PTAB

IPR2019-01640

AxIOMa MeteRing UAB v. Kamstrup AS

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Ultrasonic Flow Meter Housing Formed by a Monolithic Polymer Structure
  • Brief Description: The ’957 patent discloses an ultrasonic flowmeter with a housing made from a monolithic polymer structure. This structure is cast as a single piece and includes a flow tube for fluid passage and a separate, watertight cavity for housing electronic components like transducers and measurement circuits, with a shared wall separating the two sections.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-13 over Will

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Will (WO 2009/129885)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that this ground applies if the claim term “structure being cast in one piece” is construed to mean a “molded one-piece structure” without requiring a single molding step. Petitioner asserted that Will discloses an ultrasonic flowmeter housing made of a polymer that is a monolithic structure, even though it is formed in a two-step injection molding process. Will allegedly teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, including a flow tube with a through-going straight section, a cavity separated from the flow tube by a shared wall, and the arrangement of at least one ultrasonic transducer and a measurement circuit within that cavity. Petitioner further mapped how Will’s disclosure of features like a watertight wall, a single opening with a cover, and specific transducer arrangements met the limitations of the dependent claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-13 over Will in view of Hiss, Ueki, Buckberry, and/or Bignell

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Will (WO 2009/129885), Hiss (DE 100 51 534), Ueki (EP 1 482 284), Buckberry (WO 2008/053193), and Bignell (WO 94-20822).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, in the event the Board construes "cast in one piece" to require a single molding step. Petitioner contended that while Will discloses all other elements of the claims, it uses a two-step molding process. The secondary references (Hiss, Ueki, Buckberry, and Bignell) each teach producing a similar flowmeter structure—a flow tube and electronics cavity with a shared wall—as an integrally formed piece in a single step.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the single-step molding process from any of the secondary references with the flowmeter design of Will. The motivation would be to achieve the known advantages taught by the secondary references, such as creating a homogenous structure with no seams for superior corrosion resistance, higher mechanical stability, easier manufacturing, and reduced cost.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification, as it involved applying a known manufacturing technique (single-step integral molding) to a similar device to achieve predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 6 and 8 over Will in view of Elson and/or Barker

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Will (WO 2009/129885), Elson (Patent 6,248,077), and Barker (Patent 4,476,877).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 8, which adds the limitation of "a metal pocket cast into the flow tube," interpreted by Petitioner to include a thermowell for a temperature sensor. While Will does not explicitly show a metal pocket, it states an objective of measuring fluid temperature. Elson and Barker both explicitly teach using a metal pocket (a "receiver" in Elson, an "enclosure" in Barker) insert-molded into a polymer flow tube to house a temperature sensor.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Elson or Barker with Will to achieve Will's stated goal of temperature measurement. Using a thermowell was a well-known method to protect the sensor while ensuring accurate heat transfer from the fluid, which was superior to measuring temperature through the less-conductive polymer tube itself.
    • Expectation of Success: This combination involved incorporating a standard, well-understood component (a thermowell) into a known device (Will's flowmeter) to perform its intended and well-known function, making success predictable.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional challenges, including anticipation of various claims by Hiss (Ground 6), Ueki (Ground 12), and Buckberry (Ground 18) individually. Further obviousness grounds combined these primary references with others to teach elements such as moisture-inhibiting means (Drachmann), flat sections on the shared wall (Will, Buckberry), and additional electronic components in the cavity (Drachmann, Goertz).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Term: "structure being cast in one piece" (from independent claims 1 and 11).
  • Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner requested the Board to construe this term as "molded one-piece structure." Petitioner argued this construction focuses on the final product being a single piece, not on the number of steps in the molding process. This construction is critical because Will discloses a two-step molding process that results in a one-piece structure. If Petitioner's construction is adopted, Will anticipates the claims (Ground 1). If the term is construed more narrowly to require a single molding step, Petitioner argued the claims are obvious over Will in view of other art (Ground 2). Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner had amended similar claims in a related European application from "cast in one piece" to "cast in a single step" to avoid Will, but did not make this change in the U.S. case.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’957 patent as unpatentable.