Petition for Post Grant Review — U.S. Patent No. 12,460,537 B2

Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Subpart C

Petitioner: Walter Phillips Patent Owner: ChampionX LLC Case No.: PGR2026-_____

---

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office allowed claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,460,537 B2 (the "'537 patent," EX-1001) over Petitioner's own prior publication, Phillips (EX-1003), after crediting Phillips, limitation by limitation, with nearly every feature of independent claim 1 (§ IV.A). EX-1002 pp. 330–332 (Notice of Allowance ("NOA")). Allowance turned on a single residual feature: "continuing sampling the rotational values through a second direction change" and "ceasing sampling the rotational values at a third direction change," which the Examiner found "Puwanto, along with all other references, fail to teach." EX-1002 p. 332 (NOA).

That asserted point of novelty — a per-stroke sensing chain of three "direction changes" gating rotational sampling — does not withstand scrutiny. Every building block — magnetic axial sensing, gyroscopic rotation sensing, single-package sensor fusion, and per-stroke (stroke-bounded) windowing — was conventional and is disclosed by Phillips and Fyfe (EX-1004).

Petitioner challenges all twenty claims on five independent grounds (Ground 1 pleaded in two delineated combinations, 1A and 1B) — obviousness over Phillips-based combinations (§ 103), anticipation by Phillips (§ 102), and indefiniteness, functional-claiming, and enablement defects (§ 112) — each an alternative basis for unpatentability. A conditional sixth ground (§ 112(a) written description) is pleaded against the amended "rotational values" genus. Post Grant Review lies where the petition demonstrates that "it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable." 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Each ground independently meets that threshold, and at trial Petitioner will carry its burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, 35 U.S.C. § 326(e) — a burden that never shifts to the Patent Owner. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The grounds, claims, and references are tabulated in the Statement of Precise Relief Requested below.

Statement of Precise Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1), 42.204(b))

Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1–20 as unpatentable on the following grounds:

Ground	Statutory basis	Claims	Reference(s) / defect
1A	§ 103 (obviousness)	1–20	Phillips in view of Fyfe; further in view of Hurst as to claims 8–9 and 16–18, Harding as to claim 12 and the previous-stroke comparison of claims 7 and 13–15, and Orlando as to claim 18
1B	§ 103 (obviousness)	1–20	Phillips in view of Picon (Picon supplying only the sensing-chain limitations [1i]/[1j], [16f]–[16g], [19d]–[19e] and [13f]'s current-stroke window; [1d] supplied by Phillips's housed three-axis sensors, § V.D); further in view of Hurst as to claims 8–9 and 16–18, Harding as in Ground 1A, Orlando as to claim 18, and Fyfe as to claim 17's sensor class (§ VII.A)
2	§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (anticipation)	1–7, 10–15, 19–20	Phillips (claims 13–15 independent of the "direction change" and "stroke" constructions; claims 1–7, 10–12, and method claims 19–20 under the full-cycle construction, alternative to Ground 1)
3	§ 112(b) (indefiniteness)	1–12, 16–18	claim 16's unanchored ordinals and unfixed referent / claim 12's reintroduced "vibration sensor subsystem" / the [1c] vs. [1h]–[1j] "rotational values" split
4	§ 112(f)/(b) (functional claiming, no algorithm)	13–15	claim-13 processor functions (no disclosed algorithm)
5	§ 112(a) (non-enablement)	1–12, 16–20 (13–15 only as construed to require magnetometer-based detection, § XI.A)	magnetometer "direction change" detection
6 (conditional)	§ 112(a) (written description)	1–18	amended "rotational values" genus

Map of the Alternative Grounds. The grounds are pleaded in the alternative; each construction question resolves, on every answer, to unpatentability:

Construction question	Resolution → ground
claim 16's ordinals/referent and claim 12's subsystem	definite → prior art governs; indefinite → Ground 3
"rotational values"	velocity-only → Ground 2 (§ VIII.C); unfixable → Ground 3 (§ IX.D); genus → conditional Ground 6
magnetometer detection of the "direction change"	routine → Grounds 1–2; the point of novelty → Ground 5
claim 13's processor verbs	plain meaning → Ground 2; § 112(f), no algorithm → Ground 4

Each ground is supported by the declaration of Petitioner's technical expert (EX-1018). The exhibits relied upon are identified in the Exhibit List appended at the end of this Petition.

---

II. MANDATORY NOTICES, STANDING, AND FEES

A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)

Real party-in-interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)). The sole real party-in-interest is Walter Phillips. No other person or entity funds, directs, or controls this Petition or exercises control over Petitioner's participation.

Related matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)). Petitioner is aware of no judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding, except the following, identified out of caution: U.S. Application No. 19/377,667 (published as US 2026/0063031 A1), a pending continuation of the application that issued as the '537 patent, filed November 3, 2025 by ChampionX LLC, docketed for examination November 24, 2025, and awaiting first action.

Lead/back-up counsel and service (§§ 42.8(b)(3)–(4), 42.10). Petitioner Walter Phillips appears pro se and designates himself the contact for all purposes; § 42.10(a)'s lead/back-up designation applies only to represented parties. Service may be made by electronic mail at [redacted]; Petitioner consents to electronic service under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e).

B. Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a))

Petitioner certifies that the '537 patent is available for Post Grant Review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting review on the grounds identified. Specifically: (1) Petitioner is not, and never has been, the owner of the '537 patent, and has not filed a civil action or declaratory-judgment action challenging the validity of any claim of the '537 patent (35 U.S.C. §§ 321(a), 325(a)(1)); (2) Petitioner has filed no prior post-grant or inter partes review of the '537 patent, and no final written decision has issued in any proceeding involving these claims (Petitioner made a third-party preissuance submission under 35 U.S.C. § 122(e) in the underlying application, EX-1014, filed Oct. 29, 2023); (3) the '537 patent issued from Application No. 17/549,519, filed December 13, 2021, claims no domestic benefit or foreign priority, and is therefore a first-inventor-to-file patent eligible for Post Grant Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 100(i), 321(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.202); and (4) this Petition is filed within nine months of the November 4, 2025 grant (35 U.S.C. § 321(c)) — the window closing on or about August 4, 2026.

C. Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b), 42.203)

The fees required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) total $59,375 — a $25,000 petition fee and a $34,375 post-institution fee; because exactly twenty claims are challenged, no excess-claims fees would be due. Due to the burdensome fee, I am unable to afford this Post Grant Review. I humbly request a fee waiver.

---

III. THE '537 PATENT AND THE STATE OF THE ART

A. Sucker-Rod Pumping and the Meaning of "Stroke"

In a sucker-rod (beam) pumping unit, a rod string reciprocates one "stroke" per pumping cycle, driven by a crank and walking beam — a four-bar linkage. Because that linkage is deterministic, the rod reverses axial direction at exactly and only the two travel extrema, so one complete stroke — one full up-and-down reciprocation — is naturally bounded by three successive reversals: the start, the mid-stroke reversal, and the end. To a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA"), the unmodified "stroke" denotes that full cycle, while "upstroke" and "downstroke" denote its half-cycles. The '537 patent and Phillips both use this vocabulary (§ V.A). EX-1018 ¶¶ 15–16.

B. Two Kinds of "Direction Change" — Axial and Rotational

A rod-pump component undergoes two physically distinct kinds of "direction change," producing different sensor signatures. Axially, the rod reverses at each travel extreme; three such reversals bound one complete stroke, and the '537 specification ties the third to stroke completion — "noting the completion of a complete up and down stoke [sic]." EX-1001 col. 9, ll. 52–54. Rotationally, two distinct rotational motions must be distinguished: (i) the deliberate, slow, generally one-way turning imparted by a rod/tubing rotator to distribute wear — the rotation the '537 samples; and (ii) superimposed on it, the elastic rod string's torsional oscillation — cyclic load changes between upstroke and downstroke affect the string in torsion, so the rod twists back and forth, reversing rotational direction one or more times within each stroke. Both motions are present in an operating unit, and both modulate the sensors (§ XI.B). EX-1018 ¶ 17.

C. Commodity Sensors; a Magnetometer Measures Field, Not Motion

By the December 13, 2021 effective filing date, compact MEMS sensors were ubiquitous, each a known class: the accelerometer (which inherently registers acceleration and thus vibration), the gyroscope (angular rate), and the magnetometer (field strength). A gyroscope also registers the rod's rotational oscillations (§ III.B) — themselves vibration, which is not confined to linear motion. Phillips documents these rotational movements across the stroke. EX-1003 [0110]–[0123]. Critically, a magnetometer measures field strength, not motion: inferring axial movement requires modeling how the field varies with position — nontrivial near a rod dominated by ferrous structures. Phillips so documents: its magnetometer "experiences a range of field distortions as the sensor moves closer and further from steel objects in the pumping system"; the field it observes "can be substantially different in both direction and magnitude depending on the location of the sensor along its path of travel"; and "[t]he wellhead 801, horsehead 804, counterweights 814, etc. all create distortions and act at different longitudinal positions during the motion of the sensor," distortions whose magnitude "can dominate the reading." EX-1003 [0082]; [0132]. EX-1018 ¶¶ 19–20.

D. The Per-Stroke Measurement Paradigm

Diagnosing a rod pump has meant analyzing a per-cycle record since at least 1967: Gibbs claims recording polished-rod load and displacement "as functions of time" over the pumping cycle. EX-1008 cl. 1 step (c). Segmenting sensor data per stroke and comparing it against prior strokes is the ordinary analytical unit of the field — a reversal-bounded measurement window is its foundational structure, not a novelty. EX-1018 ¶ 18.

E. The '537 Patent and Its Two Claim Families

The '537 patent issued November 4, 2025 on an application filed December 13, 2021. Its sole account of axial detection is one sentence: metallic structures "may provide a sinusoidal-type waveform … to determine when the polished rod 135 changes axial (e.g., vertical) direction." EX-1001 col. 8, l. 64 – col. 9, l. 2. That "direction change" gates sampling — begun on the first, "continued" through the "second," "ceased" at the "third direction change … (e.g., noting the completion of a complete up and down stoke [sic])." EX-1001 col. 9, ll. 46–54. The specification supplies no signal-processing method, no detection criterion, and no working example. EX-1018 ¶ 21.

The four independent claims fall in two families. Claims 1, 16 (tubing rotator), and 19 (method) recite the sensing chain — an axial-motion sensor determining a "direction change," then "continuing … through a second direction change" and "ceasing … at" (claim 1) or "after" (claims 16, 19) "a third direction change" (claims 1 and 16 reciting a magnetometer; claim 19, "magnetic variations detected by an axial motion sensor"); claim 1 alone adds a gyroscope and a "vibration sensor subsystem … in three axes." EX-1001 cls. 1, 16, 19. Claim 13 differs materially: it recites only a generic axial-motion sensor and a generic rotational sensor, and a processor that "verif[ies] the axial movement," "detect[s] the rotational values … during a current stroke," and "compar[es] the rotational values with previously sensed rotational values … during a previous stroke … to determine if rotation … has occurred" — with no vibration limitation and no "direction change" language. EX-1001 cl. 13.

F. The References

Phillips (EX-1003, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0203579 A1) published July 4, 2019, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) — published more than two years before the December 13, 2021 effective filing date, by a different inventive entity, with no grace-period removal available. In the alternative, it is § 102(a)(2) art as of its December 20, 2018 filing. Phillips is Petitioner's own publication: Walter Phillips is the named inventor. It discloses a bridle/polished-rod sensing device housing a magnetometer, accelerometer, and gyroscope ([0029]), monitoring rotation per stroke ([0110]); unlike the '537 patent, it solves the field-distortion problem with a disclosed dynamic calibration ([0129], [0133]; [0131]). Further, Phillips ties its sensing to the stroke, by name — "single stroke," "per stroke," "given stroke," "intra-stroke," "the course of a stroke" — repeatedly across its disclosure (e.g., [0029], [0110], [0112], [0115]).

Fyfe (EX-1004, U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0263531 A1) published August 20, 2020, and is prior art under § 102(a)(1). It fuses a magnetometer, accelerometer, and gyroscopic sensor in a single monitor ([0072]); senses polished-rod acceleration and vibration ([0009]); and identifies per-stroke stroke boundaries — the "tick" and the maxima/minima segmentation developed at § VII.B ([0035], [0037]). Its sections captioned "Rod Rotator Monitor" ([0068]–[0072]) and "Tubing Rotation Monitoring" ([0073]–[0074]) are the '537 patent's exact use case.

Gibbs (EX-1008, U.S. Patent No. 3,343,409) issued September 26, 1967, and is prior art under § 102(a)(1). It establishes the per-cycle, reversal-bounded dynamometer-card window as the foundational rod-pump-diagnostic paradigm. It is relied on here only as background establishing that paradigm (§ III.D), not as a separate ground.

The supporting references. Each further reference is § 102(a)(1) prior art on its face: Picon (EX-1005, U.S. Patent No. 11,060,392 B2) issued July 13, 2021 — before the effective filing date — and independently § 102(a)(2) prior art as of its November 29, 2018 filing; Hurst (EX-1006, U.S. Patent No. 9,140,113) issued September 22, 2015; Harding (EX-1007, U.S. Patent No. 9,903,193 B2) issued February 27, 2018; and Orlando (EX-1010, U.S. Patent No. 4,561,299) issued December 31, 1985. Mills (EX-1011, U.S. Patent No. 6,176,682, issued January 23, 2001) and Elf Aquitaine (EX-1012, U.S. Patent No. 4,968,934, issued November 6, 1990) antedate the '537 by decades and serve only as state-of-the-art evidence (Mills, Ground 5) and historical background (Elf Aquitaine), not as ground references. Norris Rods (EX-1009, U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0340309 A1, Gear Rod Rotator Systems) published October 29, 2020 — § 102(a)(1) prior art, outside any grace period — and is the publication the '537 patent itself incorporates by reference in its entirety for its rod rotator (EX-1001 col. 7, ll. 60–64); it was filed by the Patent Owner's affiliate Norris Rods, Inc. (now owned by Patent Owner ChampionX LLC) and is relied on as motivation and state-of-the-art evidence only, not as a ground reference.

G. Limitation Labels

The bracketed limitation labels used throughout this Petition ([1pre]–[1j]; [13pre]–[13g]; [16a]–[16g]; [19pre]–[19e]) are keyed to the four independent claims. All twenty claims are reproduced in full, with the labels interlineated in the independent claims, in the Claim Listing appended at the end of this Petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)).

---

IV. PROSECUTION HISTORY (RELEVANT ADMISSIONS)

The Office's findings during prosecution are recounted here as intrinsic-record evidence — and, as to the Applicant's own statements, as party admissions — and as support for claim construction (§ V), not as a basis for any discretionary argument.

