Inergetic AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2020

IPR2019-00502 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21
571-272-7822 Entered: June 18, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,

v.

INERGETIC AB,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1
____________

Before THU A. DANG, GARTH D. BAER, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.

ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) requested an inter
partes review of claims 20, 22–25, 30, 31, and 33 (“the challenged claims”)
of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,349 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’349 patent”). Paper 1
(“Petition” or “Pet.”). Inergetic AB (“Patent Owner”) did not file a
preliminary response.
On July 12, 2019, we entered a Decision on Institution (“Institution
Decision” or “Inst. Dec.,” Paper 7) instituting an inter partes review as to all
of the challenged claims on all of the grounds set forth in the Petition.
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(“PO Resp.,” Paper 11), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (“Reply,”
Paper 14). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (“Sur-reply,” Paper 16). A
hearing was held on April 16, 2020. The transcript of the hearing has been
entered into the record. Paper 20 (“Transcript” or “Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This final written decision
is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). As explained below, we determine
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 20, 22–
25, 30, 31, and 33 of the ’349 patent are unpatentable.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Related Proceeding
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’349 patent is asserted in
Inergetic AB v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Case No. 3:18-CV-
01686 (N.D. Tex. 2018). Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
B. The ’349 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’349 patent is titled “Arrangement for Measuring Angular
Velocity” and issued on October 22, 2002. Ex. 1001, codes (45), (54). The
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

3
’349 patent discloses that the arrangement is comprised of body 1 that
includes elongate beam 2, opposite ends of which are supported by pads 3,
4. Id. at 7:9–11. Elongate beam 2 “is configured so that it bends most easily
in one predetermined direction–the ‘soft’ bending direction.” Id. at 7:16–17.
In Figure 1 below, the ’349 patent depicts elongate beam 2 with an inertia
mass, alternatively referred to as oscillating mass 5, which is comprised of
rectangular arms 6, 7 interconnected by transverse connecting bar 8. Id. at
7:32–38.

Figure 1 of the ’349 patent illustrates the components of a sensor
arrangement and associated excitation, detection and sensitivity axes.
Arms 6, 7 are excited by electrostatic forces, which tend to rotate
them about the axis of transverse connecting bar 8. Id. at 7:54–59. Thus,
“‘H’-shaped oscillating mass 5 tends to rock about the axis of the bar 8 with
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

4
a ‘see-saw’ motion,” which “applies a torsional rotation to the centre part of
the beam 2.” Id. at 7:59–62. The ’349 patent discloses that the torsional
rotation results in oscillating mass 5 oscillating about excitation axis 11,
substantially within the plane of the substrate, “[b]ecause the beam 2 has a
‘soft’ bending direction which makes an acute angle with the plane of the
substrate.” Id. at 7:62–66.
Subsequent to exciting oscillation mass 5, if body 1 is rotated about
sensitivity axis 10, oscillating mass 5 begins to oscillate about detection axis
12. Id. at 8:3–7. The oscillation about detection axis 12 is measured to
provide data concerning the rotation of body 1 and thus, the angular velocity
of the rotation about sensitivity axis 10 may be determined. Id. at 8:8–11.
The ’349 patent discloses exciting oscillation mass 5 about excitation
axis 11 via capacitative, thermal, and piezoelectric film-related techniques.
Id. at 14:60–62. The ’349 patent further discloses detecting oscillation about
detection axis 12 via capacitative, resonant sensor, piezoelectric, and piezo-
resistive techniques. Id. at 15:13–15.
C. Challenged Claims
Challenged claim 20 is independent and challenged claims 22–25, 30,
31, and 33 depend from claim 20. Independent claim 20 is illustrative, and
is reproduced below.
20. A sensor adapted to respond to a rotation, said sensor
comprising
a body formed from a substantially planar substrate, said
body incorporating a beam having a longitudinal axis,
the beam having two opposed ends, each end being
adapted to be fixed in position, the beam being provided with
inertia mass means connected to the beam,
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

5
the body being associated with means for exciting a first
oscillation of the inertia mass means, that first oscillation being
an oscillation about an oscillation axis,
there being means for detecting a second oscillation of the
inertia mass means, substantially around an axis perpendicular to
said oscillation axis, which second oscillation is caused by the
Coriolis force which arises when the body is subjected to a
rotation about an axis angularly displaced from perpendicular to
the plane of said planar substrate, but perpendicular to the said
axis of the beam,
wherein the inertia mass means comprises at least two
discrete inertia masses, located at different positions spaced from
each other along the length of the beam, the said two masses
being excited to oscillate in anti-phase.
Ex. 1001, 17:7–25.
D. Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner advances the following challenges supported by the
declaration of Dr. Darrin J. Young (Ex. 1003).
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
20, 22–25, 31 102, 1031 Nose2
20, 22–25, 30, 31 103 Nose, Yamashita3

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16,
2013. Because the application from which the ’349 patent issued was filed
before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
2 Nose was filed on June 5, 1995 and issued on March 30, 1999. Ex. 1005,
[22], [45]. U.S. Patent Application No. 09/600,919, the application that
matured into the’349 patent, claims priority to PCT/SE99/00096 and entered
the national phase on September 12, 2000 (i.e., the § 371 date). Ex. 1001,
[21], [86]. The ’349 patent issued on October 22, 2002. Id. at [45]. Thus,
Nose is prior art to the ’349 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See Pet. 20.
3 Yamashita was filed on January 17, 1997 and issued on September 14,
1999. Ex. 1006, [22], [45]. Thus, Yamashita is prior art to the ’349 patent
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See Pet. 20.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

6
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
33 103 Nose, Mattes4
33 103 Nose, Yamashita, Mattes
Patent Owner supports its opposition with the declaration of Dr. Nils
Einar Hedenstierna (Ex. 2001).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the
understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends:
[T]he POSITA is someone knowledgeable of and familiar with
MEMS/MEMS sensors, such as angular velocity sensors. That
person would have (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical and/or
Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii)
approximately two years of experience working in hardware
and/or software design and development related to
MEMS/MEMS sensors, including the design and development
of angular velocity sensors. Lack of work experience can be
remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:16–18, 8:24–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–43). Patent
Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally
PO Resp.

4 Mattes was published September 18, 1997 in the German language and
thus is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), according to Petitioner. See Pet.
20. To comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), Petitioner submits a copy of the
German-language document (Ex. 1008), an English translation (Ex.
1009), and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation (Ex. 1013).
See Pet. 20. We refer to the English translation of Mattes (Ex. 1009) instead
of Mattes itself (Ex. 1008).

IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

7
Our conclusions rendered in this decision do not turn on selecting a
particular definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine,
on this record, that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is
consistent with the ’349 patent and the asserted prior art. As such, we adopt
Petitioner’s proposal.
B. Claim Construction
For inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018, we
apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts
and the ITC, both of which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See Changes to the Claim
Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11,
2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now
codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Because the instant Petition was
filed on December 21, 2018, we apply that standard here. Accordingly, we
construe each challenged claim of the ’349 patent to generally have “the
ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
We construe claim terms to the extent necessary for our
unpatentability analysis. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad
Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only
construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

8
Consequently, we address below Petitioner’s proposed constructions
for the terms “inertia mass means” and “means for exciting” and “means for
detecting.” We also address Patent Owner’s construction for beam.
1. “beam”
Independent claim 20 recites “[a] body incorporating a beam having a
longitudinal axis, the beam having two opposed ends, each end being
adapted to be fixed in position, the beam being provided with inertia mass
means connected to the beam.”
Petitioner did not propose a construction for the claim term beam in
its Petition. See generally Pet. Patent Owner contends the claim term beam
should be construed as “an elongate structure configured to bend.” PO
Resp. 9. Patent Owner further contends
In every instance that the “beam” is described in the
specification, the beam bends. This makes sense because sensors
such as those that are the focus of the claimed invention have
components that bend and components that must remain rigid. In
addition, the beam has an axis and is elongate. The beam clearly
bends as part of the oscillating motion of the sensor disclosed in
the specification. For these reasons, the term “beam” is not
merely any structure, but a structure that bends.
Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26, 30, 41). Patent Owner asserts that its expert,
Dr. Hedenstierna, “explain[s] that the invented gyros work by having a
bending beam and stiff masses,” and that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art,
reading the entire patent, would understand that the claimed beams must
bend for the gyros to work.” Sur-reply 7.
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s proposed construction
impermissibly imports limitations from the specification and, in any event,
“does not define the claimed ‘beam’ with precision or particularity.” Reply
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

9
2. Petitioner notes that “[a]s [Patent Owner’s] own expert acknowledged, ‘it
is not described in Claim 20 that the beam bends.’” Id. at 3 (quoting
Ex. 1017, 86:22–87:1, 13–20). Petitioner contends that “[b]y attempting to
incorporate a feature defined in another claim5, [Patent Owner’s]
construction violates the principle of claim differentiation.” Id. (citing Wi-
Lan USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Petitioner further contends:
Nothing in the specification demonstrates a clear intent to
limit claim 20 to a beam that is “configured to bend.” When the
specification mentions “invention,” it does so in the context of
an “aspect of this invention,” a “preferred embodiment of the
present invention,” and generally as an “embodiment of the
invention.” . . . This description in the specification is nowhere
close to “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction.”
No “words of manifest exclusion or restriction” appear in
the prosecution history.
Reply 3–4 (citing-in-part Ex. 1001, 2:1; 3:23; 7:21–22, 34–35; 10:39, 44–45;
12:51–52; 13:8; Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed.
Cir. 2019)).
Petitioner further contends that, “to the extent the Board believes a
construction is necessary, the intrinsic evidence demonstrates that ‘beam’
should be construed as ‘an elongate support structure that extends
continuously between two fixed ends.’” Reply 6.
The ’349 patent specification discloses that “beam 2 is configured so
that it bends most easily in one predetermined direction––the ‘soft’ bending

