UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`d/b/a GITS MANUFACTURING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`G.W. LISK COMPANY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-02034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,601,821
`Issue Date: August 5, 2003
`PROPORTIONAL CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLY FOR
`EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION SYSTEM
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF
`PROFESSOR KEVIN C. CRAIG, Ph. D.
`
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`POWER-PACKER NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`d/b/a GITS MANUFACTURING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`G.W. LISK COMPANY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-02034
`U.S. Patent No. 6,601,821
`Issue Date: August 5, 2003
`PROPORTIONAL CONTROL VALVE ASSEMBLY FOR
`EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION SYSTEM
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF
`PROFESSOR KEVIN C. CRAIG, Ph. D.
`
`
`
`The undersigned, Kevin C. Craig, Ph. D., Professor of Mechanical
`
`Engineering and Director of the Center for Innovation and the Mechatronics
`
`Laboratory at Hofstra University, declares under penalty of perjury in accordance
`
`with the laws of the United States of America, that the following is true:
`
`I.
`
`Background and Experience
`
`In 1973, I received a B.S. in Engineering from the United States
`
`Military Academy at West Point, NY. After a commission as an Officer in the U.S.
`
`Army, I attended Columbia University, where I received an M.S. in Mechanical
`
`Engineering in 1977, an M.Phil. in 1981, and a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in
`
`1986.
`
`While in graduate school at Columbia, I also worked as a professional
`
`engineer. In particular, from 1977-80, I worked as an Engineer in the mechanical-
`
`nuclear design department of Ebasco Services, Inc., a major engineering firm in
`
`New York City. And from 1980-81, I worked as a Research Engineer in the Xerox
`
`Corporation’s Palo Alto Research Center in Palo Alto, CA, and Mechanical
`
`Engineering Sciences Laboratory in Sleepy Hollow, NY.
`
`Also during graduate school, I taught and received tenure at two
`
`universities. From 1981-84, I was an Assistant Professor in the Department of
`
`Engineering at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; and from 1984-89, I was an
`
`Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering at Hofstra University.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`After receiving my Ph.D., from 1987-89, I worked as a Research
`
`Engineer in the Automation and Robotics Laboratory at the U.S. Army Armament
`
`Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC).
`
`From 1989-2008, I was a Professor of Mechanical Engineering in the
`
`Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering at Rensselaer
`
`Polytechnic Institute (RPI). While I was at RPI, from 2002-05, I also served as the
`
`Chair of the Engineering Science Interdisciplinary Program and the Director of
`
`Core Engineering in the Office of the Dean of the School of Engineering.
`
`From 2008-14, I was the Greenheck Endowed Chair in Engineering
`
`Design in the College of Engineering at Marquette University.
`
`And from 2014-present, I have been a Professor of Mechanical
`
`Engineering in the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Hofstra
`
`University, where I am also the Director of the Center for Innovation, the
`
`Mechatronics Laboratory, and the Mechatronics Certificate Program for Practicing
`
`Engineers.
`
`Over my career, I have taught every major course in the mechanical
`
`engineering curriculum, including but not limited to Statics, Dynamics, Strength of
`
`Materials, Machine Design, Machine Dynamics, Modeling and Analysis of
`
`Dynamic Systems, Feedback Control Systems, Digital Control Systems,
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Electronic Instrumentation, and
`
`Design of Mechanical Systems.
`
`I have also developed and taught several innovative courses, all with
`
`extensive laboratory and studio components. My innovative courses include, but
`
`are not limited to, Engineering Problem Solving; Modeling, Analysis, and Control
`
`of Dynamic Systems; Mechatronics; Senior Multidisciplinary Design; and Fluid
`
`Power Mechatronics.
`
`I have received several noteworthy awards over the course of my
`
`career. In 1987, the ASEE awarded me their New Engineering Educator
`
`Excellence Award, a national award. RPI awarded me the three highest teaching
`
`awards they confer: in 2000, the Lewis T. Assini Undergraduate Teaching and
`
`Counseling Award; and in 2006, the RPI Trustees’ Outstanding Teacher Award,
`
`and the School of Engineering Education Excellence Award. In 2011, IBM
`
`awarded me their Faculty Innovation Award. In 2013, the ASEE awarded me their
`
`North-Midwest Section Best Teacher Award; and the Marquette University
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department awarded me their Best Teacher Award. And
`
`in 2014, the ASME awarded me their Oustanding Design Educator Award, a
`
`society award.
