Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 4364
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 6:12-cv-799-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`v.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 4365
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`“Configured to” and “operable to” and variants thereof......................................................1
`
`Control Terms ......................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`Transition terms ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`2.
`
`“Determine the flow rate during a transition” and variants thereof............ 2
`“Maintains oscillation during a transition” and variants thereof,
`and “during an onset”.................................................................................. 3
`“In response to detecting a system disturbance” and variants
`thereof ......................................................................................................... 4
`Drive Control Terms............................................................................................... 5
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`“In response to the extent to which the flowtube is filled by the
`fluid flow”................................................................................................... 5
`“Second drive signal is different from the first drive signal” ..................... 5
`2.
`Mode terms ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Digital synthesis mode” ............................................................................ 7
`1.
`“Positive feedback mode”........................................................................... 8
`2.
`Digital System Terms ..........................................................................................................8
`
`III.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Input module,” “output module,” and “processing devices” ................................ 8
`
`“A digital control system” ...................................................................................... 9
`
`IV.
`
`Data Collection Terms .........................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Data for a complete cycle of the periodic sensor” ................................................ 9
`
`“Zero offset” ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................10
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 4366
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific International, Inc.,
`214 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................... 3
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize Prods. Co.,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................................. 6
`Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker,
`329 U.S. 1 (1946)................................................................................................................ 1
`Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc.,
`600 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................... 3
`Intel Corp. v. ITC,
`946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................. 3
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)........................................................................... 5
`SIPCO, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:08-CV-359-JRG, 2012 WL 5195942 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2012).......................... 1, 2
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)........................................................................................... 1
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4367
`
`Defendants’ proposed claim constructions are replete with logical fallacies, strained
`
`efforts to read new limitations into the claims, and are inconsistent with both Federal Circuit
`precedent and numerous district court decisions (including decisions from this Court).1
`I.
`“Configured to” and “operable to” and variants thereof
`
`Defendants ignore both the numerous district court opinions holding that “configured to”
`
`and “operable to” are not means-plus-function limitations and Invensys’s argument that their
`
`proposed construction improperly attempts to make infringement turn on the use to which the
`
`accused product is put. See Pl.’s Opening Claim Constr. Br. at 8-9, ECF No. 122. Tellingly,
`
`instead of addressing Invensys’s authority, Defendants raise a variety of arguments that are
`
`inconsistent with established precedent or are based on overruled or inapplicable case law.
`
`First, Defendants contend that the terms “configured to” and “operable to” must be
`
`means-plus-function limitations because giving these terms their full scope could cover
`
`embodiments that are not discussed in the specification or that may not have been contemplated
`
`by the inventors. Contrary to Defendants’ position, however, it is well settled that a patent’s
`
`specification does not need to describe every possible embodiment of the invention. See SRI Int’l
`
`v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121-22 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Second, as Defendants’ candidly admit in their letter brief on indefiniteness, ECF No.
`
`121-1, at 5, and as explained in Invensys’s response, ECF No. 131-1, at 4-5, the Federal Circuit
`
`has rejected Defendants’ interpretation of Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329
`
`U.S. 1 (1946). Halliburton Oil simply does not support Defendants’ position.
`
`Finally, Defendants reliance on SIPCO, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-359-
`
`JRG, 2012 WL 5195942, at *56 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2012), is perplexing since the SIPCO court
`
`(like Invensys) “construe[d] ‘configured to’ as having its plain and ordinary meaning.” And
`
`1 The parties appear to have reached agreement on the terms “PI control algorithm” and “collect
`data corresponding to a subsequent cycle of the sensor signal simultaneously with processing
`the data for the current cycle.” Invensys also agrees with Defendants’ definition of “during a
`transition,” but notes that in ordinary parlance the word “throughout” does not categorically
`exclude any pauses or interruptions.
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 4368
`
`unlike the patentee in SIPCO, Invensys agrees that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“configured to” entails “being actually configured.” Id. Defendants also ignore the fact that
`
`SIPCO did not address the term “operable to.” Nevertheless, although the terms “configured to”
`
`and “operable to” are not necessarily interchangeable, Invensys does not dispute that in order to
`
`be “operable to” the accused product must be capable of performing the claimed element. This is
`
`simply part of the ordinary meaning of this term.
`
`II.
`
`Control Terms
`
`A.
`
`Transition terms
`
`“Determine the flow rate during a transition” and variants thereof
`1.
`Essentially, Defendants argue that because Invensys’s patent claims a digital drive
`
`Coriolis flowmeter that determines the flow rate more accurately than prior art analog drive
`
`flowmeters, the claims are limited to a perfect, 100% accurate, completely error free flowmeter.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is facially unreasonable.
