`The ’854 patent claims recite different modes of operation for generating a
`
`drive signal, and transitioning between drive signal generating modes in response
`
`to a system disturbance. This feature is recited in independent claims 1 and 15 as
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 12 of 66 PageID #: 2876
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`“transition the flowmeter from a first drive signal generating mode into a second
`
`drive signal generating mode in response to detecting a system disturbance
`
`associated with the flowmeter.” Independent claim 8 is a method claim with the
`
`same requirement.
`
`Although the specification of the ’854 patent suggests that it was the first
`
`digital flowmeter to transition between multiple drive modes in response to a
`
`system disturbance, in fact – as will be discussed below – use of multiple drive
`
`modes that responded to system disturbances has been known, in both analog and
`
`digital flowmeters, since long prior to the filing of the ’854 patent.
`
`Dependent claims 7 (which depends from 1), 14 (which depends from 8) and
`
`21 (which depends on claim 15) specify that “the first drive signal generating mode
`
`is a digital synthesis mode.” The prior art taught digital synthesis of the drive
`
`signal, as explained below in the proposed grounds of unpatentability.
`
`In short, the prior art disclosed flowmeters that performed all of the elements
`
`of the claims of the ’854 patent, as described in detail below.
`
`A. The Claims of the ’854 Patent
`The ’854 patent has three independent claims: apparatus claims 1 and 15,
`
`and method claim 8. Claim 1 reads as follows in full:
`
`1. A flowmeter comprising:
`a vibratable flowtube;
`a sensor connected to the flowtube and operable to sense
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 13 of 66 PageID #: 2877
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`information about a motion of the flowtube by way of a sensor
`signal;
`a driver connected to the flowtube and operable to impart
`energy to the flowtube by way of a drive signal; and
`a digital transmitter operable to transition the flowmeter from a
`first drive signal generating mode into a second drive signal
`generating mode in response to detecting a system disturbance
`associated with the flowmeter.
`
`II. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). “[B]ecause the Board
`
`applies the broadest reasonable construction standard, the Board’s construction
`
`may not be the 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).
`
`A. Digital Transmitter
`The “digital transmitter” of the ’854 patent claims is the structure that
`
`performs the associated functions in the claims. The claim construction issue is
`
`whether the “digital” transmitter may include analog components or whether it
`
`must be all digital.
`
`The digital transmitter in the ’854 patent is illustrated by Figures 2-4,
`
`duplicated here for reference. In Figure 2, digital transmitter 104 includes all
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 14 of 66 PageID #: 2878
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`electronics between flowtube driver(s) 210 and flowtube motion sensor(s) 205.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 provides an illustration of digital transmitter 104. “FIG. 3 is a block
`
`diagram of the digital transmitter 104. In FIG. 3, a codec (coder-decoder) block
`
`305 includes analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analog converters
`
`(DACs).” (Ex. 1001, 9:11-14.) “It should be understood that, as mentioned above,
`
`all of the tasks performed by the FPGA 310 and/or the processor 315 could be
`
`performed by just the processor 315, and/or by other suitable hardware, such as,
`
`for example, an ASIC.” (Ex. 1001, 9:40-44.)
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 15 of 66 PageID #: 2879
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Figure 4 also illustrates a block diagram of digital transmitter 104, in which
`
`digital transmitter 104 includes digital controller 420, several A/D and D/A
`
`converters, and some analog electronic components, such as op amps 435 and
`
`resistors 440. (Ex. 1001,11:55).
`
`
`
`The ’854 patent also discloses other analog components in digital transmitter
`
`104. (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:35-36; 15:44-45.) For example, “analog filtering of
`
`the drive signal post-CODEC may be used to smooth out high-frequency noise
`
`introduced by the codec and subsequent circuitry.” (Ex. 1001, 22:51-53.)
`
`The discussion above establishes that digital transmitter 104 may include
`
`both digital and analog components. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 16 of 66 PageID #: 2880
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`construction, the term “digital transmitter” is interpreted to include all electronics
`
`between the driver and the sensor, in which the electronics include digital
`
`components and may also include analog components.
`
`System Disturbance
`
`B.
`The ’854 patent claims a transition between modes “in response to detecting
`
`a system disturbance.” However, although the ’854 patent specification mentions
`
`“system disturbance,” the specification fails to describe what is meant by a system
`
`disturbance, other than to distinguish from startup: “particularly during a start-up
`
`of the flowtube and/or during a system disturbance or perturbation, it is not always
`
`the case that the operating frequency is known with certainty.” (Ex. 1001, 14:22-25
`
`(emphasis added).)