`
`Based upon my experience and education, I consider myself a person
`
`of at least ordinary skill in the art of mechanical engineering, and I further consider
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`myself knowledgeable about the qualifications and perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of mechanical engineering (“a POSA”). In particular, a
`
`POSA would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering, or an
`
`equivalent field of study, with at least five years of professional work experience in
`
`the characterization and use of hydraulic and/or pneumatic devices. Superior
`
`qualifications in either education or experience could compensate for a deficit in
`
`the other.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of G.W. Lisk Company, Inc.
`
`(“Lisk”), and against institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,601,821 (“the ’821 patent”). The opinions set forth herein are based on my
`
`education, training, and years of experience in the field of mechanical engineering,
`
`as well as my review of the relevant materials.
`
`II. Materials Reviewed
`
`When reviewing the documents discussed below and forming the
`
`opinions set forth in this declaration, I have attempted to do so from the
`
`perspective of a POSA at the time of the earliest filing date of the ’821 patent,
`
`which I understand to be November 17, 2000.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the following
`
`documents:
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,601,821 (“the ’821 patent”)
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,201,116 (“Martin”)
`
`Certified English translation of German Published Examined
`
`Application No. 1268494 (“Eggers”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,732 (“Oleksiewicz”)
`
`The Decisions instituting review in IPR2017-02034 and
`
`IPR2017-02035.
`
`III. The ’821 Patent
`
`The ’821 patent is entitled “Proportional Control Valve Assembly for
`
`Exhaust Gas Recirculation System.”
`
`A.
`
`Technological Background
`
`The ’821 patent describes and claims a valve assembly that is
`
`particularly useful as an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve. As the
`
`specification of the ’821 patent states, “[e]mission control systems for internal
`
`combustion engines recirculate a portion of the exhaust gases emitted from the
`
`engines back through the combustion process to lower harmful emissions.” ’821
`
`patent at 1:16-19. Mixing the exhaust gases with fresh air/fuel mixtures lowers the
`
`fuel’s combustion temperature and reduces the formation of harmful compounds
`
`such as nitrous oxide. See id. at 1:22-25. This enables engines to maintain high
`
`efficiency while also meeting automobile emission standards.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`As the ’821 patent further states, EGR valves “divert metered amounts
`
`of the exhaust gas to intake manifolds for re-burn by the engine.” See id. at 1:19-
`
`22. In other words, EGR valves regulate precisely how much exhaust gas gets
`
`mixed into the intake manifold to lower the combustion temperature of the fuel
`
`mixture to the optimal range. Accordingly, EGR valves must be able to accurately
`
`and precisely control the flow rate of exhaust gas.
`
`Traditional EGR valves use electromechanical solenoids to generate
`
`the actuating force necessary to regulate the flow rate of exhaust gas. In contrast,
`
`instead of using electromechanical force, the ’821 patent’s valve uses fluid
`
`pressure to provide the actuating force necessary to regulate the flow rate of
`
`exhaust gas. In particular, according to the Abstract, the invention is “[a] two-stage
`
`proportional control valve assembly [that] regulates flow of a first fluid such as
`
`engine exhaust gas using a second fluid such as engine oil for power.” ’821 patent
`
`Abstract. The Abstract further explains, “[a] directional valve under control of an
`
`electrical actuator regulates flows of the second fluid to operate a fluid-powered
`
`actuator. A mechanical connection between the fluid-powered actuator and a
`
`[flow-regulating valve] enables the electrical actuator to [control the flow-
`
`regulating valve indirectly.]” Id. As the patent explains, “[s]ince the electrical
`
`control signals are not required to provide the force for opening or closing the
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`exhaust valve, my new two-stage proportional flow control valve assembly
`
`conserves electrical power for other functions.” Id. at 1:35-39.
`
`I have been provided the following color-coded versions of Figures 2
`
`and 3 from the ’821 patent:
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Based on my reading of the ’821 patent, the color-coding in the
`
`images above accurately depicts the following components in the illustrated
`
`device: (1) a directional valve (orange), (2) the flow of engine oil (gold), (3) a
`
`double-acting actuator (light blue), connected to (4) a flow-regulating valve (dark
`
`blue), which regulates (5) the flow of exhaust gas (violet).