A. The Office Credited Phillips With Nearly Every Limitation of Claim 1

In the Statement of Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner credited Phillips with: the sensor system and its movement-detecting subsystem ([1pre]; [0019], Claim 1); the magnetometer axial-motion sensor measuring axial movement "based on variations in a magnet field [sic]" ([1b]; Phillips claim 1, [00126]); the gyroscope rotation sensor "detecting rotational velocity values with the gyroscope" ([1c]; [00110]); the data-receiving processor ([1e]; [0021]); detection of axial movement with the magnetometer ([1f]; [0021-0023]); "sensing a direction change … to determine when a stroke … has been completed and to determine that a new stroke is beginning" ([1g]; [0081] — the Office's pin as written; cf. the A1's [0082]); and, "after the direction change … has been detected, begin to determine rotation … by sampling rotational values" ([1h]; [0087]). EX-1002 pp. 330–332 (NOA). These element-level findings of the Office are intrinsic-record evidence in Petitioner's favor, tabulated in EX-1018, NOA Element-Findings Chart.

The Examiner identified the sole distinctions over Phillips as the "vibration sensor subsystem … in three axes" ([1d]) and the "continuing sampling the rotational values through a second direction change" ([1i]) and "ceasing sampling the rotational values at a third direction change" ([1j]): "Philips [sic] fails to teach a vibration sensor subsystem for monitoring vibration of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system in three axes; continuing sampling the rotational values through a second direction change …: and ceasing sampling the rotational values at a third direction change …." EX-1002 p. 332 (NOA) (spelling and punctuation in original).

Allowance then turned on the sensing chain alone. Having stated the [1d] gap, the Office located the vibration limitation in the art (without addressing Phillips's own three-axis device, Fig. 3; [0094]–[0096]) — "in a related field, Puwanto discloses a vibration measuring device … that measures vibration" — and rested allowance solely on what remained: "Puwanto, along with all other references, fail to teach" the second and third direction changes, and "[i]t is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of it dependencies are allowed." EX-1002 p. 332 (NOA) (verbatim). The Office thus did not find [1d] absent from the prior art; it found the second and third direction changes absent. That is the single feature this Petition must, and does, supply (§§ VII.B, VIII.C).

B. The Office Twice Found the Sensing Chain in Phillips (Claim 7)

In the Non-Final Office Action (June 14, 2024), addressing then-pending claim 7, the Examiner found:

"Regarding Claim 7, Phillips further teaches the sensor system of claim 5, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to continue sampling the rotational velocity along substantially an entire stroke of the at least one rod, the sampling beginning at a first change of direction of the at least one rod, continuing through a second change of direction of the at least one rod, and ceasing at a third change of direction of the at least one rod [0029; 0110]." EX-1002 pp. 214–215 (CTNF).

The Final Office Action (Feb. 4, 2025) repeats that finding word for word, on the identical Phillips pins [0029]; [0110]. EX-1002 p. 277 (CTFR). Twice, then, the Office found the begin-at-first / continue-through-second / cease-at-third sensing chain in Phillips — and, in the same sentence, equated one stroke with the three reversals ("substantially an entire stroke … first … second … third change of direction"). That equation supports the claim construction in § V.A.

C. The Applicant's "Particular Chain of Sensing Events" Distinction

In its Reply of May 5, 2025, the Applicant did not dispute the building blocks; it argued only that "there is no disclosure in Phillips of the particular chain of sensing events, including explicitly reciting the conditions for the starting and stopping events of the rotational sensing …." (emphasis added). The Applicant thus demanded explicit recitation — omitting the accepted standard's alternative of inherent disclosure (§ VIII.A). Further, for claim 13, the Applicant argued that Phillips does not disclose using a "previous stroke" value to determine whether rotation occurred. EX-1002 pp. 312, 315 (REM, 5/5/2025). The Office then allowed the claims. The Applicant's own term — "chain of sensing events" — is the source of Petitioner's editorial label, sensing chain, used throughout. (The remarks' claims-1–7 argument itself mislabels claim 1's limitations as belonging to claim 13 — "Phillips does not describe the sensor system of amended claim 13 including a processor subsystem to: detect axial movement … with the magnetometer" — reciting claim 1's elements under claim 13's name. EX-1002 p. 311 (REM, 5/5/2025, at 1).) The examination never surfaced the mislabel; § IV.D traces the consequence.

D. The Claim-13 "Similar Rationale" Allowance

Having allowed claim 1 on the three features above, the Office extended that rationale to claims 13, 16, and 19 in one sentence: "Claim 13, 16 and 19 include analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 1, an is [sic], therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowed." EX-1002 p. 332 (NOA). Claim 13, however, recites none of the three allowance features — no vibration sensor, no "second direction change," no "third direction change," indeed no "direction change" language at all. EX-1001 cl. 13. The conflation ran both directions: the Applicant's remarks had already mislabeled claim 1's limitations as "amended claim 13" (§ IV.C), and the NOA then extended claim 1's rationale to claim 13 — so at no point in the exchange was claim 13 tested against its own text. Claim 13 is therefore broader than claim 1 in the dimensions that mattered to allowance, and is anticipated by Phillips (Ground 2).

---

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Claims are construed under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) — the Federal Circuit's en banc claim-construction decision, which is unrelated to, and should not be confused with, the prior-art reference "Phillips" (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0203579 A1, EX-1003), Petitioner's own publication. Under that standard, a term takes the ordinary meaning a POSITA would give it at the time of the invention, read in light of the specification and prosecution history. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Only terms in controversy are construed. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

A. "Stroke" Means One Complete Up-and-Down Cycle

To a POSITA, a "stroke" is one complete up-and-down reciprocation cycle; the half-cycles are separately and expressly named "upstroke" and "downstroke." EX-1018 ¶¶ 15–16, 23. Three independent sources fix this meaning.

Intrinsic — the '537 patent's own usage. The specification equates the third direction change with "the completion of a complete up and down stoke [sic]," EX-1001 col. 9, ll. 52–54 — i.e., a single "stroke" spans a full up-and-down cycle, bounded by three reversals (start, mid, end). The specification is "the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. The specification's parallel passage — monitoring "to determine when one part of a stroke … has been completed and/or to determine that a new stroke is beginning" (col. 9, ll. 40–46) — is consistent: the hedged "and/or" fits any reversal (the mid-stroke reversal completes a part of a stroke; the end reversal begins a new one), while only the full-cycle reading gives the third change its stated meaning as "the completion of a complete up and down stoke [sic]" (col. 9, ll. 52–54).

The references' own usage. Phillips's background uses "upstroke" and "downstroke" — the art's dedicated terms for the two halves. EX-1003 [0008]. Because the art names the halves with modifiers, the unmodified "single stroke" ([0029], [0110]) denotes the complete reciprocation, not a half. Hurst is express: the plunger "may be moved up and down cyclically," its motion comprising "an 'upstroke' and a 'downstroke,' jointly referred to as a 'stroke.'" EX-1006 col. 2, ll. 47–52.

The Examiner's construction of the same vocabulary. In finding Phillips to disclose then-claim 7, the Examiner equated one stroke with three reversals, finding the processor "configured to continue sampling the rotational velocity along substantially an entire stroke of the at least one rod, the sampling beginning at a first change of direction … continuing through a second change of direction … and ceasing at a third change of direction." EX-1002 pp. 214–215, 277 (CTNF; CTFR) (emphasis added). The Office thus read one stroke as bounded by three reversals — the ordinary meaning.

A Patent Owner contention that "single stroke" denotes a half-cycle is therefore unreasonable: nothing in the intrinsic record supplies a half-cycle meaning, and the sources above all point the other way. Under the ordinary meaning, one complete stroke is bounded by three axial reversals.

B. "Direction Change" — Construction

"Direction change" — the term the sensing-chain limitations recite — means an axial reversal of the pump stroke: the first, second, and third changes mark the start, mid-stroke reversal, and end of one complete up-and-down stroke, under the patentee's own description (col. 9, ll. 52–54 ("noting the completion of a complete up and down stoke [sic]")). It is the only construction the specification supports; Grounds 1, 2, and 5 apply it, though Ground 1 does not depend on it (§ VII.A).

This construction does not supply claim 16's missing antecedent. Claim 16 never recites a first "direction change"; it recites "a change in axial direction" ([16a]) — a different recitation, whose relationship to the later "second"/"third direction change" the claim never fixes. Construing the term the claims recite does not tell a POSITA what claim 16's ordinals count from (§ IX.B). Ground 3's § 112(b) theories address other terms (claim 16's ordinals; claim 12's antecedent), which fail under the first row of the Map of the Alternative Grounds (§ I). (The distinct "rotational values" term resolves on its own three-way branch, § IX.D.)

C. Claim 13 Processor Functions ([13e]–[13g]) — § 112(f)

Claim 13's processor limitations ("verify," "detecting," "comparing … to determine if rotation … has occurred") are recited by function without sufficient structure and are governed by § 112(f), as developed in Ground 4. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). This position is confined to the processor verbs; Petitioner concedes that "magnetometer," "gyroscope," "axial motion sensor," and "rotational sensor" name known classes of structure and do not invoke § 112(f). Id.

D. "Vibration Sensor Subsystem"

Claim 1's [1d] "vibration sensor subsystem … in three axes" (and claim 12) takes its plain and ordinary meaning: a vibration sensor is a sensor that registers oscillatory (vibratory) motion of the monitored component. So construed, the class embraces the commodity sensors housed in the claimed and prior-art devices:

• Accelerometer — the canonical vibration sensor. Measuring a component's acceleration inherently registers its vibration; a three-axis accelerometer does so in three orthogonal axes. This is the standard meaning of a "vibration sensor." EX-1018 ¶¶ 19, 27.
• Gyroscope. A gyroscope registers the rod's rotational oscillations — torsional (angular) vibration (§ III.C); a three-axis gyroscope measures that vibration in three angular axes.

The patentee's own specification adopts this meaning. It defines the vibration sensor subsystem 214 by example — "load sensors, strain gauges, magnet sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, etc." (EX-1001 col. 10, ll. 63–67) — and derives the claimed vibrational baseline "from the sensor (e.g., an accelerometer) in three axes during the stroke of the pumping unit" (col. 6, ll. 42–44). The construction above is thus not merely the POSITA's reading; it is the patentee's own intrinsic definition.

Two consequences follow for the prior-art grounds. First, "vibration sensor subsystem … in three axes" reads on a three-axis accelerometer or three-axis gyroscope — sensors Phillips houses (expressly illustrated in three axes, Fig. 3; [0094]–[0096]) and Fyfe expressly recites — so [1d] and claim 12 are satisfied (Grounds 1–2). Second, [1d] is met under any reasonable construction: even narrowed to a dedicated accelerometer, Phillips houses a three-axis accelerometer that registers the rod's vibration.

E. All Other Terms — Plain and Ordinary Meaning

"Rotational values." Petitioner's primary position is that this amended term cannot be fixed with reasonable certainty (Ground 3, § IX.D); in the alternative, the prior-art grounds meet the limitation under either available reading (§ VIII.C), and conditional Ground 6 addresses the genus reading (§ XII). This three-way branch is the second row of the Map of the Alternative Grounds (§ I); it is developed in § IX.D.

Claim 12's "vibrational baseline" takes its plain and ordinary meaning as applied in the mappings (§ VII.E). Claim 18's "path … substantially perpendicular to a surface" is the rotational path traced by the rotation sensor itself, not the axis of the rod or tubing string: the specification ties the recitation to the tubing rotator's worm drive, whose axis "extends along a surface of the Earth," so that "the rotational path of the tubing sensor 185 may … lie in a plane … substantially perpendicular to a surface." EX-1001 col. 8, ll. 3–15. Claim 18 therefore requires the tubing rotator's rotation monitored about a substantially horizontal drive axis. EX-1018 ¶¶ 27–28, 33. No other term requires construction to resolve the grounds.

---

VI. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART

As of the effective filing date, a POSITA would have held at least a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or petroleum engineering (or equivalent), with about two years' experience in downhole artificial-lift equipment or inertial/magnetic condition-monitoring sensors; education and experience are interchangeable. EX-1018 ¶ 7. The prior art reflects this level, and the conclusions hold under any reasonable variation. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

---

VII. GROUND 1 (1A/1B) — CLAIMS 1–20 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER PHILLIPS IN VIEW OF FYFE (1A) OR PHILLIPS IN VIEW OF PICON (1B), EACH FURTHER IN VIEW OF HURST, HARDING, AND ORLANDO AS TO CERTAIN CLAIMS — AND, IN GROUND 1B, FYFE AS TO CLAIM 17 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

A. Overview

Phillips supplies the bulk of every independent claim — the magnetometer axial sensor, the gyroscope rotation sensor, the data-receiving processor, the verify-axial-then-sample control flow, and per-stroke rotation monitoring — as the Office's own allowance findings confirm (§ IV.A). Fyfe supplies the features the Office found missing from Phillips: three-axis accelerometer vibration sensing ([1d]) and the stroke-boundary windowing that, applied to Phillips's per-stroke sampling, yields the sensing chain ([1i]/[1j]) (§ VII.B) — the chain being the sole residual feature on which allowance ultimately rested, the Office having located the vibration limitation itself in Puwanto (§ IV.A). Phillips and Fyfe each independently disclose the single-package sensor fusion the claims recite (§ VII.B). Picon supplies the reversal-bounded sensing chain in the alternative (§ VII.B); Hurst — the Office's own secondary reference against claims 8–9 and 16–18 — supplies the rotator-coupled sensor; Harding supplies claim 12's vibrational baseline and the discrete previous-stroke comparison of claims 7 and 13–15 ([13g]); and Orlando supplies claim 18's horizontal-axis inclinometer technique (§ VII.E).

A POSITA would have combined these complementary teachings, from the same narrow field and each used for its established purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success and a predictable result. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–21 (2007). Ground 1 does not depend on any particular construction of "direction change": Fyfe supplies once-per-cycle stroke-bounding events under any reading of its identified extrema, and Picon (Ground 1B) supplies reversal-coincident, real-time gating — its accelerometer extrema occur at or substantially at the reversals (EX-1018 ¶ 30). EX-1018 ¶¶ 30, 32. Phillips ties its sensing to the stroke, by name, throughout its disclosure (§ III.F). Even if its words did not reach the second and third changes, a POSITA would be motivated to bound acquisition at the stroke's reversals — as the two delineated combinations do.

