Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 85 PageID #:
`13639
`
`Rahn Declaration
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 85 PageID #:
`13640
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER D. RAHN, PH.D IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT WIRTGEN AMERICA INC.’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 85 PageID #:
`13641
`
`I, Christopher D. Rahn, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant Wirtgen America, Inc. (“Wirtgen
`
`America”) to evaluate U.S. Patent Nos. 7,946,788 (“Ex. G1” or “the ’788 Patent”), 8,511,932 (“the
`
`’932 Patent” or “JCCC Ex. H”), and 8,690,474 (“Ex. H” or “the ’474 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“sensor switching patents”), as well as RE48,268 (“Ex. J” or “the ’268 Patent”) (the “vibration
`
`mounting patent”), which I understand are asserted by Wirtgen America in this case. I submit this
`
`declaration in support of Wirtgen America’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`2.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the sensor switching patents and the vibration
`
`mounting patent and their prosecution histories, as well as the documents mentioned in this
`
`declaration (a complete list of reviewed materials is in Attachment B to this declaration). I
`
`understand that ’788 Patent, the ’932 Patent, and the ’474 Patent all share an identical specification.
`
`I understand that the ’268 Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,408,659 (“the ’659 Patent”) and
`
`incorporates the ’659 Patent specification. I have also reviewed the Joint Claim Construction Chart
`
`relating to these patents. See D.I. 96.
`
`3.
`
`This declaration provides background information regarding devices used to reduce
`
`vibrations transmitted by construction machine drive trains and my expert opinions regarding the
`
`ʼ268 Patent, including opinions relating to the proper construction of certain elements and the
`
`
`1 Exhibits A-O refer to exhibits filed with the Joint Claim Construction Chart for Wirtgen America’s Asserted Patents
`(D.I. 96). Exhibits P-Y were produced by Wirtgen America in connection with Wirtgen America’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief. For the purpose of uniformity across claim-construction filings, Wirtgen America cites to the
`references listed in the “Table of Cited References and Exhibits” in the Opening Claim Construction Brief, and I,
`Christopher D. Rahn, Ph.D., cite to the same in this Declaration in Support of Wirtgen America’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 85 PageID #:
`13642
`
`bases for my opinions. In forming my opinions, I relied on my education, knowledge, and
`
`experience and considered the level of ordinary skill in the art as discussed below.
`
`4.
`
`In reaching the opinions and conclusions provided in this declaration, I have reviewed and
`
`considered the asserted patents discussed in this declaration, including the prosecution histories,
`
`and the intrinsic evidence cited in the parties’ proposed constructions as provided in the Joint
`
`Claim Construction Chart.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI) in 1985. I received a Master’s of Mechanical Engineering from
`
`University California, Berkeley (Berkeley, CA) in 1986. After receiving my Master’s degree, I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley
`
`(Berkeley, CA) in 1992. A copy of my current curriculum vitae is provided in Attachment A, and
`
`it provides a comprehensive description of my academic and employment history along with
`
`articles that I have authored.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently the J. ‘Lee’ Everett Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Director of
`
`the Mechatronics Research Laboratory at the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”). My
`
`research focuses in the area of electromechanical systems, including the design, fabrication, and
`
`experimental testing of electromechanical devices. I have published over 250 technical conference
`
`and journal papers and have been honored with awards from the Office of Naval Research,
`
`Clemson University, Penn State, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”).
`
`I have taught many courses in electromechanical systems, design, and structures over my career
`
`as a professor at Clemson University and Penn State. Over twenty-five Ph.D. and forty-five M.S.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 85 PageID #:
`13643
`
`students have obtained their advanced degrees under my advisement. Thousands of students have
`
`attended my courses. I am a Fellow of ASME.
`
`7.
`
`For my entire career, I have modeled, analyzed, designed, controlled, and experimentally
`
`tested systems that vibrate and produce noise. For example, my Ph.D. thesis at the University of
`
`California, Berkeley concerned the control of vibration in structures. In addition to my thesis, as
`
`described in my curriculum vitae, more than half of my publications are on the subject of vibration
`
`and vibration control. For example, I published a book and many journal papers that discuss the
`
`control of bending vibration in beams or shafts, a journal paper on vibration control for shell-like
`
`membrane/plate structures, and several papers on tuned vibration isolators and absorbers,
`
`including for beam-like structures with bending and torsional vibration. I have also given invited
`
`presentations within the U.S. and internationally on these topics. I have conducted research in
`
`vibration funded by industry and the U.S. National Science Foundation, including a recent project
`
`funded by Parker LORD on additively manufactured vibration isolation mounts.