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that, when construing the meaning of terms used in
`
`the ’821 patent’s claims, those terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`interpretation as understood by a POSA consistent with the ’821 patent’s
`
`specification. I understand that the POSA is deemed to read claim terms not only in
`
`the context of the particular claim in which the term appears, but also in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the specification.
`
`The entire specification of the ’821 patent relates to EGR valves used
`
`to control precisely the flow rate of exhaust gas. The patent’s title indicates that the
`
`control valve assembly is “for [an] exhaust gas recirculation system.” The Abstract
`
`refers to regulating the flow rate of exhaust gas. The Background section of the
`
`specification explains the utility of EGR valves. Every example and drawing in
`
`the ’821 patent is of an EGR valve. A POSA would have had this context in mind
`
`when analyzing the specification and interpreting the terms used in the claims, and
`
`I have interpreted the claim terms of the ’821 patent in view of this context.
`
`In view of the Board’s claim construction in the Decisions, I have
`
`been asked to futher explain my interpretation of the following claim terms in
`
`the ’821 patent: (1) flow-regulating valve; (2) directional valve; and (3)
`
`proportional.
`
`1.
`
`The Valve Terms (“Flow-Regulating Valve” & “Directional
`Valve”)
`
`The ’821 patent’s claims differentiate between and require the use of
`
`both a “flow-regulating valve” and a “directional valve.” E.g., ’821 Patent at
`
`claim 1. In particular, independent claim 1 requires “a flow-regulating valve that
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`regulates a flow of a first fluid”; and “a directional valve that controls a flow of the
`
`second fluid to the double-acting actuator.”
`
`Similarly, independent claim 12 specifies “[a] method of controlling
`
`flow rates of a first fluid utilizing fluid pressure supplied by a second fluid.” ’821
`
`Patent at claim 12. Like the apparatus of claim 1, the method of claim 12 requires
`
`use of “a directional valve that controls a flow of the second fluid to a double-
`
`acting actuator,” as well as “a flow-regulating valve that controls the flow rates of
`
`the first fluid.” Id.
`
`In my first declaration, I stated that a POSA would understand the
`
`term “directional valve” to mean “a valve designed principally for controlling the
`
`direction of a fluid’s flow into different paths,” and would understand “flow-
`
`regulating valve” to mean “a valve designed principally for regulating a fluid’s
`
`flowrate.” Craig Decl. ¶ 26. I have reviewed the Board’s discussion of the meaning
`
`of the terms “flow-regulating valve” and “directional valve.” I understand that the
`
`Board has declined to limit the meaning of either valve to the function for which it
`
`was designed principally because, according to the Board, doing so would not be
`
`consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
`
`The Board stated that there is no basis in the intrinsic record for construing either
`
`valve as one that is “designed principally for” some function, especially since the
`
`function is also recited in the claim. I disagree.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Valves are commonly classified in the art according to the primary
`
`function for which they are designed, and have been for decades. A POSA would
`
`not understand a valve classified as a “directional valve” to be a “flow-regulating
`
`valve” simply because it could be conceived to “regulate” flow by either allowing
`
`flow or stopping it completely, or because it also could perform flow regulation as
`
`a secondary function. Rather, a “directional valve” is a “directional valve,” and a
`
`“flow-regulating valve” is a “flow-regulating valve.” A POSA would understand
`
`the two terms—“directional valve” and “flow-regulating valve”—to refer to two
`
`distinct sets of valve classifications and structures based on the primary function
`
`for which they are designed.
`
`The passages from the ’821 patent’s claims and specification that I
`
`cited in my first declaration show that the ’821 patent uses the terms “flow-
`
`regulating valve” and “directional valve” consistent with the classification of such
`
`valves according to their primary function. The following chart lists passages from
`
`the claims and specification that a POSA would consider when interpreting these
`
`terms:
`
`“flow-
`regulating
`valve”
`
`The Claims
`
`“…a flow-regulating valve that regulates a flow of a first fluid…”
`7:15-16 (claim 1).
