Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 6005
`Case 6:l2—cv—00799—JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 24 Page|D #: 6005
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 6006
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: August 4, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`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 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 6007
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Petitioner filed a corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 12, 13, 23–25, 29, 30, 36, 40, 43, and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’062 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner timely filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`“unless . . . 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:
`
`Reference(s)
`Derby1
`Romano2
`Freeman3
`Miller4
`Kalotay5
`
`Kalotay and “Printed
`Publications”6
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`
`§ 102
`§ 102
`§ 102
`§ 102
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 12, 13, 23, 29, 36
`1, 24, 29, 40, 43, 45
`1, 23, 25, 29
`40, 45
`1, 12, 23–25, 29, 36,
`40, 43, 45
`13
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190 (issued Sept. 10, 1996) (Ex. 1016) (“Derby”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 4,934,196 (issued June 19, 1990) (Ex. 1006) (“Romano”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,804,741 (issued Sept. 8, 1998) (Ex. 1054) (“Freeman”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 4,679,947 (issued July 14, 1987) (Ex. 1007) (“Miller”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,009,109 (issued Apr. 23, 1991) (Ex. 1008) (“Kalotay”).
`6 Petitioner does not identify specifically in the asserted ground which reference(s)
`constitute the “Printed Publications Describing Signal Processing Using Overlap
`Techniques” (“Printed Publications”). See Pet. 2, 45–47. The only specific
`reference cited in the asserted ground is Exhibit 1046 (John G. Proakis & Dimitris
`G. Manolakis, Digital Signal Processing, 864–879 (John Griffin, ed., 2d ed.
`1992)). Id. at 46.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 6008
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`Kalotay and Liu7
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`
`§ 103
`
`30
`
`For the reasons given below, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1,
`
`29, 40, and 45. We do not institute an inter partes review of claims 12, 13, 23–25,
`
`30, 36, and 43.
`
`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 (Case
`
`IPR2014-00170); U.S. Patent No. 6,754,594 (Case IPR2014-00390); U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,124,646 (Case IPR2014-00179); U.S. Patent No. 7,136,761 (Case IPR2014-
`
`00178); U.S. Patent No. 7,505,854 (Case IPR2014-00167); and U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,000,906 (Case IPR2014-00392). Pet. 1. Petitioner identifies the ’062 patent as
`
`involved in a concurrent district court case titled 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 ’062 patent, Coriolis
`
`flowmeters seek to measure the flow of material through a tube by taking
`
`advantage of the Coriolis effect. Ex. 1001, 1:31–41. A driving mechanism applies
`
`forces to the tube to induce it to oscillate. Id. at 1:42–43. The flowmeter uses
`
`sensors to measure the twisting of the tube (due to the Coriolis effect, as explained
`
`below) and thereby estimate the mass and/or density of the material. See id. at
`
`3:47–56; see also Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Michael D. Sidman) ¶¶ 27–44
`
`(explaining how Coriolis flowmeters operate). Figures 1–3 of Exhibit 1009,8
`
`
`7 U.S. Patent No. 5,029,482 (issued July 9, 1991) (Ex. 1019) (“Liu”).
`8 Micro Motion, How the Micro Motion® Mass Flow and Density Sensor Works,
`(1990) (Ex. 1009).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 6009
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`reproduced below, show the Coriolis effect in action:
`
`
`
`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. Id. The amount of twisting is proportional to the mass of the fluid
`
`moving through the tube. Id.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6010
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`D. The Challenged Patent
`
`The ’062 patent is titled “Digital Flowmeter” and generally relates to a
`
`control and measurement system for a digital flowmeter. Ex. 1001, Abstr. The
`
`flowmeter of the ’062 patent describes a variety of digital signal processing
`
`techniques. Id. at 2:1–6. The system permits the application of negative gain to
`
`the conduit in order to reduce the amplitude of oscillation. Id. at 2:7–23. The
`
`control system also may adjust the drive signal phase in order to compensate for a
`
`time delay associated with the sensor and components connected between the
`
`sensor and driver. Id. at 7:14–17.
