Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 4013
`Case 6:12—c:v—OO799—JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 6 Page|D #: 4013
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 4014
`
`FOLEY & L ARDN ER LLP
`
`March 24, 2014
`
`The Honorable Leonard Davis
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`200 W. Ferguson, Third Floor
`Tyler, TX 75702
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE
`MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-5306
`414.271.2400 TEL
`414.297.4900 FAX
`foley.com
`
`CLIENT/MATTER NUMBER
`087886--0122
`
`Re:
`
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. and Micro Motion, Inc.
`Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED
`
`Dear Honorable Judge Davis:
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”) respectfully
`submits this answering letter brief in opposition to Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant
`Invensys Systems, Inc.’s (“Invensys’s”) March 7, 2014 letter brief requesting permission to file a
`motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of claims 1 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190
`(“the ’190 patent”) and summary judgment of indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and lack of
`utility of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,131 (“the ’131 patent”). (See Dkt. No. 123-
`1.) Because there is no merit to Invensys’s arguments, and the claim terms in dispute are capable
`of construction (as described in Micro Motion’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, (Dkt. No.
`124)), Micro Motion respectfully asks that the Court deny Invensys’s request.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`A party seeking to invalidate a patent on the basis of indefiniteness must overcome the
`presumption of validity with clear and convincing evidence. See Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Zydus
`Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 2013-1406, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3072, at *14 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20,
`2014). “Indefiniteness requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would understand
`what is claimed. To make that determination, [the Federal Circuit] explained that ‘[i]n the face
`of an allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of claim construction apply.’” Enzo
`Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Datamize, LLC v.
`Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple
`inquiries. “The first step in construing such a limitation is to identify the function of the means-
`plus-function limitation.” Minks v. Polaris Indus., 546 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). After
`the Court determines the limitation’s function, “the next step is to determine the corresponding
`structure in the written description necessary to perform that function.” Id. Definiteness of a
`§ 112(f) claim “depends on the skill level of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the specification
`
`BOSTON
`BRUSSELS
`CHICAGO
`DETROIT
`
`JACKSONVILLE
`LOS ANGELES
`MADISON
`MIAMI
`
`MILWAUKEE
`NEW YORK
`ORLANDO
`SACRAMENTO
`
`SAN DIEGO
`SAN DIEGO/DEL MAR
`SAN FRANCISCO
`SHANGHAI
`
`SILICON VALLEY
`TALLAHASSEE
`TAMPA
`TOKYO
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`4816-3288-9369.
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 4015
`
`FOLEY & L ARDN ER LLP
`Page 2
`
`need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable
`to an ordinary artisan.” See Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 612 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`2010).
`
`Because Invensys cannot overcome the presumption of validity with clear and convincing
`evidence, the Court should deny Invensys’s request. A motion for summary judgment would be
`futile.
`
`II.
`
`The ’190 Patent Is Not Indefinite
`
`Invensys contends that the claim element “mass flow measurement means,” which is
`found in independent claims 1 and 35 of the ’190 patent, is indefinite because the corresponding
`“mass flow computation” block structure does not include an algorithm to accomplish the stated
`function. Invensys is wrong. The specification of the ’190 patent makes clear that the mass flow
`computation measurements are known in the art, and therefore not indefinite:
`
`The output of each phase computation element is applied to a
`computation element to determine the time difference between the
`enhanced sensor signals and hence the proportional mass flow rate.
`
`(’190 patent at 5:61-64.)
`
`The Δt value is approximately proportional to the mass flow rate of
`the material flowing through the flow tubes of the Coriolis
`flowmeter. Other factors, well known in the art, are used to correct
`the calculated mass flow rate to adjust for temperature variations
`and other factors.
`
`(Id. at 35:26-31.)
`
`As is well known in the art, the Δt value is only approximately
`proportional to the mass flow rate in the flow tubes. Mass flow
`computation element 290 corrects the Δt value to generate the
`mass flow rate and apply it to utilization 292 of FIG. 2 over path
`155. Element 290 performs appropriate corrections and scaling to
`compensate for the effects of temperature and other environmental
`factors.
