Micro Motion Inc v. Schneider Electric SA

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00167
• Patent #: 7,505,854
• Filed: November 19, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Micro Motion, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Invensys Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Startup Techniques for a Digital Flowmeter
• Brief Description: The ’854 patent relates to a Coriolis flowmeter with a digital transmitter operable to transition the flowmeter between a first drive signal generating mode and a second drive signal generating mode in response to detecting a system disturbance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Miller.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 4,679,947).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miller disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Miller described a "flowthrough densitometer" (a type of flowmeter) that uses a digital computer to control a drive signal for a vibratable tube. The system was designed to address "very unpredictable" two-phase flow, which Petitioner contended met the proper construction of a "system disturbance." Miller disclosed two distinct drive signal modes: a narrow-band frequency mode for stable conditions (the "first drive signal generating mode") and a wide-band frequency sweep mode for startup or when resonance is lost (the "second drive signal generating mode"). Critically, Miller taught that in the event of a rapid, high-magnitude fluctuation of fluid density (a system disturbance), the computer is programmed to widen the frequency band, thereby transitioning from the narrow-band mode to the wide-band mode to re-establish the resonant frequency. This directly taught the core limitation of transitioning between modes in response to a disturbance.
  • Key Aspects: Miller’s teachings on positive feedback and digital synthesis modes were also argued to anticipate the corresponding limitations in dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Romano.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Romano (Patent 4,934,196).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Romano, which disclosed a Coriolis mass flow rate meter with digital electronics, anticipated all challenged claims. Romano explicitly discussed how broadband noise from turbulent fluid flow—particularly with gaseous flows—can inject significant noise into sensor signals, which Petitioner mapped to the "system disturbance" limitation. Romano disclosed multiple drive modes, including a normal drive mode using a positive feedback circuit and a digital synthesis mode using a microprocessor. In response to a disturbance causing high amplitude drive signals, Romano disclosed transitioning from the normal circuit drive mode (a "first drive signal generating mode") to a high-gain mode that increases the power amplifier gain tenfold (a "second drive signal generating mode") to add energy to the flowtubes and stabilize the system. Romano also taught transitioning from a digital synthesis mode to an oscillation re-start mode or an output-disable mode in response to a disturbance.

Ground 3: Claims 7, 14, and 21 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Romano.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Romano (Patent 4,934,196).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to the anticipation argument in Ground 2 for the dependent claims reciting a "digital synthesis mode." Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 were argued to be anticipated by Romano.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that even if Romano's disclosure of transitioning from a digital synthesis mode to an oscillation re-start mode was not considered a direct anticipation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Romano disclosed all the necessary components: a digital synthesis mode, an oscillation initiation mode, and methods for detecting system disturbances. A POSITA would combine these known elements using the known methods described by Romano for the predictable purpose of stabilizing the flowmeter after a disturbance. This combination was argued to be a simple substitution of one known drive mode for another (the normal drive circuit mode) to achieve the predictable result of re-initiating oscillation when needed.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Romano explicitly taught the utility of each mode and the methodology for transitioning between modes in response to system events.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on Kalotay (Patent 5,009,109), Hori (Japan Patent Publication No. 07-286880), and Maginnis (WO 01/69185A2). These grounds similarly argued that each reference disclosed a digital flowmeter that transitioned between different drive signal generating modes (e.g., normal vs. high-energy; sinusoidal vs. rectangular wave; normal vs. "kick" process) in response to a system disturbance (e.g., sudden density changes, entrained air bubbles).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "digital transmitter": Petitioner argued that under the broadest reasonable construction, this term should be interpreted to include all electronics between the driver and sensor, which may comprise both digital and analog components. The patent’s own figures and description allegedly showed analog components like op-amps and resistors within the "digital transmitter." This broader construction was central to applying prior art references that utilized mixed-signal controllers.
• "system disturbance": Citing the patent’s specification and file history, Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean an event that "causes the flowmeter (measurements) to become unstable" or that may "degrade or interrupt an operation of the flowmeter." Examples included external disturbances, two-phase flow, or unanticipated material in the flowtube. This construction was used to map various phenomena in the prior art, such as turbulent flow or air bubbles, to the claimed limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 of the ’854 patent as unpatentable.