PTAB

IPR2014-00392

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 ’906 patent describes a controller for a Coriolis flowmeter. The patent’s asserted novelty lies in a control system capable of modifying a drive signal to maintain the oscillation of a vibratable flowtube during a transition from a substantially empty to a substantially full state, a condition common in batch processing applications.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Romano - Claims 1-3 and 8-9 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 more than seven years before the ’906 patent’s priority date, disclosed a digital Coriolis flowmeter with all the structural elements recited in the independent claims. Romano taught a controller receiving sensor signals from a vibratable flowtube and a signal processing system that determines and outputs drive signal characteristics. For dependent claims 3 and 9, Romano explicitly taught a "digitally based drive circuit" as an alternative to an analog one.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the functional language in the claims—specifically the "thereby maintain oscillation" clause—was non-limiting as it merely stated an intended result. Under this construction, Romano anticipated because it disclosed all structural components. Alternatively, Petitioner argued that even if the functional language was limiting, the burden would shift to the Patent Owner to prove that Romano’s structurally identical system did not inherently perform the claimed function.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lindenbaum and Romano - Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 are obvious 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 asserted that Lindenbaum disclosed a mass flow measurement system specifically for batching applications, where the metering tube is purged with gas between batches of material. This process created a "heterogeneous two-phase mixture," and Lindenbaum’s objective was to minimize measurement inaccuracies during this transition. Lindenbaum taught measuring the flow via pulses based on the flowtube's oscillation, thereby maintaining oscillation throughout the empty-to-full-to-empty cycle. Romano disclosed a digital Coriolis flowmeter that modified its drive signal to maintain oscillation under varying flow conditions and density changes.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Lindenbaum’s batching system with Romano’s advanced digital control system. The motivation was to improve the accuracy of Lindenbaum’s system by incorporating Romano’s superior ability to maintain stable oscillation and handle the density variations inherent in the two-phase flow that Lindenbaum identified as a problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Romano provided a known, effective digital solution for maintaining oscillation in a Coriolis meter under the exact type of varying conditions (density changes) described by Lindenbaum during batching.

Ground 3: Obviousness over FlowScale Publications - Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are obvious over printed publications describing the Micro Motion FlowScale System.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The FlowScale System Instruction Manual (“FlowScale Manual”) (published 1992) and a technical article, “How the Micro Motion Mass Flow and Density Sensor Works” (“How Article”) (published 1990).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that these publications described the commercial FlowScale system, a microprocessor-based Coriolis flowmeter explicitly designed for batching applications. The FlowScale Manual stated that in such applications, "the sensor is typically empty on start-up, a batch is run, and the sensor is purged of liquid at the end of the run," directly teaching the claimed transition from an empty to a full state and back. The How Article explained that the system used a "feedback circuit and drive coil" to vibrate the sensor at its resonant frequency. This feedback circuit inherently modified the drive signal to maintain oscillation as fluid density changed during the batching process.
    • Key Aspects: This ground relied on prior art describing a commercially available product from the Petitioner that performed the claimed functions years before the patent’s priority date. The argument was that maintaining oscillation during batching was a known and solved problem, and the FlowScale system’s documented operation rendered the claims obvious.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges against claims 1-3 and 8-9 based on Miller (Patent 4,679,947). Further obviousness grounds were asserted over publications describing the Micro Motion Model D meter and over Cage (Patent 4,738,144) in combination with a Slug Flow Supplement publication.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Functional Language: Petitioner argued that terms like "operable to" and clauses beginning with "thereby" should be given no patentable weight. They contended these phrases recited an optional capability or an intended result (maintaining oscillation), rather than a mandatory structural or functional limitation, and were therefore not limiting.
  • "During a Transition": Petitioner proposed that under the broadest reasonable construction, this phrase should mean "at one or more points in the course of a transition," rather than requiring continuous performance throughout the entire duration of the transition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 and 5-9 of the ’906 patent as unpatentable.