`
`(Id. at 36:22-32.)
`
`As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand and know how to perform the mass
`flow computation, the claim is not indefinite. See In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir.
`1997) (“While the written description does not disclose exactly what mathematical algorithm
`will be used to compute the end result, it does state that ‘known algorithms’ can be used to solve
`standard equations which are known in the art.”).
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4016
`
`FOLEY & L ARDN ER LLP
`Page 3
`
`III.
`
`The ’131 Patent Is Not Indefinite
`
`The phrase “calculating dot products,” as found in independent claims 1, 13, and 26 of the
`’131 patent, is not indefinite. Invensys’s arguments hinge on its misunderstanding that the
`signals from the sensors that monitor the motion of the flowtube “are defined in units of length
`such as inches.” (Invensys Letter Brief, Dkt. No. 123-1, p. 4.) This is incorrect.
`
`A flowtube moves through a distance as it oscillates. Each pickoff sensor detects the
`motion of the flowtube and outputs an electrical signal representing the motion. The electrical
`signals are time domain signals, described by an amplitude (e.g., an amplitude in volts) at each
`instant in time. After the electrical signals are sampled, the electrical signals are described by a
`sequence of samples, where each sample represents the amplitude of the sensor signal at a
`discrete moment in time in which the sample was taken. Pickoff signals are not described in
`terms of inches, as stated by Invensys.
`
`The content of each electrical signal is predominantly a sinusoid at a resonant frequency
`of the flowtube. The electrical signal also includes other frequencies at low amplitudes, such as
`noise and harmonics, which are generally filtered out. The resonant frequency and the phase
`difference between pickoff sensor signals are used to determine density and mass flow rate.
`
`The content of a pickoff sensor signal predominantly represents oscillation at the resonant
`frequency of the flowtube. Thus, the pickoff sensor signal may be described in terms of cycles
`per second of the resonant frequency. Cycles per second is known as hertz, which are not inches.
`Thus, whether considering the pickoff sensor signals in the time domain (amplitude) or
`frequency domain (frequency, phase), the pickoff sensor signals are not described in terms of
`inches. This misunderstanding of the pickoff sensor signals by Invensys defeats Invensys’s
`description of the dot product used in the demodulation process described in the ’131 patent.
`
`Sensor signals are defined in units of length such as inches.
`Normalized pulsation is measured in radians per sample. Whatever
`“sequences of data” are purported to represent these quantities,
`they necessarily must represent measurements of the same
`characteristic. Instead, the result of the dot product of the values
`Micro Motion proposes would be in inches-radians per sample.”
`This is neither the correct unit for signals (measured in “inches”)
`nor is it the correct unit for center frequency (measured in “cycles
`per second”).
`
`(Invensys Letter Brief, Dkt. 123-1, pp. 4-5 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art who has any understanding of digital signal
`processing and demodulation would understand from the specification of the ’131 patent how
`demodulation, including the use of a dot product, may be implemented in a digital flowmeter. In
`column 10 of the ’131 patent, quadrature demodulation is described to allow for a determination
`of phase difference between pickoff sensor signals.
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 4017
`
`FOLEY & L ARDN ER LLP
`Page 4
`
`As is well known in the art of quadrature demodulation, an input signal at a frequency ‘f’
`is multiplied by a modulation signal including a real-valued in-phase portion and an imaginary-
`valued quadrature phase portion, resulting in a real-valued component ‘I’ and an imaginary-
`valued component ‘Q’. The multiplication is performed in two parts: the input signal is
`multiplied by the in-phase portion to obtain ‘I’, and the input signal is multiplied by the
`quadrature phase portion to obtain ‘Q’.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sine and cosine waves at the
`same frequency are by definition quadrature to each other, and thus can be used as the in-phase
`and quadrature portions of the modulation signal. The ’131 patent describes that “the modulation
`signal is represented in the following manner: ωo=2πFo; where ωo=a pulsation of the modulation
`signal,” (’131 patent at 10:30-35), and Fo, is based on the frequency of flowtube oscillation
`calculated from a pickoff sensor signal. (Id. at 10:11-14; 37-38.) The definition of the pulsation
`of the modulation signal is sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in the art of demodulation to
`determine the pulsating sine and cosine wave portions of the modulation signal to be used in the
`quadrature demodulation.