`
`Defendants’ interpretation of the specification is similarly insupportable. Defendants
`
`compare the error rate of analog drive flowmeters at high flowrates with the error rate of the
`
`patented digital drive flowmeters at low flow rates. See Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 3, ECF
`
`No. 137. There is no evidence that a skilled artisan (or a layman of ordinary common sense)
`
`would interpret the “determining the flowrate” element by comparing the patented flowmeters to
`
`prior art flowmeters under different operating conditions. In fact, under identical conditions the
`
`patented flowmeters always have lower error rates than analog flowmeters. See ʼ646 Pat. Fig. 44
`
`& 52:6-11. Again, Defendants’ argument is completely untenable.
`
`As discussed in detail in Invensys’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 122, at
`
`11-12, the specification shows a comparison of the error rate between the patented digital drive
`
`Coriolis flowmeter and prior art analog drive flowmeters, but none of the intrinsic evidence
`
`indicates that the patented flowmeter provides perfectly accurate measurements with no error
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 4369
`
`rate at all.2 This term is not indefinite merely because it lacks precise mathematical boundaries.
`See Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`In addition, Defendants argue that without construing this term to require perfection, the
`
`claims of the ’646 patent do not distinguish over the prior art. See Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br.
`
`at 2-3, ECF No. 137. But the specification explains that analog drive flowmeters failed during
`
`transitions from empty-to-full. See ’646 Pat. 56:32-33 (stating that when transitioning from
`
`empty-to-full “the analog control system stalls, and is unable to provide measurement data”); see
`
`also id. Fig 48A & 57:13-45. Likewise, Figures 40A to 40H show the “stall point of Foxboro’s
`
`analogue transmitter” (the vertical bar 4000), demonstrating that “traditional analog meters tend
`
`to stall in the presence of low levels of aeration.” Id. at 48:45-46. Also noticeably absent from
`
`Dr. Direen’s experiment or declaration is any statement
`
`that
`
`the flowmeter
`
`returned
`
`measurements during the transition, and the behavior of the sensor signal at those points suggests
`
`that it did not. See Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. Ex F. at 0:30-0:37, 0:53-1:04, 1:18-1:26, ECF
`
`No. 137.
`
`2.
`
`“Maintains oscillation during a transition” and variants thereof, and
`“during an onset”
`a. “Maintains oscillation:” Precedent forecloses Defendants’ argument that “maintains
`
`oscillation” cannot be given its plain and ordinary meaning because analog drive flowmeters
`
`were also able to maintain oscillation during a transition (at least under some circumstances). As
`
`explained in detail in Invensys’s response to Defendants’ letter brief on indefiniteness, ECF No.
`
`131-1, at 3, there is simply no requirement that every (or even any) element of a claimed
`
`invention be distinct from the prior art. See Intel Corp. v. ITC, 946 F.2d 821, 842 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991). (For this reason, most of Defendants’ briefing on this term is simply irrelevant.)
`
`2 Defendants’ reliance on Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific International, Inc., 214
`F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000), is misplaced. In Elekta, the court concluded that the unambiguous
`language of the claim coupled with clear statements in the prosecution history required
`adopting a construction that excluded the sole embodiment in the specification. See id. at 1308.
`Nothing in the intrinsic record supports Defendants’ construction.
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 4370
`
`Tellingly, Defendants also ignore many of the arguments in Invensys’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief. For example, while the patents indisputably disclose embodiments that use
`
`setpoints, the specification also expressly states that setpoints are not required. See ʼ761 Pat.
`
`2:48-51. Thus, setpoints are not required by the patents’ claims.
`
`b. “During an onset:” Defendants also fail to refute Invensys’s argument that their
`
`construction of “during an onset” would encompass any period of time before the flowmeter is
`
`put into operation (e.g., during manufacture or shipment). While this hypothetical is “absurd,”
`
`that is precisely the problem with Defendants’ construction: It covers an absurd situation that
`
`even Defendants’ tacitly acknowledge is not covered by the claims.
`
`“In response to detecting a system disturbance” and variants thereof
`3.
`Once again, Defendants’ argument is premised on a forced reading of the specification.
`
`All the disputed claims require changing to a new mode when a system disturbance occurs. See,
`
`e.g., ʼ854 Pat. 34:1-4. In turn, the ʼ854 patent’s specification states that the system will switch to
`
`a different mode when it becomes unstable. See id. at 29:15-28. This occurs when there is “some
`
`external disturbance to the system,” “some unanticipated object/material that flows through the
`
`flowtube,” or “conditions such as two-phase and/or three-phase flow” arise. Id. at 29:19-22.