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`“…a flow-regulating valve that controls flow rates of the first fluid
`for changing flow rates of the first fluid through the flow-
`regulating valve…” 8:61-64 (claim 12) (emphasis added).
`
`The Specification
`
`“The invention features a two-stage proportional flow control valve
`assembly that is particularly useful for regulating exhaust flow
`rates in exhaust gas recirculating systems of internal combustion
`engines. Electrical control signals from an engine control module
`(ECM) regulate the exhaust flow rates through an exhaust valve
`utilizing engine oil pressure to produce a hydraulic actuating force.”
`1:29-35 (emphasis added).
`
`“An exemplary two-stage proportional flow control valve assembly
`adapted for use as an exhaust gas recirculating valve incorporates an
`exhaust valve that regulates exhaust flow rates recirculated to an
`engine and a directional valve that utilizes engine oil pressure for
`regulating opening and closing of the exhaust valve proportional to
`control signals from an engine control module (ECM)” 1:40-46
`(emphasis added).
`The Claims
`
`“…a directional valve that controls a flow of the second fluid to the
`double-acting actuator…” 7:21-22 (claim 1).
`
`“…the directional valve being movable…between… (a) a first
`position that directs a flow…to the first surface of the double-acting
`actuator and (b) a second position that directs a flow…to the second
`surface of the double-acting actuator.” 7:35-41 (claim 1).
`
`“…moving the directional valve…between a first position that
`directs a flow…to a first surface of the double-acting actuator and
`second position that directs a flow…to a second surface of the
`double-acting actuator…” 8:42-47 (claim 12).
`
`The Specification
`
`- 12 -
`
`“directional
`valve”
`
`
`
`“The directional valve controls flow…to the fluid-powered actuator
`to adjust the position of the exhaust valve proportional to the control
`signal.” 1:52-55.
`
`As the above passages show, the ’821 patent’s claims and
`
`specification consistently describe the “flow-regulating valve” as a valve that
`
`regulates a fluid’s flow rate. In contrast, the ’821 patent’s claims and specification
`
`consistently describe the “directional valve” as a valve that controls or directs fluid
`
`flow to one of two sides of a double-acting actuator. Based on the distinct and
`
`consistent usage of different terms to classify the valves according to their
`
`function, a POSA would interpret a “flow-regulating valve” and a “directional
`
`valve” to refer to two different sets of structures. In particular, based on the claims
`
`and portions of the specification cited above and distinct classifications of such
`
`types of valves in the art, a POSA would understand “flow-regulating valve” to
`
`refer to a set of structures directed to the fine metering of fluid flow without
`
`providing directional flow control; and “directional valve” to refer to a set of
`
`structures used primarily to direct fluid flow into separate paths, but not necessarily
`
`to meter it.
`
`The idea of metering flow is important in a flow-regulating valve,
`
`because the entire point of a flow-regulating valve is to precisely control the flow
`
`rate of fluid. Every valve can be conceived to “regulate” flow in some way. Even
`
`check valves could be said to “regulate” flow by allowing it in only one direction.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Simple on/off valves could be argued to “regulate” flow by allowing it or stopping
`
`it completely. But a POSA would not consider these types of valves to be “flow-
`
`regulating valves” as that term is used in the art and in the context of the ’821
`
`patent because those valves do not finely meter flow or precisely control the flow
`
`rate of fluid.
`
`Considering the above discussion, even if the Board declines to limit
`
`the meaning of the valve terms to the functions for which the valves were
`
`principally designed, they should construe the terms in accordance with their
`
`distinct classifications in the art as follows. “Flow-regulating valve” should be
`
`construed to mean “a valve that meters the flowrate of fluid without providing
`
`directional flow control”; and a “directional valve” to be “a valve that controls the
`
`flow of fluid into different paths”; because those constructions closely aligns with
`
`how a POSA would understand those terms.
`
`2.
`
`“Proportional”
`
`I have reviewed the Board’s construction of “proportional” to mean
`
`simply “corresponding to,” and it is my opinion that the Board’s construction is
`
`unreasonably broad in light of the ‘821 Patent specification. Everything
`
`“corresponds to” something else. The ’821 patent uses the term “proportional”
`
`more specifically to mean that the force acting on the directional valve, and the
`
`resulting position of the flow-regulating valve, both depend on the strength of the
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`control signal being supplied to the solenoid. In other words, the term
`
`“proportional” as it is used in the ’821 patent implies a change in the strength of
`
`the control signal being supplied to the valve, i.e., the current of the control signal.
