PTAB

IPR2014-00178

Micro Motion Inc v. Schneider Electric SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: DIGITAL FLOWMETER
  • Brief Description: The ’761 patent relates to a controller for a Coriolis flowmeter. The central inventive concept is a control system purported to modify a drive signal to "thereby maintain oscillation of the flowtube during a transition" from a substantially empty state to a substantially full state.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Romano

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Romano (Patent 4,934,196).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Romano, which issued nearly a decade before the ’761 patent’s priority date, discloses a complete digital Coriolis flowmeter with every structural element of the independent claims. This includes a controller with input/output modules and a digital signal processing system that uses techniques like discrete Fourier transforms. Petitioner contended that the functional "thereby" clause for maintaining oscillation is a non-limiting statement of intended result.
    • Key Aspects: Even if the functional clause were considered limiting, Petitioner argued Romano still anticipates it. Romano teaches transforming velocity signals into the frequency domain to render the meter "substantially immune to noise" from sources like turbulent flow, which Petitioner asserted meets the claimed function. Furthermore, Romano explicitly discloses modifying the drive signal—by increasing or decreasing power amplifier output—to maintain a constant vibratory amplitude under varying conditions.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over FlowScale Publications

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The FlowScale System Instruction Manual (“FlowScale Manual”), a 1992 Micro Motion publication, and "How the Micro Motion Mass Flow and Density Sensor Works" (“How Article”), a 1990 Micro Motion publication.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that its own prior art commercial product, the FlowScale System, anticipates or renders obvious the challenged claims. The FlowScale Manual explicitly describes the system’s use in batching applications, which inherently involve empty-to-full and full-to-empty transitions. The How Article explains that the underlying measurement principle requires continuous oscillation, which is maintained by a feedback circuit that modifies the drive signal to keep the sensor at its resonant frequency.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the specific FlowScale system would be naturally motivated to consult the How Article, a general operational guide for Micro Motion sensors, to understand the fundamental principles of the sensor and transmitter operation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the references describe the established operation of a commercially available product.

Ground 3: Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lindenbaum in combination with Romano

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lindenbaum (Patent 5,224,387) and Romano (Patent 4,934,196).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Lindenbaum teaches a Coriolis flowmeter that maintains oscillation and measurement during transitions involving heterogeneous two-phase mixtures, such as when purge gas is replaced by raw material. This process is analogous to an empty-to-full transition. Lindenbaum focuses on minimizing inaccuracies during these transitions by using an error-detection device. Romano, as established in Ground 1, teaches a more sophisticated digital implementation of a Coriolis flowmeter.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lindenbaum’s method for improving accuracy during two-phase flow with Romano’s superior digital processing system. The motivation would be to enhance the performance and reliability of Lindenbaum’s system by leveraging the known benefits of digital signal processing disclosed in Romano.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be predictable because Romano provides a readily available digital mass flow frequency output that could be integrated with the error-correction logic taught by Lindenbaum to create an improved, more accurate flowmeter.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on Miller (Patent 4,679,947) and Lindenbaum alone, and obviousness challenges based on Micro Motion Model D publications, alone and in combination with Cage (Patent 4,738,144).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that key functional phrases in the claims should be interpreted as non-limiting under the broadest reasonable construction standard.
  • "Operable to": Petitioner asserted that terms like "operable to" and "operable to modify" only require that the claimed modules be capable of performing the recited function, not that they must perform the function under all circumstances.
  • "Thereby maintain oscillation...": The language following "thereby" was argued to be a non-limiting statement of intended result for the control system. Petitioner argued that if a prior art device meets all structural limitations, it inherently performs this function, and the burden would shift to the Patent Owner to prove otherwise.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 7,136,761 as unpatentable.