`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Caterpillar, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 9,656,530
`Filing Date: April 10, 2015
`Issue Date: May 23, 2017
`
`Title: Automotive Construction Machine,
`as Well as Lifting Column for a Construction Machine
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-02188
`
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS LABUS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,656,530
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Page 1 of 111
`
`CATERPILLAR EXHIBIT 1150
`
`

`

`
`I.
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 7
`Summary of Opinions ................................................................................... 7
`II.
`III. Background and Qualifications .................................................................... 8
`A.
`Background ........................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Compensation ......................................................................................12
`IV. Materials Considered ..................................................................................12
`V.
`Legal Standards ...........................................................................................12
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill .......................................................................13
`B.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................13
`C. Anticipation .........................................................................................14
`D. Obviousness .........................................................................................14
`VI. The ’530 patent ............................................................................................18
`A. Overview .............................................................................................18
`B.
`Claims of the ’530 patent ....................................................................23
`VII. Analysis .........................................................................................................25
`A. Overview of Swisher, Glasson, Davis, and Hosseini ..........................25
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,325,580 to Swisher, Jr. et al.
`(“Swisher”) ................................................................................25
`U.S. Patent No. 6,234,061 to Glasson (“Glasson”) ..................30
`2.
`U.S. PG Publication 2002/0047301 to Davis (“Davis”) ...........32
`3.
`U.S. Patent No 5,189,940 to Hosseini et al. (“Hosseini”) ........35
`4.
`The Combination of Swisher in view of Glasson Renders
`Claims 1, 2, 15, 21, 24, and 26 Obvious .............................................38
`
`B.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 2 of 111
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`b.
`c.
`
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Been Motivated to
`Combine Swisher and Glasson .................................................38
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Known How to Combine
`Swisher and Glasson, and Would Have Had a Reasonable
`Expectation of Success in Doing So .........................................40
`Claim 1: .....................................................................................42
`a.
`Element [1.0] “A road construction machine,
`comprising” .....................................................................42
`Element [1.1]: “a machine frame” ..................................43
`Element [1.2]: “a working drum supported from
`the machine frame for working a ground surface or
`traffic surface” ................................................................44
`Element [1.3]: “a plurality of ground engaging
`supports for supporting the construction machine
`on the ground surface or traffic surface” ........................47
`Element [1.4]: “a plurality of lifting columns, each
`one of the lifting columns being connected
`between the machine frame and one of the ground
`engaging supports” .........................................................49
`Element [1.5]: “each one of the lifting columns
`including two telescoping hollow column
`members” ........................................................................50
`Element [1.6]: “and at least one piston cylinder
`unit located within the telescoping hollow column
`members for adjusting a height of the lifting
`column so that each one of the lifting columns is
`adjustable in height relative to the machine frame” .......52
`Element [1.7]: “each lifting column having a
`lifting position corresponding to a position of one
`of the two telescoping hollow column members
`relative to the other of the two telescoping hollow
`column members;” ..........................................................55
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Page 3 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Element [1.8]: “a plurality of lifting position
`sensors, each lifting position sensor being coupled
`with elements of one of the lifting columns, which
`elements are capable of being displaced relative to
`one another in accordance with the lifting position
`of the lifting column in such a manner that a signal
`including information on a current lifting position
`of the lifting column is produced by the lifting
`position sensor” ..............................................................56
`Element [1.9]: “wherein each of the lifting position
`sensors is connected to the at least one piston
`cylinder unit located within its associated lifting
`column” ...........................................................................60
`Claim 2: “The road construction machine of claim 1,
`further comprising: a controller configured to receive the
`signals from the lifting position sensors, and to regulate
`the lifting positions of the lifting columns in response at
`least in part to the signals from the lifting position
`sensors.” ....................................................................................62
`Claim 15: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to regulate a
`working depth of the working drum at least in part in
`response to the signals produced by the lifting position
`sensors.” ....................................................................................65
`Claim 21: “The road construction machine of claim 1,
`wherein: the working drum is fixed in height relative to
`the machine frame and a working depth of the working
`drum is adjusted by adjusting the lifting positions of the
`lifting columns.”........................................................................66
`Claim 24: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to raise and lower
`the plurality of lifting columns independently of one
`another. ......................................................................................67
`Claim 26: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the plurality of lifting position sensors
`
`3
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Page 4 of 111
`
`

`

`C.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`comprises one or more inductive path measuring
`devices.” ....................................................................................69
`The Combination of Swisher and Glasson in further view of
`Davis Renders Claims 3, 4, 14, 16–20, and 22–23 Obvious...............70
`1.