Precise delineation of the combinations (35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)). Ground 1 comprises exactly two delineated combinations, pleaded in the alternative. Ground 1A is Phillips in view of Fyfe, further in view of Hurst as to claims 8–9 and 16–18, Harding as to claim 12 and the previous-stroke comparison of claims 7 and 13–15 ([13g]), and Orlando as to claim 18 (the inclinometer technique for the rotator's horizontal drive member, § VII.E). Ground 1B is identical in every respect except the following substitutions: Picon, in place of Fyfe, supplies the sensing-chain limitations ([1i]/[1j], [16f]–[16g], [19d]–[19e]) and [13f]'s current-stroke window, and limitation [1d] is supplied by Phillips's housed three-axis accelerometer and gyroscope (§ V.D) rather than by Fyfe; under Ground 1B, the tubing-rotator features of claims 8–9 and [16b] are supplied by Hurst alone (its rotator-coupled sensor and claim 2, § VII.D); Fyfe's rod-rotator and tubing-rotation sections ([0072]–[0074]) remain relied upon in both combinations as to claim 17's sensor class. The motivation showing (§ VII.C, including the Picon-specific showing) and the limitation-by-limitation application (§§ VII.D–E) are common to both combinations, subject only to the substitutions just stated. As to [1d] under Ground 1B, Petitioner confronts the NOA directly: the Examiner treated the vibration subsystem as absent from Phillips without ever construing "vibration sensor subsystem" or considering whether Phillips's own housed three-axis accelerometer ([0082]) satisfies it under the term's plain meaning (§ V.D).

B. The Combination Supplies the Features the Office Treated as the Point of Novelty

Three-axis vibration ([1d], claim 12). Fyfe discloses "at least one accelerometer adapted to measure acceleration and vibration of the polished rod." EX-1004 [0007]. A POSITA understood that a multi-axis MEMS accelerometer fixed to the polished rod senses acceleration — and therefore vibration — along three orthogonal axes. Independently, the rod's stroking reciprocation is itself a low-frequency vibration that such an accelerometer inherently registers; Phillips so describes its accelerometer as detecting "the directional reversals caused by stroking action." EX-1003 [0082]. Phillips further discloses sensing the rod's rotational oscillations — the torsional wind-up and release of the elastic rod string — across the stroke with its gyroscope. EX-1003 [0110]–[0123]. A 3-axis gyroscope registering those oscillations is itself monitoring vibration in three (angular) axes — "in three axes" is not confined to linear vibration — so Phillips's accelerometer and/or gyroscope — 3-axis devices ([0082], [0094]–[0096], [0101]), "all housed together in a single case" ([0142]) — each independently supports the [1d] vibration-sensor subsystem. Fyfe's accelerometer vibration monitoring, combined with Phillips's housed sensors, renders [1d] and claim 12 obvious; the showing is obviousness, not inherency. EX-1018 ¶¶ 27, 37.

The stroke-bounded sensing chain ([1i]/[1j]; [16f]/[16g]; [19d]/[19e]). Phillips samples the gyroscope's rotational values per stroke, "over a single stroke" ([0110]), and begins sampling at the detected reversal ([1h], Office-credited; [0087]). What remains is the window itself. Under Ground 1A, Fyfe supplies the stroke-boundary windowing: its magnetometer tick marks "the beginning and end of each identified stroke," EX-1004 [0035]; its kinematic-model embodiment "identif[ies] each end of stroke" ([0043]); and it performs "a robust search … for maxima and/or minima" in the derived velocity signal "to detect strokes," identifying, "[i]n an alternative embodiment," "both minima and maxima … within each stroke so that the stroke is separated into two pieces" ([0037]). Fyfe locates those boundaries on the recorded signal, its velocity extrema once-per-cycle markers rather than the reversals themselves; applying a known per-stroke boundary event to gate the sampling in real time was an ordinary design choice among known boundary events (EX-1018 ¶ 30), the window's reversals marked by Phillips's own axial magnetic-field map (Fig. 8; § VIII.C). Under Ground 1B, Picon supplies the same window as an express real-time acquisition gate — begin at one reversal, continue through the intervening reversal, close and re-zero at the next (§ V.A; § VII.C). Fyfe's sections captioned "Rod Rotator Monitor" and "Tubing Rotation Monitoring" apply that stroke-detection teaching to the '537 patent's use case. EX-1004 [0068]–[0074]. EX-1018 ¶ 30.

That the reversal-bounded windowing was a known, conventional technique is corroborated by two further references, each confirming the [1i]/[1j] windowing on a footing independent of Fyfe:

• Picon (EX-1005, U.S. Patent No. 11,060,392 B2; priority Oct. 19, 2018). Picon detects the axial reversals in real time from an accelerometer and windows its per-stroke acquisition at them: "Each time that a bottom of stroke is detected, indicated by a maximum positive accelerometer value, a timer is started"; "The top of a pumping cycle is determined by a maximum negative accelerometer value"; and "[i]f a new pumping cycle is detected (bottom stroke); pointer is reset … and timer is restarted," the cycle "divided into 200 intervals (100 … for an ascending rod half cycle, 100 for descending rod half cycle)." EX-1005 col. 4, ll. 2–7, 10–11, 60–61. Picon windows load acquisition — a per-stroke dynamometer card — not rotational values; what it supplies is the reversal-triggered, real-time, per-cycle windowing technique a POSITA would apply to Phillips's rotational-value sampling (§ VII.C), the reversals marked by Phillips's own axial magnetic-field map (Fig. 8; § VIII.C).
• Orlando (EX-1010, U.S. Patent No. 4,561,299; issued Dec. 31, 1985; FMC Corp.). A third party, decades before the '537 patent, expressed the stroke as three positional reversals: the rod string "moves on the upstroke from the Xmin position to the Xmax position," then "moves downward … [the load moving] upward to approximately the original value at the Xmin position." EX-1010 col. 4, ll. 40–47. Xmin → Xmax → Xmin are the first, second, and third reversals bounding one complete stroke. (Orlando uses a walking-beam inclinometer; it is cited here for that three-reversal structure — and, as to claim 18, as a delineated further-in-view-of reference supplying the inclinometer technique (§§ VII.A, VII.E).)

Picon is additionally pleaded as Ground 1B. As to [1i]/[1j], [16f]–[16g], and [19d]–[19e], the claims would have been obvious over Phillips in view of Picon on the same motivation showing (§ VII.C), every other limitation supplied by Phillips as mapped in § VII.D–E (and [1d] by Phillips's housed three-axis sensors, § V.D). Picon's gate is real-time; applied to Phillips's per-stroke sampling ([0110]) it yields the claimed begin/continue/cease window predictably. EX-1018 ¶ 32.

Sensor fusion. Phillips itself discloses the fused, multi-axis arrangement: "[a] combination of these sensors can provide an absolute orientation of the sensing device 301 and its rate of change through the various frames of reference 302." EX-1003 [0094]. Phillips further teaches combining the readings — stroking action "can be indicated by the barometer, accelerometer, or magnetometer individually, or these sensor readings can be combined to more accurately indicate the operational state of the pumping unit" ([0027]) — and its dedicated "Sensor fusion" discussion gives as an example "observ[ing] the accelerometer and barometer to see if the peak accelerations occur at the same time as the local maximum or local minimum pressure," which "would strongly indicate the system is stroking" ([0097]). Fyfe likewise discloses a single monitor including "all of a magnetometer, an accelerometer, and a gyroscopic sensor." EX-1004 [0072]. The claimed magnetometer-plus-gyroscope-plus-vibration-sensor architecture was thus a known, fused arrangement.

C. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

A determination of obviousness must rest on "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Phillips, Fyfe, and Picon are directed to the identical narrow field — condition monitoring of sucker-rod pumping units using inertial and magnetic sensors on the polished rod or bridle — so a POSITA confronting Phillips's per-stroke sensing would consult the others as a matter of course. Each is a working implementation on the same equipment using the same classes of commodity MEMS sensors, and Fyfe's detector operates on an integrated velocity signal expressly to make "local minima and maxima … detectable" (Fyfe [0037]); a POSITA would therefore have had a reasonable expectation of success as to each rationale below. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Three independent rationales supply the required reasoning. EX-1018 ¶ 36 (identifying at least five).

1. Combination of familiar elements for a predictable result. The combination unites familiar elements according to known methods, KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 — Phillips's sensor hardware and verify-axial-then-sample control flow with Fyfe's stroke-bounded windowing and accelerometer vibration channel — yielding only the predictable result of better-delimited per-stroke diagnostics, neither reference modified beyond its function.
2. Simple substitution. Gating Phillips's gyroscope sampling on a known per-stroke boundary event is a simple substitution of one known element for another that yields no more than predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17; Ex parte Catan, Appeal 2007-0820 (BPAI 2007) (precedential). Phillips already begins rotation sampling at a verified stroke boundary ([1h], Office-credited; [0027], [0087]) and samples "over a single stroke" ([0110]); Fyfe's maxima/minima detector confirms that once-per-cycle boundary events were known and interchangeable; selecting the reversals Phillips itself detects and maps (Fig. 8; § VII.B) was the ordinary design choice (EX-1018 ¶ 30). Phillips's own measurement purpose supplied every reason to do so: it compares per-stroke rotational values "over many strokes to establish a torque buildup and release period and magnitude" ([0110]), and the buildup and release "change the magnitude of the rotational oscillations 504 during a single stroke," the bridle assembly acting as "a single mass for a given stroke" ([0112]). A per-stroke torque characterization, and any stroke-to-stroke comparison of it, presupposes a measurement delimited by the stroke — so a POSITA implementing Phillips had every reason to bound acquisition to that window. EX-1018 ¶ 29. The Examiner twice read Phillips's single-stroke sampling as spanning that complete begin/continue/cease window. EX-1002 pp. 214–215, 277 (CTNF; CTFR, claim 7); § VIII.C.
3. Power management — an express, art-recognized benefit. These are battery-powered field sensors, and Phillips expressly teaches duty-cycling: the schedule "can be optimized to historical rotational rates, deducting idle periods to help conserve battery life." EX-1003 [0159]. Bounding gyroscope sampling to the stroke window is a known implementation of that teaching — Picon's timer-gated window (§ VII.B). The '537 patent itself attributes no novelty to it, returning its sensor "to a sleep or standby mode" once the stroke completes (col. 9, ll. 64–65).

The Picon combination (Ground 1B) rests on the same reasoning, a fortiori. Picon is in the identical narrow field; its reversal detection runs on the accelerometer channel Phillips already houses ([0082]); and its window is a real-time acquisition gate — a timer started at each detected bottom-of-stroke and reset at the next detected cycle (§ VII.B). Substituting that gate as the stroke-boundary trigger is the same simple substitution (rationale 2), yielding the same predictable windowing (rationale 1) with the same power benefit (rationale 3). EX-1018 ¶ 36.

The Patent Owner's own family confirms the motivation. Norris Rods — incorporated by reference in its entirety into the '537 patent (EX-1001 col. 7, ll. 60–64), and filed by the Patent Owner's affiliate — had already identified the need to verify that a rod rotator actually rotates, and disclosed a sensor answer: "revolutions per minute (RPM) detection" ([0096]) and a position sensor used "to determine how many times a top cap has rotated a set angle, such as 360°" ([0102]). EX-1009. It also confirms the natural interval: "the reciprocating motion of the horse head translates to the actuator lever" ([0088]), so the rotation accrues one ratchet increment per pumping cycle — the very per-cycle window Fyfe and Picon supply as the means. That the Patent Owner's family also pursued a rotator-mounted counter (as did Hurst) confirms common knowledge, not teaching away. EX-1018 ¶¶ 33, 36.

Pre-empting an "inventive insight" recast. A Patent Owner may recast the sensing chain as solving an unrecognized problem — windowing over a complete cycle so that stroke-synchronous torsional oscillation cancels. The theory fails twice. The premise was not unrecognized: Phillips expressly measures the intra-stroke oscillation and its magnitude across the stroke ([0110], [0115]), and the Examiner twice found signed-summation extraction of net rotation obvious over that disclosure (claim 10, § VII.E). And any cancellation benefit supplies no nexus to a patentable distinction: it flows entirely from the per-cycle window the prior art already supplied — the Gibbs card, Fyfe's segmentation, Picon's gate — and claims 1, 16, and 19 recite no summation or cancellation in any event. EX-1018 ¶ 38.

The combination advances, and does not destroy, Phillips's express purpose of per-stroke rotation monitoring ([0029], [0110]); there is no teaching away. EX-1018 ¶ 36.

D. Application to the Independent Claims

Claim 1. Phillips supplies [1pre]–[1c] and [1e]–[1h] (Office findings, § IV.A); Fyfe supplies [1d] and the stroke-boundary window yielding [1i]/[1j] (Ground 1A; § VII.B), Picon the real-time window under Ground 1B. The summary chart is followed by limitation-by-limitation analysis.

Limitation	Disclosure
[1pre] sensor system for a downhole pumping system	Phillips [0019] (Office-credited), [0029]
[1b] axial-motion sensor / magnetometer measuring axial movement from field variation	Phillips [0082], [0132], Fig. 8/[0053], cl. 14 ("linear position of the polished rod"); cl. 1 (Office-credited as [00126])
[1c] rotation sensor / gyroscope detecting rotational velocity values	Phillips [0110], cl. 1, 12 (Office-credited)
[1d] vibration sensor subsystem in three axes	Fyfe accelerometer "measure acceleration and vibration of the polished rod" ([0007]); Phillips housed accelerometer [0029], [0082], Fig. 3
[1e] processor receiving data from both subsystems	Phillips [0021] (Office-credited)
[1f]–[1g] detect axial movement / sense a direction change to determine stroke completion and new stroke	Phillips [0082], [0132], Fig. 8/[0053], [0097], cl. 14
[1h] after direction change, begin sampling rotational values	Phillips [0087] (Office-credited)
[1i] continue sampling through a second direction change	Phillips per-stroke sampling ([0110]) windowed through the intervening reversal — Fyfe's stroke segmentation ([0037]) (1A) or Picon's real-time window (EX-1005) (1B); see also Orlando (Xmin→Xmax) (EX-1010)
[1j] cease sampling at a third direction change	Phillips per-stroke sampling ([0110]) ceased at the closing boundary — Fyfe ([0037]) (1A) or Picon's reset ("pointer is reset … timer is restarted") (EX-1005) (1B); see also Orlando (Xmax→Xmin) (EX-1010)

[1pre] — "A sensor system for a downhole pumping system, comprising: a sensor subsystem for detecting movement of at least one component." Phillips discloses a sensing device coupled to the bridle assembly or polished rod of a sucker-rod pumping unit that detects both axial and rotational movement of that component. EX-1003 [0019], [0029] (Office-credited, § IV.A).