`
`As I stated in my first declaration, a POSA would be familiar with the
`
`term “proportional” as it relates to a valve assembly. A POSA would understand a
`
`“proportional” valve assembly to be one that moves in proportion to a control
`
`signal. A POSA would further understand that a stronger control signal causes a
`
`“proportional” valve assembly to move a greater distance than does a relatively
`
`weaker control signal. Therefore, whatever construction the Board ultimately gives
`
`“proportional,” the construction should include the concept that a stronger control
`
`signal will cause the valve to move a greater distance than will a relatively weaker
`
`signal.
`
`As I further stated in my first declaration, the ’821 patent consistently
`
`describes the position of the flow-regulating valve as being proportional to a
`
`“control signal” or a “solenoid actuating force.” The ’821 patent uses the terms
`
`“control signal” and “solenoid actuating force” interchangeably since the terms are
`
`closely related. The “solenoid actuating force” of a proportional solenoid
`
`controlled by an electric control signal is itself proportional to the strength of the
`
`control signal. Thus, a POSA would understand that, as the terms are used in
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`the ’821 patent, the “solenoid actuating force” and the “control signal” both refer
`
`to the amount of current being supplied to the solenoid.
`
`The ’821 patent sets forth the functionality of the claimed
`
`“proportional” valve in detail. In particular, in the ’821 patent’s valve, “[a]n
`
`electrical actuator preferably in the form of a proportional solenoid...converts the
`
`control signals of varying current into proportional forces imparted by an armature
`
`against the spool along the central axis.” ’821 patent at 2:8-11. As the ’821 patent
`
`further explains, “[a]ctuating forces exerted by the solenoid above the take-off
`
`current temporarily move the spool beyond the neutral position.” Id. at 2:50-51.
`
`And “[a]lthough the spool returns to the same neutral position throughout the
`
`intended range of solenoid actuating forces…, the piston’s position (and with it the
`
`position of the dual poppet head body of the exhaust valve) varies directly with the
`
`compression of the feedback spring.” Id. at 2:53-58. Moreover, “the change in the
`
`force exerted by the feedback spring matches the change in force exerted by the
`
`solenoid.” Id. at 2:62-65. And “[t]he change in position of the piston head…along
`
`with the dual poppet head body…is substantially proportional to the change in the
`
`solenoid actuating force.” Id. at 6:20-23.
`
`The ’821 patent further explains how the control signals affect the
`
`positioning of the claimed proportional valve. Ultimately, “[t]he feedback spring is
`
`the sole mechanical connection between the piston and the spool,” and “the amount
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`that the feedback spring is compressed is controlled by the amount of current that
`
`is supplied to the solenoid.” Id. at 2:66-3:2. In turn, “[t]he amount of compression
`
`of the feedback spring determines the spacing of the piston from the spool in the
`
`neutral position,” and “[c]hanges in the position of the piston are accompanied by
`
`corresponding changes in the position of the dual poppet head body of the exhaust
`
`valve.” Id. at 3:7-11.
`
`In other words, based on the above-cited portions of the specification,
`
`a POSA would understand that the force exerted on the spool by the solenoid, the
`
`position of the flow-regulating valve, and accordingly the flow rate of exhaust gas,
`
`all depend on the strength of the control signal being supplied to the solenoid. That
`
`is why the ’821 patent specifies that the solenoid converts “control signals of
`
`varying current,” id. at 2:10, and that is also why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand the ’821 patent’s use of the word “proportional” to include
`
`the concept that a stronger control signal will cause a proportional valve to move a
`
`relatively greater distance than will a relatively weaker control signal.
`
`The dictionary definition that the Board cited also includes this
`
`concept. In particular, even though the Board stated that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “proportional” is “corresponding to,” the definition that the Board cited
`
`actually included more. That definition stated that “proportional” means
`
`“corresponding in size, degree, or intensity.” (emphasis added). This additional
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`language captures the concept that a stronger or more intense input will result in a
`
`correspondingly larger output. In other words, applied to a “proportional valve”
`
`that is controlled by an electrical control signal, a stronger control signal will cause
`
`the valve to move a greater distance than will a relatively weaker control signal.