`
`Of the claims challenged, claims 1, 40, and 45 are independent. Claims 12,
`
`13, 23–25, 29, 30, and 36 depend from claim 1, and claim 43 depends from claim
`
`40. Each of the independent claims recites a digital flowmeter having one of a
`
`number of different control and measurement features, such as a feature to
`
`“generate a drive signal based on the sensor signal using digital signal processing.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 55:31–32, 59:16–17, 60:17–18. Independent claim 1 specifically recites
`
`a feature to “use digital processing to adjust a phase of the drive signal,” which is
`
`not found in independent claims 40 and 45. Id. at 55:37–40. Conversely,
`
`independent claims 40 and 45 include a feature wherein there are two drive signals
`
`and “the second drive signal is different from the first drive signal.” Id. at 59:21–
`
`24, 60:23–27.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 45 are reproduced below.
`
`1. A digital flowmeter comprising:
`a vibratable conduit;
`a driver connected to the conduit and operable to impart
`motion to the conduit;
`a sensor connected to the conduit and operable to sense
`the motion of the conduit; and
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 6011
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`a control and measurement system connected between
`the driver and the sensor, wherein the control and
`measurement system is configured to:
`receive a sensor signal from the sensor,
`generate a drive signal based on the sensor signal
`using digital signal processing,
`supply the drive signal to the driver, and
`generate a measurement of a property of material
`flowing through the conduit based on the signal
`from the sensor;
`use digital processing to adjust a phase of the drive
`signal to compensate for a time delay associated
`with components connected between the sensor
`and the driver.
`
`
`Id. at 55:21–40.
`
`45. A method comprising:
`passing a material through a vibratable conduit;
`imparting motion to the conduit using a driver connected
`to the conduit;
`receiving a sensor signal from a sensor connected to the
`conduit and operable to sense the motion of the
`conduit;
`generating a drive signal based on the sensor signal using
`digital signal processing;
`supplying the drive signal to the driver;
`generating a measurement of a property of the material
`flowing through the conduit based on the sensor
`signal; and
`initiating motion of the conduit by applying a first drive
`signal to the driver, and sustaining motion of the
`conduit by applying a second drive signal to the
`driver, wherein the second drive signal is different
`from the first drive signal.
`
`
`Id. at 60:11–27.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 6012
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`E. Claim Construction
`
`Claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation 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).
`
`1. Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`
`Petitioner asserts that some limitations (e.g., of claims 1 and 40) “could be
`
`construed as a means-plus-function limitation,” but does not provide further
`
`explanation. Pet. 12–13. None of the challenged claims use the phrase “means
`
`for,” and thus there is a presumption that the claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`¶ 6. Petitioner does not argue that such a presumption is overcome. Therefore, we
`
`are not persuaded by Petitioner that any claims invoke § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`2.
`
`“Different” Drive Signals
`
`Independent claim 40 recites that “the second drive signal is different from
`
`the first drive signal.” Ex. 1001, 59:23–24. Petitioner asserts that the term
`
`“different” here means “different in any respect.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not
`
`offer a construction for this term. The specification of the ’062 patent does not
`
`define the term, but does state that different drive signals “may have, for example,
`
`different frequencies or amplitudes.” Ex. 1001, 3:27–29. We find no indication
`
`that the specification suggests to one of ordinary skill that there is anything in
`
`particular that is different between the first and second drive signals, other than
`
`that they are “different.” Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt
`
`Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “different” as “different in any respect.”
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 6013
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Overview
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 12, 13, 23–25, 29, 30, 36, 40, 43, and 45 of
`
`the ’062 patent are anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art cited in the table
`
`above. In support of this position, 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 each
`
`of the proposed grounds and supporting documentation, as well as Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response. We address each ground, in turn, below.