[1b] — "an axial motion sensor subsystem comprising a magnetometer … to measure axial movement … based on variations in a magnet field [sic] … generated by movement of the at least one component." Phillips houses "a magnetometer" ([0029]) that "experiences a range of field distortions as the sensor moves closer and further from steel objects," so its "[s]hort term variation … can … be indicative of stroking action" ([0082]); the field it observes "can be substantially different … depending on the location of the sensor along its path of travel" ([0132]), mapped by elevation in Fig. 8 ([0053]). The magnetometer thus reads proximity to the unit's steel — a function of axial position — i.e., "axial movement … based on variations in a magnet field." Phillips's own claims confirm this axial role: claim 14 lists the magnetometer — with the barometer and accelerometer — among the sensors sending signals "indicative of linear position of the polished rod." EX-1003 cl. 14; see also cl. 31. Office-credited (cl. 1; [00126] in the Office's own numbering; § IV.A). EX-1018 ¶¶ 34, 45.

[1c] — "a rotation sensor subsystem comprising a gyroscope … to detect rotational movement … by detecting rotational velocity values with the gyroscope." Phillips houses "a … gyroscope" ([0029]) and detects rotation by sampling rotational velocity values with the gyroscope ([0110]). (Office-credited: cl. 1, cl. 12, [00110] in the Office's numbering; § IV.A.)

[1d] — "a vibration sensor subsystem for monitoring vibration of the at least one component … in three axes." Fyfe discloses "at least one accelerometer adapted to measure acceleration and vibration of the polished rod" ([0007]), and a POSITA understood a multi-axis MEMS accelerometer fixed to the moving rod to sense acceleration — and therefore vibration — along three orthogonal axes (§ VII.B). Phillips independently houses an accelerometer in the same device ([0029]) and describes it detecting "the directional reversals caused by stroking action" ([0082]) — the rod's reciprocation being itself a low-frequency vibration. The combination renders [1d] obvious; the showing is obviousness, not inherency. EX-1018 ¶ 37.

[1e] — "a processor subsystem to receive data from the axial motion sensor subsystem and the rotation sensor subsystem." Phillips discloses a processor receiving data from both the magnetometer (axial) and gyroscope (rotation) subsystems. EX-1003 [0021] (Office-credited, § IV.A).

[1f]–[1g] — "detect axial movement … with the magnetometer … comprising: sensing a direction change … to determine when a stroke … has been completed and … that a new stroke is beginning." Phillips's magnetometer reads the same field-position variation established at [1b] — the field varying with the sensor's location along its stroke path ([0082], [0132], Fig. 8/[0053]) — so observing it over time yields the axial movement and each direction change. Phillips's co-housed accelerometer independently "detect[s] the accelerations imparted by the directional reversals caused by stroking action" ([0082]), and Phillips's sensor fusion observes the reversal-coincident features directly ([0097]). EX-1003 [0082], [0132], Fig. 8/[0053], [0097]. Phillips's processor thus detects axial movement and senses the stroke reversal that marks the completion of one stroke and the start of the next. The Office credited Phillips with this limitation. EX-1002 pp. 330–332 (NOA); see § VIII.C (developing the express, multi-channel disclosure).

[1h] — "after the direction change … has been detected, begin to determine rotation … by sampling rotational values." Phillips's verify-then-sample control flow begins rotation sampling once the detected reversal confirms the unit is stroking: the barometer and accelerometer confirm the unit is "actively stroking and rotation is to be expected" ([0027]), whereupon "the processor knows to expect and detect changes in rotational position" ([0087]) — Phillips begins determining rotation. EX-1003 [0027], [0087]. The Office credited Phillips with this limitation, citing [0087]. EX-1002 pp. 330–332 (NOA).

[1i]–[1j] — "continuing sampling the rotational values through a second direction change" and "ceasing sampling the rotational values at a third direction change." These are the features on which allowance ultimately rested, and the combination supplies them; Ground 2 pleads in the alternative that Phillips alone does, under the full-cycle construction (§ VIII.C). Phillips already samples the rotational values per stroke ([0110]) and begins at the detected reversal ([0082], [0087]); the window is supplied by Fyfe's stroke-boundary segmentation (Ground 1A) or Picon's reversal-triggered real-time gate (Ground 1B); and Phillips's own axial map of the magnetic field (Fig. 8, [0132]/[0053]), made repeatable per cycle by Phillips's dynamic calibration ([0129]/[0133]), marks the reversals opening and closing the window. Gating Phillips's per-stroke sampling with that known window yields [1i] and [1j] as the predictable result of combining known elements, motivated by Phillips's own power-management teaching ([0159]) and the reasons in § VII.C. EX-1018 ¶¶ 34, 36.

Phillips in view of Fyfe thus discloses or renders obvious every limitation of claim 1, arranged as claimed. See EX-1018, Claim 1 §103 Chart.

Claim 16 (tubing rotator). Claim 16 directs the same architecture to a tubing rotator, limitation by limitation:

• [16a] — magnetometer "to measure axial movement of at least one component … and to determine a change in axial direction of the at least one component." Phillips's magnetometer measures axial movement from field variation and determines the axial reversal. EX-1003 [0082], [0132], Fig. 8/[0053]. This is the same magnetometer axial-sensing the Office credited as to claim 1 [1b]/[1g].
• [16b] — "a sensor subsystem for detecting movement of a tubing rotator … a rotation sensor … to detect rotational movement of the tubing rotator … by sampling rotational values." Phillips discloses gyroscopic rotation sensing of the monitored rotating component ([0029], [0110]); Fyfe expressly teaches monitoring a tubing rotator in its "Tubing Rotation Monitoring" section ([0073]–[0074]) (Ground 1A; Hurst alone under Ground 1B, § VII.A), so applying Phillips's rotation sensing to a tubing rotator was a known, taught use. And Hurst supplies the rotator-coupled sensor expressly: its rotator housing includes a switch or sensor ("Hall Effect sensor, reed switch, or position/proximity sensor") generating "a signal indicative of the monitored rotation," and its claim 2 recites monitoring "incorporated in at least one of a load cell, a rod rotator, or a tubing rotator." EX-1006 cl. 2 (col. 5, ll. 52–54); col. 3, ll. 61–63; col. 4, ll. 35–38. The Office itself combined Phillips with Hurst against claims 8–9 and 16–18, articulating the motivation ("to distribute wear"), and the Applicant never distinguished Hurst on the rotator features — allowance rested on the sensing chain alone. EX-1002 pp. 210–224, 271–287 (CTNF; CTFR).
• [16c]–[16e] — "a processor subsystem … to: detect the axial movement … [and] when the axial movement … is detected, begin detecting the rotational movement of the tubing rotator." Phillips supplies the data-receiving processor ([0021] — the element the Office credited for claim 1's identical [1e], § IV.A), which determines rotation from the sampled rotational values ([0110]; cl. 1), and it detects axial movement and begins rotation sampling upon the detected reversal ([0082]; [0087], Office-credited as to [1g]/[1h]). The rotation so determined is the tubing rotator's under the combination: Hurst's controller "determine[s] a number of revolutions (cycle counts) of the member in a given period" from its rotator-coupled sensor (EX-1006 col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 2; cl. 2), and Fyfe's "Tubing Rotation Monitoring" applies the same rotation determination to a tubing rotator (EX-1004 [0073]–[0074]) (Ground 1A).
• [16f]–[16g] — "continue detecting … through a second direction change … [and] cease detecting … after a third direction change." The combination supplies these on the same basis as claim 1 [1i]/[1j] (§ VII.B) — Fyfe's stroke-boundary window (1A) or Picon's real-time gate (1B) applied to Phillips's per-stroke sampling. EX-1018, Claim 16 §103 Chart.

The § VII.C motivation applies a fortiori: a tubing rotator cycles through the same stroke, and Fyfe's "Rod Rotator Monitor" / "Tubing Rotation Monitoring" sections are directed to exactly this embodiment.

Claim 19 (method). Claim 19 recites the sensing chain as a method:

• [19pre]. Phillips discloses a method of detecting motion of at least one component of a downhole pumping system ([0019], [0029]); see [1pre].
• [19a] — "determining a first change in axial direction … based on magnetic variations detected by an axial motion sensor." Phillips determines the axial reversal from the magnetometer's field variation, which varies with "the location of the sensor along its path of travel." EX-1003 [0082]; [0132].
• [19b] — contingent "when detecting no change in the axial direction, ceasing any sensing of rotation movement." Phillips discloses [19b]'s substance: rotation during idle periods "is not expected and therefore does not need to be considered." EX-1003 [0026]. Independently, under Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential), a method claim's contingent step need not be shown when the analysis proceeds under the alternative (satisfied) condition ([19c]–[19e]); Schulhauser was reasoned under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard, but its logic — a method practiced under the satisfied condition never reaches the unsatisfied branch — does not depend on the construction standard.
• [19c] — "when verifying the first change … begin detecting rotational movement." Phillips's verify-axial-then-sample control flow supplies this. EX-1003 [0087]; [0027].
• [19d]–[19e] — "continuing detecting … through a second direction change … [and] ceasing detecting … after a third direction change." The combination supplies these as for [1i]/[1j] (§ VII.B). EX-1018, Claim 19 §103 Chart.

E. The Dependent Claims

Each dependent claim adds subject matter disclosed by Phillips, Fyfe, or both, and falls with claim 1. Petitioner addresses each added limitation.

• Claim 2 adds that the sensor subsystem detects movement of "at least one rod … extending from a surface location into a wellbore." Phillips's sensing device is coupled to the polished rod/bridle of a sucker-rod pumping unit — a rod extending from the surface location into the wellbore. EX-1003 [0018]–[0019], [0029]; EX-1018 ¶ 39.
• Claim 3 (depending from claim 2) adds that the processor verifies "the axial movement and the direction change" of the rod "before determining the rotation." Phillips's verify-then-sample control flow performs both verifications before rotation is determined: its process resolves both states each cycle — querying rotation (Fig. 6, Query 602) and either querying stroking (Query 604) or inferring it, since "rotation will only be present when the unit is actually pumping" ([0136]); Phillips teaches the order of the two queries "is not critical" — either order, including stroking-first, is disclosed ([0134]). It confirms the unit is "actively stroking and rotation is to be expected" ([0027]), senses the direction change with the magnetometer ([0082]), and only then samples rotation ([0087], Office-credited as to [1h]). EX-1018 ¶ 39.
• Claim 4 adds that the processor uses the sensed direction change "to indicate that a previous stoke [sic] has been completed and that a new stroke is beginning" — the stroke-boundary signaling supplied by Phillips's stroking-indicative field variation ([0082]), credited to Phillips by the Office as to [1g]. EX-1003 [0082].
• Claim 5 adds that the processor "begin[s] sampling the rotational values comprising rotational velocity after determining the direction change" — the post-reversal sampling the Office credited to Phillips [1h]. EX-1003 [0087].
• Claim 6 adds that the processor receives "the rotational values from only a gyroscope" — Phillips samples rotation "with only the gyroscope," as the Office found (NOA, citing [0026; 0029; 0043; 0096; 0134; 0138; Fig. 6]). (Phillips's [0110] describes measurement "through the use of an accelerometer and a gyroscope"; claim 6's narrower "only a gyroscope" rests not on [0110] but on Phillips's gyroscope-only rotation path — the Office's express finding above, depicted in Fig. 6.)
• Claim 7 adds comparing "the sampled rotational values with previously sampled rotational values … during a previous stroke … to determine if rotation … has occurred." Phillips supplies this through its "expected value … based on a historic rotation rate during periods of active rotation" — a baseline drawn from prior strokes. EX-1003 cl. 10, [0110]. If claim 7 requires comparison against one particular prior stroke rather than a historic baseline, Harding supplies that expressly — further in view of Harding as to the previous-stroke comparison of claims 7 and 13–15 ([13g]) (§ VII.A): Harding's polished-rod IMU (accelerometer and gyroscope) records "[t]he average deviation from [a] typical acceleration profile … over many strokes" and performs "an intuitive comparison of the operation, based on the current operation and a selected prior operation." EX-1007 col. 12, ll. 48–52; col. 4, ll. 5–7. Harding's compared operations are pump cards; the current card is displayed alongside "an historical pump card, or the last pump card." EX-1007 col. 4, ll. 3–5. And a pump card is bounded by the very events the sensing chain recites — each card records one complete stroke, reversal to reversal (§ III.D; Orlando's Xmin → Xmax → Xmin, § VII.B) — so Harding's current-versus-selected-prior comparison already operates on the reversal-bounded per-stroke unit the claims delimit with "direction changes." A POSITA monitoring Phillips's per-stroke rotational values would have applied that comparison for the same condition-monitoring purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success — the references share the narrow polished-rod-monitoring field. EX-1018 ¶¶ 18, 32, 39.
• Claim 8 adds detecting movement of a component "comprising a tubing rotator." Fyfe expressly teaches monitoring a tubing rotator ("Tubing Rotation Monitoring," [0073]–[0074]) (Ground 1A); and Hurst — which the Office itself combined with Phillips against this very claim — monitors rotation by "a mechanism incorporated in at least one of a load cell, a rod rotator, or a tubing rotator" (Hurst cl. 2), a sensor in the rotator housing detecting magnets or RFID tags. EX-1006 cl. 2 (col. 5, ll. 52–54); col. 3, ll. 61–63; col. 4, ll. 35–38; EX-1002 pp. 210–224, 271–287 (CTNF; CTFR) (combining Phillips and Hurst, motivation "to distribute wear"). EX-1018 ¶ 33.
• Claim 9 (depending from claim 8) adds detecting "rotation of the tubing rotator while detecting axial movement of a polished [rod]." The tubing rotator is supplied as for claim 8; the concurrency is Phillips's co-housed magnetometer and gyroscope operating together ([0029]), and Hurst's rotator sensor operates while the unit strokes ("[w]ith each stroke of the pumping unit, the rotator may rotate the rods"). EX-1006 col. 1, ll. 50–51; cl. 2; EX-1018 ¶¶ 33, 39.
• Claim 10 adds determining the rotational values "by summing both positive and negative samples of the rotational values." The Office twice rejected claim 10 as obvious over Phillips ([0029], [0110], [0115]); the Applicant never overcame that rejection, and claim 10 was allowed only through claim 1. EX-1002 pp. 210–224, 271–287 (CTNF; CTFR). And the finding is sound: net rotation per stroke is tiny (EX-1009 [0088], [0093]) against large intra-stroke oscillations, so summing signed samples — letting the excursions cancel — is how the signal is read at all. EX-1018 ¶ 38.
• Claim 11 adds comparing the determined rotational values "to determine a failure in the rotation." Phillips compares observed rotation against the expected (historic) value and "generates an alarm if the rod lift system is running but no rotation of the polished rod is detected during a given period of time" ([0020]) — flagging precisely a failure in rotation. EX-1003 cl. 10, [0020].
• Claim 12 adds the "vibration sensor subsystem for monitoring vibration … in three axes over a vibrational baseline." The three-axis monitoring is supplied as for [1d] (§ VII.B). The baseline is Harding's: it samples sensor readings "to determine a baseline" and records the "average deviation from [the] typical acceleration profile … over many strokes." EX-1007 col. 3, ll. 6–16; col. 12, ll. 48–52. A POSITA would have applied that baseline comparison to the Phillips/Fyfe vibration channel for its established purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success; Phillips's intra-stroke-deflection monitoring independently supplies a baseline (§ VIII.C). (Either reading of the reintroduced subsystem (§ IX.C) is met — Phillips's co-housed accelerometer and gyroscope are distinct vibration-registering sensors, § V.D.) EX-1018 ¶¶ 33, 46.
• Claim 17 (depending from claim 16) adds that the rotation sensor "comprises at least one of a gyroscope or an accelerometer." Fyfe supplies this on the tubing-rotation sensor itself: its wireless tubing rotation sensor "resembles the stand-alone wireless polished-rod rotation sensor described above" — a sensor including "all of a magnetometer, an accelerometer, and a gyroscopic sensor" — differing only in its tubing-mounted housing. EX-1004 [0072]–[0074]. Phillips houses the same sensor classes. EX-1003 [0029].
• Claim 18 (depending from claim 16) adds that the rotation sensor subsystem monitors rotation "along a path that extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to a surface" — which, as construed in § V, is the rotational path traced by the sensor riding the tubing rotator's worm drive, whose axis lies substantially horizontal. Phillips's rod rotation is about the vertical rod axis and does not supply it; as to claim 18, the combination is accordingly pleaded further in view of Orlando (§ VII.A). The combination sites the monitoring at the rotator per Hurst: the Office itself combined Phillips with Hurst against claims 16–18 (EX-1002 pp. 210–224, 271–287), and Hurst places its rotation-monitoring mechanism in the rotator itself ("incorporated in at least one of a load cell, a rod rotator, or a tubing rotator," cl. 2 (col. 5, ll. 52–54); col. 4, ll. 35–38). The rotator member actuated on each stroke is the worm-drive input, whose axis lies along the ground — as the '537's own specification describes (col. 8, ll. 3–15) and Norris Rods illustrates (EX-1009 [0088]). Orlando supplies the technique for monitoring rotation about that horizontal axis: an inclinometer derives angular position from the gravity vector; "[k]nown prior art accelerometers can also be used as inclinometers but have limited life due to wear at pivot points, bearings, and wear to the potentiometer"; and Orlando's own inclinometer rides the walking beam of a "beam-type" pumping unit, tracking its angular position as it rocks about its horizontal pivot. EX-1010 col. 1, ll. 41–43, 56. Orlando's wear caveat describes the mechanical accelerometers of 1985 — devices with pivot points, bearings, and potentiometers — not the solid-state MEMS accelerometers ubiquitous by 2021 (EX-1018 ¶¶ 19, 28); the technique itself persisted: Harding, already within the combination, estimates bridle inclination on the same class of unit from an attached accelerometer, "by computing the angle between the estimated principal axis of acceleration with the estimated gravity vector" (EX-1007 col. 12, ll. 29–33, 52–55). A POSITA implementing Hurst's rotator-sited monitoring would have applied Orlando's known inclinometer technique to the rotator's stroke-actuated horizontal member — the same class of measurement Orlando performs on the same type of beam unit, for Hurst's own rotation-verification purpose — with a reasonable expectation of success and a predictable result. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17. EX-1018 ¶ 28.
• Claim 20 (depending from claim 19) adds comparing "a rotational velocity … with a threshold value to determine a performance characteristic" — Phillips compares rotation against an expected value/threshold to assess performance, and "generates an alarm if the rod lift system is running but no rotation … is detected during a given period of time" — a threshold comparison yielding a performance determination. EX-1003 cl. 10, [0020].