5 The other claim Petitioner refers to is unchallenged claim 1, which
Petitioner asserts that requires a beam that is “configured so that the beam
bends most easily in one predetermined direction.” Reply 3.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

10
direction.” Ex. 1001, 7:16–17; see also id. at 7:62–66, 8:48–50, 10:39–44,
11:24–29, 12:22–26 (describing beam 2 has having a soft bending direction
which makes an acute angle with the substrate plane). The ’349 patent
further discloses that “beam 2 executes a bending motion as shown by the
bending line,” and “thus bends in one direction to have an ‘S’ configuration,
and then bends in the opposite direction to have an inverted ‘S’
configuration.” Id. at 8:53–58; see also id. at 10:9–12 (describing beam 2 as
executing “S” shape bending motion). Other disclosures of beam are with
respect to, for example, “one aspect of the present invention” (id. at 2:1–22)
and “the preferred embodiment of the present invention” (id. at 4:27–40).
We are not persuaded that the cited disclosures of the ’349 patent
“‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain
and ordinary meaning.” See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669
F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “We depart from the plain
and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two
instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker
Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at
1365). “‘To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a
definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary
meaning’ and must ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” Id.
(quoting Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). “Disavowal requires that ‘the
specification [or prosecution history] make[ ] clear that the invention does
not include a particular feature,’ or is clearly limited to a particular form of
the invention.” Id. at 1372 (alterations in original) (internal citations
omitted).
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

11
None of the cited disclosures of the ’349 patent support Patent
Owner’s proposed construction. Id. Like in Hill-Rom, there is neither
“disclaimer or lexicography” nor “words of manifest exclusion or
restriction.” Id. For example, there is no disclosure “expressing the
advantages, importance, or essentiality” of a beam as being configured to
bend. Id. Nor is there disclosure of “language of limitation or restriction”
with respect to the term beam––the ’349 patent specification does not limit
beam to something that must bend. Id. The prosecution history of the ’349
patent does not indicate a disavowal of claim scope with respect to the claim
term beam. See generally Ex. 1002.
In ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2009) cited by Patent Owner in support of its position, the Federal Circuit
upheld the district court’s construction of the claim term spike as “an
elongated structure having a pointed tip for piercing the seal, which tip may
be sharp or slightly rounded.” The Court cited the district court’s reasoning
that “the specification ‘repeatedly and uniformly describes the spike as a
pointed instrument for the purpose of piercing a seal inside the valve.’” Id.
at 1374–1375 (emphasis added). The Court found that “ICU offers no
support from any intrinsic or extrinsic source in support of its claim that the
ordinary meaning of spike would include a non-pointed structure such as a
tube or a straw.” Id. at 1376. Stated differently, the Court was not
persuaded that the term spike should be construed more broadly than its
plain and ordinary meaning, with respect to the shape of the tip, because
nothing in the record supported such a construction.
As Petitioner alluded to during the oral hearing, the converse
proposition exists in the present proceeding. In this case, we must look to
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

12
the specification to determine whether there is support for construing beam
more narrowly than its plain and ordinary meaning, as Patent Owner
proposes. The case law is clear, in this regard, as the Federal Circuit has
“repeatedly held that it is ‘not enough that the only embodiments, or all of
the embodiments, contain a particular limitation’ to limit claims beyond their
plain meaning.” Reply 5 (citing Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829
F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There is nothing in the intrinsic record of
the ’349 patent that suggests Patent Owner intended to redefine the term
beam as Patent Owner proposes.
For the foregoing reasons, we construe the claim term beam in
accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which encompasses “an
elongate support structure that extends continuously between two fixed
ends,” as Petitioner proposes.
2. “inertia mass means”
Independent claim 20 recites “a body . . . incorporating a beam . . .
provided with inertia mass means . . . the body being associated with means
for exciting a first oscillation of the inertia mass means . . . about an
oscillation axis . . . wherein the inertia mass means comprises at least two
discrete inertia masses, located at different positions spaced from each other
along the length of the beam.”
Patent Owner contends that the claim term inertia mass means should
be construed as “a rigid structure connected to the beam that oscillates.” PO
Resp. 11. Patent Owner explains that:
As provided by the ‘349 patent [] claim 20 . . . the function
of the claim element is to oscillate. Dr. Hedenstierna further
explains that the invention requires an oscillation created by a
“see-saw” motion that applies torsion to the beam. . . . Dr.
Hedenstierna also notes that the “beam” bends while the inertia
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

13
mass means must be stiff. . . . If the inertia mass means were
not stiff, then the motion would not translate to the beam and the
end result would not be an oscillation of the inertia mass about
the vertical excitation axis which extends perpendicularly to the
plane of the substrate. Instead, the structure would merely
vibrate. Id.
Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29, 30).
Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s construction by arguing that
Patent Owner’s construction:
[P]rovides no standard to evaluate what qualifies as a “rigid”
structure. Indeed, any material would have some ability to bend;
as Dr. Hedenstierna acknowledged, “nothing is completely stiff.
Nothing is completely rigid.” This includes silicon, disclosed in
the ’349 Patent as the material the inertia mass means are formed
from.
Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1017, 99:13–23). Petitioner argues that the intrinsic
record does not support Patent Owner’s position and that Patent Owner’s
expert, Dr. Hedenstierna, is a biased witness whose testimony should be
afforded little weight also because it is not supported by underlying
evidence. Id. at 8.
Petitioner contends that “despite the use of the term ‘means’ in the
claims, this phrase is not written in means-plus-function format (since there
is no claimed function) and thus is not subject to Section 112, Paragraph 6.”
Pet. 10. According to Petitioner,
The ’349 Patent specification states that the “inertia mass”
is also referred to as an “oscillating mass.” Ex. 1001, 7:32-33.
The “inertia mass” of FIG. 1 includes “a symmetrical body
comprising two spaced apart parallel rectangular arms 6, 7
formed from the substrate.” Id., 7:34-36. The arms 6, 7 of the
“inertia mass” “are interconnected by a transverse connecting bar
8.” Id., 7:36-39; Ex. 1003, ¶ 48.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

14
Figure 4 includes two such “identical inertia masses … 44,
45.” Ex. 1001, 10:55-56. “The masses are each symmetrical
about the axis of the beam 41” and “evenly spaced along the
beam 41.” Id., 10:56-60. Each inertia mass has a respective
“interconnecting bar 48” between respective “blocks 46, 47.”
Id., 10:61-65. Thus, the Figure 4 embodiment includes two such
inertia masses, 44 and 45, with the structure described.
Id. at 10–11.
In our Institution Decision, we determined that “inertia mass means
does not constitute a means-plus-function limitation because there is no
corresponding function recited in claim 20 and because claim 20 specifies
structure with respect to the inertia mass means, namely, that the ‘inertia
mass means [is] connected to the beam,’ and that ‘the inertia mass means
comprises at least two discrete inertia masses, located at different positions
spaced from each other along the length of the beam.’” Dec. 7 (citations
omitted).
Nowhere in the ’349 patent is there any disclosure of a rigid or stiff
element, nor is there a disclosure of any synonymous term. See generally
Ex. 1001. Neither the ’349 patent specification nor the prosecution history
suggests that inertia mass means should be limited to something that must be
rigid. We are further unpersuaded by Dr. Hedenstierna’s testimony in
paragraphs 29 and 30––that the inertia mass means must be rigid––as it is
unsupported by evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that
does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based
is entitled to little or no weight.”).
Dr. Hedenstierna essentially testifies that the claim term inertia mass
means should be interpreted as Patent Owner proposes because Patent
Owner’s invention would not work otherwise:
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

15
[T]he “beam” is soft and bends while the inertia mass means
must be stiff. If the inertia mass means were not stiff, then the
motion would not translate to the beam and the end result would
not be an oscillation of the oscillation mass about the vertical
excitation axis which extends perpendicularly to the plane of the
substrate. Instead, the structure would merely vibrate.
Ex. 2001 ¶ 30; see id. ¶¶ 29, 31. Although we interpret the claims in light of
the specification, we do not import limitations from the specification into the
claims to make the claims “fit” the invention––it is the applicant’s challenge
to draft claims that cover its invention during prosecution. We further note
that Dr. Hedenstierna does not explain the purported difference between an
oscillation and a vibration, and does not support such opinion with
underlying evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
For the foregoing reasons, and based on our review of the complete
trial record, we decline to construe inertia mass means as something that
must be rigid, as Patent Owner urges us to do. With respect to the remainder
of Patent Owner’s construction, “a rigid structure connected to the beam that
oscillates,” we need not determine whether inertia mass means should be
construed as Patent Owner proposes to resolve the controversy before us.
See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; see also §§ III.C, III.D (finding Nose teaches
vibrators 22, 22’ that are connected to support beam 23 and that oscillate).
3. “means for exciting a first oscillation of the inertia mass
means”
Independent claim 20 recites “means for exciting a first oscillation of
the inertia mass means, that first oscillation being an oscillation about an
oscillation axis.”
Petitioner contends that this limitation constitutes a means-plus-
function limitation and that the ’349 patent discloses sufficient
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