`
`The file history of the ’854 patent sheds light on the definition of “system
`
`disturbance.” On page 2 of the Appeal Brief dated March 17, 2008, the Applicant
`
`cites a portion of claim 1 followed by a reference to the specification: “a digital
`
`transmitter operable to transition the flowmeter from a first drive signal generating
`
`mode into a second drive signal generating mode in response to detecting a system
`
`disturbance associated with the flowmeter (see, e.g., application at page 8, lines 10-
`
`12, page 42, lines 13-30).” (Ex. 1012, p. 68.) The cited portion of page 8, lines 10-
`
`12 does not mention a disturbance or a transition. The cited portion of page 42,
`
`lines 13-30 describes, with respect to disturbance: “For example, there may be
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 17 of 66 PageID #: 2881
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`some external disturbance to the system, or there may be some unanticipated
`
`object/material that flows through the flowtube. As another example, conditions
`
`such as two-phase flow and/or three-phase flow, particularly if initiated quickly or
`
`unexpectedly, might degrade or interrupt an operation of the flowmeter.” (Ex.
`
`1013, p. 207 (corresponding to App. Ser. No. 11/458,251, Ex. 1013, p. 42, lines
`
`13-16; Ex. 1001, 29:19-24) (emphasis added).) The language before and after the
`
`quoted language provides additional context:
`
`… during a time when the flowmeter is in full operation (i.e.,
`synthesis mode) (1610), some difficulty may arise which
`causes the flowmeter (measurements) to become unstable.
`For example, there may be some external disturbance to the
`system, or there may be some unanticipated object/material
`that flows through the flowtube. As another example, conditions
`such as two-phase flow and/or three-phase flow, particularly
`if initiated quickly or unexpectedly, might degrade or
`interrupt an operation of the flowmeter.
`In such a case, the flowmeter may return to a positive
`feedback mode 1608, in order to re-stabilize the system (e.g.,
`re-establish the proper frequency, phase and amplitude of the
`drive signals).
`(Ex. 1012, p. 207 (corresponding to Ex. 1013, p. 42, lines 10-19; Ex. 1001, 29:16-
`
`29).)
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`This language quoted by the applicant in its Appeal Brief was thus an
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 18 of 66 PageID #: 2882
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`example of the language that immediately preceded it: “some difficulty may arise
`
`which causes the flowmeter (measurements) to become unstable. For example,
`
`[portion quoted by applicant]…” Therefore, under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard, the description of “system disturbance” is interpreted
`
`according to applicant’s citation as being something that “causes the flowmeter
`
`(measurements) to become unstable” or that may “degrade or interrupt an
`
`operation of the flowmeter.” The conditions referred to in the section quoted by the
`
`applicant are examples of system disturbances: “some external disturbance to the
`
`system [or] some unanticipated object/material that flows through the flowtube [or]
`
`two-phase flow and/or three-phase flow.” (Ex. 1001, 29:15-24.)
`
`C. Drive Signal Generating Mode
`The specification of the ‘854 patent does not use the term “drive signal
`
`generating mode” that is found in the claims. Nor does the specification use the
`
`term “generating mode.” Rather, the specification of the ‘854 patent refers to
`
`“operational modes” and to “drive signals” that are used to initiate or maintain
`
`flow tube oscillation.
`
`The specification describes a broad variety of such “operational modes” and
`
`“drive signals” that can be used to initiate and/or maintain oscillation of the
`
`flowtube. The “Summary” of the invention refers to “a digital transmitter operable
`
`to select and implement, from among a plurality of operational modes, an
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 19 of 66 PageID #: 2883
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`operational mode determined to be best suited for a current operational
`
`environment of the digital flowmeter.” (Ex. 1001, 4:45-48.) The specification then
`
`goes on to describe four examples of such “operational modes” – a “random
`
`sequence mode,” a “zero-output mode,” a “positive feedback mode” and a “digital
`
`synthesis mode.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:50-51 (“random-sequence mode”); 4:62-
`
`63 (“positive feedback mode”); 4:64-65 (“digital synthesis mode”)).
`
`In summary, then, the ‘854 specification does not limit the term “drive
`
`signal generating modes” to any specific modes of generating the signals used to
`
`drive the flowtube to oscillate. Thus, applying the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” standard applicable in this proceeding, the proper construction of
`
`“drive signal generating mode” is: a mode of generating a drive signal that is used
`
`to initiate or maintain oscillation of the flowtube.
