Syrinix, Inc. v. Blacoh Fluid Controls, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-00415
• Patent #: 7,357,034
• Filed: December 30, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Syrinix, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Blacoh Fluid Control, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Dynamic Transient Pressure Detection System
• Brief Description: The ’034 patent describes methods for detecting dynamic transient pressure phenomena in fluid chambers, such as pipelines. The invention uses a processor-based system with pressure sensors to account for rapid changes in fluid pressure, purporting to solve problems associated with fixed-interval sampling by dynamically adjusting data sampling and recording rates.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Palusamy (Patent 4,908,755).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Palusamy anticipates all limitations of the independent claims. Palusamy discloses a processor-based system for monitoring fatigue in nuclear plant components by analyzing pressure transients. It teaches installing pressure sensors in a fluid chamber (a pipe), measuring pressure, processing the data, and distinguishing between steady-state and transient conditions. Crucially, Palusamy’s abstract explicitly teaches that “transient data is retained at a higher sampling rate” than steady-state data, directly mapping to the core concept of independent claims 1 and 18 of increasing sampling/recording rates during transient events.
  • Key Aspects: The argument hinges on Palusamy’s disclosure of a dual-rate data handling system where sampling rates are increased in response to transient events to capture high-resolution data, while lower rates are used during steady states to conserve memory, mirroring the exact problem-solution approach of the ’034 patent.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 4, 6-8, 11-15, and 17 over Palusamy in view of Worthington

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Palusamy (Patent 4,908,755) and Worthington (Patent 5,987,990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Palusamy taught the base system for transient pressure detection, while Worthington provided the specific features recited in the challenged dependent claims. Worthington discloses using multiple sensors to "determine the precise location of the source" of a transient event based on differences in signal detection times, which Petitioner alleged rendered claim 4 obvious. Worthington further teaches identifying leaks, which Petitioner equated to the "illegal diversion of fluid" in claims 6 and 17. For claims involving time and position data (claims 8, 11, 13, 15), Worthington taught using a GPS receiver co-located with the sensors to provide precise time and location data for analysis.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Worthington’s advanced source localization and GPS timing capabilities with Palusamy’s robust adaptive sampling system. The combination would create a more powerful and commercially valuable monitoring system capable of not only detecting transients but also pinpointing their source and cause.
  • Expectation of Success: Both references operate in the same technical field of pipeline pressure monitoring and use conventional sensor and processor technologies. Integrating a GPS for timing (from Worthington) into a data acquisition system (like Palusamy's) was a known and predictable design choice.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 16 over Palusamy in view of ZIP

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Palusamy (Patent 4,908,755) and ZIP (WO 01/51836 A1).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 16 adds the limitation of "alerting a user" when a predetermined pressure threshold is exceeded. While Palusamy teaches detecting when a threshold is crossed, Petitioner used ZIP to explicitly teach the user alert. ZIP discloses a field instrument system that, upon detecting a pressure value exceeding a set point, transmits an alarm to a user at a client computer.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would find it obvious to add a user alert function to the detection system of Palusamy. A system that detects a critical event is made significantly more useful by immediately notifying an operator, which is a simple and well-known improvement for any monitoring system.
  • Expectation of Success: Adding an alarm is a routine programming step for a processor-based monitoring system. The combination required only the application of a known technique (user alerts) to a known system (Palusamy) to yield a predictable result.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1-3, 5, and 18 are obvious over Palusamy and McCracken (Patent 4,161,782) as an alternative to anticipation. It also challenged claim 11 as obvious over the three-way combination of Palusamy, Worthington, and Kurisu (Patent 5,708,195), arguing Kurisu taught integrating a time receiver directly into an intelligent sensor structure.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Record(s)" and "store(s)": Petitioner asserted these terms should be construed interchangeably to mean "the act of committing a sampled value to memory." This construction was important for arguing that Palusamy’s various descriptions of data handling satisfied the storing and recording limitations.
• "Predetermined interval": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "sample rate." This was critical to mapping Palusamy's discussion of changing sampling frequency to the '034 patent's claim language about changing rates at a "predetermined interval."

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’034 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.