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Been Motivated to
`Combine Swisher in view of Glasson with Davis ....................70
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Known How to Combine
`Swisher in view of Glasson with Davis, and Would Have
`Had a Reasonable Expectation of Success in Doing So ...........73
`Claim 3: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`further comprising: an indicator device operable to
`display the lifting positions of each of the lifting columns
`corresponding to the signals produced by the lifting
`position sensors. ........................................................................75
`Claim 4: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to store the signals
`from the lifting position sensors corresponding to current
`lifting positions of the lifting columns and to thereby
`define a current spatial position of the machine frame as
`a reference spatial position of the machine frame.” .................77
`Claim 14: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to calibrate the
`lifting positions sensed by the lifting position sensors to a
`unit of length.” ..........................................................................80
`Claim 16: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to raise the lifting
`columns synchronously to one another.” ..................................81
`Claim 17: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to lower the lifting
`columns synchronously to one another.” ..................................82
`Claim 18: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to move the
`machine frame from a first frame position to a second
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Page 5 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`9.
`
`frame position by adjusting the heights of all of the
`lifting columns by equal amounts.” ..........................................84
`Claim 19: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to bring the machine
`frame to a frame position parallel to the ground surface
`or traffic surface with the machine frame being a
`predetermined distance from the ground surface or traffic
`surface.” ....................................................................................85
`10. Claim 20: “The road construction machine of claim 19,
`wherein: the frame position parallel to the ground surface
`or traffic surface is a horizontal position.” ...............................86
`11. Claim 22: “The road construction machine of claim 1,
`further comprising: an indicator device operable to
`display the lifting positions of each of the lifting columns
`corresponding to the signals produced by the lifting
`position sensors. ........................................................................87
`12. Claim 23: “The road construction machine of claim 22,
`wherein: the plurality of lifting columns includes two
`front lifting columns and two rear lifting columns; and
`the indicator device is operable to display the lifting
`positions of the two front lifting columns and two rear
`lifting columns. .........................................................................87
`The Combination of Swisher and Glasson in further view of
`Hosseini Renders Claims 5–7 and 13 Obvious ...................................89
`1.
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Been Motivated to
`Combine Swisher in view of Glasson with Hosseini................89
`A Skilled Artisan Would Have Known How to Combine
`Swisher in view of Glasson with Hosseini, and Would
`Have Had a Reasonable Expectation of Success in Doing
`So ...............................................................................................91
`Claim 5: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to provide at least
`one limiting value for the height adjustment of each of
`the lifting columns.” ..................................................................93
`5
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`Page 6 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 6: “The road construction machine of claim 5,
`wherein: the limiting value for the height adjustment
`prevents engagement of a mechanical limit stop of a
`piston against a cylinder of the piston cylinder unit of
`each lifting column.” .................................................................96
`Claim 7: “The road construction machine of claim 5,
`wherein: the limiting value defines a predetermined
`lifting position of the respective lifting column such that
`the respective piston cylinder unit is not run up against a
`mechanical stop of the piston cylinder unit when the
`lifting column is in the predetermined position.” .....................98
`Claim 13: “The road construction machine of claim 2,
`wherein: the controller is configured to reduce
`overshooting in the regulating of the lifting positions of
`the lifting columns with reference to desired lifting
`positions of the lifting columns.” ..............................................99
`
`6
`
`
`Page 7 of 111
`
`

`

`I, Thomas Labus, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked to submit this declaration on behalf of Caterpillar,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) in connection with a petition for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,656,530,1 which I have been told is being submitted to the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office by
`
`Petitioner.