`
`B. The Derby Anticipation Ground
`
`Petitioner asserts that Derby anticipates the subject matter of claims 1, 12,
`
`13, 23, 29, and 36. We do not institute an inter partes review on this ground.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Derby (Ex. 1016)
`
`Derby describes a Coriolis-type mass flowmeter. Ex. 1016, Abstr. The
`
`flowmeter includes digital signal processor 2000, which receives signals from flow
`
`tube sensors 157 and 158 and sends signals to driver circuit 2008. Id. at 14:25–30,
`
`47–54. Digital signal processor 2000 “determines the appropriate fundamental
`
`frequency at which the flow tubes are vibrated and applies a proportional signal [to
`
`the driver circuit.]” Id. at 14:47–52. Digital signal processor 2000 also converts
`
`the signal received by the flow tube sensors 157 and 158 to a signal “proportional
`
`to mass flow rate.” Id. at 14:55–62.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of the Derby Anticipation Ground
`
`Claim 1 is independent; the remaining challenged claims in this ground
`
`depend therefrom. Claim 1 includes a limitation wherein the flowmeter “use[s]
`
`digital processing to adjust a phase of the drive signal to compensate for a time
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 6014
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`delay associated with components connected between the sensor and the driver.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 59:37–40 (emphasis added).
`
`With respect to this limitation, Petitioner asserts:
`
`Derby describes generating an appropriate drive signal,
`with the knowledge that the components incur time delay
`and that a phase shift must be applied to the drive signal
`as was known in the prior art, to generate an appropriate
`drive signal to keep the flowtube oscillating.
`
`Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 174, which merely repeats the above language).
`
`Petitioner bases its assertion that “a phase shift must be applied” on a passage in
`
`Derby explaining that, in the prior art:
`
`The flowmeter’s drive signal is typically derived
`from one of the sensor output signals after it is
`conditioned, phase shifted and used to produce the
`sinusoidal drive voltage for the drive coil of the meter.
`
`Ex. 1016, 3:6–9 (cited in Pet. 15).
`
`
`
`Thus, Petitioner’s position is that Derby must perform a phase shift because
`
`prior art flowmeters performed a phase shift. However, that the inventors in Derby
`
`were aware that phase shifts were performed in prior art flowmeters does not mean
`
`that a phase shift, as claimed, is performed necessarily in Derby’s flowmeter. The
`
`phase shifting discussed in the background section of Derby is made with respect
`
`to analog flowmeters. See generally Ex. 1016, 2:48–4:16. As we discussed above,
`
`Derby utilizes digital, not analog, technology. Petitioner has not established that
`
`the phase shifting common in analog flowmeters is common in digital flowmeter
`
`(or used at all), let alone that the flowmeter in Derby necessarily includes a phase
`
`shift in the manner recited in claim 1. See Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`
`948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that to establish inherency, the
`
`evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
`
`present in the thing described in the reference”).
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 6015
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Darby describes a flowmeter that
`
`uses digital processing to adjust a phase of a drive signal in the manner required by
`
`claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its contention that Derby anticipates the subject matter of claims 1,
`
`12, 13, 23, 29, and 36.
`
`C. The Romano Anticipation Ground
`
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claims 1, 24, 29, 40, 43, and 45 is
`
`anticipated by Romano. We institute an inter partes review on this ground only as
`
`to claims 1, 29, 40, and 45.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Romano (Ex. 1006)
`
`Romano describes a Coriolis mass flowmeter having flow tubes, drivers,
`
`sensors, and control electronics. Ex. 1006, 15:1–14, 15:53–16:7. In one aspect,
`
`Romano adjusts the phase of an input signal to compensate for delay in sampling
`
`from two distinct sensors. Id. at 20:22–32.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of the Romano Anticipation Ground
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1 and 29
`
`Independent claim 1, from which claim 29 depends, is directed to a
`
`flowmeter having a control and measurement system to use digital processing to
`
`adjust a phase of the drive signal. We first look to the relevant portions of Romano
`
`and then discuss Petitioner’s assertion.
`
`Romano measures the phase difference of signals sent by two distally
`
`separated velocity sensors measuring the motion of the flowtube. Ex. 1006, 20:57–
`
`62. The phase difference of the signals at a given point in time is proportional to
`
`the mass flow rate of the fluid flowing within the flowtube. Id. at 20:52–65. A
`
`limitation of the system, however, is that the signals of the two velocity sensors
`
`cannot be sampled (measured) at the same time; the microprocessor must alternate
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 6016
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`sampling the two sensors. Id. at 22:16–18. Because the phase difference must be
`
`measured using signals representing the same point in time, the microprocessor
`
`shifts (adjusts) the phase of the first signal by a certain amount to delay it. Id. at
`
`22:22–32.
