Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 3564
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
` Case No. 12-CV-00799-LED
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF OF MICRO MOTION, INC.
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 3565
`
` Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`D.
`
`INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND OF THE MICRO MOTION INVENTIONS IN THE ’131 AND
`’190 PATENTS ...................................................................................................................2
`A.
`Coriolis Flowmeters ................................................................................................2
`B.
`Analog Versus Digital Signal Processing................................................................4
`C.
`Micro Motion’s ’131 And ’190 Patents...................................................................5
`1.
`The ’131 patent............................................................................................5
`2.
`The ’190 patent............................................................................................7
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES.........................................................................9
`A.
`Claim Terms Must Be Construed In Light Of The Specification............................9
`B.
`The Prosecution History May Reveal The Inventors’ Understanding Of
`Their Invention But Not In This Case ...................................................................10
`Extrinsic Evidence Is Less Significant Than The Intrinsic Record.......................11
`Section 112(f) Dictates The Construction Of The Means-Plus-Function
`Limitations.............................................................................................................11
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS AND PHRASES ...............................................................12
`A.
`Plain And Ordinary Meaning Should Apply To The Phrases: “Calculating
`Dot Products,” “Demodulating … To A Center Frequency,” And
`“Enhanced Value[s]” .............................................................................................12
`1.
`“calculating dot products” (’131 patent, claims 1, 13, and 26) .................12
`2.
`“demodulating … to a center frequency” (’131 patent, claims 1,
`13, and 26) .................................................................................................13
`“enhanced value[s]” (’190 patent, claims 1, 18, and 35)...........................15
`3.
`The Phrases “Calculating A Normalized Frequency,” “Calculating A
`Normalized Pulsation,” And “Center Frequency” Should Not Be Limited
`To A Single Embodiment......................................................................................17
`1.
`“calculating a normalized frequency” (’131 patent, claims 1, 13,
`and 26) .......................................................................................................18
`“calculating a normalized pulsation” (’131 patent, claims 1, 13,
`and 26) .......................................................................................................19
`“center frequency” (’131 patent, claims 1, 13, and 26).............................20
`3.
`“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” Is Not
`Insolubly Ambiguous (’131 patent, claims 1, 13, and 26) ....................................20
`Micro Motion’s Proposed Corresponding Structures Should Be Adopted
`For The Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitations In The ’190 Patent..................21
`1.
`“digital notch filtration means, responsive to the generation of said
`sequence of discrete sampled values, for generating a sequence of
`discrete enhanced values” (’190 patent, claims 1, 2, 18, and 19)..............22
`“phase value determination means, responsive to the generation of
`said sequence of discrete enhanced values, for generating the phase
`i
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 3566
`
`3.
`
`values of the oscillatory movement of said flow tube” (’190 patent,
`claims 1 and 18).........................................................................................24
`“phase difference means, responsive to the generation of said
`phase values, for determining a phase difference between the
`output signals of said first and second sensors” (’190 patent, claims
`1 and 35) and “phase difference computation means to determine a
`phase difference between the output signals of said first and second
`sensors” (’190 patent, claim 18)................................................................25
`“mass flow measurement means, responsive to the determination
`of phase difference, for determining a mass flow rate value of the
`material flowing through the flow tube” (’190 patent, claims 1 and
`35)..............................................................................................................26
`“notch adaptation means, cooperative with said digital notch
`filtration means, for altering filter parameters of said digital notch
`filtration means” (’190 patent, claim 2).....................................................27
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................28
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`V.