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, I have been retained as a technical expert by Petitioner to
`
`study and provide my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability
`
`or unpatentability of, claims 1–7, 13–24, and 26 of the ’530 patent (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”). For purposes of this declaration, I was not asked to provide
`
`any opinions that are not expressed herein.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`This declaration is directed to the Challenged Claims of the ’530
`3.
`
`patent, and sets forth the opinions I have formed, the conclusions I have reached,
`
`and the bases for each.
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’530 patent is Exhibit 1001 to the petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’530 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 8 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`4.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art as of the effective
`
`filing date of the ’530 patent, analysis of prior art references, and the understanding
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had of the claim terms in light of
`
`the specification as of the effective filing date, it is my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’530 patent are unpatentable as being obvious over the prior art
`
`references discussed below. In forming my opinions, counsel for Petitioner told me
`
`to assume the effective filing date of the ’530 patent is September 12, 2006.
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Background
`I have over forty-nine years of experience in the areas of fluid
`5.
`
`mechanics, high-pressure engineering, actuation/control systems, hydraulics,
`
`pneumatics, rotary and linear reciprocating seals, materials evaluation, and
`
`mechanical design and analysis. I received a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical
`
`Engineering from Purdue University in 1968 and a Master of Science in
`
`Theoretical and Applied Mechanics from the University of Illinois in 1971. I
`
`continued my graduate work at Northern Illinois University in Mathematics,
`
`Illinois Institute of Technology in Mechanics, and the University of Wisconsin-
`
`Milwaukee in Mechanical Engineering.
`
`6.
`
`Presently, I am a retired Professor Emeritus of Mechanical
`
`Engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering (“MSOE”) where I taught
`
`8
`
`
`Page 9 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`for twenty-two years. During my tenure, I taught courses in strength of materials,
`
`fluid mechanics, fluid power systems design, thermodynamics, heat transfer, finite
`
`element analysis, and control systems design. Research/development areas include
`
`abrasive water jet machining, fluid power system/component modeling and
`
`simulation, instrumentation techniques in fluid flow including video imaging, laser
`
`doppler anemometry, and x-ray densitometry. I was instrumental in developing a
`
`fluid power option at MSOE in the mechanical engineering technology program,
`
`and in developing long-term industrial partnerships with companies such as
`
`Caterpillar and John Deere in the field of electro-hydraulics and advanced fluid
`
`power technologies. I also taught in the Masters of Engineering program at MSOE
`
`in the area of mechanical engineering and fluid power.
`
`7.
`
`I continue to serve in the Fluid Power Institute of Applied Technology
`
`Center at MSOE that focuses on research, development, testing and evaluation in
`
`the fluid power industry. I have participated in over forty-five projects ranging
`
`from valve design for underwater applications, development of a water jet tail clip
`
`cutter, development of a simulation program for a hydraulic system on a concrete
`
`construction buggy, design review of an articulated medical operating table,
`
`experimental and analytical investigation of flow forces in hydraulic spool valves,
`
`and hydraulic and pneumatic cylinder design, analysis, and testing including sensor
`
`integration for position control.
`
`9
`
`
`Page 10 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`8.
`
`I hold a patent entitled, “System for Pumping Fluids at Constant
`
`Pressure,” U.S. Patent No. 4,373,864, published February 15, 1983.
`
`9.