`
`Petitioner’s position is, essentially, that because Romano adjusts the phase
`
`of the input (sensor signal), by that action it adjusts the phase of the output (drive
`
`signal), because the microprocessor uses the input to generate the output. Pet. 27–
`
`29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 197); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 197 (“[T]he correction of the phase shift
`
`in the right channel signal propagates through to the drive signal . . . .”). Patent
`
`Owner argues that this position is “contrary to Romano.” Prelim. Resp. 30.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion, however, is based on the actual disclosure in Romano of a
`
`phase shift, coupled with articulated logic explaining how this disclosure satisfies
`
`the limitation at issue. In addition, Petitioner offers a declaration supporting the
`
`notion that it is reasonably logical that a delay on the input end, as disclosed in
`
`Romano, will result correspondingly in a delay on the output end. See Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 197. Patent Owner argues that “Romano does not disclose any way that the
`
`phase of either the left or right sensor signal affects the phase of the drive signal.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 31. However, as Petitioner points out, the input is used to generate
`
`the output, such that changing the input seemingly would affect the output that is
`
`generated. In view of the above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that Romano anticipates the
`
`subject matter of claims 1 and 29.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 24 and 43
`
`Claims 24 and 43 each require a digital flowmeter having a control and
`
`measurement system that applies a negative gain to reduce motion of the conduit.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Romano discloses this feature in its discussion of the output
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 6017
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`of the drive coil power amplifier. Pet. 31–32. Patent Owner argues that Romano
`
`does not describe a negative gain to reduce motion, but rather describes a decrease
`
`in output. Prelim. Resp. 31–35. Petitioner and Patent Owner both cite to the
`
`following passage of Romano in support of their positions: “if the peak vibratory
`
`amplitude is too large, then the output of power amplifier 450 will be
`
`correspondingly reduced.” Ex. 1006, 26:1–3.
`
`Reviewing this passage of Romano, it is not clear to us how Petitioner
`
`connects reduction of power to applying negative gain. As Patent Owner points
`
`out, Romano reduces output to reduce motion. Accordingly, we conclude that
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`contention that Romano anticipates the subject matter of claims 24 and 43.
`
`c.
`
`Claims 40 and 45
`
`Independent claims 40 and 45 each require first and second drive signals,
`
`“wherein the second drive signal is different from the first drive signal.” Ex. 1001,
`
`59:23–24, 60:26–28. Petitioner asserts that Romano uses different drive signals for
`
`initiating and sustaining oscillation. Pet. 29–30. Specifically, Petitioner points to a
`
`passage in Romano that states: “the flow tubes are driven with a much higher
`
`amplitude drive signal [during start up] than under steady state operation.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 26:30–32. As we stated above, the specification of the ’062 patent
`
`indicates that drive signals with different amplitudes are different drive signals.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:27–29 (different drive signals “may have, for example, different
`
`frequencies or amplitudes.”) Thus, on this record, we are persuaded that Romano
`
`discloses drive signals having different amplitude.
`
`Patent Owner has not yet presented separate patentability arguments with
`
`respect to these claims. In view of the record before us, Petitioner has
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 6018
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that Romano
`
`anticipates the subject matter of claims 40 and 45.
`
`D. The Kalotay Obviousness Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of: (a) claims 1, 12, 23–25, 29, 36,
`
`40, 43, and 45 would have been obvious in view of Kalotay; (b) claim 13 would
`
`have been obvious in view of Kalotay and the Printed Publications; and (c) claim
`
`30 would have been obvious in view of Kalotay and Liu. We institute an inter
`
`partes review on these grounds only as to claims 40 and 45.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Kalotay (Ex. 1008)
`
`Kalotay describes a Coriolis flowmeter having flow conduits, drivers,
`
`sensors, and a control electronics. Ex. 1008, 6:5–14, 8:2–9. The drive circuit
`
`controls the conduit oscillation by applying a pre-defined burst of energy to drive
`
`the conduit at an appropriate point during the oscillation cycle, thereby maintaining
`
`peak amplitude within a prescribed range. Id. at 3:40–4:4. A burst also can be
`
`applied to remove energy from the conduit in order to retard the peak value of
`
`vibrations. Id. at 4:57–62. The circuitry that performs these tasks is reproduced in
`
`Figure 4, below:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 6019
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`Figure 4 of Kalotay depicts circuitry for enabling the pre–defined burst feature.
