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 relates to a method for detecting dynamic transient pressures in fluid chambers, such as pipelines. The invention uses dynamic pressure sensors and a signal processor to identify transient events by analyzing pressure data, and then increases data sampling and/or recording rates during the transient event until pressures return to a steady state, thereby efficiently capturing critical data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 18 are anticipated by Palusamy 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, which discloses a system for monitoring and analyzing fatigue in components subjected to pressure transients (e.g., nuclear power plant piping), teaches every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Palusamy's system continuously monitors sensors and records both steady-state and transient phenomena. It explicitly describes installing pressure sensors in a fluid chamber, transmitting data to a computer for signal processing, analyzing data against threshold levels to identify transients, and storing the data. Crucially, Palusamy teaches compressing steady-state data to reduce storage load while retaining transient data at a higher sampling rate, directly corresponding to the core inventive concept of adjusting recording rates based on the pressure state.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 6-8, 11-15, and 17 are obvious over Palusamy in view of Worthington under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Palusamy (Patent 4,908,755) and Worthington (Patent 5,987,990).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Palusamy provides the foundational system for variable-rate transient pressure detection. Worthington, which discloses a system for detecting and locating pressure events in pipelines using multiple sensors (termed "hydrophones" but explicitly including pressure sensors), was argued to supply the additional features required by the dependent claims. Specifically, Worthington teaches using the time-of-arrival difference of a pressure wave at two or more sensors to calculate the precise source of the transient (mapping to claim 4). It further describes identifying leaks or illegal diversions as a source of transient pressure (claims 6 and 17) and using a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver to provide precise time and position data to the sensors (claims 8, 11-13, and 15).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Worthington’s advanced source localization and GPS-based timing techniques with Palusamy's efficient data capture and storage method. The motivation would be to enhance Palusamy’s system by adding the well-understood capability to not only detect a transient event but also to precisely locate its origin, which is a critical diagnostic goal in pipeline management.
  • Expectation of Success: Combining a known localization method (Worthington) with a known data monitoring system (Palusamy) was a straightforward integration of established technologies. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating an improved system that could both efficiently detect and accurately locate transient pressure events.

Ground 3: Claim 16 is obvious over Palusamy in view of ZIP under §103.

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

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Palusamy teaches the basis of claim 16 by identifying a predetermined threshold pressure to trigger transient detection. ZIP, which discloses a processor-based system for handling pressure data from field instruments, was alleged to supply the remaining limitation: alerting a user when the predetermined threshold is reached or exceeded. ZIP's system explicitly describes generating and transmitting an alarm to a user computer when a pressure set point is crossed.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add an alarm function, as taught by ZIP, to the transient detection system of Palusamy as a simple and logical improvement. This modification would make Palusamy's system more practical by actively notifying an operator of a potentially critical pressure event in real-time, rather than requiring post-event data analysis to discover it.
  • Expectation of Success: Adding a standard alarm feature to a monitoring system that already detects threshold excursions was a common and predictable design choice with a high expectation of success.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including an alternative challenge to claims 1-3, 5, and 18 over Palusamy and McCracken, and a challenge to claim 11 over Palusamy, Worthington, and Kurisu, relying on similar theories of combining known elements for predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Record(s)" / "store(s)": Petitioner argued these terms are used interchangeably in the patent and should be construed to mean "the act of committing a sampled value to memory."
• "Predetermined interval": Proposed to mean "sample rate." This construction was asserted as critical for mapping prior art that discusses adjusting sampling rates onto the claim language.
• "Clock" / "timer": Proposed to be construed broadly as "a device that keeps time" to encompass the various time-keeping mechanisms disclosed in the prior art references.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 7,357,034 as unpatentable.