Claims 13–15. Ground 1 also reaches claims 13–15. Phillips discloses every limitation of claims 13–15, arranged as claimed, as set out in Ground 2 (§ VIII.B, D), which mapping Petitioner incorporates here; a fortiori, the claims would have been obvious over Phillips in view of Fyfe. Any contention that Phillips's historic-rate comparison is not a comparison against "previously sensed rotational values … during a previous stroke" ([13g]) is answered by the delineated further-in-view-of-Harding sub-combination stated for claim 7 above (§ VII.A), which supplies the discrete current-versus-prior-stroke comparison and applies equally to [13g]. Should the Board find any limitation not expressly disclosed, the § 103 result is unchanged: the difference would lie in implementation details of the verify-then-sample-then-compare flow Phillips teaches at the system level ([0082], [0087]; cl. 10), supplied for the § VII.C reasons — Fyfe's per-stroke segmentation ([0035], [0037]) — or, under Ground 1B, Picon's real-time per-cycle gate (EX-1005 col. 4, ll. 2–7) — expressly furnishing [13f]'s "current stroke" window. EX-1018 ¶¶ 30, 32.

The consolidated mapping appears in EX-1018, Dependent-Claims §103 Chart.

As background, the per-cycle reversal-bounded measurement window the claims recast as "direction changes" is the elementary structure of the Gibbs dynamometer card (EX-1008 cl. 1 step (c)) — confirming the long-settled paradigm into which Phillips and Fyfe place their commodity sensors. By way of further background only, magnetic detection of sucker-rod displacement reversals was known by 1990: Elf Aquitaine's magnetic-mark apparatus erases its marks "so they do not interfere with marks created and detected when the direction of displacement is reversed." Elf Aquitaine, EX-1012 Abstract. (Puwanto (EX-1013) is mentioned only because the Office named it in the NOA; Petitioner does not rely on Puwanto for any limitation.)

F. Conclusion of Ground 1

Phillips supplies the bulk of every independent claim, as the Office's allowance findings confirm; Fyfe supplies the three-axis vibration sensing and the stroke-boundary window that, with Phillips's per-stroke sampling, yields the sensing chain the Office treated as the point of novelty. Claims 1–20 would have been obvious over Phillips in view of Fyfe (Ground 1A); in the alternative, with Picon supplying the sensing-chain limitations in real time and Phillips's housed sensors supplying [1d], claims 1–20 would have been obvious over Phillips in view of Picon (Ground 1B).

---

VIII. GROUND 2 — CLAIMS 1–7, 10–15, AND 19–20 ARE ANTICIPATED BY PHILLIPS (35 U.S.C. § 102)

A. Posture and Standard

A single reference anticipates where it discloses every limitation arranged as in the claim. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587–88 (CCPA 1972). The reference need not use the claim's words — anticipation is not an ipsissimis verbis test, and a limitation may be disclosed expressly or inherently. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The point matters on this record: the Applicant's decisive May 5, 2025 remarks argued anticipation in express-disclosure terms only — Phillips "does not describe each and every element," with conditions not "explicitly recit[ed]" — and the word "inherent" appears nowhere in those remarks. EX-1002 pp. 311–316 (REM, 5/5/2025) (quotes at pp. 311–312). The express-only frame on which allowance rested thus never engaged — and the Applicant never rebutted — the inherency branch of the anticipation standard, which supplies an independent alternative footing for the single construction-dependent step of § VIII.C (that one full-cycle stroke spans three reversals). Ground 2 has two parts, distinguished by their reliance on construction:

• Claim 13 (and 14–15) is independent of the "direction change" and "stroke" constructions: claim 13 recites no "direction change" sensing chain and no vibration limitation (§ VIII.B); and although claims 13–15 recite "stroke," Phillips's per-stroke monitoring and cross-stroke comparison use the term identically, so the mapping holds under either construction.
• Claims 1–7 and 10–12 are anticipated under the full-cycle construction of "stroke" (§ V.A) — under which Phillips's express per-stroke disclosure traverses the three reversals — and are pleaded expressly in the alternative to Ground 1 (§ 103), which reaches the same claims under any construction (§ VIII.C); independent method claim 19 and its dependent claim 20 are anticipated on the same full-cycle basis, as the method analog of claim 1 (§ VIII.D). Claims 8 and 9 are not asserted under this ground: claim 8's added tubing-rotator element — which claim 9, depending from claim 8, inherits — is supplied by Fyfe and Hurst under Ground 1 (§ VII.D–E).

The architecture of this ground is express disclosure, with one construction-fixed step: Phillips discloses detecting the axial direction change with the magnetometer ([0082], [0132], Fig. 8/[0053]), as the Office itself credited ([1f]/[1g], NOA), and the Examiner expressly found Phillips to disclose "continuing through a second change of direction … ceasing at a third change of direction [0029; 0110]" (CTNF; CTFR). Only the proposition that one stroke contains three reversals rests on construction — fixed by § V.A and by the Examiner's own equation of "an entire stroke" with three reversals.

Petitioner acknowledges that the Board need not reach this analysis for any claim it holds indefinite — a prior-art analysis premised on speculative claim scope cannot stand; the grounds are alternatives. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962).

B. Phillips Discloses Every Limitation of Claim 13

Claim 13 recites a generic axial-motion sensor [13b], a generic rotational sensor [13c], and a processor [13d] that "verif[ies] the axial movement" [13e], "detect[s] the rotational values … during a current stroke" [13f], and "compar[es] the rotational values with previously sensed rotational values … during a previous stroke … to determine if rotation … has occurred" [13g]. Phillips discloses each from one coherent passage describing a single housed magnetometer-and-gyroscope device, read by one processor, that detects stroking, gates rotation to confirmed stroking, measures rotation per stroke, and compares against prior strokes. Ground 2 applies the plain-and-ordinary reading of these processor limitations; if § 112(f) governs them, Ground 4 controls (§ X.A). And should the Board find § 112(f) applies with corresponding structure disclosed, the mapping is unchanged: Phillips's Fig. 6 process 600 — a processor executing the same verify/detect/compare loop — is the same or an equivalent structure performing the identical functions.

Limitation	Phillips disclosure
[13pre] sensor system / sensor subsystem detecting movement	[0019], [0029] (Office-credited; claim 13 is generic, met a fortiori by Phillips's magnetometer/gyroscope species)
[13b] generic axial-motion sensor	[0029] ("a magnetometer, accelerometer and/or a gyroscope"); broader than claim 1's magnetometer, met a fortiori
[13c] generic rotation sensor	[0029], [0110]
[13d] processor receiving data from both	[0021] (Office-credited)
[13e] verify axial movement	[0020], [0021]–[0023], [0027]; Phillips Fig. 6 (process 600, Query 604 "stroking?")
[13f] detect rotational values during a current stroke	[0087], [0110] ("over a single stroke") (Office-credited)
[13g] compare with previously sensed values during a previous stroke to determine if rotation occurred	Phillips "expected value … based on a historic rotation rate during periods of active rotation," cl. 10; [0110] ("compared over many strokes")

Limitation by limitation:

• [13b] generic "axial motion sensor." Phillips discloses an axial-motion sensor — indeed "a magnetometer, accelerometer and/or a gyroscope" ([0029]). Claim 13's generic "axial motion sensor" is broader than claim 1's "magnetometer" and is met a fortiori by Phillips's disclosed species.

• [13c] generic "rotational sensor." Phillips discloses gyroscopic rotation sensing of the monitored component. EX-1003 [0029], [0110].

• [13d] processor receiving data from both subsystems. Phillips's processor receives axial and rotational data. EX-1003 [0021] (Office-credited).

• [13e] "verify the axial movement … with the axial motion sensor subsystem." Phillips's sensor "is … configured to determine vertical motion," which "indicates whether the rod lift system is stroking or whether it has stopped" ([0020]); its barometer likewise "is configured to determine cyclic vertical motion of the sensing device, indicating the unit is actively stroking and rotation is to be expected" ([0027]). Phillips thus verifies that the component is stroking — its process queries stroking each cycle (Fig. 6, Query 604) — and confirms axial movement. EX-1003 [0020], [0021]–[0023], Fig. 6. Phillips monitors both rotational motions with the same housed gyroscope: the rod string's slow deliberate rotation — tracked against a "historic rotation rate during periods of active rotation" (cl. 10), alarmed when absent ([0020]), and resolved each cycle (Fig. 6; [0136]) — and the intra-stroke torsional oscillation ([0029]). The per-stroke sampling window and the cross-stroke comparison are disclosed for both.

• [13f] "detecting the rotational values … during a current stroke." Phillips measures rotation "over a single stroke." EX-1003 [0110]; [0087]; cl. 10; [0020].

• [13g] "comparing the rotational values with previously sensed rotational values … during a previous stroke … to determine if rotation … has occurred." Phillips states the cross-stroke comparison in terms: the per-stroke rotational measurements ("rotational acceleration, velocity, and finally displacement can be measured through the use of an accelerometer and a gyroscope over a single stroke") "can be compared over many strokes to establish a torque buildup and release period and magnitude" — a comparison of sensed per-stroke values against values from prior strokes. EX-1003 [0110]. The claimed purpose — "to determine if rotation … has occurred" — is supplied separately and expressly: Phillips claims the comparison directly — claim 9 "generate[s] the alarm if rotational travel of the polished rod over a given period of time is different than an expected value," claim 10 basing that expected value "on a historic rotation rate during periods of active rotation" — and its sensor "generates an alarm if the rod lift system is running but no rotation of the polished rod is detected during a given period of time." That is an express determination whether rotation has occurred, the very function [13g] recites — not merely the torque-magnitude measurement of [0110]. EX-1003 cl. 9–10, [0020]; [0110].

Critically for § 102, Phillips discloses these limitations in one coherent disclosure of a single device, arranged as claim 13 arranges them — verify axial, then detect rotation per stroke, then compare to a prior stroke — not by picking and combining unrelated passages. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587–88. The single distinction the Applicant urged — that Phillips does not use a "previous stroke" value — fails: Phillips expressly compares the per-stroke measurements "over many strokes" ([0110]), its "historic rotation rate" is, by its own words, drawn from prior strokes, and the comparison "to determine if rotation … has occurred" is Phillips's express function. EX-1003 cl. 10; EX-1018, Claim 13 §102 Chart.

Ordering. Phillips discloses the [13e]→[13f] order — the barometer verifies the unit is "actively stroking and rotation is to be expected" ([0027]; [0087]) — and independently forecloses any "specific order distinguishes" argument: "the order of detecting rotating and stroking … is not critical," i.e., either order is taught. EX-1003 [0134]. Phillips's Fig. 6 is a processor algorithm (process 600) that loops each cycle; the ongoing cross-stroke comparison of [13g] is supplied by [0110] ("compared over many strokes") and Phillips cl. 10.