`
`8.
`
`My service work for ASME has focused on the vibration and noise control technical
`
`community. I served two terms as an Associate Technical Editor for the ASME Journal of
`
`Vibration and Acoustics, deciding on the acceptance or rejection of submitted papers in that field.
`
`I am currently the Editor-in-Chief of this journal, handling roughly 600 papers per year on
`
`vibration and noise. I also served over ten years on the ASME Technical Committee on Vibration
`
`and Sound, including leading the committee as Chair for two years. I chaired the ASME Design
`
`Division from 2015 – 2016.
`
`9.
`
`I have taught many courses related to noise and vibration control technology. For example,
`
`I have taught the modeling and analysis of vibrating systems at both the undergraduate (4 courses)
`
`and graduate (4 courses) levels and supervised the vibrations laboratory for two years. The
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 85 PageID #:
`13644
`
`undergraduate courses cover a wide variety of topics related to the ʼ268 Patent, including stiffness,
`
`damping, natural frequencies, and tuned vibration absorbers. Measurement of damping and natural
`
`frequencies was presented in the undergraduate vibrations laboratory. The graduate courses
`
`included the bending vibration of shafts, torsional vibration in driveshafts, damping of bending
`
`vibration, rotating beams, bent and twisted shafts, and shells.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to my experience in vibration and noise control mentioned in the previous
`
`paragraphs, I have extensive experience in control systems theory, design, and hardware and
`
`software implementation. I have published many papers on control systems with applications to
`
`robotics, spacecraft, manufacturing, batteries, sensors, and actuators. One of my patents involves
`
`the invention of a control system for spacecraft. Many of the industry and government funded
`
`research projects that I have led are related to control systems. I advised many students whose
`
`theses involved control systems theory, design, and experimental testing. I have taught
`
`undergraduate (12 courses) and graduate (20 courses) courses in control systems, including an
`
`undergraduate laboratory.
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $770 per hour. My compensation does
`
`not depend on the opinions that I have offered or the outcome of this case. All the opinions stated
`
`in this declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional judgment; if called
`
`as a witness during the trial in this matter, I am prepared to testify competently about them.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`12.
`
`In forming my opinions, I considered the materials listed in Attachment B.
`
`IV.
`
`PATENT LAW STANDARDS
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to review and analyze the sensor switching and vibration mounting
`
`patents, including the claims, from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 85 PageID #:
`13645
`
`time of invention. I understand that, for purposes of this declaration, the time of invention is
`
`assumed to be the earliest priority date of the patent. For purposes of this declaration, I have
`
`assumed that the sensor switching patents all have an earliest priority date of April 27, 2006. I have
`
`assumed that the earliest priority date of the vibration mounting patent is April 15, 2005.
`
`A. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`I understand that “a person of ordinary skill in the art” or “a skilled artisan” is a hypothetical
`
`person who is presumed to be aware of pertinent art, including knowledge in the art, thinks along
`
`conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. I understand that this
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is considered to have the normal skills and
`
`knowledge of a person in the technical field.
`
`15.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the subject matter of the
`
`sensor switching patents would be a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical
`
`engineering or an equivalent degree and at two least years of experience in the design or
`
`development of heavy machinery, including their control systems. Additional education could
`
`substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience in the field could substitute
`
`for formal education.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the subject matter of the
`
`vibration mounting patents would be a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical
`
`engineering or an equivalent degree and at two least years of experience in the design or
`
`development of heavy machinery, including their drive trains. Additional education could
`
`substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience in the field could substitute
`
`for formal education.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 85 PageID #:
`13646
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`17.
`
`I have been provided certain legal principles relating to the construction of patent claims.