16
corresponding structure associated with the function of “exciting a first
oscillation of the inertia mass means.” Pet. 13. Petitioner proposes that this
limitation should be construed as follows:
Function: Excite a first oscillation of the inertia mass
means. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.
Corresponding Structure: The structure of the means for
exciting a first oscillation of the inertia mass means includes one
or more capacitative plates, or alternative techniques for “active
excitation” such as thermal or piezo-electric films, etc., and
equivalents thereof, to achieve the function of exciting a first
oscillation of the inertia mass means. Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.
Id. at 16. Petitioner further contends that:
The ’349 Patent teaches that the capacitive plates that
induce oscillation may be substituted by other approaches:
“[s]etting the arrangement into oscillation requires active
excitation, and there are [a] number of techniques available:--
capacitative, thermal, piezo-electric films, etc.” Ex. 1001, 14:60-
62 (and, more generally, 14:60-15:13); Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 56-57. The
’349 Patent specifically identifies ZnO as a piezo-electric
material that can be used to excite an oscillation provided there
is “appropriate contacting.” Ex. 1001, 15:7-12.
Id. at 15–16.
Patent Owner concurs with Petitioner’s identification of the structure,
but contends that the function should be “excit[ing] a first oscillation of the
inertia mass means such that the means oscillates about an oscillation axis.”
PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner reasons that:
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
the electrostatic forces generated by the means for exciting a first
oscillation in this embodiment generates a force component in
the horizontal plane that drive the first oscillation about an axis
substantial perpendicular to the substrate. This is the only way
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

17
that the first oscillation oscillates about an oscillation axis, as
described in the ‘349 patent.
Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 35).
Petitioner notes, in its Reply, that adding the phrase “such that the
means oscillates about an oscillation axis” to the construction of the claim
term inertia mass means is redundant, because claim 20 “already recites
‘means for exciting a first oscillation of the inertia mass means, that first
oscillation being an oscillation about an oscillation axis.’” Reply 9–10.
With regard to the function, upon further review of the claim language
and based upon the complete trial record, we conclude that the function for
the “means for exciting” is to excite a first oscillation of the first inertia mass
means about an oscillation axis.
With regard to the corresponding structure, Petitioner presents a
detailed analysis of the embodiments of the ’349 patent, arguing that Figure
2 and the accompanying description disclose that “an oscillation is induced
in the inertia mass when a potential is applied to ‘capacitative plates’ 15, 16,
18, and 19.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:40–45). Petitioner also argues
that the embodiment shown in Figure 4 and the accompanying description
discloses that “oscillation is induced with ‘capacitative plates,’ plates 63, 64,
65, 66, 68, 69, 71, and 71.”6 Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:47–61).
Petitioner further argues that the ’349 patent discloses inducing oscillation
via a number of techniques, including “capacitative, thermal, piezo-electric
films, etc.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–15:13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56, 57).

6 The reference to elements “71, and 71” is a typographical error. The ’349
patent refers to elements 70 and 71.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

18
We have reviewed the portions of the ’349 patent cited by Petitioner
and, based on the complete trial record, we find that the specification
discloses sufficient structure corresponding to the recited function. Namely,
the ’349 patent discloses applying active excitation via “capacitative,
thermal, piezo-electric films, etc.” structural elements that results in
oscillation of the inertia mass means (also referred to as oscillation means 5
in the specification). See Ex. 1001, 14:60–15:13. We construe this
limitation to include these corresponding structural elements, as identified
by Petitioner, as well as equivalents thereof. See Pet. 15–16.
4. “means for detecting a second oscillation of the inertia
mass means”
Independent claim 20 recites “means for detecting a second oscillation
of the inertia mass means, substantially around an axis perpendicular to said
oscillation axis.”
Petitioner contends that this limitation constitutes a means-plus-
function limitation and that the ’349 patent discloses sufficient
corresponding structure associated with the function of “detecting a second
oscillation of the inertia mass means.” Pet. 16–17. Petitioner proposes that
“means for detecting a second oscillation of the inertia mass means” should
be construed as follows:
Function: Detecting a second oscillation of the inertia
mass means. Ex. 1003¶ 65.
Corresponding Structure: The structure of the means for
detecting a second oscillation of the inertia mass means includes
one or more capacitative plates, or alternative techniques for
detection including resonant stress sensors, piezoelectric, piezo-
resistive, etc., and equivalents thereof, for achieving the function
of detecting a second oscillation of the inertia mass means. Ex.
1003, ¶ 66.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

19
Id. at 19.
With regard to the corresponding structure, Petitioner presents a
detailed analysis of the embodiments of the ’349 patent, arguing that
“[w]hen the oscillating masses 44 and 45 tend to rotate about the
longitudinal axis of the beam of FIGs. 4 and 5, ‘[t]his rotation may be
detected by the capacitors 72, 73, 74, 75, since, one block of each oscillating
mass 44 will approach the adjacent capacitative plate, whereas the other
block of that oscillating element will move away from the adjacent
capacitative plate.’” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:34–44). Petitioner further
argues that the “’349 Patent teaches that the capacitative plates used to
detect the oscillation may be substituted by other approaches as well: ‘[j]ust
as in the case of excitation, a number of principles are available for detection
of the oscillation, capacitative, resonant stress sensors, piezoelectric, piezo-
resistive and so on.’” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:13–15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63,
64).
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s identification of either the
function or the corresponding structure.
We have reviewed the portions of the ’349 patent cited by Petitioner
and, based on the complete trial record, we find that the specification
discloses sufficient structure corresponding to the recited function. Namely,
the ’349 patent discloses “capacitative, resonant stress sensors, piezoelectric,
piezo-resistive” structural elements that allow for detection of oscillation of
the inertia mass means. See Ex. 1001, 15:13–15. We construe this
limitation to include these corresponding structural elements, as identified
by Petitioner, as well as equivalents thereof. See Pet. 13–16.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

20
C. Principles of Law
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17–18 (1966).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion never
shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp.
Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
burden of proof in an inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

21
satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how
the prior art discloses the challenged claims or how the proposed
combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims
unpatentable. We determine whether the information presented in the
Petition establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged
claims are anticipated by the asserted prior art or would have been obvious
over the proposed combinations of prior art.
We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance
with the above-stated principles.
D. Challenges Applying Nose Alone
Petitioner contends that claims 20, 22–25, and 31 are obvious over
Nose under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pet. 21–58. Petitioner also contends that these
claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nose. Id. at 58–59. For the
reasons that follow, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 20, 22–24, and 31 are
unpatentable as obvious over Nose. We are also persuaded that Petitioner
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 20, 22–24, and
31 are unpatentable as anticipated by Nose.
We are not, however, persuaded that Petitioner establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claim 25 is unpatentable as anticipated
or obvious over Nose.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

22
1. Overview of Nose
Nose concerns an angular velocity sensor having cantilever beams.
Ex. 1005, code (54).
2. Anticipation of Independent Claim 20
“A sensor adapted to respond to a rotation.”
Petitioner contends Nose discloses “an angular velocity sensor for
detecting an angular velocity by utilizing [the] occurrence of a Coriolis force
corresponding to the angular velocity of rotation of a vibrator[.]” Pet. 21
(quoting Ex. 1005, 1:10–15) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further contends
“Nose teaches that the sensor is adapted to respond to a rotation,” because
Nose discloses that “vibrator 22 vibrates in the X-direction with an
amplitude proportional to the angular velocity Ω of rotation” about the Y-
axis. Id. at 22 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:24–31) (emphasis omitted). Patent
Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions in this regard.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence, as
summarized above, and we find that Nose teaches claim 20’s preamble.7
“said sensor comprising a body formed from a substantially planar
substrate, said body incorporating a beam having a longitudinal axis,
the beam having two opposed ends, each end being adapted to be
fixed in position.”
Petitioner contends that Nose discloses that the sensor comprises a
body because it describes cantilevered beams––vibrators 22, 22’ that are
arranged in parallel and “integrally formed on a vibrator substrate 21 . . .
such that the central portions of the vibrators are supported by a support
beam 23.” Id. at 23 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:37–42) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81, 82).