C. Phillips Discloses Every Limitation of Claims 1–7 and 10–12 (Under the Full-Cycle Construction)

Under the full-cycle construction of "stroke" (§ V.A), Phillips discloses every limitation of claim 1, arranged as claimed, in its single coherent disclosure. This part of Ground 2 is pleaded in the alternative to Ground 1 (§ 103).

[1pre]–[1c], [1e]–[1h] — Office-credited as expressly disclosed. The Office credited Phillips, limitation by limitation, with the sensor system [1pre], the magnetometer axial sensor [1b], the gyroscope rotation sensor [1c], the data-receiving processor [1e], the detection of "a direction change … to determine when a stroke … has been completed and … that a new stroke is beginning" [1f]/[1g], and the begin-sampling step [1h]. EX-1002 pp. 330–332 (NOA); see § IV.A. These findings establish express disclosure of those limitations.

[1f]–[1g] — the direction-change detection rests on express teachings, on more than one channel. Critically, Phillips's detection of the axial direction change is grounded in express disclosures, not inherency: the magnetometer's readings vary with "the location of the sensor along its path of travel" ([0132]) as it "moves closer and further from steel objects," and are "indicative of stroking action" ([0082]); Fig. 8 ([0053]) maps that field signature against elevation along the stroke path. This describes the mechanics of determining a direction change from a changing magnetic field: "moves closer and further from steel objects" ties the field signal directly to the rod's travel, and the reversal is a fundamental feature of that travel — the deterministic kinematics of § III.A (EX-1018 ¶¶ 15–16).

Phillips's dynamic calibration makes that detection concrete: performed "during operational conditions of one or more strokes" (emphasis added), it extracts the minimum field reading, which "is repeatable" — a recurring per-cycle field feature marking the same point in each stroke ([0129], [0133]). Phillips's own claim 14 likewise lists the magnetometer among the sensors indicative of the polished rod's "linear position" (cl. 14; § VII.D). The Office credited [1g] to Phillips as well. Independently — on a non-magnetometer channel — Phillips's "Sensor fusion" discussion further detects the reversals by "observ[ing] the accelerometer and barometer to see if the peak accelerations occur at the same time as the local maximum or local minimum pressure," which "would strongly indicate the system is stroking." EX-1003 [0097] ("Sensor fusion" discussion). The accelerometer's peak accelerations mark the reversals, and the barometer's local pressure maxima and minima mark the top and bottom of stroke — so Phillips expressly observes reversal-coincident features — acceleration peaks; pressure extrema at the top and bottom of stroke — on two independent channels. EX-1018 ¶ 45.

[1i]–[1j] — Phillips samples rotation "over a single stroke," which § V.A construes as the reversal-bounded window; the Examiner read it the same way. Phillips discloses sampling rotation "over a single stroke" and comparing it "over many strokes" ([0110]); under the full-cycle construction (§ V.A), that single stroke is bounded by three successive reversals — the start, the mid-stroke reversal, and the end. That the sampling is bounded by the stroke at all does not depend on the construction: Phillips does not merely sample during a stroke, it characterizes a per-stroke torque buildup and release and compares that characterization across strokes, the buildup and release "chang[ing] the magnitude of the rotational oscillations 504 during a single stroke" with the bridle assembly acting as "a single mass for a given stroke" ([0110], [0112]). A measurement so defined is delimited by the stroke as a matter of what is being measured — the acquisition opens and closes at the stroke's boundaries however the term is construed. The construction (§ V.A) then fixes those boundaries as the first, second, and third reversals. EX-1018 ¶¶ 29, 45.

The Examiner read Phillips's per-stroke sampling the same way: addressing then-claim 7, the Office found, twice and verbatim, that Phillips discloses sampling "along substantially an entire stroke … beginning at a first change of direction … continuing through a second change of direction … and ceasing at a third change of direction," resting that finding on [0029] and [0110]. EX-1002 pp. 214–215, 277 (CTNF; CTFR). Those findings corroborate that the Office, too, read Phillips's "single stroke" sampling as spanning the three-reversal window § V.A construes — the "cease" step included. (That the NOA later reached a different conclusion does not erase the CTNF/CTFR findings as evidence of how the Office read Phillips.)

The Examiner read the companion limitations the same way, describing a processor that begins sampling "after determining the change in direction" (then-claim 5, [0110]) and continues "until another change in direction … is detected" (then-claim 6, [0158]). EX-1002 p. 277 (CTFR). The Office thus understood Phillips to disclose a sampling window that opens and closes on detected reversals — not one that samples continuously and never ceases.

Terminology. The chain samples "rotational values"; Phillips samples rotational-velocity values. Anticipation holds under either reading of the term: if "rotational values" means the [1c] velocity values, the match is literal; if it is a broader genus, the prior-art disclosure of a species — velocity — anticipates the genus claim. In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP § 2131.02. (Ground 3's § IX.D defect is the inability to fix which reading governs — see § IX.D; the convergence here is an artifact of Phillips disclosing the narrowest species.)

[1d] — the three-axis vibration sensor subsystem is disclosed by Phillips's housed sensors. Claim 1's [1d] "vibration sensor subsystem … in three axes" is supplied by Phillips's own sensor suite, on either of two independent footings:

1. The 3-axis accelerometer. Phillips houses an accelerometer ([0029]) and describes a "3-axis accelerometer" detecting "the directional reversals caused by stroking action." EX-1003 [0082], [0094]–[0096], [0101]. A 3-axis accelerometer fixed to the stroking rod inherently monitors the rod's vibration — including the low-frequency stroking vibration — in three orthogonal axes, satisfying [1d].
2. The 3-axis gyroscope sensing rotational oscillations. Independently, Phillips discloses sensing the rod's rotational oscillations with the gyroscope across the stroke — the torsional wind-up and release of the elastic rod string. EX-1003 [0110]–[0123]. A 3-axis gyroscope registering these oscillations is monitoring vibration in three (angular) axes; "in three axes" is not limited to linear vibration. Because Phillips houses both a 3-axis accelerometer and a 3-axis gyroscope ([0082], [0094]–[0096], [0101]), [1d]'s vibration-sensor subsystem maps to a distinct sensor from the [1c] rotation subsystem, avoiding any claim-differentiation concern. Phillips confirms this fused, multi-axis operation: its combined sensors provide orientation "and its rate of change through the various frames of reference" ([0094]) — multi-axis ("various frames of reference") dynamic motion sensing that encompasses the component's vibration. EX-1018 ¶ 46.

Alternative pleading. This part of Ground 2 is pleaded in the alternative: Ground 1 (§ 103) independently supplies [1d] and the sensing chain under any construction. Every limitation of claim 1 being found in Phillips, claims 2–7 and 10–12 are likewise anticipated, Phillips disclosing each added limitation for the reasons given in the Ground 1 dependent-claim analysis (§ VII.E), the claim-12 showing below, and the Claims 2–7, 10–12 §102 Chart. EX-1018, Claims 2–7, 10–12 §102 Chart. Claim 10's signed summation is disclosed by Phillips's per-stroke rotational measurement ([0110], [0115]) and, as the Office twice found, would in any event have been obvious over it (§ VII.E) — the ordinary arithmetic of extracting net rotation from a signed rate signal. EX-1018 ¶ 38. Claim 7 likewise needs no § VII.E fallback: its added limitation is textually the same previous-stroke comparison as [13g], which Phillips discloses expressly (§ VIII.B).

Claim 12 — Phillips supplies the "vibrational baseline" on the vibration channel itself. The three-axis monitoring is the [1d] showing above: Phillips's housed 3-axis accelerometer registers the component's vibration in three orthogonal axes ([0082], [0094]–[0096], [0101]), with the 3-axis gyroscope's angular-oscillation sensing as an independent footing (§ V.D). The baseline is Phillips's own monitoring of the intra-stroke torsional oscillation against its established pattern over time: the processor "process[es] those signals to detect intra-stroke torsional deflection over time, indicating a buildup of torque" ([0030]); "[a] change in intra-stroke torsional deflection over many strokes, followed by a rapid reduction," signals the buildup and release ([0043]); the per-stroke measurements — "acceleration, rotational velocity, and rotational displacement" — are "compared over many strokes to establish a torque buildup and release period and magnitude" ([0110], [0115]); and Phillips claims the arrangement, with an alarm on the detected deviation (EX-1003 cls. 32–33). Detecting a "change … over many strokes" is monitoring against the established normal — the very function the '537 patent assigns the term ("[b]y establishing a vibrational baseline during the stroke of a unit under normal circumstances, deviation from this baseline may be monitored," col. 6, ll. 38–41). To the extent claim 12 is read to require a stored reference profile as such, that reading is reached under Ground 1, where Harding supplies it expressly (§ VII.E). EX-1018 ¶¶ 33, 46.

D. The Dependent Claims (14–15) and the Method Claims (19–20)

Claim 14 specifies that "the axial motion sensor subsystem comprises a magnetometer and the rotation sensor subsystem comprises a gyroscope" — naming, for claim 13's genus sensors, the very species Phillips houses together in one device ([0029]). Phillips therefore anticipates claim 14 for the same reasons it anticipates claim 13.

Claim 15 (depending from claim 14) adds that the sensor subsystem detects movement "including at least one rod … extending from a surface location into a wellbore," and that the processor "continue[s] sampling the rotational values … over a stroke." Phillips discloses a polished-rod installation extending into the wellbore and continued per-stroke rotation sampling "over a single stroke." EX-1003 [0019], [0110]. Claim 15 is anticipated. EX-1018, Claim 13 Dependent-Claims §102 Chart.

Claims 19–20 (method). Claim 19 recites the sensing chain as a method and is anticipated by Phillips under the full-cycle construction (§ V.A) as the method analog of claim 1 — its § 102 showing cleaner still, since claim 19 recites no vibration limitation. Phillips discloses [19pre]/[19a] (the detection method and the magnetometer-detected first axial direction change, § VII.D; cl. 14), [19c] (begin rotation detection on verifying that change, [0087], [0027]), and [19d]–[19e] (continue through the second and cease after the third change, from Phillips's sampling "over a single stroke" across the three-reversal window, § VIII.C). Contingent step [19b] need not be shown (Schulhauser; § VII.D [19b]). Claim 20 adds comparing "a rotational velocity … with a threshold value to determine a performance characteristic" — Phillips compares rotation against an expected value and alarms when none is detected. EX-1003 cl. 9–10, [0020]. Claims 19–20 are anticipated. EX-1018 ¶ 45.

E. Prior-Art Status and Reference Enablement

Phillips is prior art under § 102(a)(1) (published July 4, 2019) and, independently, § 102(a)(2), and is presumed enabling. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Phillips describes a working device read by a processor implementing the Fig. 6 algorithm ([0029], [0134]) — the mirror image of Ground 5: Phillips discloses how; the '537 patent discloses only that. Claims 1–7, 10–15, and 19–20 are anticipated.

---

IX. GROUND 3 — CLAIMS 1–12 AND 16–18 ARE INDEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)

A. Legal Standard

A claim is indefinite if, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, it "fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901, 910 (2014). The Office applies the Nautilus standard in AIA post-grant proceedings. USPTO Memorandum, Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021). Post Grant Review uniquely authorizes this challenge. 35 U.S.C. § 321(b); cf. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng'g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1351–53 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (the Board may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in inter partes review). The defects below are defects of scope — what the claim covers — not of breadth; "breadth is not indefiniteness." BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board need not reach the prior-art merits of a limitation whose scope it cannot ascertain. In re Steele, 305 F.2d at 862–63.

B. Claim 16 — Unanchored Ordinals and No Fixed Referent

Independent claim 16 is indefinite on the face of its own language, two ways. EX-1001 cl. 16; EX-1018 ¶ 48.

First — the ordinals have no anchor. Claim 16 requires continuing detection "through a second direction change of the at least one component" and ceasing "after a third direction change" ([16f]–[16g]) — but no first "direction change" is ever recited. The claim recites only "a change in axial direction" ([16a]) and gates the start of rotator sampling on "when the axial movement … is detected" ([16e]) — different recitations, and the claim never ties either to the ordinal series. With no recited first member of the series, "second" and "third" count from nothing, and a POSITA cannot determine with reasonable certainty where the window the ordinals define begins.

Second — "the at least one component" has no fixed referent for the gating events. [16a] measures "axial movement of at least one component"; [16b] separately introduces "a tubing rotator"; and [16f]–[16g] tie the rotator's sampling to direction changes of "the at least one component." Read with the ordinal gap above, the claim never fixes whether the events that close the window are reversals of the axially reciprocating member, features of the rotator's motion, or both. This is not Energizer's case of an unintroduced term with a single reasonably ascertainable antecedent. Cf. Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

For each independent reason, claim 16 — and its dependents 17–18 — are indefinite. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.

C. Claim 12 — the Reintroduced "Vibration Sensor Subsystem" Has No Fixed Antecedent

The September 17, 2024 amendment added the vibration sensor subsystem to claim 1 ([1d] "a vibration sensor subsystem … in three axes"; EX-1002 p. 249), and the May 5, 2025 amendment deleted it from claim 13 — but claim 12 was left reciting "[t]he sensor system of claim 1, further comprising a vibration sensor subsystem for monitoring vibration … in three axes over a vibrational baseline." EX-1001 cl. 12. Because "further comprising a" is the claim set's own formula for adding an element, claim 12 reads as requiring a second vibration subsystem the specification never describes (it discloses a single subsystem 214, col. 10, ll. 63–67); read instead as merely restating claim 1's subsystem, "further comprising a" is surplusage. Whether claim 12 covers one subsystem or two is thus not reasonably certain — an uncertainty of scope, not breadth. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. Pleaded in the alternative to the prior-art grounds, which meet claim 12 under either reading (§ VII.E). EX-1018 ¶ 52.