`
`In conducting my analysis set forth in this declaration, I have been guided by these principles. I
`
`understand that “claim construction” is the interpretation of the meaning of patent claims. I
`
`understand that the parties have exchanged lists of claim elements that may need to be construed,
`
`as well as proposed constructions of those elements. I understand that the Court has not yet
`
`construed any of the disputed claim elements.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, which is the meaning the term or phrase would have to a skilled artisan at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence can be used to assist in
`
`understanding the meaning of a claim. Intrinsic evidence includes the claim language, language in
`
`other claims of the patent, the specification, and the prosecution record. I further understand that,
`
`unless required by the claim language or specification, claims should generally not be limited to
`
`embodiments in the specification, including preferred embodiments. I understand that extrinsic
`
`evidence, which consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history including
`
`expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, may also be relevant to claim
`
`construction.
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to review the claims and ascertain the meaning of the claims from the
`
`perspective of a skilled artisan. My opinions on claim construction expressed in this declaration
`
`are from the perspective of, and based upon the knowledge of, a skilled artisan at the time of the
`
`invention and are consistent with my understanding as stated above.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 85 PageID #:
`13647
`
`C. Claim Definiteness
`
`20.
`
`I understand that claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
`
`which the applicant regards as their invention. I understand that the inherent limitations of
`
`language must be taken into account, and some modicum of uncertainty in the claims is permitted.
`
`I understand that a claim is not indefinite if, read in light of the specification delineating the patent,
`
`and the prosecution history, the claim informs, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art
`
`about the scope of the invention.
`
`D. Means Plus Function Under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6
`
`21.
`
`I understand that an element in a claim may be expressed as a means or step for performing
`
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such
`
`claim should be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`
`specification and equivalents. This is known as a “means-plus-function” limitation.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that, as a result, patent applicants have two options. Under the first option, the
`
`applicant may recite, in the claim, a function without reciting structure for performing the function
`
`and limit the claims to the structure, materials, or acts disclosed in the specification (or their
`
`equivalents). In such cases, as noted above, the claim should be construed to cover the
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents. Under the
`
`second option, the applicant may recite both a function and the structure for performing that
`
`function in the claim, in which case the claim is not construed as a means-plus-function limitation.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the overall means-plus-function analysis is a two-step process. The first
`
`step is to determine whether a claim limitation is drafted in means-plus-function format, which
`
`requires a determination as to whether the limitation connotes sufficiently definite structure to a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 85 PageID #:
`13648
`
`skilled artisan. If the limitation connotes sufficiently definite structure, it is not drafted in means-
`
`plus-function format. If, however, the limitation is in means-plus-function format, the second step
`
`is to determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed
`
`function.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that it should be presumed that a claim limitation is not drafted in means-plus-
`
`function format in the absence of the term “means.” I understand that this presumption can be
`
`rebutted if a challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure. This rebuttal fails, however, if the claim term, as the name for structure, has a reasonably
`
`well understood meaning in the art.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence can be informative in
`
`determining whether the disputed claim language recites sufficiently definite structure. Claim
`
`terms need not connote a single, specific structure and may instead describe a class of structures.
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND (SENSOR SWITCHING)
`
`26.
`
`The sensor switching patents relate to a road construction machine, such as a milling
`
`machine, that includes leveling actuators, depth and/or slope sensors, and control system for
`
`controlling the milling depth or milling slope of a road surface, in which it is possible to change
`
`the sensors without interrupting the milling process. Ex. G, 1:54-58.
`
`27.
`
`Road milling machines have a milling drum with an array of cutting tools to machine a
`
`ground surface. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc., IPR2018-01091, Manual for the
`
`Application of Cold Milling Machines (January 2004) (Ex. 2009) (“Ex. T”), 16-19. I understand
`
`that at the time of the invention, milling drums for large road milling machines were rigidly fixed
`
`to the machine frame and did not pivot or otherwise move relative to the frame. The position of
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 85 PageID #:
`13649
`
`the milling drum was controlled by adjusting the lengths of various lifting columns attached to the
`
`frame. See, e.g., Ex. T, 19.
`
`28.
`
`As the rotating milling drum is lowered into a ground surface up to a given milling depth,
`
`the cutting tools mill away the ground surface. Ex. T, 16-19. The milling drum is typically enclosed
`
`to contain and collect the milled material. A conveyor is typically used to convey the milled
`
`material to a vehicle such as a dump truck for transport away from the job site, as shown below.
`
`(Ex. T, 16)
`
`
`
`29.
