Micro Motion Inc v. Schneider Electric SA

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2014-00179
• Patent #: 7,124,646
• Filed: November 19, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Micro Motion, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Invensys Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 15, and 19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Correcting for Two-Phase Flow In A Digital Flowmeter
• Brief Description: The ’646 patent describes a Coriolis effect flowmeter and a method for determining the flow rate of a liquid during a transition of its flowtube from a substantially empty state to a substantially full state, a condition common in two-phase flow or batching applications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 15, and 19 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 argued that Romano, which issued in 1990, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Romano describes a digital Coriolis flowmeter with a flowtube, drive mechanism, velocity sensors, and a digital signal processor. The processor receives sensor signals to determine mass flow rate. Petitioner contended that Romano’s techniques for improving accuracy, such as using a high-gain startup to shorten response time and frequency-domain analysis to reduce noise from turbulent flow, inherently enable the determination of flow rate during the claimed empty-to-full transition. The conditions of turbulent flow, Petitioner asserted, are analogous to the conditions present during a two-phase, empty-to-full transition.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 5, 9-11, 15, and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Miller.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Patent 4,679,947).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Miller discloses a Coriolis densitometer capable of measuring the density of two-phase fluids (e.g., wet steam) during transitions from empty to full. Miller teaches a computer-controlled system that sweeps a frequency band to find the resonant frequency of the flowtube, which changes with the mass inside. This allows for rapid measurement in milliseconds as the tube fills. The Petitioner argued Miller discloses all limitations except for determining "flow rate" instead of "density."
  • Motivation to Combine (Modify): Petitioner pointed to the ’646 patent's own specification, which concedes that "many of the described techniques are applicable to a densitometer that provides a measure of density rather than a measure of mass flow." Petitioner argued that because the principles of densitometers and mass flow meters were well-known to be readily applicable to one another, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to apply Miller’s teachings on measuring density during transitional states to a mass flow meter.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this application, as it involves applying known measurement principles for transitional states from one type of Coriolis meter (densitometer) to a closely related type (mass flow meter).

Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 15, and 19 are obvious over Ruesch in Combination with the Model D Manual and Supplement.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ruesch (Patent 4,872,351), the Micro Motion Model D Mass Flow Meters Instruction Manual ("Model D Manual"), and the Model D Meter Supplement, Slug Flow and Loading/Unloading Instruction Manual ("Slug Flow Supplement").

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ruesch discloses the basic components of a Coriolis flowmeter, including a flowtube, drive mechanism, sensors, and meter electronics with a processor. The Slug Flow Supplement, which describes a "Slug Flow Inhibit Board" for the Model D meter, explicitly teaches monitoring flow rate during "loading/unloading applications" where the flowmeter is filled from an "initially empty state." The Supplement acknowledges that this transitional period can produce "excessively high" flow rate indications and describes a system that continuously monitors fluid density to manage the output during this transition.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA reading Ruesch, which itself refers to a Model D instruction manual, would be motivated to consult related documents like the Slug Flow Supplement for improving the meter's performance in specific applications. The Supplement provides a direct solution for the exact problem addressed by the ’646 patent: managing flow rate measurements during empty-to-full transitions in batching and loading scenarios.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining these references, as it involves integrating a commercially available board (the Slug Flow Inhibit Board) into the flowmeter it was designed for (the Model D meter, similar to Ruesch) to perform its stated function.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges including anticipation under §102(e) by Olsen (Patent 5,857,893), anticipation under §102(b) by Mutter (Patent 5,570,729), and anticipation under §102(b) by publications describing the Micro Motion FlowScale System.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "During a transition": Petitioner proposed that this phrase should be construed as "at one or more points in the course of a transition," not "throughout the duration of." This construction is critical because prior art systems might produce intermittent or erroneous data during the transition but would still determine a flow rate at some point within that period.
• "Determining": Petitioner argued that this term must be interpreted under the broadest reasonable construction to encompass "erroneous and discontinuous flowrate measurement." This position was supported by the ’646 patent’s own specification, which admits that during a transition, some data may be erroneous or "physically not possible" and must be suppressed.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Analog vs. Digital Scope: A central contention was that while the ’646 patent specification promotes the advantages of digital signal processing, the claims themselves are not limited to digital implementations. Petitioner argued the claims are broad enough to read on prior art analog Coriolis flowmeters that were capable of performing the claimed functions, rendering the "digital" improvements described in the specification irrelevant to the patentability of the claims as written.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 15, and 19 of the ’646 patent as unpatentable.