`
`Even though the claims and the specification do not use absolutely identical language (i.e.,
`
`“system disturbance” versus “unstable”), a skilled artisan (and a layman of ordinary common
`
`sense) would understand that the examples in the specification are intended to illustrate different
`
`types of undesirable changes that will trigger the change to a new operating mode required in the
`
`claims. Defendants also fail to address the other problems with their construction, such as
`
`inserting the word “ascertaining,” and their efforts to improperly limit the claims by the use to
`
`which the accused product is put.
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 4371
`
`B.
`
`Drive Control Terms
`
`1.
`
`“In response to the extent to which the flowtube is filled by the fluid
`flow”
`Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Invensys has never stated that this term has no
`
`meaning. See Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 10, ECF No. 137. That a term is understandable
`
`to layman (and thus does not require construction) does not make it meaningless. See Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`In addition to mischaracterizing Invensys’s brief, Defendants’ construction is a blatant
`
`attempt to read extraneous limitations into the claims. For example, Defendants seem to argue
`
`that the claim must be construed to specifically describe how the flowmeter responds to the
`
`amount of fluid in the flowtube. See Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 10-11, ECF No. 137. The
`
`claims simply do not require a specific threshold for responding to the amount of fluid in the
`
`flowtube, nor do they mandate a particular response.
`
`Finally, Defendants’ rely on a contorted reading of the claim and specification. Claim 6
`
`requires “adjusting the drive gain to maintain oscillation in response to the extent to which the
`
`flowtube is filled by fluid flow.” ʼ906 Pat. 54:34-36. The sequence of events covered by this
`
`claim is straightforward: When the amount of fluid in the flowtube could potentially interfere
`
`with the flowtube’s oscillation, the drive gain is adjusted to ensure that the flowtube will
`
`continue oscillating. Similarly, the specification explains how aeration (i.e., the presence of air in
`
`the flowtube, which necessarily relates to the extent of fluid in the flowtube) can cause stalls and
`
`discusses how adjusting the drive gain can prevent stalls. See id. at 46:20-23, 46:48-58.
`
`“Second drive signal is different from the first drive signal”
`2.
`Although Defendants’ devote substantial space in their brief to this term, their argument
`
`is easily refuted. The claims only require a “second drive signal [that] is different from the first
`
`drive signal.” ʼ062 Pat. 59:23-24, 60:26-28. Defendants seek to insert an additional limitation—
`
`“a different mode”—that does not appear in the claims and is not mandated by the specification.
`
`In fact, the lengthy quotations on which Defendants rely actually defeat their argument. For
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 4372
`
`example, the very first line of Defendants’ first block quote states that: “In general, the control
`
`and measurement system may initiate motion of the conduit by using a first mode of signal
`
`generation to generate the drive signal, and may sustain motion of the conduit using a second
`
`mode of signal generation to generate the drive signal.” Id. at 4:38-42 (emphasis added). The
`
`emphasized language demonstrates that the subsequent discussion merely describes a particular
`
`embodiment. Similarly, Defendants’ second block quote (which does not use the word “mode”)
`
`specifically refers to “one implementation.” Id. at 21:7-8. This embodiment also uses different
`
`drive gains to initiate and then sustain the flowtube’s motion, which constitutes the different
`
`drive signals required by the claims without requiring different “modes.” In addition, claim 16 of
`
`the patent requires a first and second “mode” of signal generation, while claims 40 and 45 do
`
`not. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 911 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Defendants impermissible attempts to read extraneous limitations into the claims and should be
`
`rejected.
`
`C.
`
`Mode terms
`
`As an initial matter, it may be helpful to discuss the differences between “digital
`
`synthesis mode” and “positive feedback mode” as those terms are used in the ʼ854 patent. The
`
`sensor signals from the flowtubes typically include both a component at the resonant frequency
`
`as well as noise. See, e.g., ʼ854 Pat. 2:19-22, 8:65-9:1, 10:25-34, 14:30-39, 21:1-9, 28:62-29:5. In
`
`positive feedback mode, the sensor signal, including at least some of the unwanted noise, is
`
`multiplied by a gain factor. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 5 & 8:56-9:1, 12:31-44, 13:24-26. In digital
`
`synthesis mode, the controller essentially starts from scratch and creates a drive signal waveform
`
`(e.g., a pure sine wave), which has the desired frequency and amplitude. See id. at Fig. 7 &
`
`15:23-43. Because the drive signal is created essentially from scratch in digital synthesis mode, it
`
`will not contain the measured noise. This allows digital synthesis mode to provide a more
`
`precisely tailored drive signal than positive feedback mode. See id. at 8:56-9:1. Thus, the
`
`difference between “digital synthesis mode” and “positive feedback mode” is how the drive
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 4373
`
`signal is created, not what is actually output. See id. at 3:3-12; see also id. at Fig. 5 (positive
`
`feedback mode); id. at Fig. 7 (digital synthesis mode).