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 3567
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .........................................................................................11, 21
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`715 F.3d 891 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................15, 21
`
`Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Clearstream Wastewater Sys., Inc. v. Hydro-Action, Inc.,
`206 F.3d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .........................................................................................24, 26
`
`DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................18
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................20
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`75 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................20
`
`Mosaid Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc.,
`No. 2:11CV179, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57396 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2013) ...........................13
`
`On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH,
`386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................17
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)...............................................................9, 10, 11, 12
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C § 112(f) ................................................................................................................8, 11, 21
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 3568
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,131
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,555,190
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 105)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,373,745
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 2,865,201
`
`U.S. Pat. No. RE 31,450
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,934,196
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,009,109
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,050,439
`
`Ex. #
`
`Ex. 1
`
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Ex. 7
`
`Ex. 8
`
`Ex. 9
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 3569
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”) respectfully submits its opening brief in support of
`
`its proposed constructions for asserted claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, and 25-26 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,505,131 (“the ’131 patent,” attached as Exhibit 1) and asserted claims 1-2, 18-19, and 35
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190 (“the ’190 patent,” attached as Exhibit 2).1
`
`The parties disagree on the construction of 6 claim terms and phrases in the ’131 patent
`
`and 8 claim limitations, including 7 means-plus-function claim limitations, in the ’190 patent.
`
`Invensys argues for improperly narrow constructions to limit the scope of the asserted claims to
`
`certain “preferred embodiments” described in the ’131 and ’190 patents. Many of the proposed
`
`constructions offered by Invensys seek to “construe” otherwise broad claim terms by injecting
`
`limitations found in the specifications but not required by the claim language itself. Within the
`
`context of the ’131 and ’190 patents, reading in limitations from the preferred embodiments is
`
`contrary to well-established law and should be rejected.
`
`In addition, Invensys improperly leans on excerpts of the prosecution histories, taken out
`
`of context, to support its strained constructions of the claim terms and phrases. The patentees did
`
`not disavow or disclaim the broad readings of their claims during prosecution. Thus, the file
`
`histories should not contradict Micro Motion’s proposed constructions that are squarely
`
`supported by the specification.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to P. R. 4-5(b) and the Fourth Amended Docket Control Order, (Dkt. No. 103), on
`April 7, 2014, Defendant Emerson Electric Co. and Micro Motion will provide its responsive
`brief and supporting evidence regarding Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Invensys
`Systems, Inc.’s (“Invensys”) proposed constructions for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,311,136; 6,754,594;
`7,124,646; 7,136,761; 7,505,854; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906.
`1
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 3570
`
`Finally, in other instances, Invensys proposes constructions that are unnecessarily
`
`complex, when the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient and no construction is required.
`
`Invensys’s contrived complexity is unduly limiting and should similarly be rejected.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE MICRO MOTION INVENTIONS IN THE ’131 AND
`’190 PATENTS
`
`The patents-in-suit relate to Coriolis flowmeters. To help clarify the nature of Micro
`
`Motion’s inventions and put the claim terms discussed below in context, this section describes
`
`some basic principles of Coriolis flowmeters and analog versus digital signal processing.
`
`Additional detail may be found in Micro Motion’s technical tutorial, submitted to the Court on
`
`March 6, 2014.
`
`A.
`
`Coriolis Flowmeters
`
`Coriolis flowmeters were first commercialized by Micro Motion in the late 1970s and
`
`early 1980s. (See Ex. 4 (U.S. Patent No. 5,373,745) at 1:24-25 (“[Coriolis flowmeters were] first
`
`made commercially successful by Micro Motion, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado.”).) Coriolis
`
`flowmeters provide information about materials being transferred through a conduit.2 Coriolis
`
`flowmeters can accurately measure mass flow, volume flow, density, and temperature of flowing
`
`fluids. (See ’131 patent, Ex. 1 at 1:16-18.) They are used in applications as diverse as hygienic
`
`pharmaceutical installations, food production, and corrosive liquid production, among many
`
`others.
`
`
`2 The terms “conduit” and “tube” are used interchangeably to describe the physical portion of the
`flowmeter through which the material flows.
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 3571
`
`Coriolis flowmeters typically include the following basic components: a vibratable
`
`tube(s) (which come(s) in 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. (Id.
`
`at 1:22-53.) An example of a Coriolis flowmeter is illustrated above.