7 The panel need not decide whether the preamble is limiting, because
Petitioner shows that Nose discloses the recitation in the preamble.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

23
Petitioner further contends that “Nose teaches that the body is formed from a
substantially planar substrate: ‘[v]ibrators 22, 22’ . . . are integrally formed
on a vibrator substrate 21 made of a semiconductor substrate such as
silicon.’” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:37–42) (emphasis omitted).
Petitioner asserts that, although Nose does not use the term “planar,”
vibrator substrate 21 is depicted in Figure 8 in a manner which would have
been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as being substantially
planar. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 8).
Petitioner further contends that Nose’s support beam 23 has a
“longitudinal axis [that] extends along a second axis perpendicular to the
longitudinal directions of said first and second cantilever beams.” Id. at 26
(quoting Ex. 1005, 8:58–60 (claim 9)). Petitioner argues that Nose’s
“support beam 23 has two ends, and these ends are opposed to each other,”
and that “each end is fixed in position.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 8
(annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). That is, Petitioner explains that “the support
beam 23 is fixed to the substrate at both beam ends along its longitudinal
axis . . . with the substrate 21 generally.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 8; Ex.
1003 ¶ 91).
According to Patent Owner, the beam recited in independent claim 20
must be configured to bend, while Nose’s beam must be rigid to prevent loss
of vibrations. PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 42). Patent Owner further
contends that a piezoelectric drive constitutes a support base for Nose’s
support beam 23, and that piezoelectric materials were known by persons of
ordinary skill in the art to be stiff “so as to allow movement with an applied
voltage.” Id.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

24
As discussed above in Section III.A.2, we disagree with Patent
Owner’s construction for the claim term beam because the intrinsic record
does not support construing this term as being configured to bend. Dr.
Hedenstierna’s supporting testimony does not persuade us to adopt Patent
Owner’s construction for the term beam either. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42. Dr.
Hedenstierna’s testimony that “the support beam of Nose . . . could not be
flexible and bend,” and instead, “the support beam should be rigid to cause
as little loss in vibration as possible” is unpersuasive with respect to the
adopted construction for the claim term beam and further, is not supported
by underlying evidence. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
We are persuaded that Nose’s depiction of vibrator substrate 21 in
Figure 8 constitutes an express disclosure of “a body formed from a
substantially planar substrate,” as recited in claim 20. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 8.
We are further persuaded that Nose’s support beam 23 constitutes an express
disclosure of the beam recited in claim 20. Accordingly, we are persuaded
by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence and find that Nose
discloses the body limitation as claimed.
“the beam being provided with inertia mass means connected to the
beam.”
Petitioner contends Nose’s vibrators 22 and 22’ are provided with
“end portions 22a, 22b, 22a’, 22b’.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:42–44).
Vibrators 22, 22’ oscillate “in a Z-direction perpendicular to the surface of
the vibrator substrate 21.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:44–47; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 96,
97). According to Petitioner, “Nose discloses that the inertia mass means
(vibrators) are connected to the beam,” because “the vibrators are formed on
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

25
the substrate ‘such that the central portions of the vibrators are supported by
a support beam 23.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:37–42) (emphasis omitted).
According to Patent Owner, “Nose does not teach or suggest rigid
inertia mass means” because “Nose teaches four cantilever beams that
vibrate in the Z-direction,” and thus, “are designed to bend up and down in
unison.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:48–52; Ex. 2001 ¶ 44) (emphasis
added). Patent Owner specifically argues that vibrator 22 bends because of
Nose’s disclosure that “both end portions 22a, 22b of the vibrator 22 move
in the Z-direction with the same phase while both end portions 22a’, 22b’ of
the vibrator 22’ move opposite to that of the end portions 22a, 22b with the
same phase.”8 Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:3–7) (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 44).
As discussed above in Section III.A.2, we disagree with Patent
Owner’s construction for the claim term inertia mass means because the
intrinsic record does not support construing inertia mass means as being
rigid. Nor does Dr. Hedenstierna’s supporting testimony persuade us to
adopt Patent Owner’s construction for inertia mass means. See Ex. 2001 ¶
44. Dr. Hedenstierna’s testimony that “[r]ather than the support beam
bending and the inertia mass means remaining rigid, as in the claimed
invention of the patent at issue, Nose teaches that the cantilevers bend and
the support beam is rigid” is unpersuasive with respect to the adopted
construction for the claim term inertia mass means and further, is not
supported by underlying evidence. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the inertia mass means limitation as claimed.

8 Patent Owner also refers to vibrator 22 and its constituent end portions 22a,
22b, 22a’, and 22b’ as cantilever beams. See PO Resp. 16.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

26
“the body being associated with means for exciting a first oscillation
of the inertia mass means, that first oscillation being an oscillation
about an oscillation axis.”
According to Petitioner, Nose discloses that “the body is associated
with the piezoelectric element drive 31 (the means for exciting a first
oscillation of the inertia mass means)” because “piezoelectric element drive
31 is formed ‘on the substrate 33 by patterning.’” Pet. 37 (quoting Ex. 1005,
6:4–7). Petitioner argues that “Nose further teaches that the body is
associated with the coils (another means for exciting a first oscillation of the
inertia mass means)” because “[c]oils for drive 24a and 24b are formed on
either end portion of the vibrator 22.” Id. at 38 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:32–35)
(emphasis omitted). “Since Nose teaches that the vibrator 22 is ‘integrally
formed’ along with the ‘support beam 23 … on a vibrator substrate 21 made
of a semiconductor substrate such as silicon,’ Nose discloses that the coils
on the vibrators are associated with the body.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:27–
29, 6:37–40) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 115).
Petitioner contends, with respect to a single vibrator embodiment
depicted in Figure 7 of Nose, that Nose discloses “an amplitude voltage is
applied to the piezoelectric element drive 31 … to vibrate the vibrator 22,”
and the “excitation voltage is controlled at the resonance frequency of the
vibrator 22.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:14–20). According to Petitioner,
“piezo-electric films were known and acceptable as the structure for the
‘means for exciting’” because the ’349 patent explicitly discloses that “there
are [a] number of techniques available:--capacitative, thermal, piezo-electric
films, etc.” Id. at 33 (quoting Ex. 1001, 14:60–62) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 106).
Petitioner argues that “Nose’s piezoelectric element drive thus satisfies both
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

27
the function and structure elements of the ‘means for exciting’ . . . .
limitation.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103, 107).
Nose discloses a piezoelectric drive element in connection with the
single vibrator embodiment of Figures 6 and 7 and electromagnetic drive
coils in conjunction with the dual vibrator embodiment disclosed in Figure
8. Petitioner further argues that:
Nose expressly discloses an equivalent to the claimed
excitation structures, namely Nose’s “driving coil[s].” These
coils are placed near each end portion of each inertia mass means
(instead of using piezoelectric element drives) to perform the
claimed function of excite a first oscillation of the inertia mass
means. As the ’349 Patent acknowledged, there were multiple
techniques available to set the masses into oscillation at the time
of filing: “there are number of techniques available:--
capacitative, thermal, piezo-electric films, etc.”
Electromagnetic techniques were an example of the “etc.” from
the ’349 Patent, as would have been recognized by a POSITA,
and an “equivalent” as follows.
Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–62; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 108, 112; Ex. 1005,
6:42–47) (emphasis added). Petitioner also notes that Nose explicitly
discloses that the embodiment shown in Figures 6 and 7 is one in which “a
piezoelectric element drive 31 is substituted for the [electromagnetic drive]
coils.” Id. at 32 (quoting Ex. 1005, 5:65–6:1) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104)
(emphasis added). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Nose’s
electromagnetic drive coils disclosed in connection with the dual vibrator
embodiment depicted in Figure 8 are equivalents of the corresponding
structures of “capacitative, thermal, and piezo-electric” that accomplish the
claimed function of exciting oscillation.
Finally, Petitioner contends that, in Nose, “the oscillation is ‘such that
the amplitude of the vibration becomes constant in a Z-direction
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

28
perpendicular to the surface of the vibrator substrate 21.’” Id. at 38 (quoting
Ex. 1005, 6:16–20, 44–51) (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118)
(emphasis omitted). Petitioner explains that the ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood that “this vibration in the z-direction (caused by
either piezoelectric or electromagnetic coil drives) demonstrates an
oscillation about the x-axis illustrated in FIG. 8.” Id. Petitioner argues that
because “Nose teaches the vibration with corresponding velocity V in the z-
direction about the support beam 23, and therefore about an oscillation axis
(the x-axis), Nose discloses this limitation.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶
121).
First, Patent Owner contends Nose’s disclosure that “end portions 22a
and 22b at a given point of time may move up whereas at the same time the
end portions 22a’ and 22b’ may move down or vice versa,” does not
constitute “oscillating about an axis” because it is “merely movement of the
end portions 22a, 22b and 22a’ and 22b’ in the same direction” and “is not a
‘see-saw’ like the movement of inertia mass means 44 and 45 of the ‘349
patent.” PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:47–51; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 45, 46).
Second, Patent Owner asserts that “Nose thus teaches two beams that bend
like a C, which prevents rotation around any axis in this configuration.” Id.
at 22 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 46). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Hedenstierna,
testifies that “the two beams bend like a C and there is no rotation about an
axis” and that “Nose does not teach or suggest oscillating rotation or a see-
saw motion about an axis because Nose does not create a rotation.” Ex.
2001 ¶ 46.
Neither a “see-saw” motion nor a rotation about an axis is required by
independent claim 20. Independent claim 20 instead recites “a first
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

29
oscillation of the inertia mass means, that first oscillation being an
oscillation about an oscillation axis.”
With respect to Patent Owner’s first contention about the “see-saw”
motion, we noted, during the hearing, that the ’349 patent discloses three
distinct oscillations, whereas the claim only recites two distinct oscillations.
During the hearing, we sought to shed light on the correspondence between
three oscillations disclosed in the ’349 patent specification and the two
oscillations recited in claim 20:
JUDGE ULLAGADDI: That section [in column 7, line 54
through column 8, line 11] appears to describe three different
oscillations and there’s only two in the claim. So the first
[oscillation disclosed] in column 7 is the seesaw motion of the
H-shaped mass, 5.