`
`Positive Feedback Mode, Digital Synthesis Mode
`
`D.
`The ’854 patent describes a positive feedback mode in which the drive
`
`signal “includes components of a sensor signal detected by the sensor and fed back
`
`to the driver.” (Ex. 1001, 4:5-6, 31-33.)
`
`The ’854 patent also discloses a digital synthesis mode in which the drive
`
`signal “is synthesized by the control and measurement system based on an analysis
`
`of the sensor signal.” (Ex. 1001, 4:14-15.)
`
`Thus, applying the “broadest reasonable construction” standard applicable in
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 20 of 66 PageID #: 2884
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`this proceeding, the proper construction of “positive feedback mode” and “digital
`
`synthesis mode” is drive signals generated on the basis of sensor signal analysis,
`
`where, in “positive feedback mode,” the drive signal “includes components of a
`
`sensor signal detected by the sensor and fed back to the driver” and, in “digital
`
`synthesis mode,” the drive signal “is synthesized by the control and measurement
`
`system based on an analysis of the sensor signal.”
`
`III. CLAIM-BY-CLAIM EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as shown in the following
`
`Grounds.
`
`Ground 1. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 Are Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) by Miller.
`
`Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`
`Miller (U.S. Patent No. 4,679,947 (Ex. 1007)). The Miller patent issued July 14,
`
`1987. The ’854 patent claims an earliest priority date of March 29, 2002. Thus,
`
`Miller is prior art to the ’854 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Sidman Decl., Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶ 112-113.)
`
`Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the ’854 patent recite a “flowmeter” that
`
`generates a drive signal to drive a “vibratable flowtube.” As noted above, a
`
`densitometer is described by the ’854 patent as one type of flowmeter that uses
`
`vibration of a flowtube. (Ex. 1001; 1:28-45; 7:10-12.) Miller discloses a
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 21 of 66 PageID #: 2885
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`“flowthrough densitometer” that includes “a vibrator for causing the tubes to
`
`vibrate.” (Miller, Ex. 1007, Abstract.)(Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 114.)
`
`Claims 1 and 15 add that the flowmeter includes a “digital transmitter”
`
`including the capability “to transition the flowmeter from a first drive signal
`
`generating mode into a second drive signal generating mode in response to
`
`detecting a system disturbance associated with the flowmeter.” Similarly, as
`
`described below, Miller discloses a digital transmitter, system disturbance, two
`
`modes of drive signal generation, and the ability to transition from one drive signal
`
`generation mode to the other mode in response to detecting a system disturbance.
`
`(Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ 115.)
`
`Miller discloses that a “computer is connected to . . . the strain guages [sic]
`
`to monitor those measurements and to a coil driver control.” (Miller, Ex. 1007,
`
`3:32-34.) Figure 4 of Miller illustrates the disclosed configuration, and discloses
`
`that “in the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the computer 100 is connected to the coil
`
`driver electronics 106 in such a manner that the computer can control the
`
`frequency of the field generated by the magnetic coil 80.” (Miller, Ex. 1007, 12:22-
`
`25.) In turn, “… the coil driver electronics 106 powers and drives the magnetic coil
`
`80 with an oscillating current. The result is that the magnetic coil 80 imparts
`
`energy to cause a vibrating motion in the metallic densitometer tubes 62,72.”
`
`(Miller, Ex. 1007, 11:36-40.) Computer 100 in Miller is expressly described as a
`
`4816-5102-8246.4
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 107-4 Filed 02/07/14 Page 22 of 66 PageID #: 2886
`Patent No. 7,505,854
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`digital system: “…it is necessary to equip digital computer 100 with an input
`
`module 102 that has the capability of accepting analog signals and converting such
`
`analog signals to digital form for use by the computer.” (Miller, Ex. 1007, 12:47-
`
`50.) Thus, Miller discloses a “digital transmitter” that generates a drive signal for
`
`drive coil 80 (i.e., “drive signal generating”). (Sidman Decl., Ex. 1002, ¶ ¶ 116-
`
`119.)
`
`The densitometer disclosed in Miller reacts in response to a “system
`
`disturbance” as interpreted based on the file history and the written description of
`
`the ’854 patent. One of the problems that Miller’s invention is intended to address
`
`is the problem of measuring flow when there is “very unpredictable” two-phase
`
`flow (Miller, Ex. 1007, 1:60-62) possibly including “large slugs” of a liquid phase
`
`which can be “stretched out in churning or t