`
`With Coriolis flowmeters, energy is supplied to the tube(s) by a driving mechanism that
`
`applies a periodic force to oscillate the tube(s). (Id. at 1:50-53.) If there is no liquid flowing
`
`through the tubes, the tubes oscillate uniformly or “in-phase.” (Id. at 1:35-36.) If there is liquid
`
`flowing through the tubes, the tubes also twist as they oscillate (as a result of the liquid’s inertia).
`
`(Id. at 1:38-40.) Due to the Coriolis effect,3 the inlet and outlet sections of the tube twist in
`
`different directions.
`
`Sensors at the inlet and outlets register and measure the motion on the inlet and outlet
`
`side of the loop. The “phase difference” or “ΔT” (meaning “difference in time”) of the
`
`oscillations can be used to determine mass flow rate of material flowing through the tube. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 4 (U.S. Patent No. 5,373,745) at 1:17-23 (“[I]t is well known that a vibrating flow
`
`conduit carrying a mass flow causes Coriolis forces which deflect the flow conduit away from its
`
`normal vibration path proportionally related to mass flow rate. These deflections or their effects
`
`can then be measured as an accurate indication of mass flow rate.”).)
`
`
`3 The Coriolis effect, a scientific principle first characterized in the 1800s, is a way to explain the
`motion of objects (like projectiles or storm systems) in a rotating frame of reference (like the
`earth). The Coriolis effect can be used to provide relatively accurate mass flow measurements
`even during changes in pressure, temperature, viscosity, or density of the fluid.
`3
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 3572
`
`To determine mass flow rate or density, the sensor signals must be processed to extract
`
`this information from other information in the signals. (Id. at 1:50-53.) Thus, Coriolis
`
`flowmeters perform signal processing on the sensor signals. This signal processing may be done
`
`with either analog or digital components. (Id. at 1:53-55; 2:6-16.) If the signal processing is
`
`performed using digital components, then the signal processing is considered to be and is
`
`referred to as “digital signal processing.”
`
`B.
`
`Analog Versus Digital Signal Processing
`
`Coriolis (and other) flowmeters were originally implemented with analog electronic
`
`components. (See, e.g., Ex. 5 (U.S. Patent No. 2,865,201).) Such analog flowmeters use analog
`
`components to process signals from the sensors and control the drive mechanism. As digital
`
`electronic components became more readily available, flowmeters also incorporated digital
`
`components. (See, e.g., Ex. 6 (U.S. Patent No. Re. 31,450, which discloses a combination of
`
`analog and digital components).) Digital components include digital logic and programmable
`
`digital devices, e.g., microprocessors. (See, e.g., Ex. 7 (U.S. Patent No. 4,934,196) at Fig. 3; Ex.
`
`8 (U.S. Patent No. 5,009,109) at Fig. 4; Ex. 9 (U.S. Patent No. 5,050,439) at 16:11-15.)
`
`Digital signal processing was first developed in the 1960s. With digital signal
`
`processing, analog signals are converted to digital signals, and then the signals can be filtered
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 3573
`
`and/or manipulated using microprocessor algorithms. Micro Motion’s asserted ’131 and ’190
`
`patents are directed to Coriolis flowmeters and methods that use digital signal processing in
`
`particular ways to more accurately determine mass flow rate of a material flowing through a
`
`tube.
`
`C.
`
`Micro Motion’s ’131 And ’190 Patents
`
`1.