`
`I have served as a paper reviewer for the ASME Journal of Dynamic
`
`Systems and Controls and organized several conferences for the Water Jet
`
`Technology Association in 1993 and 1995. I was vice-president of the Fluid Power
`
`Educational Foundation that supports fluid power education at two- and four-year
`
`technical colleges/universities. Moreover, I have been a member of the American
`
`Society of Mechanical Engineers and Member and Chairman of the Board of
`
`Directors of the Water Jet Technology Association.
`
`10. Prior to joining MSOE, I served as Associate Professor of
`
`Engineering Science at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. Courses taught
`
`included thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, statics, strength of
`
`materials, engineering economics, engineering graphics, machine design, and
`
`applied statistics.
`
`11. My consulting activities include expert testimony as related to failure
`
`analysis of fluid power components, design of automation systems using combined
`
`electronic, pneumatic and mechanical components, design of leakage sensors for
`
`hydraulic cylinder seals, water jet integration with single arm and gantry style of
`
`robots for industrial uses, and the effects of high-pressure processes on fluid
`
`properties.
`
`10
`
`
`Page 11 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`12. Prior to joining UW-Parkside, I was employed as Chief Engineer for
`
`Hydro-Line Manufacturing Co. in Rockford, Illinois. In this capacity, I was
`
`responsible for product design, and research/development as related to a line of
`
`hydraulic/pneumatic cylinders. New product development activities included a
`
`novel mechanical switch to sense end-of-stroke, new seals and sealing systems for
`
`abrasive service, and a lightweight, aluminum pneumatic cylinder for high-volume
`
`competitively priced applications. I was also responsible for cylinder design for
`
`specific applications including position and velocity control loops and other
`
`application-specific requirements.
`
`13.
`
`I have also served as Senior Research Engineer with IIT Research
`
`Institute in Chicago, Illinois. Technical interests include the development and
`
`application of water jets to primary material removal for construction, mining and
`
`quarry operations, hydraulic systems development for high-density power units,
`
`valve performance testing, fatigue studies on hydraulic cylinders, and other
`
`pressure vessels, and hydrostatic test and evaluation.
`
`14. Prior joining IITRI, I served as a Project Engineer with the Sundstrand
`
`Corporation, Aviation Division, in Rockford, Illinois. My activities centered on the
`
`design and development of aircraft appendage actuation systems. This work
`
`included experience in hydraulic devices, ball-screw actuators, controls and
`
`11
`
`
`Page 12 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`fluidics. My experience also included work in the test and development of hot-gas
`
`hydraulic power units used in missile control systems.
`
`B. Compensation
`I am being compensated for services provided in this matter at my
`15.
`
`usual and customary rate of $300.00 per hour plus travel expenses. My
`
`compensation is not conditioned on the conclusions I reach as a result of my
`
`analysis or on the outcome of this matter, and in no way affects the substance of
`
`my statements in this declaration.
`
`16.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner, or any of its subsidiaries.
`
`I also have no financial interest in Patent Owner, Wirtgen America, Inc. I do not
`
`have any financial interest in the ’530 patent and have not had any contact with the
`
`named inventors of the ’530 patent, Peter Busley or Gunter Tewes.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming my opinions, I read and considered the ’530 patent and its
`17.
`
`prosecution history, the exhibits listed in the Exhibit List filed with the petition for
`
`inter partes review of the ’530 patent, as well as any other material referenced
`
`herein.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`I have been told the following legal principles apply to analysis of
`18.
`
`patentability based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. I also have been told that, in an
`
`12
`
`
`Page 13 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim may be deemed unpatentable if it is
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was anticipated by a prior
`
`art patent or publication under § 102 and/or rendered obvious by one or more prior
`
`art patents or publications under § 103.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`I understand a person of ordinary skill in the art is determined by
`19.
`
`looking at (A) type of problems encountered in the art; (B) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are made; (D) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (E) educational level of active workers in the field. Based
`
`on my experience in this art in the early-to-mid 2000s, and accounting for these
`
`factors, I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had, as of
`
`September 12, 2006 (what I have been told to assume is the effective filing date of
`
`the ’530 patent), a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, or an
`
`equivalent degree, and two to five years of experience in the design of sensors for
`
`mechanical actuators including hydraulic pistons and/or cylinders.