D. The Allowance-Bearing Sampling Chain Recites "Rotational Values" of Uncertain Scope

The defect is not breadth (BASF) but irreconcilable readings covering different conduct — velocity-only sampling versus displacement- or acceleration-type quantities; Nautilus controls. Claim 1 detects rotation with a gyroscope "by detecting rotational velocity values" ([1c]), yet the allowance-bearing sensing chain samples bare "rotational values" with the rotation sensor subsystem ([1h]–[1j]) — a differentiation the May 5, 2025 amendment created deliberately, deleting "velocity" from the sampling limitations while retaining it in [1c]. EX-1002 pp. 304–305 (AMDT, 5/5/2025) (claim-1 markup). The claims themselves confirm the terms differ: claim 5 recites "the rotational values comprising rotational velocity" — surplusage if "rotational values" already meant the velocity values — and claim 6 recites receiving "the rotational values from only a gyroscope," implying non-gyroscope contributions within claim 1. EX-1001 cls. 5–6. "Rotational values" is thus a genus broader than the [1c] velocity values — but neither the claims nor the specification supplies any criterion for the genus's outer boundary. Its only recited source, the [1c] subsystem, is defined by "detecting rotational velocity values" yet recited open-endedly ("comprising a gyroscope"); the specification describes sampling only "angular velocity data" (col. 9, ll. 46–50); and nothing tells a POSITA what else falls within the class — an integrated angular displacement? a derived acceleration? a magnetometer reading modulated by rotation? A POSITA thus cannot determine with reasonable certainty what bounds the sampled class: velocity-only contradicts the deliberate differentiation and claims 5–6; the genus has no ascertainable limit. Because [1h]–[1j] are the limitations on which allowance rested, the uncertainty infects the very feature the Office found novel. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.

The three readings of this term — the second row of the Map of the Alternative Grounds (§ I) — each end in unpatentability: (1) if the term's scope cannot be fixed with reasonable certainty, this ground controls; (2) if it is fixed as velocity-only, Ground 2's Phillips mapping is literal (§ VIII.C) and conditional Ground 6 falls away; (3) if it is fixed as the genus claims 5–6 compel, the velocity-only specification fails written description (Ground 6, § XII). Indefiniteness asks what the chain covers; written description asks whether the inventor possessed it; anticipation holds under either fixed reading. EX-1018 ¶ 53.

E. Conclusion of Ground 3

For the independent reasons above, claims 1–12 and 16–18 are indefinite under § 112(b): claim 16 and its dependents on the ordinal and unfixed-referent defects (§ IX.B); claims 1–12 on the [1c]/[1h]–[1j] "rotational values" split (§ IX.D); and claim 12 independently for the reintroduced-subsystem defect (§ IX.C).

---

X. GROUND 4 — CLAIMS 13–15 ARE INDEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)/(b) (NO DISCLOSED ALGORITHM)

A. Overview

This claim-specific ground is directed at the three processor functions of claim 13 — [13e] "verify the axial movement"; [13f] "detecting the rotational values … during a current stroke"; and [13g] "comparing the rotational values with previously sensed rotational values … to determine if rotation … has occurred." Each is recited by the result it achieves, with no structure for achieving it. Under Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348–49, each is governed by § 112(f); and under Ex parte Catlin, Appeal 2007-3072 (BPAI 2009) (precedential), and Ex parte Rodriguez, Appeal 2008-000693 (BPAI 2009) (precedential), such a limitation is indefinite absent a disclosed algorithm. The '537 specification discloses no algorithm for any of [13e]–[13g]. Ground 4 is pleaded as the alternative to Ground 2 for claim 13 (§ VIII.A; Map of the Alternative Grounds, § I, fourth row).

Two limits confine this ground. First, it reaches only the processor verbs; it does not reach the sensor recitations or depend on the construction of "direction change." Second, Petitioner concedes "axial motion sensor," "rotational sensor," "magnetometer," and "gyroscope" name known structural classes and do not invoke § 112(f). Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348–49.

B. The § 112(f) Trigger

Section 112(f) applies without the word "means" where a limitation recites function without sufficient structure; the absence of "means" raises only a rebuttable presumption, overcome where the claim fails to recite "sufficiently definite structure" for the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348–49. Petitioner acknowledges that presumption and overcomes it function by function. The sole recited structure for all three functions is a single antecedent — "a processor subsystem to receive data from the axial motion sensor subsystem and the rotation sensor subsystem" — which describes a general-purpose computing element by what it receives, not by how it performs the recited functions. [13e] "verify the axial movement" states an outcome with no verification criterion; [13f] "detecting the rotational values … during a current stroke" presupposes a stroke-delimiting procedure the claim nowhere supplies; and [13g] "comparing … to determine if rotation … has occurred" recites a comparison and a determination with no rule for either. Nothing in claim 13 describes how the processor subsystem interacts with its recited inputs to achieve these outcomes — the hallmark of a § 112(f) recitation. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51. Unlike Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2022), where evidence showed the terms connote specific structure to a POSITA, "processor subsystem," recited only as a data recipient, connotes no structure for verifying, stroke-delimiting, or comparison-based determination. EX-1018 ¶¶ 26, 54. Nor does this trigger reach claims 1, 16, and 19: those claims recite the operative sequence itself — begin at the sensed event, continue through the second, cease at the third — supplying the "how" of their processor operation (their defect is the ambiguity of the sequencing events, Ground 3 — a different failure). Claim 13's sequence, by contrast, merely orders three judgments without supplying any of them. Petitioner attacks only the undisclosed processor algorithm; the § V.C sensor-class concession stands.

C. No Algorithm for [13e]–[13g]

For a computer-implemented § 112(f) function, the corresponding structure must include a disclosed algorithm; reciting the function but disclosing no algorithm renders the limitation indefinite. Catlin; Rodriguez. The '537 specification discloses none: for [13e] it states only the result (a "sinusoidal-type waveform … can be monitored") with no decision rule; for [13f] the specification narrates reversal-bounded delimitation only as a result — it supplies a sampling-rate range but no criterion for the delimiting events themselves (the same gap § XI.B documents); and for [13g] — on which this ground principally rests — it claims the cross-stroke comparison while disclosing no operation effecting it, no means of storing or retrieving a "previous stroke" value, and no decision rule yielding the determination that rotation "has occurred." No flowchart, pseudocode, equation, or worked example appears. EX-1001 cl. 13; EX-1018, Claim 13 §112(f) Algorithm Chart. (Contrast Phillips, which discloses a processor algorithm — the Fig. 6 process 600 — for analogous functions; Phillips teaches how, the '537 only claims the result.)

D. Conclusion of Ground 4

With no disclosed algorithm, the specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for [13e]–[13g], and claims 13–15 — dependents 14–15 inheriting the same functions — are indefinite under § 112(f) and § 112(b). Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910.

---

XI. GROUND 5 — CLAIMS 1, 16, AND 19 AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE NOT ENABLED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)

A. Overview

Ground 5 is advanced under the construction of § V.B: "direction change" as an axial stroke reversal the magnetometer must detect. Were the Board instead to read the limitation as requiring only routine signal monitoring, these claims are addressed by the obviousness ground (Ground 1), not here (Map of the Alternative Grounds, § I, third row). This ground reaches primarily the magnetometer claims (1, 16, 19 and their dependents); it reaches claims 13–15 only to the extent any is construed to require magnetometer-based detection (the magnetometer enters at claim 14).

The prosecution history frames the enablement inquiry. To obtain allowance, the Applicant argued that Phillips does not disclose "the particular chain of sensing events, including explicitly reciting the conditions for the starting and stopping events of the rotational sensing" (EX-1002 p. 312; § IV.C), and the Office allowed the claims on the second and third direction changes — [1i]/[1j] — that "Puwanto, along with all other references, fail to teach" (EX-1002 p. 332; § IV.A). Those gating events are magnetometer detections: each "direction change" starting, continuing, and stopping the sampling is an axial reversal detected with the magnetometer ([1b], [1g]–[1j]). If those detections distinguish the claims from the art — as the Applicant successfully argued — the specification itself must supply them: "[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement." Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Yet the specification's entire teaching of how the magnetometer detects a direction change is one conclusory sentence that states a result and stops (§§ XI.B–C). In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Petitioner does not contend the detection cannot be done — Phillips proves it can, by a definite pathway: characterize the position-dependent field distortions, calibrate dynamically over operating strokes, and extract the repeatable per-stroke fiducial ([0129]–[0133], Fig. 8; § XI.C). The defect is that the '537 patent claims the result while disclosing no step of that pathway — no field characterization, no calibration, no field-to-position model, no detection rule. Phillips's enabling disclosure is thus an element of this ground, not a contradiction of it.

B. The Entire Enabling Disclosure Is One Conclusory Sentence

Claim 1 makes the sensed "direction change" signal stroke completion ([1g]), trigger sampling ([1h]), and bound the window ([1i]–[1j]); claims 16 and 19 recite the same magnetometer-derived "change in axial direction" as the gating event. The complete teaching is the specification's statement that a "sinusoidal-type waveform … can be monitored to determine when the polished rod … changes axial … direction" (col. 8, l. 64 – col. 9, l. 2) and a restatement of the result — and no more: no signal-processing method, no detection criterion (peak, minimum, zero-crossing, slope reversal, threshold), no distortion compensation, and no worked example. EX-1018 ¶ 55. The lone elaboration supplies no criterion either: the specification asserts the magnetic change "will be substantially zero when there is no vertical motion of the polished rod" (col. 10, ll. 23–25). True of a stopped unit — Phillips uses low field variation to exclude stopped-state readings, a different task ([0133]) — it supplies no criterion for identifying a direction change: the translation-driven rate of change of the field at the sensor also vanishes at every stroke extreme, where the rod's velocity passes through zero — the very events to be detected — and wherever the local field gradient is small, anywhere in the stroke ([0132]); and Mills documents vibration producing "very short momentary reversals" requiring correction programming the '537 patent discloses nowhere (EX-1011 col. 10, ll. 44–48). The specification offers no way to tell a true reversal from a gradient null or a vibration artifact. EX-1018 ¶ 55.

Nor does the specification fix the waveform's cause. It attributes the field variations to "movement" (col. 8, ll. 58–64; [1b]) and to "translation" (col. 11, ll. 17–23 (FIG. 3)) — while the record shows a rod-mounted magnetometer also reads rotation: Fyfe's rotation channel is a magnetometer, "provid[ing] a sensor reading that varies with rotation of the rod" (EX-1004 [0069]–[0070]; [0072]). And the '537's own rotator "gradually rotates the polished rod 135 during strokes" (col. 7, ll. 57–59) in horsehead-driven increments (Norris Rods [0088]; § VII.C) — the rotator transmitting its torque "at the end of a downstroke" (Norris Rods [0088], [0093]; EX-1018 ¶¶ 51, 58), so the rotation-induced signature arrives at or near a stroke-boundary reversal — among the very direction changes the magnetometer must mark. The specification discloses no way to distinguish the two; its assumption that the magnetic change "will be substantially zero when there is no vertical motion" (col. 10, ll. 23–25) addresses only the stopped state — "rotation will only be present when the unit is actually pumping" (Phillips [0136]) — and supplies no criterion for the operating state, where both contributions are superimposed. The art is robust to this confound — Phillips's dynamic calibration tracks the rotator's slow drift ("during operational conditions of one or more strokes," [0129], [0133]); its sensor fusion marks stroking without the magnetometer alone ([0027], [0097]); Fyfe's reference magnets make rotation the signal, not the artifact ([0035], [0069]) — but these are the art's techniques, not the '537's. EX-1018 ¶ 58.

C. The Specification Affirmatively Misdirects; the Art's Actual Solutions Are Absent

Phillips, addressing the identical task, reaches the opposite of a clean monitorable sinusoid: its magnetometer "experiences a range of field distortions as the sensor moves closer and further from steel objects" ([0082]); the field it observes "can be substantially different in both direction and magnitude depending on the location of the sensor along its path of travel," because "[t]he wellhead 801, horsehead 804, counterweights 814, etc. all create distortions and act at different longitudinal positions during the motion of the sensor" — including the very wellhead the '537 patent offers as its signal source — and the distortions "can dominate" the readings ([0132]). A traditional static calibration is accordingly "virtually impossible" ([0133]). Phillips then discloses the technique the '537 patent omits: the magnetometer is "observed at high frequency during operational conditions of one or more strokes," a dynamic calibration is performed, and "[t]he minimum field reading during this operation yields the measure least likely to be distorted, and thus is repeatable" ([0129], [0133]). Fig. 8 ([0053]) maps the distortions along the sensor's path (EX-1017; § III.C). Fyfe confirms the need by adding structure: a once-per-stroke fiducial from "an external magnet and magnetometer" (EX-1004 [0035]); and, for resolving the rod's slow rotation, Fyfe provides that "[i]f natural magnetization of the pumpjack and the earth's magnetic field together are insufficient to provide a strong, stable, signal as dynamometer 261 rotates," a stationary "reference magnet 217 may be attached to a non-rotating component such as the carrier bar 223" to supply "a stable magnetic field" ([0069]) — the magnetometer being the channel "configured to sense low speed rotation of the polished rod" ([0072]). Fyfe's contingency addresses the rotation channel, not axial sensing; the art confronted the ambient field's adequacy and engineered an answer — the '537 patent does neither.

The art thus solved reliable magnetic per-stroke sensing in two ways — multi-stroke dynamic calibration (Phillips) or added reference hardware (Fyfe) — and the '537 specification discloses neither. Nor is this silence atop a known technique. The specification teaches the POSITA to monitor a clean "sinusoidal-type waveform," while the art documents that the raw signal is position-dependent and distortion-laden ([0132]) and that a static reading is "virtually impossible" ([0133]) — so the specification points away from the characterization, calibration, and detection rule the art shows the task requires, and supplies none of them itself. EX-1018 ¶¶ 56–57.

D. No Available Response Preserves the Claims

The Patent Owner has three possible answers. The intrinsic record forecloses each.

"The detection was well known." A specification "need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art." Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986). But this answer proves too much: if detecting the gating direction changes with a magnetometer was well known, that is the premise on which Grounds 1 and 2 cancel the claims directly — and it abandons the position on which allowance was procured, that the art fails to teach the events that start, continue, and stop the sampling (§§ IV.A, IV.C).

"The detection is the invention." Then POSITA knowledge cannot supply it as a matter of law — the specification itself must — and one sentence stating a result, with no detection criterion, no calibration scheme, no distortion handling, and a misdirecting "sinusoidal" premise (§§ XI.B–C), does not supply it. Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366.

"The chain was novel; the sensor technique conventional." The split does not hold: the chain's "conditions for the starting and stopping events" (EX-1002 p. 312) are magnetometer detections of axial reversals ([1g]–[1j]) — the same undisclosed step, three times over — so a chain-only novelty still requires the specification to teach the detections the chain is built from.

The claims' full scope — any magnetometer-based detection of the gating direction changes — must be enabled, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594, 610–15 (2023), and the characterization the omitted technique requires is installation-specific (each site its own ferrous geometry, Fig. 8) — experimentation the single-sentence disclosure does nothing to reduce (§ XI.E). EX-1018 ¶¶ 56, 59.