`
`The ’131 patent
`
`The ’131 patent, “Multi-Rate Digital Signal Processor For Signals From Pick-Offs On A
`
`Vibrating Conduit,” discloses and claims a signal processor for a Coriolis flowmeter that
`
`measures properties of a material flowing through at least one vibrating conduit of the
`
`flowmeter. (’131 patent, Ex. 1, at Abstract.) More specifically, the ’131 patent relates to using
`
`digital signal processing to identify the phase difference between two sensor inputs (i.e.,
`
`“pickoff” signals) using a demodulation technique. (Id.) In the demodulation technique, each
`
`sensor input is multiplied by a cosine wave at an estimated frequency (approximately the same
`
`frequency as the sensor input), which has the effect of translating the frequency spectrum of the
`
`sensor input by an amount equal to the estimated frequency. (Id. at 9:1-38.) This translation
`
`allows for a simplification of the subsequent extraction of phase information from the two sensor
`
`inputs. (See, e.g., id. at 11:4 (the simplified calculation).)
`
`For the processor to perform the multiplication of a sensor input and the cosine wave, (1)
`
`both the sensor input and the cosine wave must be represented by discrete values (i.e., values
`
`representing the waveform at discrete points in time), and (2) the time between two neighboring
`
`discrete values of the sensor input must be approximately equal to the time between two
`
`neighboring discrete values of the cosine wave. (See, e.g., id. at 9:18; 9:21; 9:30 (the equations in
`
`which the discrete versions of the signals are used, as denoted by the ‘k’ in the equations); 9:9
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 3574
`
`(equation adjusting the cosine wave samples for sampling rate and decimation rate to match the
`
`discrete sensor input).)
`
`Accordingly, a sensor input is sampled at a sampling rate Fs and then down-sampled by a
`
`decimation factor. (Id. at 3:23-32; 6:22-26; 9:9; 9:14.) Sampling and decimation together
`
`provide for an effective sampling rate which is denoted for convenience as Fsd for the purpose of
`
`this discussion. Decimation may involve filtering, such that, for example, the signal has
`
`increased resolution. (Id. at 3:30-31; 6:56-7:67.) In the ’131 patent, an exemplary sampling rate
`
`of 48 kHz and a decimation factor of 12 are provided, and therefore, in this example or
`
`embodiment, the effective sampling rate is Fsd= Fs/12= 48 kHz/12 = 4 kHz. (Id. at 6:24-6:26.)
`
`The sensor input is thus represented by discrete values, where each value represents 1/(4 kHz) of
`
`time.
`
`To create the cosine wave such that the discrete values represent approximately 1/Fsd, the
`
`frequency of the flowtube oscillation is first estimated, Fd, and then adjusted for sampling rate
`
`and decimation rate (i.e., adjusted for Fsd). (Id. at 8:3-5; 9:4-9.) The adjusted estimate of
`
`frequency, Fd/Fsd, is used to create a sequence of discrete values representing the cosine wave at
`
`the frequency Fd/Fsd. (Id. at 9:9-18.) In the example provided in the ’131 patent, the adjusted
`
`estimate of frequency is Fd/Fsd=Fd/(Fs/12)=12Fd/Fs. (Id. at 9:9.)
`
`The invention in the ’131 patent, among other things, attempts to provide for improved
`
`accuracy in measuring the mass flow rate of a liquid flowing through a tube. (Id. at 2:6-18; 2:47-
`
`49; 3:55-58.)
`
`The claim terms in dispute relate to various stages of the demodulation. The parties seek
`
`construction of the following 6 claim terms and phrases found in each asserted independent
`
`claim (1, 13, and 26) of the ’131 patent:
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 3575
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`“calculating a normalized frequency” – this is the adjusted frequency
`estimate Fd/Fsd used to create the cosine wave;
`
`“calculating a normalized pulsation” – this is the normalized frequency in
`angular notation, and indicates the associated cosine wave;
`
`“calculating dot products” – this is multiplying the discrete sensor input
`and the discrete cosine wave sequence;
`
`“demodulating said signals from said first pick-off sensor and said second
`pick-off sensor to translate said signals to a center frequency” – this is the
`translation of the frequency spectrum;
`
`frequency” – this is the difference between the estimated
`“center
`frequency and the actual frequency of the sensor input; and
`
`“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” – this is multiplying the discrete
`sensor input and the discrete cosine wave sequence to translate the
`frequency spectrum to a frequency which is the difference between the
`actual frequency of the sensor input and the estimated frequency.4
`
`Invensys ignores the clear language in the specification that dictates Micro Motion’s
`
`proposed constructions should be adopted, and relies on prosecution history excerpts and
`
`anticipated testimony from a hired expert, Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez. Invensys’s proposed
`
`constructions are too narrow and inconsistent with the claim language and the specification.