`
`Left velocity sensor 160L sends a signal that is received by analog–to–digital (A/D)
`
`converter 520 and comparator 540. Id. at 12:6–10, 13:11–13. The digital signal
`
`from A/D converter 520 is processed by microcontroller 530, which determines
`
`when to apply a burst of energy to drive coil 180. Id. at 12:14–68. Comparator
`
`540 only allows a burst of energy to be sent to drive coil 180 when the voltage
`
`signal from left velocity sensor 160L exceeds reference voltage 543. Id. at 13:9–
`
`32.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of the Kalotay Grounds
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1, 12, 23–25, 29, and 36
`
`Independent claim 1, from which claims 12, 23–25, 29, and 36 depend,
`
`requires a flowmeter that “use[s] digital processing to adjust a phase of the drive
`
`signal to compensate for a time delay associated with components connected
`
`between the sensor and the driver.” Ex. 1001, 55:37–40.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 6020
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`With respect to this limitation, Petitioner asserts that Kalotay discloses
`
`“applying bursts of energy to the drive coil, and timing each burst to occur during a
`
`certain portion of a time window.” Pet. 35; see Ex. 1008, 3:63–66 (“This burst can
`
`be applied at a pre-defined point in each cycle of the oscillatory motion with no
`
`energy being applied during that cycle other than when the burst occurs.”).
`
`Petitioner asserts that the microprocessor in Kalotay “must account for circuit
`
`delays in order to time the energy pulses accurately (i.e., adjust a phase of the drive
`
`signal to compensate for a time delay) to be effective and to not be counter-
`
`productive.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner points out that Kalotay merely “disabl[es] drive signal
`
`generation except during specific time windows,” rather than “adjust[s] the phase
`
`of the drive signal, as claimed.” Prelim. Resp. 43.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that Kalotay discloses adjusting a phase is premised on
`
`Kalotay’s disclosure of timing of energy pulses. However, adjusting the timing of
`
`a burst does not mean, necessarily, that the adjustment is “to compensate for a time
`
`delay associated with components connected between the sensor and the driver.”
`
`Instead, in the passages of Kalotay relied on by Petitioner, comparator 540 is used
`
`to time the bursts based on “the middle 80% of the positive half of each cycle in
`
`the left velocity sensor waveform.” Ex. 1008, 13:9–33, Fig. 6. As shown in more
`
`detail in Figure 4, the left velocity sensor signal is routed to comparator 540 via
`
`junction 515, which is before A/D converter 520 or microcontroller 530. As such,
`
`even if comparator 540 adjusted a phase to compensate for a time delay, the input
`
`to comparator 540 could not “use digital processing to adjust a phase,” because it is
`
`analog.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 6021
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`In view of the above, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that Kalotay renders obvious
`
`the subject matter of claims 1, 12, 23–25, 29, and 36.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 24 and 439
`
`Patent Owner brings to our attention that Petitioner does not offer an
`
`analysis as to why these claims would have been obvious in view of Kalotay.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 48, 51. While Petitioner has indicated that information in that regard
`
`is offered in Exhibit 1011 (Invalidity charts from the Invensys Litigation) (Pet. 45),
`
`it is improper to incorporate analysis into the Petition in this manner because,
`
`among other things, it would eviscerate page limit requirements. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art”); § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by
`
`reference from one document into another document.”) Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that
`
`the subject matter of claims 24 and 43 would have been obvious in view of
`
`Kalotay.
`
`c.
