`________________
`
`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