`
`They should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`The ’190 patent
`
`The ’190 patent, “Method and Apparatus For Adaptive Line Enhancement In Coriolis
`
`Mass Flow Meter Measurement,” provides novel ways to better determine frequency and phase
`
`relationships of vibrating flow tubes in a Coriolis flowmeter using digital signal processing. The
`
`’190 patent discloses and claims using an “adaptive notch filter” to enhance the signal from each
`
`4 Micro Motion and Invensys agree that “decimating said samples,” as found in claims 1, 13, and
`26 of the ’131 patent, should be constructed to mean “converting from a first number of samples
`to a lesser number of samples.” (Dkt. No. 105 at 3.) Micro Motion respectfully requests that the
`Court adopt the parties’ agreed-upon construction.
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 3576
`
`corresponding sensor signal on the vibrating flowtubes. (’190 patent, Ex. 2. at Abstract.) The
`
`’190 patent also provides for cascading multiple adaptive notch filters to further enhance the
`
`signal from each corresponding sensor signal. (Id.) The ’190 patent couples the adaptive notch
`
`filter(s) with computational adjustments to provide better noise immunity, which improves the
`
`flowmeter’s ability to accurately measure the mass flow rate of material passing through the
`
`tubes. (Id.)
`
`The adaptive notch filter as disclosed in the ’190 patent isolates frequencies of interest
`
`from the sensor inputs for subsequent processing of the information contained in the frequencies
`
`of interest. (Id. at 5:1-4; 10:55-59.) Specifically, the adaptive notch filter isolates a band of
`
`frequencies around an estimated flowtube oscillation frequency, with a result being that
`
`information not of interest (noise, for one example) is minimized. (Id.) The adaptive notch filters
`
`are updated to adapt to the environment. For example, the adaptive notch filters are updated to
`
`adapt to a change in flowtube oscillation frequency or amplitude, or to adapt to a noisy
`
`environment. (Id. at 5:8-10; 5:40-45; 11:18-36; 18:42-53.) After the sensor inputs are passed
`
`through the respective adaptive notch filters, the phase of each sensor input is determined. (Id. at
`
`11:60-66.) A phase difference between the sensor inputs is also determined, and from the phase
`
`difference, mass flow rate is calculated. (Id. at 13:31-42; 36:22-33.)
`
`The parties seek construction of eight claim limitations found in claims 1-2, 18-19, and
`
`35 of the ’190 patent.5 The parties agree that seven of the disputed claim limitations are means-
`
`plus-function limitations governed by 35 U.S.C § 112(f). The parties also agree upon the
`
`functions. The only dispute with respect to these terms relates to identification of the
`
`corresponding structures.
`
`5 Claims 1, 18, and 35 are independent claims; claims 2 and 19 are dependent claims. (’190
`patent, Ex. 2 at 44:57-50:47.)
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 3577
`
`Micro Motion properly relies on the intrinsic evidence, which fully supports the proposed
`
`structures. Invensys’s constructions improperly attempt to import structural limitations into the
`
`claims and improperly intend to rely upon excerpts of the prosecution history taken out of
`
`context and the contemplated testimony of a second hired expert, Dr. Pol Spanos.
`
`The remaining dispute with respect to the ’190 patent centers around whether the phrase
`
`“enhanced value[s],” found in independent claims 1, 18, and 35, needs to be separately
`
`construed. It is clear from the specification that a construction is unnecessary; the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning should control. Again, there is no need to resort to expert testimony to
`
`construe the plain language used in the claims.