`
`Claims 40 and 45
`
`Independent claims 40 and 45 each require first and second drive signals,
`
`“wherein the second drive signal is different from the first drive signal.” Ex. 1001,
`
`59:23–24, 60:26–28. With respect to this limitation, Petitioner asserts that Kalotay
`
`first provides “a sufficiently long drive pulse to initially place the conduits into
`
`resonant vibration.” Pet. 37 (quoting Ex. 1008, 14:42–51). Petitioner then asserts
`
`that Kalotay discloses “imparting relatively minimal amounts of energy to the
`
`
`9 Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`asserted ground against claim 24 for reasons other than those discussed here.
`Those other reasons are discussed in our analysis of claim 1. We include claim 24
`here as well, for completeness.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 6022
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`drive coil that are nevertheless sufficient to sustain the flow tubes in resonant
`
`oscillatory motion with a pre–defined peak value.” Id. at 38 (quoting Ex. 1008,
`
`4:67–5:2). Thus, we take Petitioner’s position to be that these passages of Kalotay
`
`disclose two different drive signals.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “the conclusion that the pulses are different does
`
`not ineluctably follow.” Prelim. Resp. 50. Given the contrast between
`
`“sufficiently long” and “relatively minimal,” however, on this record we consider
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that these two drive signals are different persuasive. As we
`
`pointed out above, “different” means “different in any respect,” and, in this case,
`
`the difference appears to be with respect to pulse (drive signal) duration.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its contention that the subject matter of claims 40 and 45 would have
`
`been obvious in view of Kalotay
`
`d.
`
`Claims 13 and 30
`
`Claims 13 and 30 depend from claim 1. Petitioner asserts that the subject
`
`matter of claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Kalotay and the Printed
`
`Publications, and the subject matter of claim 30 would have been obvious in view
`
`of Kalotay and Liu. Reviewing the Petition, however, we do not find any
`
`assertions with respect to the Printed Publications or Liu that would serve to cure
`
`the underlying factual deficiency we noted above with respect to the “adjust[ing] a
`
`phase” limitation in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contention that the subject matter of
`
`claims 13 and 30 would have been obvious in view of Kalotay and the Printed
`
`Publications or in view of Kalotay and Liu, respectively.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 6023
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`E. The Freeman Anticipation Ground
`
`Petitioner asserts that Freeman anticipates the subject matter of claims 1, 23,
`
`25, and 29. We do not institute an inter partes review on this ground.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Freeman (Ex. 1054)
`
`Freeman describes a Coriolis flow rate measuring system that uses digital
`
`signal processing. Ex. 1054, Abstr. The flowmeter includes analog sensors, a
`
`vibratable flow tube, and drivers. Id. at 2:36–43.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis of the Freeman Ground
`
`Independent claim 1 and claims 23, 25, and 29, which depend therefrom,
`
`recite a flowmeter that “use[s] digital processing to adjust a phase of the drive
`
`signal to compensate for a time delay associated with components connected
`
`between the sensor and the driver.” Ex. 1001, 55:37–40. With respect to this
`
`limitation, Petitioner asserts that Freeman compensates for the effects of
`
`differential phase shifts. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 279, which merely repeats
`
`Petitioner’s statement, without citing to supporting evidence). Petitioner then
`
`states:
`
`Freeman discloses that digital signal processing is used to
`eliminate
`interference
`and noise distortions
`in
`establishing a drive signal with a proper phase
`relationship to the flow tube oscillation (i.e., “use digital
`signal processing to adjust a phase of the drive signal to
`compensate for a time delay associated with components
`connected between the sensor and the driver”).
`
`Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 282). According to Petitioner, therefore, the
`
`establishment of a drive signal with a proper phase relationship means that the
`
`signal’s phase must have been adjusted.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Freeman does not adjust a phase of the drive signal
`
`to compensate for a time delay associated with components, but rather assumes
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 206-4 Filed 08/06/14 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 6024
`
`IPR2014-00393
`Patent 7,571,062 B2
`
`that any such delay will be equal for each channel, thus rendering such an
`
`adjustment unnecessary. Prelim. Resp. 37 (“While some phase translations may
`
`occur, it is to be understood that they are common to both channels and therefore
`
`have no affect [sic] on the phase difference estimate.” (quoting Ex. 1054, 13:63–
`
`66) ([sic] in original)).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Petitioner’s assertion is based on
`
`the supposition that b