MR. CHAVOUS: Uh-huh.

JUDGE ULLAGADDI: But then there’s a torsional rotation
applied to the center beam and the mass 5 oscillates in the
substrate plane. Lastly, if there’s a rotation around the sensitivity
axis, the mass oscillates in the detection plane. So I see three
oscillations there. There’s two oscillations in the claim. Why do
we need to construe the claim to necessarily incorporate the
oscillation due to bending?

MR. CHAVOUS: Because the oscillation is bending. The
seesaw oscillation is what is in the claim and that seesaw
oscillation is what is caused -- is -- causes the -- it’s caused by
the bending of the beam and that’s what’s in the claim. So it’s
that oscillation where the beam, and if you look at Figure -- one
moment. I’m going to get you the figure. If you go to Figure 4,
you’ll see that the beam is a dotted line 50 in Figure 4 and that
dotted line 50 is how the beam is bending and that bending
creates that seesaw motion and that creates the oscillation in the
plane.

IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

30
* * *
MR. CHAVOUS: . . . I mean, those are two different -- and I
believe -- but, Your Honor, I guess I’m confused on your
question because it still requires a beam to bend. All three
oscillations, I believe, still require a soft beam.
Tr. 27:21–28:23. Patent Owner does not persuade us that both the see-saw
motion oscillation and the oscillation in the substrate plane are required by
claim 20 or, more particularly, that both are encompassed by the claimed
“first oscillation.” It is not clear, on the record before us, that there is even a
correspondence between the “see-saw” motion disclosed in the ’349 patent
and one of the two distinct oscillations recited in the claims.
With respect to Patent Owner’s second contention, we understand
Patent Owner to take the position that the claimed “oscillation about an axis”
requires a rotation. Aside from not being specifically required by recitation
of the claims as we explained above, Patent Owner does not present
evidence that would support the argument that the ordinarily skilled artisan
would have construed the claim term oscillation, in light of the ’349
specification, in a manner that would require a rotation.
Accordingly, even though end portions 22a and 22b of Nose’s
vibrator 22 bend in a “C” shape (as well as end portions 22a’ and 22b’ of
vibrator 22’), we find that the vibratory motion in Nose discloses an
“oscillation about an oscillation axis” as recited in claim 20 because the
motion represents a regular change in position in the z-direction, relative to a
central point of support beam 23, which is coincident with Nose’s x-axis
(i.e., what Petitioner cites as teaching the oscillation axis). Pet. 40 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 121).
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

31
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the means for exciting limitation as claimed.
“there being means for detecting a second oscillation of the inertia
mass means, substantially around an axis perpendicular to said
oscillation axis.”
With respect to the function of “detecting a second oscillation of the
inertia mass means, substantially around an axis,” Petitioner contends that
“[w]hen an angular velocity Ω of rotation about the Y-axis is applied …
both end portions 22a, 22b of the vibrator 22 and both end portions 22a’,
22b’ of the vibrator 22’ phase oppositely vibrate in the X-direction.” Pet. 40
(quoting Ex. 1005, 6:60–7:1) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner argues that the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that “this vibration in the x-
direction . . . demonstrates an oscillation about the z-axis illustrated in FIG.
8.” Id. With respect to the limitation that the axis is “perpendicular to said
oscillation axis,” Petitioner further contends that “[t]he z-axis, the axis about
which the ‘second oscillation’ occurs in Nose, is perpendicular to the x-
axis,” about which the first oscillation occurs “as further illustrated in FIG.
8’s illustration of the X, Y, and Z axes.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 125).
With respect to the structure corresponding to the means, Petitioner
contends that Nose discloses that strain gauges “are provided in the vicinity
of the support beam 23 of the respective vibrators 22, 22’, . . . so that the
vibration of the vibrators 22, 22’ in the X-direction can be detected.” Pet. 42
(quoting Ex. 1005, 6:55–59) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 127, 128) (emphasis
omitted). According to Petitioner, “Nose’s strain gauges fall within the
scope of the corresponding structure taught by the ’349 Patent” because
“Nose’s strain gauges are an example of a piezo-resistive sensor.” Id. at 42–
43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129; Ex. 1012, 1). Petitioner contends, thus, “Nose
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

32
teaches strain gauges (i.e., piezoresistive sensors) that detect oscillation of
the vibrators in the x-axis direction, about the z-axis that is perpendicular to
the x-axis (the oscillation axis).” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 131).
For the means for detecting limitation, Patent Owner presents
substantially the same arguments presented above with respect to the means
for exciting limitation. Namely, Patent Owner argues that “[b]ecause Nose
does not teach oscillating around an axis as recited in claim 20, Nose does
not teach or suggest exciting a first oscillation of the inertia mass means or
means for detecting a second oscillation of the inertia mass means.” PO
Resp. 24 (emphasis omitted). For the reasons discussed above with respect
to the “means for exciting” limitation, we find Patent Owner’s argument
distinguishing Nose’s C-shaped bending motion from the claimed “a second
oscillation of the inertia mass means, substantially around an axis” on the
basis that Nose’s motion is not a rotation to be unpersuasive.
We find Nose’s vibratory motion of end portions 22a, 22b of the
vibrator 22 and end portions 22a’, 22b’ of the vibrator 22’ represents a
regular change in position in the x-direction, relative to a central point of
Nose’s z-axis as illustrated in Figure 8, and thus discloses “a second
oscillation of the inertia mass means, substantially around an axis.” The arc-
shaped path of end portions 22a, 22b and end portions 22a’, 22b’ envelops
the z-axis and is therefore substantially around the z-axis. We have
reviewed the cited portions of Dr. Young’s declaration and credit the
testimony explaining that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood strain gauges to be an example of the piezoresistive sensors
disclosed in the ’349 patent because Dr. Young’s testimony is supported by
evidence (see Ex. 1012, 1).
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

33
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the means for detecting limitation as claimed.
“which second oscillation is caused by the Coriolis force which arises
when the body is subjected to a rotation about an axis angularly
displaced from perpendicular to the plane of said planar substrate,
but perpendicular to the said axis of the beam.”
Petitioner contends that, in Nose, “the second oscillation is caused by
the Coriolis force” because the application of “an angular velocity Ω of
rotation about the Y-axis” results in “Coriolis forces Fc work[ing] on the end
portions 22a, 22b, 22a’, 22b’ of the vibrators 22, 22’ … in the X-direction.”
Pet. 44 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:60–7:1) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner explains
that “the Coriolis forces Fc cause the ‘second oscillation’ in the x-direction
(and, therefore, about the z-axis),” and that “an angular velocity Ω of
rotation is ‘about the Y-axis’ which, as shown in FIG. 8 . . . is angularly
displaced from perpendicular to the plane of the substrate, as well as
perpendicular to the axis of the beam[.]” Id. Patent Owner does not
challenge Petitioner’s assertions in this regard.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the second oscillation is caused by the Coriolis
force as claimed.
“wherein the inertia mass means comprises at least two discrete
inertia masses, located at different positions spaced from each other
along the length of the beam, the said two masses being excited to
oscillate in anti-phase.”
Petitioner contends “Nose discloses the first inertia mass with vibrator
22, and the second inertia mass with vibrator 22’.” Id. at 45–46. According
to Petitioner, “Nose discloses that the vibrators 22, 22’ are located at
different positions spaced from each other along the length of the beam 23,
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

34
‘such that the central portions of the vibrators are supported by a support
beam 23.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:40–42). Petitioner further notes
that “vibrators 22, 22’ are located along the length of the x-axis, which is
coincident with the length of the beam 23.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 138).
Petitioner argues “Nose discloses that the vibrators 22, 22’ are excited
to oscillate in anti-phase” because both “end portions 22a, 22b of the
vibrator 22 move in the Z-direction with the same phase while both end
portions 22a’, 22b’ of the vibrator 22’ move [in the] opposite [direction] . . .
with the same phase.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 142).
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions in this regard.
Having reviewed the cited evidence and Petitioner’s arguments, we
find that Nose discloses that “the inertia mass means comprises at least two
discrete inertia masses, located at different positions spaced from each other
along the length of the beam,” as recited in claim 20.
With respect to the “oscillate in antiphase” limitation, Patent Owner
contends that
[T]he end portions 22a, 22b and 22a’ and 22b’ of the two
vibrators 22 and 22’ also move in a direction perpendicular to the
substrate 21, but, opposite to each other. Hence, end portions
22a and 22b at a given point of time may move up whereas at the
same time the end portions 22a’ and 22b’ may move down or
vice versa.
PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:47–51). Patent Owner even acknowledges
that “Nose however teaches that the vibrators 22 and 22’ move up and down
in opposite phase.” Id. at 24. Both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s
contentions persuade us that Nose discloses “the said two masses being
excited to oscillate in anti-phase,” as recited in claim 20.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

35
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses that “the said two masses [are] excited to
oscillate in anti-phase” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, and based on our review of the complete
record, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that claim 20 is
anticipated by Nose by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Anticipation of Dependent Claim 22
Claim 22 recites that “there are two inertia masses, the two inertia
masses are symmetrically disposed on the beam, each inertia mass being
located at a position between the centre part of the beam and a respective
end of the beam.”
Petitioner first contends that “Nose discloses that the two inertia
masses are symmetrically disposed on the beam.” Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1005,
2:40–46). Petitioner quotes a portion of Nose that discloses “the first and
second cantilever beams being formed in symmetry with each other with a
symmetry axis being on a fixed end side thereof.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005,
2:46–48) (citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 148, 149) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s
annotated version of Nose’s Figure 8, reproduced below, illustrates how
Nose’s vibrator 22 and vibrator 22’ are symmetric about support beam 23.

IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

36

Petitioner’s Annotated Version of Nose’s Figure 8. Pet. 49.
Petitioner next contends that “Nose discloses that each inertia mass is
located at a position between the ‘centre’ part of the beam and a respective
end of the beam” and presents another annotated version of Nose’s Figure 8,
reproduced below. Id. at 48–50; see id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 152).
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

37

Petitioner’s Annotated Version of Nose’s Figure 8. Pet. 50.
Petitioner’s annotated version of Nose’s Figure 8 (from page 50 of the
Petition) illustrates how vibrator 22 is situated between one end of support
beam 23 and the center of support beam 23 that coincides with the axis
marked with omega. See Pet. 50. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 8 similarly
illustrates how vibrator 22’ is situated between the other end of support
beam 23 and the center of support beam 23. Id. Patent Owner does not
challenge Petitioner’s assertions with respect to claim 22.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the limitations recited in claim 22. As such, we
are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Nose anticipates
claim 22.
4. Anticipation of Dependent Claim 23
Claim 23 recites that “the two inertia masses are identical and
symmetrical about the axis of the beam.”
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

38
Petitioner contends that “the cantilever beams for a given vibrator are
symmetrical to each other in Nose” because Nose discloses “the first and
second cantilever beams being formed in symmetry with each other with a
symmetry axis being on a fixed end side thereof.” Id. at 51 (quoting Ex.
1005, 2:40–48) (bolding omitted). According to Petitioner, “[t]he fixed end
side of each cantilever beam for a given vibrator is a part of the beam 23 of
FIG. 8, and therefore Nose’s symmetry axis is coincident with the axis of the
beam 23.” Id. at 51; see id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155, 157). Nose’s
Figure 8 depicts vibrator 22 and vibrator 22’ being bisected by support beam
23, and as Nose’s vibrator 22 and vibrator 22’ are symmetrical, they are
identical (and are depicted as such in Nose’s Figure 8). See Ex. 1005, Fig. 8.
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions with respect to claim
23.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the limitation recited in claim 23. As such, we
are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Nose anticipates
claim 23.
5. Anticipation of Dependent Claim 24
Claim 24 recites that “said inertia mass means comprises two
elements, located respectively on either side of the beam, within the plane of
the substrate, the two elements being interconnected by a connecting bar, the
central portion of the connecting bar being unitary with a portion of the
beam.”
With respect to the recitation of “inertia mass means compris[ing] two
elements,” located respectively on either side of the beam, Petitioner
contends that “Nose discloses that each vibrator has two cantilever beams
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

39
(“elements”) on either side of the beam 23” because it discloses “a first
cantilever beam … having a fixed end and a vibrating end supported
capable of vibrating relative to the fixed end, a second cantilever beam …
having a fixed end and a vibrating end supported capable of vibrating
relative to the fixed end.” Id. at 53 (quoting Ex. 1005, 2:40-46) (citing Ex.
1003 ¶ 160).
With respect to the recitation of “within the plane of the substrate,”
Petitioner further contends that “Nose discloses that each cantilever beam is
within the plane of the substrate” because “[e]ach vibrator (with the
disclosed cantilevered beams) is ‘integrally formed on a vibrator substrate
21 . . . such that the central portions of the vibrators are supported by a
support beam 23.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 6:37–42); see id. at 53–54
(quoting Ex. 1005, 3:26–29) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 161–63).
Finally, with respect to the recitation of “the two elements being
interconnected by a connecting bar, the central portion of the connecting bar
being unitary with a portion of the beam,” Petitioner presents another
annotated version of Nose’s Figure 8, reproduced below, to “illustrate[] that
the fixed end of each cantilevered beam (‘the central portion of the
connecting bar’) is unitary with a corresponding portion of the support beam
23.” Id. at 56.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

40

Petitioner’s Annotated Version of Nose’s Figure 8. Pet. 56.
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions in connection
with claim 24. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited
evidence and find that Nose discloses the limitation recited in claim 24. As
such, we are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Nose
anticipates claim 24.
6. Anticipation of Dependent Claim 25
Claim 25 recites that “the first oscillation may be caused by an
excitation force which is substantially perpendicular with said plane.”
Petitioner contends that “the ‘first oscillation’ in Nose is caused by
either a ‘piezoelectric element drive 31’ or ‘driving coil,’ where with either
source of excitation the vibration is performed ‘such that the amplitude of
the vibration becomes a constant in a Z-direction perpendicular to the
surface of the vibrator substrate 21.’” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:14–20,
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

41
6:42–47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 173) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner contends that,
“because Nose’s piezoelectric element drive or coils cause the vibrator to
vibrate in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the substrate, Nose
teaches this limitation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 175). Patent Owner does not
challenge Petitioner’s assertions in connection with claim 25.
Petitioner’s contentions address the direction of the oscillation––not
the direction from which the excitation force is applied. See id. To the
extent that Petitioner relies on a theory of inherency to support its contention
about the application direction of the excitation force, neither Petitioner nor
its Declarant, Dr. Young, establishes that the direction from which the
excitation force is applied is necessarily the same as the direction in which
the first oscillation occurs.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that
cited evidence discloses the limitation recited in claim 25, and thus, we are
not persuaded that Nose anticipates claim 25.
7. Anticipation of Dependent Claim 31
Claim 31 recites that “the body is formed from silicon.” Petitioner
contends that “Nose teaches forming the substrate from ‘a semiconductor
substrate such as silicon,’” and that “Nose specifically teaches that the body
is formed from ‘a substrate, a first cantilever beam … a second cantilever
beam.’” Id. at 58 (quoting Ex. 1005, 2:39–48, 3:26–29) (emphasis omitted);
see id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 2:41–42, 44–46) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178, 179).
Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions in connection with
claim 31.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions and the cited evidence
and find that Nose discloses the limitation recited in claim 31. As such, we
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

42
are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Nose anticipates
claim 31.
8. Obviousness of Independent Claim 20
The Federal Circuit has held that “a disclosure that anticipates under
§ 102 also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542,
1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Our
conclusion, that Petitioner establishes independent claim 20 is anticipated by
Nose by a preponderance of the evidence informs our conclusion, here, that
Petitioner establishes claim 20 is obvious in view of Nose by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Pet. 21–58.
Patent Owner relies on the same arguments for the anticipation
challenge to claim 20, 22–25, and 31 over Nose as it does for the
obviousness challenge to these claims over Nose. PO. Resp. 14–25. We
find those arguments to be unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to the “means for exciting” limitation, we are persuaded
by Petitioner’s contention that “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to
replace the drive mechanism of Figure 8 (electromagnetic drive coils) with
the drive mechanism of Figures 6/7 (piezoelectric element drive) to arrive at
the claimed invention,” because such “is a simple substitution” that “was
both known and predictable.” Pet. 32. More particularly, we are persuaded,
that
[I]t would have been obvious to a POSITA to repeat the
piezoelectric element drive 31 with additional, parallel vibrators
22, such as FIG. 8’s parallel vibrators 22, 22’ (a mere duplication
of parts). Nose itself teaches that “[t]he present invention may
be applicable to many widely different embodiments in addition
to the embodiments as described above.” Ex. 1005, 7:21-23.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

43
Each vibrator 22, 22’ would receive its own piezoelectric
element drive 31 as its support base and source of excitation. The
support beam 23 would maintain its mechanical integrity with
the use of the piezoelectric element drive 31 at each vibrator 22,
22’ just as with the use of electromagnetic coils in FIG. 8’s
embodiment.
Id. at 32–33. We determine Petitioner’s rationale for combining
embodiments of Nose is supported by sufficient rational underpinnings
based on the express disclosures of Nose. Ex. 1005, 5:65–6:1 (“[A]
piezoelectric element drive 31 is substituted for the [electromagnetic drive]
coils.”) (emphasis added).
With respect to the “body formed from a substantially planar
substrate” recitation of claim 20, we are persuaded that it would have been
obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan that Nose’s substrate is substantially
planar based on Nose’s illustration of the substrate in Figure 8. Pet. 25
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84, 85). We are further persuaded that “Nose teaches
that the vibrator 22 is ‘integrally formed’ along with the ‘support beam 23
… on a vibrator substrate 21 made of a semiconductor substrate such as
silicon,’ [and thus,] Nose discloses that the coils on the vibrators are
associated with the body.” Id. at 38 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:27–29, 6:37–40)
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 115).
For the foregoing reasons, and based on our review of the complete
record, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that claim 20 is rendered
obvious by Nose by a preponderance of the evidence.
9. Obviousness of Dependent Claims 22–24 and 31
As set forth in Sections III.D.3 through III.D.5 and III.D.7, we are
persuaded that Nose discloses the subject matter of claims 22–24 and 31,
respectively, and thus, anticipates claims 22–24 and 31. As anticipation is
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