`
`IV. Non-Anticipation: The Differences Between the Prior Art and the ’821
`Patent
`
`I am informed by counsel that, in order to anticipate a patent, a prior-
`
`art reference must disclose all of the limitations found in the claims of the patent. I
`
`am further informed by counsel that, for a reference to anticipate a patent, it must
`
`disclose those limitations as they are arranged in the patent’s claims. I am further
`
`informed by counsel that Petitioner argues that Martin anticipates claims 1-10 and
`
`12-22 of the ’821 patent, and that Eggers anticipates claims 1-5, 12-13, and 16-18
`
`of the ’821 patent. For the following reasons, I disagree.
`
`A. Martin
`
`The “Martin” reference is U.S. Patent No. 4,201,116, entitled
`
`“Electro-Hydraulic Proportional Control Servo Valve.” The following illustration
`
`is from Figure 1 of Martin, which is representative of the valve assembly that
`
`Martin discloses:
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Martin does not disclose all of the limitations that appear in the claims
`
`of the ’821 patent. In particular, Martin fails to disclose a flow-regulating valve.
`
`Rather, a POSA would understand that the main control spool in Martin—spool 20
`
`in Figure 1—is a directional valve that directs flows to either side of a double-
`
`acting actuator, shown as 18 in Figure 1.
`
`The “Summary of the Invention” in Martin provides further evidence
`
`that a POSA would not interpret Martin to disclose a flow-regulating valve. In
`
`particular, Martin states that the “[m]ain control valve…operates a double acting
`
`cylinder.” Martin at 2:20-21. A POSA would understand that directional valves,
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`not flow-regulating valves, are used to operate double-acting cylinders as those
`
`components are disclosed in Martin.
`
`As I stated in my original declaration, because Martin fails to disclose
`
`a flow-regulating valve, Martin does not anticipate claim 1 of the ’821 patent. The
`
`Board stated that this issue was difficult to address based, at least in part, on the
`
`extent to which Patent Owner’s position is based on its proposed claim
`
`construction. Yet even under the Board’s construction wherein any valve that
`
`performs the recited function of regulating the flow of a first fluid, Martin fails to
`
`disclose a flow-regulating valve.
`
`In its analysis, the Board failed to understand why main directional
`
`control valve 16 and spool 20 cannot also regulate the flow rate of fluid flowing
`
`through or past it. The Board stated that “[b]y opening and closing communication
`
`between cavity 25 and drain 26, spool 20 appears to do just that.” But “opening
`
`and closing communication” is not the same as regulating flow rate. Importantly, a
`
`POSA would not consider an on/off type valve that simply allows or stops flow to
`
`“regulate flow rate.” Rather, flow-rate regulation requires precise control of a
`
`valve’s position throughout a range of open positions between on and off. In
`
`Martin, however, there is no discussion of flow rate at all. The spool valve
`
`disclosed in Martin is not disclosed as regulating the flow rate of the fluid flowing
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`through it. It controls the direction of flow to either side of a double-acting
`
`actuator. That is not flow-rate regulation.
`
`Accordingly, even if the Board declines to limit the meaning of “flow-
`
`regulating valve” beyond the claimed function, Martin still fails to disclose “a
`
`flow-regulating valve that regulates a flow of a first fluid.” Thus, Martin does not
`
`anticipate claim 1 of the ’821 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Eggers
`
`The “Eggers” reference is German Patent Application No. 1,268,494,
`
`entitled “Pulse-Controlled Actuating Device.” The following is Figure 1 from
`
`Eggers, which is representative of the valve assembly that Eggers discloses:
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Like Martin, Eggers fails to disclose all of the limitations claimed in
`
`the ’821 patent. In particular, Eggers does not disclose a proportional valve
`
`assembly. As discussed above, a POSA would understand “proportional” valve as
`
`it is used in the ’821 patent to mean a valve wherein the distance that the valve
`
`moves depends on the strength of the control signal. In other words, a POSA
`
`would understand a “proportional” valve to be one in which the valve would move
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`a greater distance with a stronger control signal than it would with a relatively
`
`weaker one.
