Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 4747
`Case 6:l2—cv—00799—JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 1 of 18 Page|D #: 4747
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 4748
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 2, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC. and
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC. and
`SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SA,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 4749
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Petitioner filed a petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 6-8,
`13-15, 20, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,505,854 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’854 patent”).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner timely filed a preliminary response. Paper 9
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 2, 14-58):
`Reference(s) Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Miller1
`§ 102(b) 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21
`Romano2
`§ 102(b) 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21
`Romano
`§ 103
`7, 14, and 21
`Kalotay3
`§ 102(b) 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21
`Hori4
`§ 102(b) 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21
`Maginnis5
`§ 102(a) 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21
`
`For the reasons given below, we institute an inter partes review of all
`challenged claims: 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 4,679,947 (issued July 14, 1987) (Ex. 1007) (“Miller”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,934,196 (issued June 19, 1990) (Ex. 1006) (“Romano”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,009,109 (issued Apr. 23, 1991) (Ex. 1008) (“Kalotay”).
`4 JP H07-286880, pub. Oct. 31, 1995 (Ex. 1019) (“Hori”).
`5 WO 2001/69185 A2, pub. Sept. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1011) (“Maginnis”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4750
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`B. Additional Proceedings
`In addition to this petition, Petitioner has filed petitions challenging the
`patentability of certain claims of Patent Owner’s U.S. Patent No. 6,311,136
`(IPR2014-00170), U.S. Patent No. 7,124,646 (IPR2014-00179), and U.S. Patent
`No. 7,136,761 (IPR2014-00178). Pet. 1. Petitioner identifies the ’854 patent as
`involved in a concurrent district court case, Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson
`Electric Co., No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED (E.D. Tex.). Id.
`C. Flowmeter Technology
`As described in the background section of the ’854 patent, Coriolis
`flowmeters seek to measure the flow of material through a tube by taking
`advantage of the Coriolis effect. Ex. 1001, 1:28-36. A driving mechanism applies
`forces to the tube to induce it to oscillate. Id. at 1:46-47. The flowmeter uses
`sensors to measure the twisting of the tube (through the Coriolis effect, explained
`below) and thereby estimate the mass and/or density of the material. See id at
`6:62-64; see also Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Michael D. Sidman) ¶¶ 27-43
`(explaining how Coriolis flowmeters operate). Figures 1-3 of Exhibit 1009,6
`reproduced below, show the Coriolis effect in action:
`
`
`6 Micro Motion, How the Micro Motion® Mass Flow and Density Sensor Works,
`(1990) (“Ex. 1009”).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 4751
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`In Figure 1, an empty tube bent in a horseshoe shape is made to oscillate up
`
`and down; both legs of the tube pass the midpoint of the up-and-down oscillation
`at the same time. Ex. 1009, 1. In Figure 2, fluid now flows in one end of the tube
`and out the other. Id. The tube is depicted as rising, in the upward swing of its
`oscillation. Id. In this moment, the fluid flowing into the first leg of the tube is
`pushed upwards by the rising tube, but resists this motion, due to inertia, and exerts
`a downward force on this leg, holding back the upward rise of this leg. Id. By the
`time the fluid has passed around the bend and into the second leg of the tube,
`however, the fluid has been accelerated upwards by the upward rise of the tube,
`and, thus, pushes upward on the second leg of the rising tube. Id. Figure 3 depicts
`an end view of the tube, and the net result of these forces—a twisting of the tube.
`Id. When the tube moves in its downward swing of its oscillation, the opposite
`twist occurs because the forces are now opposite. Id. The amount of twisting is
`proportional to the mass of the fluid moving through the tube. Id.
`D. The Challenged Patent
`The ’854 patent is titled “Startup Techniques for a Digital Flowmeter” and is
`directed to techniques for selecting an optimal mode of operation for a flowmeter,
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 4752
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`depending on the current operating conditions. Id., Abstr. A known problem with
`Coriolis flowmeters is how to handle situations in which the feedback from the
`sensors is degraded. For example, it may be difficult to determine flow during
`system start up (e.g., when the tube may be only partially full) or when the flowing
`material has variable density (e.g., “two-phase flow”). See id. at 2:2-13; 29:8-24.