44
the epitome of obviousness, we are further persuaded that Nose teaches the
subject matter of claims 22–24 and 31 and renders obvious these claims, by
a preponderance of the evidence. See Connell, 722 F.2d at 1548.
10. Obviousness of Dependent Claim 25
As discussed above in Section III.D.6, Petitioner’s contentions
address the direction of the oscillation, not the direction from which the
excitation force is applied. See Pet. 57. Neither Petitioner nor its Declarant,
Dr. Young, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that the direction of oscillation is the same as the direction from
which the excitation force is applied. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
that Petitioner establishes that Nose renders obvious claim 25, by a
preponderance of the evidence.
E. Obviousness over Nose and Yamashita
1. Overview of Yamashita
Yamashita concerns a “small-sized vibratory angular velocity sensor,
and making use of anisotropic etching characteristics of [a] single crystal
silicon substrate.” Ex. 1006, [57]. The sensor drives and oscillates a
vibrator via electrostatic force. Id. at 4:48–51.
2. Independent Claim 20
For the challenge based on Nose and Yamashita, Petitioner relies on
Nose in the same manner as set forth with respect to challenges based on
Nose alone, except with respect to the limitation that recites “sensor
comprising a body formed from a substantially planar substrate.” Pet. 59–
70. For this limitation, Petitioner relies on the combination of Nose and
Yamashita. Id. at 60–62. Petitioner also relies on the combination of Nose
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

45
and Yamashita with respect to the limitation that recites “means for exciting
a first oscillation of the inertia mass means.” Id. at 63–69.
With respect to the “substantially planar substrate” limitation,
Petitioner contends that “Nose’s sensor substrate is depicted as flat silicon,”
and that “Yamashita demonstrates that it was known for a silicon substrate
to have a flat (i.e., ‘planar’) surface,” because “Yamashita teaches a ‘vibrator
including four masses having at least two parallel flat planes,’ or in other
words[, a] substrate [that] has parallel flat planes.” Id. at 60 (citing Ex.
1006, 2:14–15, 47–48) (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “[t]his
silicon substrate is formed of a ‘double-side polished type’ with a given
thickness.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 5:61–64; Ex. 1003 ¶ 193).
As rationale for combining, Petitioner contends that “a POSITA
would have recognized the desirability of Nose’s silicon substrate being
‘flat’ (that is, planar) as taught by Yamashita.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1003
¶¶ 195, 196). Petitioner argues that
A planar substrate as taught by Yamashita is desirable because it
permits sensors, such as Nose’s sensors, “to be produced from
sheets of material using inexpensive mass production
techniques.” . . . A POSITA would have recognized that
Yamashita’s teaching of using silicon with a flat (planar) surface
would be understood from the disclosure in Nose, as well as
desirable, so that many sensors of small geometry “may be
constructed on a single semiconductor chip,” which facilitates
the economic use of sensors “with consequent greatly improved
reliability and performance” for systems using such small
sensors.
Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:6–8, 10–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 196).
Patent Owner argues that Yamashita does not cure the deficiencies of
Nose with respect to claims 20, 22–25, and 31. However, as discussed
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

46
above in Section III.D, we were not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
that Nose alone does not teach or suggest these elements. So we do not
reiterate those arguments here.
We are persuaded that the cited portions of Yamashita teach a planar
substrate. The underlying evidence, U.S. Patent No. 4,598,585 to
Boxenhorn (Ex. 1007, “Boxenhorn”) cited by both Petitioner and
Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Young, in support of the above-quoted rationale
discloses that “[t]he planar geometry of the invention permits inertial sensors
to be produced from sheets of material using inexpensive mass production
techniques,” and that “the sensors may be formed by stamping a single sheet
of material such as steel or aluminum.” Ex. 1007, 2:6–10. Accordingly, we
are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Nose and Yamashita
is sufficiently supported by rational underpinnings, as evidenced by
Boxenhorn.
With respect to the “means for exciting” limitation, Petitioner
contends that “to the extent that Patent Owner argues that Nose’s
piezoelectric driving of the inertia mass means, or the electromagnetic
driving of the inertia mass means, are not a literal or ‘equivalent’
corresponding structure, this limitation would have been obvious in view of
the combination of Yamashita with Nose.” Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 228).
According to Petitioner, “Yamashita teaches exciting an oscillation of
. . . a ‘vibrator’ (a cantilevered beam)” via “electrostatic force ‘by utilizing
electrodes 110, 115 formed above and below the end portion of the masses
102.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, code (57)). Petitioner argues “Yamashita
teaches that the electrodes are formed above or below the end portions of the
masses ‘which make pairs with the masses 102 of each silicon vibrator to
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

47
form capacitors’” and further teaches “driving the electrodes to produce a
force in the z-axis direction.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 5:33–39, 8:13-19, 10:64–
65; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229, 230). Petitioner further argues that, “[i]n the
combination, Nose’s piezoelectric driving, or electromagnetic coil driving, is
replaced by Yamashita’s electrostatic driving [] to achieve Nose’s vibrations
in the z-direction” and “Nose provides excitation voltage to the electrodes
disposed above the end portions of the vibrators 22, 22’ from the power
source.” Id. at 64–65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 231). Petitioner further argues that
Accordingly, the capacitors in the Nose-Yamashita combination
are means for exciting a first oscillation of the inertia mass means
because (1) they cause an active excitation of the ends of each
vibrator 22, 22’ (inertia mass means) to achieve the same
function, and (2) they cause active excitation by way of
electrostatic interaction (i.e., using capacitive plates), which
corresponds to the ’349 Patent’s description of supplying a
potential to capacitative plates. Finally, (3) the excitation of the
ends of each vibrator 22, 22’ are an “oscillation” of each vibrator.
Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:40–45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 232).
As another rationale for combining Nose and Yamashita, Petitioner
contends that a “POSITA would have recognized that applying Yamashita’s
electrostatic drive teachings to Nose’s system would also be nothing more
than a mere substitution of parts (e.g., Nose’s electromagnetic coil drive
with Yamashita’s electrostatic drive teachings).” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1003
¶ 235). Petitioner argues that Nose and Yamashita are analogous art, the
combination would have produced a predictable result. Id. at 65–66.
According to Petitioner “it would have been obvious to apply Yamashita’s
electrostatic driving of vibrators to drive Nose’s vibrators in the z-direction,”
because Nose teaches that “the driving element may be exchanged from
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

48
electromagnetic coils to other types, such as ‘a piezoelectric element drive
31 . . . to vibrate the vibrator 22.’” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:65–7:1).
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the cited portions of
Yamashita teach electrostatically driving masses 102 with electrodes 115
and 116, and thus, that the combination of Yamashita and Nose teaches
applying an electrostatic drive mechanism to vibrate Nose’s vibrators 22, 22’
in the z-direction. We are further persuaded that Nose motivates the
substitution of one type of drive system with another (see Ex. 1005, 5:65–
7:1), and accordingly, that Petitioner’s rationale for combining is supported
by sufficient rational underpinnings.
We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence concerning
independent claim 20 and are persuaded that Petitioner establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claim 20 is obvious in view of Nose and
Yamashita.
3. Obviousness of Dependent Claims 22–24 and 31
With regard to dependent claims 22–24 and 31, Petitioner relies on
substantially the same arguments and evidence as set forth with respect to
the obviousness and anticipation challenges to these claims over Nose alone.
Pet. 70–71. For substantially the same reasons set forth above (see Sections
III.D.3 through III.D.5, III.D.7, III.D.9), we are persuaded that the cited
evidence and Petitioner’s arguments establish that claims 22–24 and 31 are
unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nose and Yamashita by a
preponderance of the evidence.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

49
4. Obviousness of Dependent Claim 25
Claim 25 recites that “the first oscillation may be caused by an
excitation force which is substantially perpendicular with said plane.”
According to Petitioner,
Yamashita teaches exciting an oscillation using
electrostatic force. A “vibrator” (a cantilevered beam) is “excited
by electrostatic force by utilizing electrodes 110, 115 formed
above and below the end portion of the masses 102.” Ex. 1006,
Abstract; 4:48-51. Yamashita teaches the electrodes producing
a force in the z-axis direction. Id., 8:13-19, 10:64-65 (the force
produced from a driving electrode is in the z-axis direction); Ex.
1003, ¶ 301.
Whatever the excitation source (whether piezoelectric,
electromagnetic coil, or electrostatic teachings), . . . because
Nose’s piezoelectric element drives or coils cause the vibrator to
vibrate in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the substrate,
and Yamashita teaches causing an electrostatic force in the z-axis
direction (with Nose), Nose (and Nose in combination with
Yamashita) teaches this limitation. Ex. 1003, ¶ 303.
Pet. 71–72.
Yamashita discloses that elements
115 to 117 are electrodes made of Pt/Ti, etc., formed on the lower
surface of the upper glass 109 or the upper surface of the lower
glass 114 by a technique of PVD (physical vapor deposition)
such as vacuum deposition or sputtering, which make pairs with
the masses 102 of each silicon vibrator to form capacitors.
Ex. 1006, 5:34–39.
Patent Owner does not specifically address the challenge to claim 25
over Nose and Yamashita.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because we find that
Figure 1 of Yamashita also depicts electrodes 115 and 116 as being below
masses 102. Petitioner apparently relies on the same rationales for
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

