Micro Motion Inc v. Endress + Hauser FLOWTec AG

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2018-00017
• Patent #: 9,593,973
• Filed: December 8, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Micro Motion, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): ENDRESS+HAUSER FLOWTEC AG
• Challenged Claims: 1-56

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Measuring Transducer of a Vibration-Type as well as Measuring System Formed Therwith
• Brief Description: The ’973 patent discloses a Coriolis mass flow measuring transducer designed for insertion into a pipeline. The invention focuses on improving measurement accuracy by mitigating the effects of external vibrations through specific structural arrangements of a measuring tube, a first (outer) support element, and a second (inner) support element to manage and separate the resonant frequencies of disturbance modes from the desired operational frequency ("wanted mode").

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1, 4-16, 20, 23, 28, 30-32, 34-36, and 38-52 are anticipated by Endo

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Endo (Patent 5,691,485).
• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that Endo, which discloses a Coriolis flowmeter with a double straight tube design, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner mapped Endo’s components to the elements of claim 1. Endo's inner straight flow tube 4 was identified as the claimed "measuring tube." Endo’s outer cylindrical housing 1 was asserted to be the "first support element," and its outer straight counterbalance tube 5 was identified as the "second support element." The leaf springs (e.g., 12a1) connecting the components were argued to satisfy the "mechanically connected" limitation. Finally, Endo’s driving device 7 was mapped to the "oscillation exciter," and its sensors 8 and 9 were mapped to the "oscillation sensor."

Ground 2: Obviousness over Endo and Ohnishi - Claims 1, 4-8, 30-32, 38, 39, 42 and 44-50 are obvious over Endo in view of Ohnishi

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Endo (Patent 5,691,485), Ohnishi (Patent 6,553,845).
• Core Argument for this Ground: To the extent Endo’s connections were considered non-rigid or indirect, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to modify Endo using the teachings of Ohnishi to achieve the claimed configuration.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Endo was asserted to provide the basic structure of a Coriolis flowmeter with inner and outer tubes. Ohnishi was cited for its disclosure of a curved tube and parallel curved rods that are rigidly fixed to a substrate, teaching a solid, direct mechanical connection between elements. Petitioner argued that Ohnishi’s rigid connections and laterally spaced support elements were familiar elements in the art.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Endo’s flowmeter design with Ohnishi’s rigid connection structure to improve the common-mode rejection of the meter. Replacing Endo's potentially flexible leaf-spring connections with the solid, fixed connections taught by Ohnishi would predictably result in a more rigid and stable assembly, better isolating the measuring system from external vibrations.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known method for achieving rigidity (from Ohnishi) to a standard flowmeter design (from Endo) to achieve the predictable benefit of improved stability and vibration rejection.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Multiple References - Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 29, 55, and 56 are obvious over Endo in view of Ohnishi, Griffin, and VanCleve

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Endo (Patent 5,691,485), Ohnishi (Patent 6,553,845), Griffin (Patent 8,215,185), and VanCleve (Patent 5,987,999).

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that claims reciting specific relationships between the "wanted mode" and "disturbance modes" were obvious over the base combination of Endo and Ohnishi when further combined with Griffin and VanCleve, which explicitly teach methods for managing such vibration modes.

  • Prior Art Mapping: The Endo/Ohnishi combination provided the fundamental transducer structure. Griffin was cited for teaching the existence of disturbance modes in the housing that occur at frequencies different from the drive frequency and the importance of separating these frequencies for accurate measurement. VanCleve was cited for teaching the management of vibration modes in a secondary support element (a "balance bar"), explaining how to design the system so its disturbance frequencies are sufficiently separated from the drive mode frequency across a range of fluid densities.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to enhance the accuracy of the Endo/Ohnishi flowmeter would have been motivated to consult references like Griffin and VanCleve for established techniques to manage vibration interference. Combining these teachings would allow the designer to tune the resonant frequencies of the support structures to avoid interference with the measurement frequency, a key objective of the ’973 patent.
  • Expectation of Success: The ability to modify the mass and stiffness of flowmeter components to alter and separate resonant frequencies, as taught by Griffin and VanCleve, represented a known design principle. Applying these predictable engineering methods to the Endo/Ohnishi structure would have led to the claimed system with a high expectation of success.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an initial ground that numerous claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for reciting functional results without corresponding structure. Petitioner also asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including the Background of the ’973 patent and Rieder (Patent 7,077,014) to teach S- or Z-shaped flow tubes and further details of wanted modes.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "support element": Petitioner argued that the "first support element" provides structural support to the measuring tube against external forces (e.g., from the pipeline), while the "second support element" primarily serves to support the oscillation sensors. The term was argued not to require any particular shape or size.
• "laterally spaced": Petitioner proposed this term means "laterally offset from, or fully or partially surrounding another object." This construction was asserted to be broad enough to include coaxial arrangements where one element jackets another, as described in the prior art.
• "mechanically connected": Petitioner argued this phrase should be construed broadly to mean a "direct or indirect and rigid or flexible mechanical connection." This interpretation was based on the specification's language and the fact that dependent claims added the specific limitation "rigidly connected," implying the independent claim was broader.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• PGR Eligibility / Priority Date: A central contention for establishing post-grant review (PGR) eligibility was that at least one claim of the ’973 patent was not entitled to its earliest priority date. Petitioner argued that as-filed claim 29, in combination with as-filed claim 17, recited features that were contradictory and not enabled by the foreign priority document (DE 10 2012 025 246). This alleged lack of enablement would break the priority chain, giving the claim an effective filing date after March 16, 2013, and making the patent subject to PGR.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of post-grant review and cancellation of claims 1-56 of the ’973 patent as unpatentable.