`The ’854 patent seeks to address this problem by switching between several
`“modes” of generating drive signals, depending on the operating conditions. Id. at
`3:60-63; see also id. at 2:31-42 (describing some different modes); id. at 29:25-44
`(describing several scenarios in which modes are changed).
`Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claims 6 and 7 depend from
`independent claim 1, claims 13 and 14 depend from independent claim 8, and
`claims 20 and 21 depend from independent claim 15. Independent claim 1 is
`illustrative and reproduced below:
`1. A flowmeter comprising:
`a vibratable flowtube;
`a sensor connected to the flowtube and operable to sense 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.
`E. Claim Construction
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act,7 we interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent. See
`
`
`7 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 4753
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner offer several claim constructions. Pet. 7-14;
`Prelim. Resp. 10-14. We address each proposed construction in turn.
`1.
`“digital transmitter”
`Independent claim 1 recites a “digital transmitter operable to transition the
`flowmeter [between modes].” Independent claim 15 recites a “digital transmitter
`for use with a flowmeter comprising [various structures] . . . , the digital
`transmitter comprising: a processing device configured to transition the flowmeter
`[between modes].” Petitioner proposes the limitation “digital transmitter” means
`“all electronics between the driver and the sensor.” Pet. 9-10. Patent Owner
`proposes the limitation “digital transmitter” means “a transmitter that operates in
`the digital domain to generate a drive signal.” Prelim. Resp. 14. We adopt neither
`construction.
`The specification does not provide an explicit definition of “digital
`transmitter.” The broadest reasonable construction of the limitation, however, is
`manifest in its plain meaning and context within the claims. We agree with Patent
`Owner that a “digital transmitter” is simply “a transmitter that operates in the
`digital domain” (i.e., its plain meaning). We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s
`additional proposed language, “to generate a drive signal,” because the claims
`merely require the digital transmitter to “transition the flowmeter” between drive
`signal generating modes, not generate the drive signals themselves. As such, for
`purposes of this decision, we construe a “digital transmitter” to mean “a transmitter
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 4754
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`that operates in the digital domain.”
`2.
`“system disturbance”
`The term “system disturbance” is found in all claims. In each claim, the
`flowmeter is transitioned between drive signal generating modes “in response to
`detecting a system disturbance associated with the flowmeter.” Petitioner proposes
`this term means “something that ‘causes the flowmeter (measurements) to become
`unstable’ or that may ‘degrade or interrupt an operation of the flowmeter.’” Pet.
`12 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:16-29). Patent Owner does not discuss this term in its
`claim construction section. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`construction. The specification does not define the term and Petitioner’s
`construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the term’s
`usage in the specification.
`3.
`“drive signal generating mode”
`The term “drive signal generating mode” is found in all claims. In
`independent claim 1, the digital transmitter transitions the flowmeter from one
`drive signal generating mode to another upon detecting a system disturbance.
`Independent claim 15 is similar to independent claim 1 in this regard. Both of
`these claims recite that a driver connected to the flowtube imparts energy to the
`flowtube by way of a drive signal. Independent claim 8 is similar, but does not
`require any particular entity to perform the transition or to drive the flowtube.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner propose similar constructions. Petitioner
`proposes: “a mode of generating a drive signal that is used to initiate or maintain
`oscillation of the flowtube.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner proposes: “a way of generating
`a drive signal.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Patent Owner, however, then sets forth a
`number of caveats, such that changes in amplitude or gain are not changes in a
`“drive signal generating mode.” See id. at 10-13.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 4755
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, but decline to adopt Patent
`Owner’s caveats, because they attempt to import limitations from particular
`embodiments of the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims specifically recite that a driver imparts energy
`to the flowtube by way of a drive signal. Thus, the drive signal is what the driver
`uses to impart energy to the flowtube. A signal, therefore, cannot be a drive signal
`unless the driver uses the signal to impart energy to the flowtube. Accordingly, a
`drive signal is generated only when it is a signal that reaches the drivers and is
`used by the driver to impart energy to the flowtube. A different drive signal
`generating mode is characterized by a different way in which the drive signal is
`generated.8
`Patent Owner argues that “merely changing the parameters in a method for
`generating a drive signal is not changing the mode of generating the drive signal.”
`Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner uses amplitude or gain as examples of parameters.
`Id. We agree with Patent Owner that merely changing the parameters in a method
`for generating a drive signal is not the same as changing modes. Patent Owner,
`however, focuses on the signal created (i.e., the generated result) rather than the
`way in which that signal was created (i.e., the generating mode). Patent Owner’s
`interpretation reads out its own preferred embodiments, in which a change in
`amplitude or gain delineates a change in mode. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, fig. 19C
`(showing different gains used in different modes), id. at fig. 19F (showing different
`amplitudes of drive signals corresponding to different modes). Accordingly, the
`focus of determining whether a transition from one mode to another occurred
`
`8 See, e.g., “mode”: “a manner or way of doing, acting, or existing.” Collins
`English Dictionary (2000), available at http://search.credoreference.com/
`content/entry/hcengdict/mode/0.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 4756
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`should be on the way the drive signal is generated, rather than the difference
`between signals.
`In summary, for purposes of this decision, we construe a “drive signal
`generating mode” as “a way of generating a drive signal.”
`4.
`“positive feedback mode”
`The limitation “positive feedback mode” is found in dependent claims 6, 13,
`and 20. Petitioner’s proposed construction for this term is: “drive signals
`generated on the basis of sensor signal analysis” wherein the drive signal “includes
`components of a sensor signal detected by the sensor and fed back to the driver.”
`Pet. 13-14 (emphasis removed) (citing Ex. 1001, 4:5-6, 31-33). Patent Owner does
`not address this limitation in its claim construction section. The term is not defined
`in the specification. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s construction, because it appears to be the broadest reasonable
`interpretation consistent with the term’s usage in the specification.
`5.
`“digital synthesis mode”
`The limitation “digital synthesis mode” is found in dependent claims 7, 14,
`and 21. Petitioner proposes the term be construed as “drive signals generated on
`the basis of sensor signal analysis” wherein the drive signal “is synthesized by the
`control and measurement system based on an analysis of the sensor signal.” Pet.
`13-14 (emphasis removed) (citing Ex. 1001, 4:14-15). Patent Owner does not
`address this limitation in its claim construction section. The term is not defined in
`the specification. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we adopt
`Petitioner’s construction, because it appears to be the broadest reasonable
`interpretation consistent with the description of synthesizing a drive signal in the
`specification.
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 4757
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Overview
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 of the ’854 patent
`are anticipated and obvious over the prior art cited in the table above. In support of
`its positions, Petitioner presents the Declaration of Dr. Michael D. Sidman
`(Ex. 1002), who states that he has experience in the field of “motor, motion and
`servo control systems.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 6. We have reviewed the proposed grounds
`and supporting evidence in view of Patent Owner’s preliminary response. We
`address each of Petitioner’s grounds challenging claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21
`of the ’854 patent in turn.
`B. The Miller Ground
`Petitioner asserts that Miller anticipates claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`1.
`Overview of Miller (Ex. 1007)
`Miller describes a flow-through densitometer. Ex. 1007, Abstr. The
`densitometer has a computer programmed to cause a vibrator to vibrate tubes and
`to monitor a transducer to detect the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations.
`Id.; see also id. at fig. 4. Initially, the computer sweeps a wide band of frequencies
`(e.g., 2,700 Hz to 4,500 Hz) in order to determine the fundamental or resonant
`frequency of the system. Id. at 13:3-7, 12:29-33. Once that is accomplished, the
`computer narrows the band to cover, e.g., +/- 10 Hz on either side of the
`fundamental frequency. Id. at 13:14-18. In the event of a “rapid, high magnitude
`fluctuation of fluid density,” the computer is programmed to re-enter the wide band
`mode to seek the new fundamental frequency. Id. at 13:22-32.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 4758
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of the Miller Ground
`a.