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that the most probative evidence of the meaning of a
`
`claim term is found in the intrinsic evidence, which consists of: (1) the claim language, (2) the
`
`patent specification, and (3) the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim construction may also rely on extrinsic evidence,
`
`which “‘consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert
`
`and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises,’” but only in limited circumstances.
`
`Id. at 1317 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(en banc)).
`
`A.
`
`Claim Terms Must Be Construed In Light Of The Specification
`
`In the first instance, the Court must “‘look to the words of the claims themselves … to
`
`define the scope of the patented invention.’” Id. at 1312 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In doing so, the words of a claim are
`
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning or the meaning that the term would have
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. See id. at 1313.
`9
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 3578
`
`The ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the
`
`entire patent, including the specification. Id. at 1321.
`
`“The claims, of course, do not stand alone;” rather they “must be read in view of the
`
`specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 1315 (internal quotation marks and quoting
`
`citations omitted). Thus, the patent’s specification, “is always highly relevant” to the analysis, as
`
`it “necessarily informs the proper construction of the claims.” Id. at 1315-16 (internal quotation
`
`marks and quoting citations omitted). Usually, the specification is dispositive; it “is the single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term” and should be the “primary basis” for claim
`
`construction. Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). According to the Federal Circuit,
`
`it is “entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the
`
`written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”
`
`Id. at 1317. “The
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`Nevertheless, while a claim term should be construed in the context of the specification,
`
`it is improper to import extraneous limitations from preferred embodiments into the claims. Id.
`
`at 1323. In certain circumstances, claims are not to be unnecessarily limited to the particular
`
`embodiments disclosed in the specification. See id. at 1323.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History May Reveal The Inventors’ Understanding Of
`Their Invention But Not In This Case
`
`In addition to consulting the specification, the Court “should also consider the patent’s
`
`prosecution history.” Id. at 1317. The prosecution history “consists of the complete record of
`
`the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the
`
`patent.” Id. “[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 3579
`
`demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the
`
`invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise
`
`be.” Id. The prosecution history will limit the meaning of claim terms “so as to exclude any
`
`interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.” Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG
`
`Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`C.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence Is Less Significant Than The Intrinsic Record
`
`An examination of extrinsic evidence “‘can shed useful light on the relevant art,’” but it
`
`is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of
`
`claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`
`388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`D.
`
`Section 112(f) Dictates The Construction Of The Means-Plus-Function
`Limitations
`
`For “means-plus-function claims,” guidelines for claim construction are specified in the
`
`statute. “[S]uch claim[s] shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or
`
`acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Construing a
`
`means-plus-function limitation is a two-step process: “First, the court must determine the
`
`claimed function. Second, the court must identify the corresponding structure in the written
`
`description of the patent that performs the function.” AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and quoting
`
`citation omitted). Structure disclosed in the specification is “corresponding” structure only if
`
`“the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim.” Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`The application of these and other claim construction principles, discussed herein,
`
`support Micro Motion’s proposed constructions.
`
`4820-9249-6152.4
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124 Filed 03/07/14 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 3580
`
`IV.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS AND PHRASES
`
`A.
`
`Plain And Ordinary Meaning Should Apply To The Phrases: “Calculating
`Dot Products,” “Demodulating … To A Center Frequency,” And “Enhanced
`Value[s]”
`
`Micro Motion’s proposed construction that plain and ordinary meaning should be
`
`adopted for the phrases “calculating dot products” (’131 patent), “demodulating … to a center
`
`frequency” (’131 patent), and “enhanced values” (’190 patent) is simple application of
`
`fundamental claim construction rules. Micro Motion’s constructions are consistent with ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of the terms, and they are amply supported by the specification. See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`1.
`
`“calculating dot products” (’131 patent, claims 1, 13, and 26)
`
`Micro Motion’s Proposed Construction
`
`Invensys’s Proposed Construction
`
`No need to separately con