PTAB

IPR2014-00390

Micro Motion Inc v. Schneider Electric SA

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Flowmeter
  • Brief Description: The ’594 patent describes a Coriolis-type flowmeter for measuring properties of a fluid, such as mass flow rate or density. The system uses a vibratable conduit, a driver to impart motion, sensors to detect the motion, and a control system that generates a drive signal using digital signal processing based on the received sensor signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Stadler - Claims 3, 4, 6, and 13-14 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Stadler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stadler (Patent 6,073,495).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stadler, a prior art Coriolis-type mass flow meter, disclosed all common features of the challenged independent claims, including the central feature of using a digital processor to generate the drive signal (i.e., "using digital signal processing"). For independent claim 3, Petitioner asserted that Stadler taught combining sensor signals at a summing stage before generating the drive signal. For independent claim 13, Petitioner contended that Stadler’s disclosure of a "digital amplitude controller" met the limitation of digitally generating a gain based on sensor signal properties to control the drive signal's amplitude. Petitioner further argued that Stadler’s teachings also rendered dependent claims 4, 6, and 14 anticipated.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Freeman - Claims 8-10 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Freeman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Freeman (Patent 5,804,741).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Freeman disclosed all features of independent claim 8, including using a DSP microprocessor chip to digitally process sensor signals and generate a drive signal. Crucially, for the "wherein" clause of claim 8, Petitioner argued that Freeman disclosed a two-mode operation sequence. A "first mode" of signal generation initiates motion by using a "tube-size dependent default frequency" to coarsely initialize a tracker. A "second mode" sustains motion by using a phase-locked loop to track the tube's resonant frequency, thereby providing "optimized maintenance of tube vibration." Petitioner argued this sequence directly mapped to the claimed dual-mode system for initiating and sustaining motion.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Cage, Lew, and Romano - Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 13-14 are obvious over Cage alone or in view of Lew or Romano.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cage (Patent 5,373,745), Lew (Patent 5,540,106), and Romano (Patent 4,934,196).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cage disclosed all "Common Features" of a Coriolis flowmeter, such as the vibratable conduit, driver, sensors, and control system. However, Cage did not explicitly teach generating the drive signal "using digital signal processing." Petitioner asserted this missing element was supplied by either Lew or Romano, both of which explicitly disclosed using a data processor or microprocessor to digitally process sensor signals and generate a drive signal in a similar Coriolis flowmeter context.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Cage's system with the known digital processing techniques of Lew or Romano to gain the well-established benefits of digital control, such as improved precision, monitoring, and stability. Petitioner contended this was a predictable substitution of one known element (an analog drive circuit) for another (a digital drive circuit) to obtain predictable results, consistent with the technological trend at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the well-known DSP techniques from Lew or Romano in the flowmeter of Cage, as the components were performing analogous functions in highly similar systems. For the specific limitations of claims 1, 3, and 13, Petitioner argued that Cage disclosed measuring drive current and combining sensor signals, while Romano or Thompson taught the digital generation of gain, making their combination obvious.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 1, 8, 13, and 14 are obvious over Romano (§103), arguing Romano taught a dual-mode startup operation that rendered the claims obvious. Petitioner also asserted that claim 8 is anticipated by Miller (§102), arguing Miller disclosed all claimed features, including a computer-controlled digital drive function with distinct startup and sustained operation modes.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-14 of the ’594 patent as unpatentable.