`
`“Digital synthesis mode”
`1.
`Invensys’s construction of “digital synthesis mode” reflects the disclosures in the
`
`specification. Digital
`
`synthesis mode simply creates a drive signal with the desired
`
`characteristics. See id. Fig. 7 & 8:56-9:1, 15:23-43.
`
`Defendants propose an alternative construction of “digital synthesis mode” as “a mode in
`
`which the digital transmitter digitally creates a new waveform as the drive signal based on an
`
`analysis of the sensor signal rather than feeding back processed components of the sensor signal
`
`as the drive signal.” Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 17, ECF No. 137. Defendants’ new
`
`proposed construction is still deficient, however.
`
`First, the phrase “based on an analysis of the sensor signal” in Defendants’ construction
`
`is redundant. Claims 7 and 21 of the ’854 patent already require the drive signal created during
`
`digital synthesis mode to be based on “the analysis of the sensor signal.” ʼ854 Pat. 34:24-25,
`
`36:16-17. Repeating this element would be unnecessary at best and confusing at worst.
`
`Second, the negative limitation “rather than feeding back processed components of the
`
`sensor signal” is also unnecessary and confusing. Giving the terms “digital synthesis mode” and
`
`“positive feedback mode” different definitions (which Invensys agrees is appropriate) will
`
`sufficiently distinguish these terms without the risk that additional verbiage will confuse the jury.
`
`Finally, although Defendants have clarified what they mean by a “new” waveform, their
`
`argument still produces more confusion than clarity and lacks support in the specification.
`
`Defendants argue that “the waveform must be a new waveform with respect to the sensor signal
`
`under analysis.” Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 17, ECF No. 137. But this does not explain the
`
`extent to which the synthesized drive signal must differ from the sensor signal and only invites a
`
`semantic debate about whether any given waveform is “new” or whether
`
`it
`
`includes
`
`“components” of the sensor signal. In fact, even under Defendants’ proposed construction of
`
`“digital synthesis mode” the new drive signal must be based on an “analysis” of the sensor
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 4374
`
`signal. And the passages from the ʼ854 patent’s specification Defendants cite merely state that
`
`the drive signal is created digitally, without precluding the synthesized drive signal from
`
`resembling the sensor signal in any way. See ʼ854 Pat. 8:59-61, 15:29-32, 18:35-36. Figure 10B
`
`does include a step labelled “synthesize a new wave,” but the accompanying discussion does not
`
`suggest that the new waveform and the sensor signal must be entirely distinct. See id. at 18:35-
`
`36.
`
`“Positive feedback mode”
`2.
`Like its construction of “digital synthesis mode,” Invensys’s construction of “positive
`
`feedback mode” is in accord with the disclosures in the specification. In positive feedback mode,
`
`the sensor signal is simply processed (e.g., calculations or operations are performed on it) to
`
`generate the drive signal. See, e.g., id. Fig. 5 & 8:56-9:1, 12:31-44, 13:24-26.
`
`Defendants propose an alternative construction of “positive feedback mode” as “a mode
`
`in which the drive signal includes processed components of a sensor signal detected by the
`
`sensor and fed back to the driver rather than digitally creating a new waveform as the drive
`
`signal based on an analysis of the sensor signal.” Defs.’ Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 19, ECF No.
`
`137. Like its new construction of “digital synthesis mode,” however, Defendants’ new
`
`construction of “positive feedback mode” is also defective. As set forth above in the discussion
`
`of “digital synthesis mode,” Defendants’ negative “rather than” limitation is confusing and
`
`unnecessary. See supra Part II.C.1.
`
`III.
`
`Digital System Terms
`
`A.
`
`“Input module,” “output module,” and “processing devices”
`
`Invensys has already refuted Defendants’ arguments that the terms “input module,”
`
`“output module,” and “processing device” are indefinite at length in its response to Defendants’
`
`letter brief on indefiniteness, ECF No. 131-1, at 1-3. In sum, numerous decisions have rejected
`
`Defendants’ argument, dictionaries provide structural definitions of these terms, the specification
`
`discloses devices that correspond to the claimed “input” and “output modules,” and a skilled
`
`artisan would understand that a “processing device” is a processor.