E. The Wands Factors Favor Non-Enablement

Guidance is minimal (one sentence); working examples are absent (against Phillips's Fig. 8 treatment of the problem); the quantity of experimentation is extensive (the specification supplies none of the field-to-position model, the calibration scheme, or the detection rule — each must be imported from outside the patent); the state of the art required a multi-stroke dynamic calibration (Phillips) or dedicated reference hardware (Fyfe [0035], [0069]) — the '537 discloses neither; predictability is low for a POSITA limited to the '537's disclosure — the raw signal is subject to distortions Phillips reports "can dominate" the readings, and it was the art's dynamic calibration that made the measurement repeatable ([0132]–[0133]); and the claims are broad (§ XI.D). Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. EX-1018 ¶ 59.

F. Conclusion of Ground 5

The patentee won allowance by casting magnetometer-detected "direction change[s]" as what the art lacked; the specification does not teach a POSITA how to practice that detection without undue experimentation. Claims 1–12 and 16–20 — and claims 13–15 to the extent any is construed to require magnetometer-based detection (§ XI.A) — are not enabled and are unpatentable under § 112(a).

---

XII. GROUND 6 (CONDITIONAL) — LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION FOR THE "ROTATIONAL VALUES" GENUS (35 U.S.C. § 112(a))

A. Standard

Written description asks whether the specification "reasonably convey[s] … that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date"; for a genus, it must convey possession of the genus, not one species, and "a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); accord Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The requirement applies with full force to limitations introduced by amendment: "[w]hen [an] applicant adds a claim … the new claim[] … must find support in the original specification." TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomach. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

B. The Amended Genus Is Unsupported

The issued claims sample bare "rotational values" in the sensing chain ([1h]–[1j]) while retaining "rotational velocity values" elsewhere in claim 1 ([1c]) — both terms in one claim, unreconciled. "Rotational values" is a genus reaching any rotation-related quantity. The specification, however, describes exclusively the narrower species — it samples "angular velocity data" to "measure rotational velocity of the polished rod" (col. 9, ll. 46–50) — never operating on any non-velocity quantity. Concrete members of the genus the velocity-only specification gives no possession of include rotational acceleration and rotational displacement/angle — distinct, separately measurable quantities that bare "rotational values" encompasses. Naming such claimed-but-undescribed species defeats any "illusory genus" objection: a specification disclosing one species (velocity) does not support a genus ("rotational values") embracing distinct species (acceleration; angular displacement) the inventor never described. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351–52.

A Patent Owner cannot recast "rotational values" as a synonym for "rotational velocity values": the amendment deleted "velocity" from the sensing chain while retaining "rotational velocity values" in [1c], and a POSITA reads that purposeful contrast as meaningful. EX-1018, Written-Description Opinion.

The defect reaches claims 10 and 11 with particular force (dependent-claim fallback). As amended, claim 10 determines "the rotational values … by summing both positive and negative samples of the rotational values sensed by the rotation sensor subsystem," and claim 11 compares "the determined rotational values … with an expected amount of rotational values." EX-1001 cls. 10–11. The specification describes both operations exclusively for the velocity species: the processor "may sum both positive and negative angular velocity measurements during the completed stroke," and "[i]f the angular velocity calculation yields a value above a preselected limit (e.g., a minimum amount of expected rotation), then confirmation of rotation may be indicted [sic]" — otherwise "a failure in rotation may be noted." EX-1001 col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 9. A summation or expected-amount comparison of any non-velocity genus member — summing angular-displacement samples, or an "expected amount" of rotational acceleration — appears nowhere. Even if the genus were adequately conveyed for claim 1's sampling step, claims 10 and 11 — whose operations the specification ties only to angular velocity — fail at minimum. This fallback sits in the "rotational values" branch (§ I map; § IX.D): escape requires a velocity-only construction that claims 5–6 contradict — and that would render Ground 2's Phillips mapping literal (§ VIII.C). Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351–52.

Claims 13 and 16 recite the same amended genus — claim 13 samples and compares "rotational values" ([13c], [13f]–[13g]) and claim 16 samples "rotational values" ([16b]). The defect extends to every dependent inheriting the genus term (claims 2–12, 14–15, 17–18).

C. Conclusion of Ground 6

Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description of the "rotational values" genus.

---

XIII. NO OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS

The fourth Graham inquiry permits objective indicia. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner is aware of no objective indicia having the required nexus to the challenged claims, and bears no burden to disprove indicia not yet asserted. Any indicia would attach to the prior-art features — the reversal-bounded per-stroke paradigm (Gibbs) and commodity sensors (Phillips; Fyfe), with rotator-rotation verification already disclosed in the Patent Owner's own incorporated Norris Rods publication (EX-1009) — not to a patentably distinct feature; and Phillips is Petitioner's own publication, so copying cuts the other way. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential); EX-1018 ¶ 40.

---

XIV. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

Every challenged claim is more likely than not unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Petitioner requests that the Board (1) institute review of claims 1–20 on Grounds 1–6; (2) cancel the claims on each applicable ground; and (3) grant such further relief as is just. The grounds are pleaded in the alternative, as set out in the Statement of Precise Relief Requested and the Map of the Alternative Grounds (§ I).

Respectfully submitted,

/Walter Phillips/

Walter Phillips

Petitioner, Pro Se

---

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (37 C.F.R. § 42.24)

Exclusive of the parts exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1) — table of contents, table of authorities, mandatory notices, certificates, the claim listing, and the exhibit list — this Petition contains 18,560 words, not exceeding the 18,700-word limit for a Post Grant Review petition.

/Walter Phillips/

Walter Phillips

Petitioner, Pro Se

Date: August 4, 2026

---

CLAIM LISTING (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1))

All twenty claims of the '537 patent are reproduced below in full, as issued. The bracketed limitation labels used throughout this Petition are interlineated in the four independent claims; the patent's original errata are reproduced faithfully and marked "[sic]." EX-1001 cls. 1–20.

Claim 1. [1pre] A sensor system for a downhole pumping system, comprising: a sensor subsystem for detecting movement of at least one component of the downhole pumping system, the sensor subsystem comprising: [1b] an axial motion sensor subsystem comprising a magnetometer, the magnetometer to be coupled to the at least one component of the downhole pumping system and to measure axial movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system based on variations in a magnet field [sic] detected by the magnetometer generated by movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; [1c] a rotation sensor subsystem comprising a gyroscope, the gyroscope to be coupled to the at least one component of the downhole pumping system and to detect rotational movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system by detecting rotational velocity values with the gyroscope generated by rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; and [1d] a vibration sensor subsystem for monitoring vibration of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system in three axes; and [1e] a processor subsystem to receive data from the axial motion sensor subsystem and the rotation sensor subsystem, the processor subsystem to: [1f] detect axial movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system with the magnetometer of the axial motion sensor subsystem, the detecting axial movement comprising: [1g] sensing a direction change in the at least one component of the downhole pumping system to determine when a stroke of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system has been completed and to determine that a new stroke is beginning; and [1h] after the direction change in the at least one component of the downhole pumping system has been detected, begin to determine rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system with the rotation sensor subsystem by sampling rotational values generated by the rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system, the determining the rotational values of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system comprising: [1i] continuing sampling the rotational values through a second direction change of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; and [1j] ceasing sampling the rotational values at a third direction change of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system.

Claim 2. The sensor system of claim 1, wherein the sensor subsystem is configured to detect movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system comprising at least one rod of the downhole pumping system extending from a surface location into a wellbore.

Claim 3. The sensor system of claim 2, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to verify the axial movement and the direction change of the at least one rod before determining the rotation.

Claim 4. The sensor system of claim 2, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to determine the direction change of the at least one rod to indicate that a previous stoke [sic] has been completed and that a new stroke is beginning.

Claim 5. The sensor system of claim 4, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to begin sampling the rotational values comprising rotational velocity after determining the direction change of the at least one rod.

Claim 6. The sensor system of claim 1, wherein the processor subsystem is configured receive [sic] the rotational values from only a gyroscope.

Claim 7. The sensor system of claim 1, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to compare the sampled rotational values with previously sampled rotational values detected by the rotation sensor subsystem during a previous stroke of the downhole pumping system to determine if rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system has occurred.

Claim 8. The sensor system of claim 1, wherein the sensor subsystem is configured to detect movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system comprising a tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system.

Claim 9. The sensor system of claim 8, wherein the sensor subsystem is configured to detect rotation of the tubing rotator while detecting axial movement of a polished [sic] of the downhole pumping system.

Claim 10. The sensor system of claim 1, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to determine the rotational values of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system by summing both positive and negative samples of the rotational values sensed by the rotation sensor subsystem.

Claim 11. The sensor system of claim 10, wherein the processor subsystem is configured to compare the determined rotational values of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system with an expected amount of rotational values to determine a failure in the rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system.

Claim 12. The sensor system of claim 1, further comprising a vibration sensor subsystem for monitoring vibration of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system in three axes over a vibrational baseline.

Claim 13. [13pre] A sensor system for a downhole pumping system, comprising: a sensor subsystem for detecting movement of at least one component of the downhole pumping system, the sensor subsystem comprising: [13b] an axial motion sensor subsystem comprising an axial motion sensor, the axial motion sensor to be coupled to the at least one component of the downhole pumping system and to measure axial movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system based on variations detected by the axial motion sensor generated by movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; and [13c] a rotation sensor subsystem comprising a rotational sensor, the rotational sensor to be coupled to the at least one component of the downhole pumping system and to detect rotational movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system by sampling rotational values with the rotational sensor generated by rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; and [13d] a processor subsystem to receive data from the axial motion sensor subsystem and the rotation sensor subsystem, the processor subsystem to: [13e] verify the axial movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system with the axial motion sensor subsystem; [13f] when the axial movement has been verified, detecting the rotational values with the rotation sensor subsystem during a current stroke of the downhole pumping system; and [13g] comparing the rotational values with previously sensed rotational values detected by the rotation sensor subsystem during a previous stroke of the downhole pumping system to determine if rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system has occurred.

Claim 14. The sensor system of claim 13, wherein the axial motion sensor subsystem comprises a magnetometer and the rotation sensor subsystem comprises a gyroscope.

Claim 15. The sensor system of claim 14, wherein the sensor subsystem is configured to detect movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system comprising at least one rod of the downhole pumping system extending from a surface location into a wellbore, and wherein the processor subsystem is configured to continue sampling the rotational values of the at least one rod over a stroke of the at least one rod.

Claim 16. [16a] A sensor system for a downhole pumping system, comprising: an axial motion sensor subsystem comprising a magnetometer to measure axial movement of at least one component of the downhole pumping system and to determine a change in axial direction of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; [16b] a sensor subsystem for detecting movement of a tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system, the sensor subsystem comprising a rotation sensor subsystem comprising a rotational sensor, the rotational sensor to be coupled to the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system and to detect rotational movement of the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system by sampling rotational values with the rotational sensor generated by rotation of the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system; and [16c] a processor subsystem to receive data from the rotation sensor subsystem, the processor subsystem to determine rotation of the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system with the rotational values detected by the rotation sensor subsystem, the processor subsystem configured to: [16d] detect the axial movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system with the axial motion sensor subsystem; [16e] when the axial movement of the at least one component is detected, begin detecting the rotational movement of the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system with the rotational sensor; [16f] continue detecting the rotational movement of the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system through a second direction change of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; and [16g] cease detecting the rotational movement of the tubing rotator of the downhole pumping system after a third direction change of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system.

Claim 17. The sensor system of claim 16, wherein the rotation sensor subsystem comprises at least one of a gyroscope or an accelerometer.

Claim 18. The sensor system of claim 16, wherein the rotation sensor subsystem is configured to monitor the rotation of the tubing rotator along a path that extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to a surface upon which the downhole pumping system is positioned.

Claim 19. [19pre] A method of detecting motion of at least one component of a downhole pumping system, the method comprising: [19a] determining a first change in axial direction of at least one component of the downhole pumping system based on magnetic variations detected by an axial motion sensor coupled to the at least one component of the downhole pumping system generated by translation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; [19b] when detecting no change in the axial direction, ceasing any sensing of rotation movement; [19c] when verifying the first change in the axial direction: begin detecting rotational movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system with a rotational sensor generated by rotation of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; [19d] continuing detecting the rotational movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system through a second direction change of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system; and [19e] ceasing detecting the rotational movement of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system after a third direction change of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system.

Claim 20. The method of claim 19, further comprising comparing a rotational velocity detected with the rotational sensor with a threshold value to determine a performance characteristic of the at least one component of the downhole pumping system.

---

EXHIBIT LIST (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e))

Exhibit	Description
EX-1001	U.S. Patent No. 12,460,537 B2 (the "'537 patent")
EX-1002	File history of the '537 patent (assembled from the Patent Center IFW; 378 pages, exhibit-paginated)
EX-1003	U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0203579 A1 to Phillips ("Phillips")
EX-1004	U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0263531 A1 to Fyfe ("Fyfe")
EX-1005	U.S. Patent No. 11,060,392 B2 to Picon ("Picon"; Control & Applications Digital Oil Field Solutions LLC)
EX-1006	U.S. Patent No. 9,140,113 to Hurst et al. ("Hurst"; Weatherford Technology Holdings)
EX-1007	U.S. Patent No. 9,903,193 B2 to Harding et al. ("Harding"/"Kelvin"; Kelvin Inc.)
EX-1008	U.S. Patent No. 3,343,409 to Gibbs ("Gibbs")
EX-1009	U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0340309 A1 ("Norris Rods"), Gear Rod Rotator Systems — incorporated by reference in the '537 patent; filed by Norris Rods, Inc., now owned by Patent Owner ChampionX LLC through successive mergers (USPTO assignment reel/frames 065921/0795 and 065921/0873, both recorded Dec. 20, 2023)
EX-1010	U.S. Patent No. 4,561,299 to Orlando et al. ("Orlando"; FMC Corp.)
EX-1011	U.S. Patent No. 6,176,682 to Mills ("Mills")
EX-1012	U.S. Patent No. 4,968,934 (Elf Aquitaine)
EX-1013	U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0362686 A1 to Puwanto ("Puwanto")
EX-1014	Petitioner's third-party preissuance submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.290 (filed Oct. 29, 2023) — identifying ten references, including Hurst, Phillips, Fyfe, Gibbs, and Harding
EX-1015	Petitioner's annotated copy of Phillips Fig. 3
EX-1016	Petitioner's annotated copy of Phillips Fig. 6
EX-1017	Petitioner's annotated copy of Phillips Fig. 8
EX-1018	Expert Declaration (withheld from this posting out of respect for the Expert)
EX-1019	Curriculum vitae of Petitioner's technical expert