`Petitioner’s Proposed Ground
`With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Petitioner asserts that the
`claimed flowtube, driver, sensor, and digital transmitter read on Miller’s flowtube,
`vibrator, transducer, and computer, respectively. Pet. 14-16, 19-20. Petitioner
`asserts the recited “first drive signal generating mode” reads on the narrow band
`mode of Miller, and that the recited “second drive signal generating mode” reads
`on Miller’s wide band mode. Id. at 17-18, 20-21. Petitioner asserts that Miller
`transitions between these modes when the computer of Miller (digital transmitter)
`detects a “rapid, high magnitude fluctuation of fluid density” (system disturbance).
`Id. at 18, 21.
`With respect to dependent claims 6, 13, and 20, Petitioner asserts that Miller
`describes a “positive feedback mode” as claimed. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1007,
`14:49-57); Ex. 1007, 14:49-57 (“[S]train gauge output is also fed into the computer
`. . . .”). With respect to dependent claims 7, 14, and 21, Petitioner asserts that
`Miller describes a “digital synthesis mode” as claimed. Id. at 21-22 (quoting Ex.
`1007, 12:21-25) (“[T]he computer can control the frequency of the field . . . .”).
`b.
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent Owner first argues that Miller discloses a densitometer, not a
`flowmeter. Prelim. Resp. 28. The ’854 patent, however, states, “flowmeters”
`include “mass flowmeters” and “density flowmeters, or densitometers.” Ex. 1001,
`1:28-34, 7:7-9. We are persuaded that the densitometer in Miller is a density
`flowmeter. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 114 (“[A] densitometer is one type of flowmeter
`. . . .”).
`Patent Owner argues that Miller only discloses one drive signal generating
`mode, not two, because Miller merely changes the endpoints of the frequency
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 4759
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`sweep. Prelim. Resp. 29-31. Patent Owner’s argument does not ascribe the
`broadest reasonable interpretation to “drive signal generating mode,” because
`Patent Owner improperly focuses on the difference in the signal rather than the
`difference in the way the signal is generated. Miller describes two distinct ways of
`generating a drive signal: narrow band and wide band. The computer is
`programmed to generate drive signals according to the narrow band way or the
`wide band way, and will continue to do so until certain conditions are met. See Ex.
`1007, 13:22-33. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive.
`In view of the above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that Miller anticipates claims
`1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`C. The Hori Ground
`Petitioner asserts that Hori anticipates claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`Overview of Hori (Ex. 10109)
`1.
`Hori describes a Coriolis flowmeter for measuring mass flow in systems
`with entrained gas. See Ex. 1010, Abstr. The flowmeter includes a sensor tube
`vibrated by an excitation coil, which receives one of two types of drive signals. Id.
`A changeover switch is used to switch between two wave signal generating
`circuits, to accommodate for disturbances measured with sensor signals. Id. at
`¶¶ 58, 69, 71-72.
`
`
`9 Exhibit 1010 is the English-language translation of Hori. See Ex. 1010, 13
`(notarized copy of certificate of translation). We will refer to this exhibit, rather
`than exhibit 1019, which is the Japanese Patent Office publication of Hori.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 4760
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of the Hori Ground
`a.
`Petitioner’s Proposed Ground
`Petitioner asserts that the claimed flowtube, sensor, driver, and digital
`transmitter read on the sensor tubes, pick-ups, vibrators, and microcomputer of
`Hori, respectively. Pet. 46. Petitioner asserts that Hori transitions from a
`sinusoidal wave drive signal mode to a rectangular wave drive signal mode, in
`response to air bubbles (system disturbance). Id. at 43-45.
`b.
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Patent Owner argues that
`the device of Hori always generates both drive signals; there is merely a
`changeover of which one actually reaches the flowtube. Prelim. Resp. 43-44. As
`we discussed above, however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “drive
`signal generating mode” is “a way of generating a drive signal” and the “drive
`signal” is the signal that the driver uses to impart energy to the tube. Accordingly,
`we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that “drive signal generating mode” reads
`on the two different drive signals described in Hori.