`
`20.
`
`I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 12,
`
`2006.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I have been told by counsel that the claims in the ’530 patent should
`21.
`
`be understood based on their broadest reasonable construction in light of the patent
`
`13
`
`
`Page 14 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`specification for purposes of this inter partes review proceeding. Unless otherwise
`
`noted, my opinions in this declaration are consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the claims to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective
`
`filing date.
`
`C. Anticipation
`I have been told that for a claim to be anticipated under § 102, every
`22.
`
`limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference.
`
`23.
`
`I have also been told that an anticipatory reference does not have to
`
`recite word for word what is in the anticipated claims. Rather, anticipation can
`
`occur when a claimed limitation is “inherent” in the relevant reference. I have been
`
`told that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
`
`claims limitations, it can anticipate.
`
`D. Obviousness
`I have been told that under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), “[a] patent may not be
`24.
`
`obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth
`
`in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`
`14
`
`
`Page 15 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`25. When considering the issues of obviousness, I have been told that I
`
`am to do the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`Ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue;
`
`Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Consider evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness (if
`
`available).
`
`26.
`
`I have been told that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art is the time of
`
`alleged invention. Counsel for Petitioner instructed me to assume that the alleged
`
`invention date for the Challenged Claims is September 12, 2006.
`
`27.
`
`I have been told that a reference may be modified or combined with
`
`other references or with the person of ordinary skill’s own knowledge if the person
`
`would have found the modification or combination obvious. I have also been told
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know all the relevant prior
`
`art, and the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`28.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference could have been
`
`combined with another prior art reference or other information known to a person
`
`15
`
`
`Page 16 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, I have been told that the following principles may
`
`be considered:
`
`a. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`b. The substitution of one known element for another is likely to be
`
`obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`c. The use of a known technique to improve similar items or methods in
`
`the same way is likely to be obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`d. The application of a known technique to a prior art reference that is
`
`ready for improvement is likely obvious if it yields predictable results;
`
`e. Any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the
`
`reference can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed;
`
`f. A person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of
`
`multiple references together like a puzzle; and
`
`g. The proper analysis of obviousness requires a determination of
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “reasonable
`
`expectation of success”—not “absolute predictability” of success—in
`
`achieving the claimed invention by combining prior art references.
`
`16
`
`
`Page 17 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`29.
`
`I have been told that whether a prior art reference renders a patent
`
`claim unpatentable as obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I have also been told that, while there is no requirement
`
`that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to
`
`achieve the claimed invention, a suggestion to combine known elements to achieve
`
`the claimed invention may come from the prior art as a whole or individually, as
`
`filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. In addition, I have been
`
`told that the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ are also relevant to the determination of obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I have been told that, when a work is available in one field, design
`
`alternatives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or in another. I have also been told that if a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`can implement a predictable variation and would see the benefit of doing so, that
`
`variation is likely to be obvious. I have been told that in many fields, there may be
`
`little discussion of obvious combinations, and in these fields market demand—not
`
`scientific literature—may drive design trends. I have been told that, when there is a
`
`design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of predictable
`
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue those
`
`known options.
`
`17
`
`
`Page 18 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`31.
`
`I have been told that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`combine references. But I also have been told that the “teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation” test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. I have been told that this test poses the question as to
`
`whether there is an express or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine prior art elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it
`
`seeks to counter impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`VI. THE ’530 PATENT
`A. Overview
`32. The ’530 patent relates to an automotive construction machine, as
`
`well as a lifting column for the same. Ex.1001, 1:7–9. Automotive construction
`
`machines can take various forms depending on the application. In particular, the
`
`automotive construction machine that the ’530 patent discloses is a recycler or
`
`cold-stripping machine. Id., Abstract. One of ordinary skill in the art understands
`
`that these machines are typically used in heavy construction applications, such as
`
`working and/or reworking ground surfaces, traffic surfaces, or other paved areas
`
`that require repaving or reclaiming to modify or improve paved areas. See id.,
`
`1:10–15.