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 4375
`
`B.
`
`“A digital control system”
`
`Defendants’ argument ignores Invensys’s explanation that in a “digital control system”
`
`both measurement and control are processed digitally. See Pl.’s Opening Claim Constr. Br. at 25,
`
`ECF No. 122; see also ʼ906 Pat. 2:10-13, 12:14-15. Although the digital control system’s input
`
`devices are analog (which will be true in virtually any digital device), the ʼ906 patent requires
`
`measurement and control of the flowmeter to be performed digitally (i.e., the control system
`
`operates in the digital domain).
`
`IV.
`
`Data Collection Terms
`
`A.
`
`“Data for a complete cycle of the periodic sensor”
`
`Defendants appear to argue that although the patented Coriolis flowmeter can sample and
`
`store data for more than one cycle, it can never process data for more than one cycle. See Defs.’
`
`Resp. Claim Constr. Br. at 24, ECF No. 137. On its face, this is a non sequitur. That data can be
`
`sampled and stored for more than one cycle does not mean that data cannot be processed for
`
`more than one cycle. In fact, the opposite inference is more rational (i.e., if the flowmeter can
`
`sample and store data for more than one cycle, it can also process data for more than one cycle).
`
`This is even confirmed by the portions of the specification Defendants cite. For example,
`
`the specification states: “[C]alculations are based on complete but overlapping cycles. Each
`
`cycle starts at a zero crossing point, halfway through the previous cycle.” ʼ062 Pat. 37:36-39.
`
`Likewise, in some implementations calculations are performed on cycles that “overlap by 180°
`
`or other amounts (e.g., 90°) so that a cycle is subsumed within the cycles that precede and follow
`
`it.” Id. at 12:53-55. These embodiments would be completely impossible under Defendants’
`
`construction since their construction requires processing “data for one and only one complete
`
`cycle.” That is, performing calculations using data from overlapping cycles necessarily entails
`
`using data for more than one cycle. Far from being red herrings or supporting Defendants’
`
`construction,
`
`these portions of
`
`the specification prove beyond doubt
`
`that Defendants’
`
`construction of “data for a complete cycle of the periodic sensor” is wrong.
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 4376
`
`B.
`
`“Zero offset”
`
`Although Defendants profess confusion about Invensys’s explanation of a “zero offset,”
`
`the parties actually appear to understand the usual meaning of this term in the same way. That is,
`
`when a measurement instrument (such as a flowmeter) is operating without a measureable
`
`amount of whatever it is designed to measure, it should not produce a measurement (i.e., it
`
`should read zero). Nevertheless, the instrument may (for a variety of reasons) measure a value
`
`greater than zero. This is a simple explanation of the zero offset.
`
`Defendants then attempt to import additional limitations into the usual use of this term
`
`that are once again directly contradicted by the specification. The primary error in Defendants’
`
`construction is their insistence that the zero offset must be an average of the measured amplitude.
`
`But the ʼ062 patent discloses additional factors that impact the zero offset. The “average
`
`measured amplitude of the signal” refers to the signal received from the sensors. But the ʼ062
`
`patent notes that zero offset can arise not only from the sensors, but from the pre-amplification
`
`circuitry, the A/D convertors, and the differential circuitry, which are part of the control and
`
`measurement system. See ʼ062 Pat. 16:48-53.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in Invensys’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief, the Court should adopt Invensys’s proposed constructions.
`
`Dated: April 18, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`State Bar No. 21671300
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`State Bar No. 24029638
`Dawn M. Jenkins
`State Bar No. 24074484
`DLA PIPER LLP
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.425.8400
`Facsimile: 713.425.8401
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 147 Filed 04/18/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 4377
`
`Claudia.Frost@dlapiper.com
`Jeffrey.Johnson@dlapiper.com
`Dawn.Jenkins@dlapiper.com
`
`Nicholas G. Papastavros
`Daniel Rosenfeld
`DLA PIPER LLP
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: 617.406.6000
`Facsimile: 617.406.6100
`Nick.Papastavros@dlapiper.com
`Daniel.Rosenfeld@dlapiper.com
`
`Todd S. Patterson
`DLA PIPER LLP
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Telephone: 512.457.7017
`Facsimile: 512.721.2217
`todd.patterson@dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on April 18, 2014, all counsel of record who are deemed to
`have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the
`Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served
`by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail.
`
`/s/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`
`EAST\74868091.10
`
`11