`With respect to dependent claims 7, 14, and 21, Patent Owner argues that
`Hori does not disclose a “digital synthesis mode.” Id. at 44-45. Specifically,
`Patent Owner argues that Hori only discloses excitation signals supplied to the
`driver coil, and that Petitioner’s assertion is “based solely on the fact that a
`microcomputer controls a switch.” Id. Petitioner, however, discusses how Hori
`discloses a signal created using a microprocessor that analyzes a sensor signal.
`Pet. 48-49 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 91, 95, 103). These findings closely comport with
`Petitioner’s claim construction, which we adopted for purposes of this decision
`because it is consistent with the description of synthesizing a drive signal in the
`specification of the ’854 patent. Patent Owner does not offer credible evidence or
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 4761
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`explanation as to why Petitioner’s claim construction is improper. Based on this
`record, we are persuaded that Petitioner presents sufficient evidence to support a
`finding that Hori discloses the claimed “digital synthesis mode.”
`In view of the above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that Hori anticipates claims 1,
`6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`D. The Maginnis Ground
`Petitioner asserts that Maginnis anticipates claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`1.
`Overview of Maginnis (Ex. 1011)
`Maginnis describes a Coriolis flowmeter having a vibratable flowtube, a
`driver, pick-off sensors, and meter electronics. Ex. 1011, 3:18-30.10 The meter
`electronics operate the flowmeter according to several defined states. Id. at 24:32-
`25:5; fig. 13. The meter changes between states depending on various sensor
`signals, wherein different states dictate different drive control functions. See, e.g.,
`id. at 29:21-30:2 (describing the proportional-integral (“PI”) drive control function,
`executed in state 1312); 27:1-9 (describing a closed-loop feedback “kick process”).
`2.
`Analysis of the Maginnis Ground
`a.
`Petitioner’s Proposed Ground
`Petitioner asserts that the claimed flowtube, sensor, driver, and digital
`transmitter read on the flowtubes, pick-off sensors, driver, and digital signal
`processor of Maginnis, respectively. Pet. 50-51, 55-56. Petitioner asserts that
`Maginnis transitions from a normal mode to a kick mode to re-stabilize the device
`in the event of certain conditions, such as two-phase flow (a system disturbance).
`Id. at 52-54.
`
`10 Our citations to Maginnis are to the page number of the reference, not the page
`number stamped on the exhibit.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 4762
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`b.
`Patent Owner’s arguments are similar to those addressed above in our
`discussion of the Miller and Hori grounds. For example, Patent Owner argues that,
`per se, gain changes are not mode changes, but this argument is unpersuasive
`because it does not address the broadest reasonable interpretation of “drive signal
`generating mode.” See Prelim. Resp. 45-46. Patent Owner argues, with respect to
`dependent claims 7, 14, and 21, that Maginnis does not disclose a digital synthesis
`mode. Id. at 46-47. This argument is unpersuasive in view of Petitioner’s
`assertions that Maginnis discloses a digital signal processor that “executes
`instructions for the drive algorithm.” Pet. 57-58 (citing Ex. 1011, 3:18-21).
`In view of the above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that Maginnis anticipates
`claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21.
`E. The Remaining Grounds
`We conclude that the remaining grounds are redundant in view of the above
`grounds on which we institute an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`For this reason, we do not authorize an inter partes review of claims 1, 6-8, 13-15,
`20, and 21 on the remaining grounds based on Romano and Kalotay.
`
`III. SUMMARY
`Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood it will
`prevail on its challenge to the patentability of claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 of
`the ʼ854 patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 4763
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is:
`ORDERED that an inter partes review of the ’854 patent is instituted
`
`as to claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 on the following grounds proposed in the
`petition:
`A. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 as anticipated by Miller;
`B. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 as anticipated by Hori;
`C. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 as anticipated by Maginnis;
`FURTHER ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted on
`any other grounds proposed in the petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter
`partes review of the ʼ854 patent is instituted commencing on the entry date of this
`Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of
`the institution of a trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 160-5 Filed 06/04/14 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 4764
`IPR2014-00167
`Patent 7,505,854
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Jeffrey N. Costakos
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`abaluch@foley.com
`jcostakos@foley.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`James M. Heintz
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`Invensys_Micro_IPR@dlapiper.com
`Jeffrey.johnson@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`17