Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 29592
`
`Exhibit D
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 29593
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`)
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`________________________________
`)
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF RICHARD W. KLOPP, Ph.D., P.E., F.A.S.M.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2111403.000 – 8505
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 29594
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`Figure 46. Patent drawing of Lombard’s gasoline engine powered tracked vehicle, showing a
`chassis 10 according to the plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., the machine’s frame.290
`
`
`
` The Accused Products do not have a machine frame carried by a chassis. Thus, the
`
`Accused Products do not infringe claims 14, 30, and 32. The term “machine frame carried by a
`
`chassis” appears in the preamble of claim 1, and I understand preambles are often not considered
`
`limitations, but in this instance Dr. Rahn uses the machine frame as a limitation in finding
`
`infringement (“The Accused Vibration Isolation Milling Machines are construction machines
`
`including a machine frame carried by a chassis…”),291 and I agree the preamble is limiting.
`
`Therefore, the Accused Products do not infringe claims 1 and 23 either.
`
`b)
`First Subset Attached to the Frame Elastically – Elements
`1.4 and 14.15
`
` The Accused Products do not have a drive engine attached to the machine frame
`
`elastically with a lower spring stiffness. This is because the engine in the Accused Products is
`
`
`290 EXPONENT_0001640-EXPONENT_0001654 (U.S. Patent 1,234,355).
`291 Rahn Initial Report, ¶166.
`
`
`88
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 – 8505
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 29595
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`attached to the pump drive gearbox, and not the machine frame. See Figure 47,292 Figure 48,
`
`Figure 49, Figure 50, and Figure 51. I see no evidence that Dr. Rahn believes Caterpillar copied
`
`this engine mounting arrangement from Wirtgen America. I reserve the right to consider and
`
`respond if any Wirtgen America expert alleges copying of the features claimed in the RE268
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 47.
`
`Image of "PM620_PE527-00- TOP AR" CAD file showing how the engine is supported
`on/attached to the pump drive gearbox rather than the machine frame.293The isolators
`supporting the engine on the gearbox are indicated by the red arrows.
`
` The same engine support arrangement, including support on the pump drive
`
`
`
`gearbox, and not the frame, at the flywheel end, is found across the range of RE268 Accused
`
`
`292 CAT0055043, Excerpt from CAT0055043.jt.
`293 CAT0055043, Excerpt from CAT0055043.jt.
`
`
`2111403.000 – 8505
`
`89
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 29596
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`Figure 54. Figures 1 and 5 from the RE268 Patent showing the only embodiments of engine
`support element 22 attachments, which is directly to the machine frame 4.
` Where the RE268 Patent describes engine spring element attachment in words, it is
`
`uniformly “attached to” or “supported at” the machine frame:
`
`…engine 10 is attached to the machine frame 4 by means of elastic spring/damping
`elements…300
`The first group with the drive engine is attached to the machine frame elastically
`with low spring stiffness…301
`…one group that comprises the drive engine, preferably a combustion engine, is
`supported in a relatively soft manner at the machine frame…302
`The second group 5, on the other hand, is attached to the machine frame 4 by means
`of spring/damping elements 24 showing high spring stiffness,…303
`…elements of the drive train accommodated in the second group, which are to be
`attached to the machine frame in an as stiff manner as possible or in a rigid
`manner.304
`This second group may be attached to the machine frame in a rigid or at least
`nearly rigid manner.305
`…the other group can be supported at the machine frame with high spring stiffness
`in a nearly rigid or rigid manner…306
`
`
`
`300 RE268 Patent, 5:7-8.
`301 RE268 Patent, 2:38-39.
`302 RE268 Patent, 2:46-48.
`303 RE268 Patent, 5:13-15.
`304 RE268 Patent, 2:34-37.
`305 RE268 Patent, 5:7-9.
`306 RE268 Patent, 2:50-52.
`
`
`2111403.000 – 8505
`
`95
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 29597
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`In doing so, the first and the second group, which are attached to the machine frame
`with different degrees of rigidity,…307
` When the RE268 Patent contemplates indirect attachment, it is expressly stated:
`
`Alternatively, the working drum 6 may be supported in a drum housing that is in
`turn firmly attached to the machine frame…308
` Therefore, I conclude that the Accused Products do not practice “supporting the
`
`drive engine component from the machine frame elastically with a first spring stiffness,” nor
`
`“wherein the first subset is attached to the machine frame elastically with a lower spring stiffness,”
`
`and therefore RE268 Patent claims 1 and 14 and their dependent claims 23, 30, and 32 are not
`
`infringed.
`
`c)
` To show RE268 Patent claims 1 and 14 are infringed, Dr. Rahn must show that the
`
`Alignment Prior to Operation – Elements 1.6 and 14.18
`
`Accused Products are built or operated:
`
`…wherein the drive engine component has an output axis aligned with an input axis
`of the hydraulic pump drive component and with an input axis of the drive pulley
`prior to operation…309
` Dr. Rahn has failed to do so. I agree with Dr. Rahn310 that the criterion for alignment
`
`is when coupling manufacturers’ specifications are met, that is, prior to operation; the absolute
`
`maximum radial offset between the engine crankshaft centerline and the pump drive input shaft
`
`centerline is 0.5 mm, the absolute maximum angular offset is 0.05°, and the axial offset between
`
`the coupling attachment faces is between 90.5 and 91.5 mm. These offsets must be measured to
`
`determine whether manufacturer’s specifications are met, and Dr. Rahn has not disclosed such
`
`measurements. In addition, even if the alignment criteria are met when the machines are assembled
`
`
`
`307 RE268 Patent, 2:54-56.
`308 RE268 Patent, 4:27-29.
`309 RE268 Patent, claims 1, 14.
`310 Rahn Initial Report, ¶¶246-250.
`
`
`96
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 – 8505
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 287-2 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 29598
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`reliance on Drs. Rahn’s and Meyer’s engineering opinions to support economic opinions is fatally
`
`flawed.
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on June 16, 2023 at Menlo Park, California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard W. Klopp, Ph.D., P.E., F.A.S.M.E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`134
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`2111403.000 – 8505
`
`