`
`Eggers, however, uses a stepper motor, shown as number 15 in Figure
`
`1, to incrementally change the length of cable 14 to move the pilot spool, which in
`
`turn directs flow to either side of the double-acting actuator. Eggers states: “a
`
`stepper motor…adjusts the actuating drive by one distance unit with each pulse.”
`
`Eggers at 4:4-6 (emphasis added). Importantly, the size, degree, or intensity of the
`
`pulse does not matter—regardless of how strong, how big, or how long of a pulse
`
`is fed to the stepper motor, as long as the pulse is above a certain threshold and
`
`does not overload the motor, the stepper motor moves the valve the same amount.
`
`In other words, the movement of Eggers’ valve does not “correspond in size,
`
`degree, or intensity” to the control signal the valve receives because, no matter the
`
`intensity of the pulse, the stepper motor moves the actuating drive “one distance
`
`unit.” The stepper motor does not change the input to the valve based on the
`
`strength of an electrical control signal. Thus, the position of the valve disclosed in
`
`Eggers is not adjusted in proportion to the strength of a control signal, such that a
`
`stronger control signal would result in a greater movement of the valve than a
`
`relatively weaker control signal. Rather, Eggers’ valve position is adjusted
`
`incrementally by changing the length of cable 14, where the valve moves a number
`
`of steps it is commanded to move (i.e., one step per pulse).
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`Because Eggers fails to disclose a proportional valve assembly
`
`wherein a stronger control signal causes the valve to move a greater distance than
`
`does a relatively weaker control signal, Eggers does not anticipate the ’821 patent.
`
`Eggers also fails to anticipate claim 12 of the ’821 patent, which
`
`requires “moving the double-acting actuator through a range of positions
`
`corresponding to different amounts of feedback between the double-acting actuator
`
`and the directional valve at the neutral position of the directional valve.” (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Importantly, in Eggers, there are not “different amounts of feedback”
`
`at the neutral position—the amount of feedback between the directional valve and
`
`the double-acting actuator is always the same. Eggers contains a single tension
`
`spring, shown as number 13 in the above image, that always exerts the same
`
`amount of upward force on the directional valve 9. When the stepper motor
`
`receives a pulse, it changes the length of cable 14, which pulls control rod 11 down
`
`and temporarily moves valve 9 down as well. Fluid is then allowed into the double-
`
`acting actuator to move the valve open a step, which relieves the tension on control
`
`rod 11 and allows the force exerted by tension spring 13 to pull valve 9 back to a
`
`neutral position. At every neutral position in Eggers, at every step, the upward
`
`force exerted on the valve comes from the tension spring 13, and the downward
`
`force comes from the feedback between the double-acting actuator 5 and the
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`directional valve 9 through arm 4, cable pull 14, and control rod 11. And at every
`
`neutral position in Eggers, these upward and downward forces are the same.
`
`In other words, the range of positions through which the double-acting
`
`actuator in Eggers move does not “correspond to different amounts of feedback
`
`between the double acting actuator and the directional valve at the neutral position
`
`of the directional valve.” Instead, the range of positions in Eggers corresponds to
`
`the number of pulses received by the stepper motor. For this reason, Eggers does
`
`not anticipate claim 12 of the ’821 patent.
`
`V.
`
`Non-Obviousness: The Lack of a Reason or Motivation to Combine
`Prior Art References
`
`I am informed by counsel that an invention may also be rendered
`
`invalid if a combination of two or more prior art references would have rendered
`
`the subject matter recited in a claim obvious to a POSA at the time of invention. I
`
`am further informed by counsel that Petitioner argues that the combination of
`
`Martin and/or Eggers with a third reference—Oleksiewicz—would have rendered
`
`the subject matter recited in the ’821 patent’s claims obvious to a POSA at the time
`
`of the invention. For the following reasons, I disagree.
`
`A.
`
`Oleksiewicz
`
`The Oleksiewicz reference is U.S. Patent No. 6,006,732, entitled
`
`“Balanced Flow EGR Control Apparatus.” Like the ’821 patent, Oleksiewicz
`
`- 25 -
`
`
`
`relates specifically to EGR systems in internal combustion engines. Oleksiewicz at
`
`1:5-15.
`
`In contrast, neither Martin nor Eggers relate specifically to valve
`
`assemblies used in i
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