50
combining Nose and Yamashita as set forth above for independent claim 20.
See § III.E.2. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim
20, we are persuaded that Petitioner presents a rationale for combining Nose
and Yamashita that is supported by sufficient rational underpinnings.
Accordingly, having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
concerning independent claim 25 and are persuaded that Petitioner
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 25 is
unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nose and Yamashita.
5. Obviousness of Dependent Claim 30
Claim 30 recites “the body is formed from a mono-crystalline
substrate.” Petitioner contends that Nose teaches “a semiconductor substrate
such as silicon by … anisotropic etching” and that “[a]lthough Nose does
not explicitly disclose that the silicon is mono-crystalline silicon, it was
well-known and obvious to use mono-crystalline silicon” because “[p]iezo-
resistive strain gauges achieve [a] higher gauge factor when implemented in
single-crystal silicon, therefore higher sensitivity, than nonsingle-crystal
silicon (i.e., polysilicon).” Pet. 72–73 (citing-in-part Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 306, 307;
Ex. 1005, 3:26–29; Ex. 1012, 3–4) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner contends
that Yamashita’s sensor “is a small-sized vibratory angular velocity sensor,
and making use of anisotropic etching characteristics of single crystal silicon
substrate.” Id. at 73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 308; Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1011,
code (57)) (emphasis omitted).
As rationale for combining Nose and Yamashita, Petitioner contends
that Nose seeks to achieve “an angular velocity sensor which can be
effectively driven while having a high detectivity,” that “such ‘high
detectivity’ is known in the art to be achievable with a high ‘Q factor’,” and
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

51
that “Yamashita teaches achieving a larger Q factor ‘when the vibrator is
formed of single crystal silicon . . . since the internal loss is extremely
small.” Id. at 73–74 (emphases omitted) (citing-in-part Ex. 1003 ¶ 309;
Ex. 1005, 2:25–28; Ex. 1006, 3:4–6, 8:58–64). According to Petitioner, “[a]
POSITA would have been motivated to implement Nose’s silicon substrate
as a ‘single crystal silicon’ to minimize internal material loss for higher
sensitivity to assist in meeting Nose’s goal,” and because “single-crystal
silicon was more desirable than polysilicon in which to form piezo-resistive
strain gauges, such as those in Nose, to achieve higher sensitivity.” Id. at 74
(citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 310, 311; Ex. 1012, 4–5).
Patent Owner does not specifically address the challenge to claim 30
over Nose and Yamashita.
The cited portion in Nose discloses that one of the objects of the
invention is to “provide an angular velocity sensor which can be efficiently
driven while having a high detectivity.” Ex. 1005, 2:25–28 (emphasis
added). The cited portion in Yamashita describes how, by matching a
vibration frequency with a resonance frequency of a vibrator, one can obtain
a dislocation amount that is multiplied by the Q factor, and that the Q factor
can exceed 10,000 when the vibrator is formed of “single crystal silicon”
because “the internal loss is extremely small.” Ex. 1006, 8:55–64. We are
persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Nose and Yamashita is
sufficiently supported by rational underpinnings based on the cited, express
disclosures in Nose and Yamashita that would have motivated the ordinarily
skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Nose with Yamashita as Petitioner
asserts.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

52
Dr. Young’s testimony––that piezo-resistive strain gauges formed of
single-crystal silicon achieve higher sensitivity than those formed of
polycrystalline silicon––also sufficiently motivates the combination of Nose
and Yamashita because the testimony is supported by underlying evidence in
Temperature-independent Pressure Sensors Using Polycrystalline Silicon
Strain Gauges,” by Schäfer (Ex. 1012, “Schäfer”). Ex. 1012, 3–4 (“The
piezoresistive sensitivity of the examined films is . . . clearly smaller in
polysilicon than in monocrystalline silicon.”).
We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence concerning
independent claim 30 and are persuaded that Petitioner establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claim 30 is obvious in view of Nose and
Yamashita.
F. Challenges Applying Mattes
1. Overview of Mattes
Mattes discloses “a method and an arrangement for detecting a vehicle
roll-over,” which “can be detected in timely fashion and with a high degree
of reliability.” Ex. 1009, 2:1–3.9
2. Obviousness of Dependent Claim 33 over Nose and
Mattes
Dependent Claim 33 recites “[a] sensor according to claim 20
mounted on a motor vehicle to control deployment of a safety device.”
With respect to the challenge applying Nose and Mattes, Petitioner
contends “Mattes improves the reliability of rollover detection with ‘at least
one rotation rate sensor.’” Pet. 75 (citing Ex. 1009, 2:7–11). Petitioner

9 Mattes (Ex. 1009) does not include line numbers. We follow the same
convention as Petitioner, in citing to Mattes, by setting forth page numbers
and determined line numbers.
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

53
argues Mattes teaches that “[s]ignaling a rollover results in ‘activation of the
safety mechanisms’ including roll-over bars, belt tensioners, airbags, seat
locking mechanisms, etc.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009, 1:6–7, 6:20–23; Ex. 1003 ¶
318). Petitioner relies on Nose to teach an angular velocity sensor and
Mattes to teach mounting the sensor on a motor vehicle and controlling
deployment of a safety device. Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:5–8; 2:7–22;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 320).
As to rationale for combining, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he
combination would have been nothing more than the combination of known
elements using known methods to yield predictable results.” Id. at 76 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 319). According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would have been
motivated to turn to Mattes in order to achieve the benefit of improved
accuracy and reliability of rollover detection in using Nose’s angular
velocity sensor.” Id. at 76–77 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 321) (emphasis added).
We understand Petitioner to take the position that the rotation rate sensor in
Mattes could be replaced with or implemented by Nose’s angular velocity
sensor. Id. at 76 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:5–8, 2:7–22) (“Mattes teaches using an
angular velocity from a “rotation rate sensor” (such as Nose’s angular
velocity sensor) in a vehicle to assist in controlling activation of one or more
safety mechanisms.”). The testimony of Dr. Young, Petitioner’s Declarant,
substantially mirrors the arguments set forth in the Petition. See Ex. 1003
¶¶ 318–23.
Patent Owner argues that Mattes does not cure the deficiencies of
Nose with respect to claim 33. PO Resp. 29. However, as discussed above
in Section III.D, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

54
Nose alone does not teach or suggest these elements. So we do not reiterate
those arguments here.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s rationale for combining the
teachings of Nose with Mattes because it would have been understood by the
ordinarily skilled artisan to be nothing more than the combination of known
elements using known methods yielding predictable results. As such, we
find that the combination of Nose and Mattes teaches the limitation recited
in claim 33. We are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that claim 33 is
unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nose and Mattes (see Pet.
75–79) by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Obviousness of Dependent Claim 33 over Nose,
Yamashita, and Mattes
With respect to the challenge applying Nose, Yamashita, and Mattes,
Petitioner contends “[t]he addition of elements from Yamashita does not
impact the reasons to combine Nose with Mattes and the same reasons to
combine apply.” Id. at 79 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 319–23, 333); see id. at 80
(citing Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 324–32, 334, 335).
Patent Owner argues that Mattes does not cure the deficiencies of
Nose with respect to claim 33. PO Resp. 29. However, as discussed above
in Section III.D, we were not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that
Nose alone does not teach or suggest these elements. So we do not reiterate
those arguments here.
We are persuaded that the combination of Nose, Yamashita, and
Mattes teaches the limitation recited in claim 33 for reasons substantially
similar to the reasons discussed with respect to the challenge to claim 33
applying Nose and Mattes. See § III.F.2. We are persuaded that Petitioner
establishes that claim 33 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

55
Nose, Yamashita and Mattes (see Pet. 75–79) by a preponderance of the
evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
We conclude that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that claims 20, 22–24, and 31 of the ’349 patent are
unpatentable as anticipated by Nose and as obvious over Nose. We also
conclude that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claim 25 is unpatentable as either anticipated by Nose or
obvious over Nose. Further, we conclude that Petitioner has established, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 20, 22–25, 30, and 31 are
unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nose and Yamashita. We
also conclude that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claim 33 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
Nose and Mattes and over the combination of Nose, Yamashita, and Mattes.
The chart below summarizes our conclusions.
Claims
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Claims Shown
Unpatentable
Claims Not
Shown
Unpatentable
20, 22–25,
31 102
Nose 20, 22–24, 31 25
20, 22–25,
31 103
Nose 20, 22–24, 31 25
20, 22–25,
30, 31 103
Nose,
Yamashita
20, 22–25, 30,
31
33 103 Nose, Mattes 33
33 103 Nose, Mattes, Yamashita
33
IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

56
Claims
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Claims Shown
Unpatentable
Claims Not
Shown
Unpatentable
Overall
Outcome
20, 22–25, 30,
31, 33

V. ORDER
It is, therefore,
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 20, 22–25, 30, 31, 33 of the ’349 patent have
been shown by a preponderance of the evidence to be unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2019-00502
Patent 6,467,349 B1

57
FOR PETITIONER:
Thomas King
Adam Fowles
Gregory J. Michelson
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
Thomas.king@haynesboone.com
Adam.fowles.ipr@haynesboone.com
Greg.michelson.ipr@haynesboone.com

For PATENT OWNER:
David Chavous
CHAVOUS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
dchavous@chavousiplaw.com