`
`18
`
`
`Page 19 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`33. A skilled artisan would understand that automotive construction
`
`machines of this sort comprise common elements including a frame and chassis,
`
`cutting drum, hydraulic columns, ground supports, as well as other conventional
`
`features. The background section of the ’530 patent provides a typical example of
`
`one such machine. Id., 1:10–15 (citing Mannebach, Ex.1112). This machine
`
`includes a machine frame supported by a chassis, as well as a working drum
`
`mounted on the machine frame and used for working surfaces. Ex.1001. The
`
`chassis includes wheels or crawler track units connected to the frame via lifting
`
`columns, which are individually height adjustable relative to the frame. Id., 1:15–
`
`19. A controller raises and lowers the lifting columns by controlling the hydraulic
`
`input or discharge of piston cylinder units disposed in the lifting columns. Id.,
`
`1:20–23.
`
`34. As the ’530 patent correctly concedes in its background section, at the
`
`time of the invention, September 12, 2006, these machines were typically equipped
`
`with sensors—e.g., to detect when the piston of a piston valve in the hydraulic
`
`cylinders achieved a predetermined position, or if the frame deviates from a
`
`predetermined distance from the ground. Id., 1:47–50; see also U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,802,525 to Snow, Jr. et al. (issued April 9, 1974) (Ex.1114), Abstract, 4:12–29;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,092,659 to Grathoff (“Grathoff”) (issued March 3, 1992)
`
`(Ex.1109), Abstract, 2:20–27.
`
`19
`
`
`Page 20 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`35. Although one of ordinary skill would have recognized these
`
`conventional sensors at the time, other sensors were known and available as well,
`
`such as wire-rope sensors. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 6,234,061 to Glasson (issued
`
`May 22, 2001) (“Glasson”) (Ex.1106), 2:61–3:10; PCT Application WO
`
`02/057112 to Houghton (published July 25, 2002) (Ex.1115), 2:22–27, 6:11–17;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,450,048 to Samuelson et al. (published September 17, 2002)
`
`(Ex.1117), 1:66–2:32; U.S. PG Publication 2002/0100649 to Agrotis et al.
`
`(published August 1, 2002) (Ex.1118), ¶[0008].
`
`36. The ’530 patent purportedly improves the conventional machines it
`
`describes in the background by providing individual, height-adjustable lifting
`
`columns that include a measuring device for determining the current lifting state of
`
`the column. Ex.1001, 2:20–27, 5:1–3, 11–15. In particular, the ’530 patent
`
`employs wire-rope sensors, id., 3:12–24, which as described above (see ¶35,
`
`supra), were already known in the art, and applied to various types of machines,
`
`including heavy construction equipment.
`
`37. The details of the alleged invention are described in conjunction with
`
`annotated Figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`20
`
`
`Page 21 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`38. Construction machine 1 includes a machine frame 4 supported by a
`
`
`
`chassis 2 and rear and front wheels 10, attached to lifting columns 14 in a height-
`
`adjustable manner. Id., 5:11–19. It further includes a pivoting arm 42 for
`
`supporting working drum 6, which is capable of being pivoted downwards toward
`
`traffic surface 24 to a working depth that is adjusted via the lifting columns 14. Id.,
`
`5:35–44, 55–65. Further, controller 23 can adjust the position of lifting columns 14
`
`that is displayed on indicator device 20. Id., 6:38–50, FIG. 3. Annotated Figure 3
`
`illustrates an individual lifting column 14:
`
`21
`
`
`Page 22 of 111
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`39. Lifting column 14 comprises two hollow cylinders 13, 15 that provide
`
`telescopic