`
`At the time of the invention, road milling machines were known to include a combination
`
`of sensors and actuators to provide an even milled surface. Ex. G, 1:11-13; Ex. T, 140-151. The
`
`’788 Patent’s background section discusses prior-art milling machines with grade and slope control
`
`systems that used reference sensors to regulate the grade and slope to produce a desired roadway
`
`profile. See, e.g., Ex. G, 1:11-24. Milling depth control systems, for example, relied on sensors to
`
`“scan[] the reference surface…very precisely.” Ex. G, 1:14-27.
`
`30.
`
`Several sensors were used by conventional milling depth control systems to sense the
`
`position and orientation of the milling drum relative to external references. The Manual for the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 12 of 85 PageID #:
`13650
`
`Application of Cold Milling Machines (Ex. T) discusses the various grade and slope control
`
`sensors available for use on Wirtgen machines as of January 2004. Ex. T, 140-151. For the
`
`purposes of this declaration, I cite to the Application Manual only to illustrate what types of sensors
`
`and sensor system technologies were available in 2004. Some of these sensors are summarized in
`
`the figure below.
`
`(Ex. T, 140)
`
`
`
`31.
`
`For example, wire-rope sensors were mounted to the side plates (i.e., edge protectors) on
`
`the left and right sides next to the milling drum to scan the reference surface, e.g., a previously
`
`milled traffic lane. Ex. T, 142 (copied below).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 13 of 85 PageID #:
`13651
`
`(Ex. T, 142)
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Similarly, skilled artisans also attached wire-rope sensors to a sensing shoe that floated in
`
`front of the milling drum to sense the height of the ground surface in front of the drum. Ex. T, 144
`
`(copied below).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 14 of 85 PageID #:
`13652
`
`(Ex. T, 144)
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Ultrasonic sensors were also used for position sensing. The Application Manual explains
`
`that an ultrasonic sensor “operates contact-free and is therefore not subject to any mechanical wear
`
`and tear…. A major advantage lies not only in its accuracy, but also in the variety of ways in which
`
`it can be used for sensing: at the drum panel, at the side of the drum and also in front of the drum
`
`(milling flush to the unpaved shoulder).” Ex. T, 142. The figures below show the operating
`
`principle and example mountings of these sensors.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 15 of 85 PageID #:
`13653
`
`(Ex. T, 142)
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. T, 144)
`
`34.
`
`Skilled artisans also used sonic ski sensors (multiple ultrasonic sensors) to scan grade lines
`
`and reference surfaces. Sonic ski sensors could be used to sense string line positions in place of
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 16 of 85 PageID #:
`13654
`
`mechanical transducers or simultaneously sense string line and ground surface positions to
`
`“compensate any unevenness in the pavement to be removed.” Ex. T, 143 (copied below).
`
`(Ex. T, 143)
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Slope sensors were also used to measure the slope of the milling drum, i.e., its transverse
`
`inclination relative to horizontal as shown in the figure below. Ex. G, 1:25-27.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 17 of 85 PageID #:
`13655
`
`(Ex. T, 145)
`
`
`
`36.
`
`The ’788 Patent describes conventional milling depth control systems with two
`
`independent control loops, each including a controller with sensor inputs connected via plug-in
`
`connectors. Ex. G, 1:28-31. For example, “either two height sensors are provided, or one height
`
`sensor in combination with one slope sensor.” Ex. G, 1:31-33.
`
`37.
`
`In the state of the art of road milling machines, it was necessary to frequently change
`
`between the many different sensors for application-related reasons. Ex. G, 1:34-38. For examples
`
`of application-related reasons, I refer to the Declaration of Jan Schmidt, which was submitted in
`
`an IPR proceeding involving the same technology. At the time of the proceeding, Mr. Schmidt was
`
`the Vice President of Product Support at Wirtgen America, Inc., and he had been employed by
`
`Wirtgen for thirty-three years. Mr. Schmidt’s responsibilities included technical service support
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 18 of 85 PageID #:
`13656
`
`for cold planers. His declaration describes a typical configuration in which the height sensors are
`
`wire-rope sensors attached to the side plates of the road milling machine. Caterpillar Inc. v.
`
`Wirtgen America, Inc., IPR2018-01091, Declaration of Jan Schmidt (Ex. 2008) (“Ex. U”), ¶23.