`
`Because the input signal is in digital form (see, e.g., id. at 10:40, xβ(k)=Acos(ωok+ϕβ),
`where ‘k’ represents the sample number in a sequence of samples and ϕβ represents the phase ϕ
`of the signal from sensor β), the modulation signal is also represented in digital form, Wk. This is
`clearly shown in the first part of the equation in the ’131 patent at 10:45, zβ(k)=WkXβ(k), where
`the ‘k’ represents a sample number in a sequence N of samples, in a well-known notational form
`for digital signals.
`
`The ’131 patent describes quadrature demodulation using a dot product. (’131 patent at
`10:28-30.) The ’131 patent does not purport to have invented the dot product, and thus it was not
`necessary to describe how the known mathematical concept of calculating dot products was
`performed any more that it would have been necessary to describe how the known mathematical
`concept of multiplication or addition was performed. See Mosaid Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., No.
`2:11CV179, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57396, at *43 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2013) (using the dot
`product concept to construe a claim term). The ’131 patent provides all of the information
`necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that a dot product is calculated on the
`sequences of numbers represented by Wk and Xβ(k), where Xβ(k) denotes a digital sequence
`representation of a sensor input signal, (’131 patent at 10:40-41), and Wk denotes a digital
`sequence representation of the demodulation signal. (See, e.g., id. at 9:15, where the real valued
`portion of a modulation signal sequence Wk is given as Wk=cos(ωdk).)
`
`The output of the demodulation is shown at the end of the equation:
`
`A/2{exp(jϕβ)+ exp(-j(2ωok+ϕβ))}. (’131 patent at 10:45.)
`
`The first term, A/2(exp(jϕβ)), illustrates that the pickoff sensor signal frequency and the
`modulation signal frequency cancel each other out (because the modulation frequency is
`determined from the input signal frequency): exp(j((ωo- ωd)k+ϕβ))=exp(j((ωo- ωo)k+ϕβ))
`=exp(jϕβ). The second term, A/2(exp(-j(2ωok+ϕβ))), may be filtered out, such as with a
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 132-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 4018
`
`FOLEY & L ARDN ER LLP
`Page 5
`
`decimation filter. (’131 patent at 10:46-54.) The first term A/2(exp(jϕβ)) provides information
`related to the phase of the corresponding pickoff sensor signal β, and phase information from
`both pickoff sensor signals is used to determine mass flow rate. (’131 patent at 10:55-11:7.)
`
`As can be seen, the ’131 patent provides sufficient detail in the specification for one of
`ordinary skill in the art of demodulation to determine how to implement demodulation in the
`context of calculating a dot product with a digital flowmeter. Therefore, the ’131 patent is not
`indefinite. See, e.g., Enzo Biochem., 599 F.3d at 1332 (If those skilled in the art would
`understand what is claimed, the claim is not indefinite).
`
`Regarding Invensys’s requests in the alternative that the ’131 patent is not enabled or
`lacks utility, Invensys provides no support for these theories. Nevertheless, their inclusion in
`Invensys’s letter brief was improper. The Court’s Fourth Amended Docket Control Order is
`specific that the parties may file a letter brief relating to indefiniteness, but it does not state that
`other invalidity arguments may be filed at this time. (See Dkt. No. 103.) Even so, Invensys’s
`arguments fail for the reasons presented above, and their request should likewise be denied.
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Invensys cannot meet its burden of proof to establish indefiniteness by clear and
`convincing evidence. Accordingly, Micro Motion respectfully asks the Court to deny Invensys’s
`request for permission to file a summary judgment motion of indefiniteness.
`
`cc: all counsel of record (by ECF)
`
`Sincerely,
`/s/ Kadie M. Jelenchick