Micro Motion Inc v. Schneider Electric SA

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 7,571,062
• Filed: January 31, 2014
• Petitioner(s): Micro Motion, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Invensys Systems, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 12, 13, 23-25, 29, 30, 36, 40, 43, and 45

2. Patent Overview

• Title: DIGITAL FLOWMETER
• Brief Description: The ’062 patent relates to Coriolis-type flowmeters that use a digital control and measurement system. The system receives sensor signals from a vibratable conduit, uses digital signal processing to generate a drive signal, and generates a measurement of a property of the material flowing through the conduit.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 12, 13, 23, 29, and 36 under §102 by Derby

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Derby (5,555,190).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Derby, which relates to using digital signal processing adaptive filtration methods in Coriolis mass flow meters, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 requires using digital processing to adjust a drive signal's phase to compensate for time delay. Derby allegedly taught this by disclosing a digital signal processor (DSP) that determines an appropriate drive frequency from sensor inputs and generates a drive signal, while acknowledging that delays from components like A/D converters and digital filters require a phase shift. For dependent claims, Derby allegedly disclosed processing data in sets using "windows" that can overlap by half a window length, anticipating claims 12 and 13. Derby also taught using FIFO memory techniques to retain new data while previous samples are processed, anticipating the simultaneous processing and collection of claim 36.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1, 24, 29, 40, 43, and 45 under §102 by Romano

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Romano (4,934,196).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Romano discloses all limitations of the challenged claims, including the distinct features of independent claims 40 and 45. Romano taught a digital flowmeter using a DSP to compute a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) to locate the resonant frequency and generate a drive signal. For claim 1's time delay compensation, Romano disclosed using digital processing to introduce a phase shift to compensate for delays caused by its interleaved sampling of two sensor signals. For claims 40 and 45, which require different signals for initiating and sustaining motion, Romano allegedly disclosed a start-up procedure where a high-amplitude drive signal is used to initiate vibration, followed by a different, quantized sinusoidal waveform to sustain oscillation once the resonant frequency is determined. Romano also disclosed applying a negative gain to reduce motion if the vibration amplitude becomes too large, anticipating claim 24.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 12, 23-25, 29, 36, 40, 43, and 45 under §103(a) over Kalotay

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kalotay (5,009,109).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kalotay disclosed the majority of the claimed features, including a Coriolis meter with a microprocessor that receives digitized sensor signals and generates timed drive pulses. The primary element allegedly not explicitly disclosed is using digital processing to "adjust a phase of the drive signal to compensate for a time delay." Petitioner contended this feature would have been obvious. Kalotay disclosed using different signals for start-up (a long rectangular pulse) and for sustaining motion (short energy bursts), allegedly rendering the unique limitations of claims 40 and 45 obvious. Kalotay also disclosed processing data in complete cycle-length sets via DMA transfer, mapping to claim 12.
  • Motivation to Combine (or modify): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to adjust the timing of Kalotay’s drive pulses to account for inherent and well-known circuit delays (e.g., from its A/D converter). This adjustment, which is equivalent to adjusting the phase, would be necessary to ensure the energy pulses are applied effectively within the specified "drive window," a predictable design modification to achieve the desired result.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because compensating for known electronic delays was a routine and necessary part of system design at the time of the invention to ensure proper functionality.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further challenges, including:

  • Obviousness of claim 13 over Kalotay in view of publications describing signal processing with overlap techniques (e.g., the Welch method).
  • Obviousness of claim 30 (accounting for aeration) over Kalotay in view of Liu (5,029,482).
  • Anticipation of claims 1, 23, 25, and 29 by Freeman (5,804,741).
  • Anticipation of claims 40 and 45 by Miller (4,679,947).

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• A central technical argument underpinning multiple grounds was that component-level time delays are an inherent and well-known phenomenon in any electronic system, particularly those involving A/D conversion and digital signal processing. Petitioner contended that compensating for such delays was a routine design consideration for a POSITA. This principle was used to argue that even if a reference like Kalotay did not explicitly teach adjusting phase for time delay, it would have been an obvious modification to implement for the system to function as intended.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 12, 13, 23-25, 29, 30, 36, 40, 43, and 45 of the ’062 patent as unpatentable.