`
`38. Mr. Schmidt explains that “An operator may more easily respond to the changing
`
`specifications of a milling job by causing one side of the machine to be adjusted based on slope,
`
`for example on curves, and then switching back to depth control for straighter stretches of road
`
`with consistent specifications. An operator may identify that one or more tracks of the machine
`
`are approaching a pothole or other obstruction that may cause the machine to drop or dip, such that
`
`preemptively switching to slope control may be temporarily preferred.” Ex. U, ¶21. Mr. Schmidt
`
`explains that as “a milling depth control is only as good as a quality of the external reference, [] it
`
`is critical that operators have the ability to make control parameter adjustments based on oncoming
`
`or expected conditions.” Ex. U, ¶22.
`
`39. Mr. Schmidt provides the example, “if the road milling machine is milling flush to an
`
`unpaved shoulder on the right side of the road, the side plate on that side may sink into the ground
`
`surface and a wire-rope height sensor on the right-side plate will therefore not provide an accurate
`
`value for use in determining the milling depth.” Ex. U, ¶23. If this condition is approaching, the
`
`operator can switch control of the right side from a wire-rope height sensor to a slope sensor. Ex.
`
`U, ¶23.
`
`40.
`
`In another example, the road milling machine approaches a curb on the right side of the
`
`road and will be milling flush to the curb. In this case, the right-side plate may not provide an
`
`accurate measurement during milling along the curb. The operator can then switch control of the
`
`right side to be based on another (e.g., slope) sensor. If the right-side plate starts sliding smoothly
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 19 of 85 PageID #:
`13657
`
`along the top of the curb or the machine is no longer flush to the curb, then the right side sensor
`
`can be switched back to the side plate. Ex. U, ¶24.
`
`41.
`
`In still another example, if: “the road milling machine is making a second cut in a road
`
`surface and approaching the end of a first (previous) cut in the same road surface, it may be
`
`preferred to lift the appropriate side plate out of the cut to avoid jamming the side plate against the
`
`vertical surface resulting from the first cut.” Ex. U, ¶25. Again, lifting the side plate would prevent
`
`accurate height measurements using the wire-rope sensor, so the operator would need to switch to
`
`a different sensor. Ex. U, ¶25.
`
`42.
`
`The ’788 Patent describes how none of these necessary changes could be made on
`
`conventional road milling machines “without an interruption of the milling operation and without
`
`negative influences on the work result.” Ex. G, 1:36-38.
`
`To change the current sensor, the automatic mode of the control system needs to be
`left first as there is merely one controller, or merely one indication and setting
`device for set values and actual values per controller respectively. The new sensor
`can then be selected, and the desired set value can be set before it is possible to
`change back into the automatic mode of the control system. If the road milling
`machine continued milling during changing of the sensor, faults in the work result
`could occur because no control is effected during that time. The machine therefore
`needs to be stopped for a change of the sensor, which leads to a significant time
`loss. An adverse effect on the work result ensues even if the road milling machine
`is stopped during change of the sensor because the milling drum cuts clear when
`standing. This is an unwelcome effect, in particular during fine milling.
`
`Ex. G, 1:38-53.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE SENSOR SWITCHING PATENTS
`
`A. Shared Specification of the Sensor Switching Patents
`
`43.
`
`The inventors of the ’788 Patent overcame the disadvantages of prior road milling
`
`machines by enabling operators to change sensors without interrupting the milling operation. Ex.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 20 of 85 PageID #:
`13658
`
`G, 1:54-58. The ’788 Patent teaches a leveling device that includes an indication and setting device
`
`that enables initial selection by the operator of a first subset of sensors to provide feedback signals
`
`for control. Ex. G, 4:7-19. The patent provides example sensors including “a wire-rope sensor, a
`
`slope sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a multiplex sensor, a total station, as well as a laser for pre-
`
`determining the reference surface.” Ex. G, 4:60-67.
`
`44.
`
`In one example, the ’788 Patent (See Fig. 2 copied below) discloses “the connection of
`
`sensors A, B, C to the leveling device 4 with two controllers 6a, 6c, where the leveling device is
`
`provided with an indication and setting device 2 with three indication and setting units 2a, 2b, 2c.”
`
`Ex. G, 4:44-47.
`
`(Ex. G, Figure 2)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 21 of 85 PageID #:
`13659
`
`45.
`
`Figure 3 (copied below) “shows an embodiment of the indication and setting device 2,
`
`wherein setting buttons 16 (up and down) for the setting of set values, as well as setting buttons
`
`18 (up and down) for the adjustment of measured actual values are present for each indication and
`
`setting unit 2a, 2b, 2c.” Ex. G, 4:48-52. Buttons (labeled A and S in Fig. 3) are “provided for the
`
`automatic mode and for the setting mode to set the controller parameters.” Ex. G, 5:1-3.
`
`(Ex. G, Fig. 3)
`
`
`
`46. When the operator identifies conditions during milling that require a change from one of
`
`the first subset of sensors to another sensor, the indication and setting device further enables the
`
`operator to pre-select this second subset of sensors that will be used for control after a switchover.
`
`Ex. G, 4:23-34. Once the second subset of sensors has been selected, the operator causes
`
`switchover by manually actuating a corresponding switchover button (e.g., 10a or 10b). Ex. G,
`
`4:28-34, 6:1-8.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 22 of 85 PageID #:
`13660
`
`47.
`
`Sensor switching without interrupting the milling operation is important and specific to
`
`road milling machines. Road milling operations are very expensive and performed to tight
`
`specifications of allotted time and cut depth and slope precision of the finished road surface. Ex.
`
`U, ¶¶9-10, 18. Milling machine operators must analyze conditions or obstacles associated with a
`
`road surface to be milled and select an appropriate combination of sensors to achieve the
`
`specifications. Ex. U, ¶¶18, 21. In my experience, including review and discussions associated
`
`with producing this report, I have not become aware of any commercially available systems for
`
`identifying road surface conditions or obstacles and automatically pre-selecting sensors for
`
`switchover. I am also not aware of any such systems that were available as of the priority date of
`
`the ’788 Patent. Operator interaction for sensor pre-selection and switchover activation is therefore
`
`critical. In my opinion, the claimed invention allows these functions to be performed such that
`
`“switchover of the sensors is possible at the push of a button without any time loss and without an
`
`interruption of the milling operation.” Ex. G, 2:21-23.
`
`48.
`
`In some embodiments of the ’788 Patent, the indication and setting device enables the
`
`operator to manually adjust the set value for the new (pre-selected) sensor prior to activation of
`
`the switchover command. Ex. G, 1:67-2:4. In this way, the deviation between the set value and the
`
`measured actual values of the pre-selected sensor can be reduced so the switchover occurs without
`
`erratic alteration of the adjustment values from the controller and without interrupting the milling
`
`operation. Ex. G, 2:4-7, 4:7-23.
`
`49.
`
`In other embodiments, “the pre-determined set value is adapted to the currently measured
`
`actual value of the pre-selected sensor B so that, also in this case, there is no alteration of the
`
`adjustment value” at switchover. Ex. G, 5:14-17. The adjustment value would be unaltered at
`
`switchover because the adjustment value is “the difference of the set value and actual value.” Ex.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW-MPT Document 121-1 Filed 11/17/22 Page 23 of 85 PageID #:
`13661
`
`G, 4:23-28. At switchover, this difference would be zero because the set value is automatically
`
`changed to the actual value of the replacement sensor. Ex. G, 4:23-28. Alteration of the set values
`
`“is effected automatically when the switchover button [] is actuated in automatic mode,” so the
`
`operator does not need to change the set values manually. Ex. G, 6:1-5. This saves time and
`
`increases the efficiency of the milling operation. Ex. G, 6:6-8.
`
`B. Exemplary Claims of the Sensor Switching Patents
`
`50.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’788 Patent is exemplary and recites as follows:
`
`A road construction machine for the treatment of road surfaces, comprising:
`
`a milling drum, the milling drum being height adjustable with regard to milling
`depth and/or slope; and
`
`a leveling system operable to control the milling depth and/or the slope of the
`milling drum, the leveling system including:
`
`a plurality of selectable sensors for sensing current actual values of
`operating parameters including the milling depth and/or the slope of the
`milling drum relative to a reference surface;
`
`a plurality of indication and setting devices, each of the indication and
`setting devices being associatable with at least one of the plurality of
`selectable sensors, each indication and setting device being operable to
`indicate the current actual value of and to set a set value for the operating
`parameter sensed by its associated sensor;
`
`a controller operable to control the milling depth and/or the slope of the
`milling d