Micro Motion Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 5, 2022

2021002643 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/692,741 08/31/2017 Arthur S. Gosling M11.12-1244 9435 117849 7590 01/05/2022 Kelly, Holt & Christenson, P.L.L.C. 141 West 1st Street, Suite 100 Waconia, MN 55387 EXAMINER OLAMIT, JUSTIN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2853 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/05/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patents@khcip.com wmalherek@khcip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARTHUR S. GOSLING, CHAD T. WEIGELT, SAMUEL E. MESSENGER, and ERIK D. ANDERSON Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, 15, 16, and 26. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micro Motion, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to electromagnetic flowmeter assemblies containing a magnetic flowmeter configured to couple to a process pipe and measure a flowrate of a fluid traveling through such pipe. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electromagnetic flowmeter assembly comprising: a magnetic flowmeter configured to couple to a process pipe at a coupling point and measure a flowrate of a flow of process fluid, the magnetic flowmeter having flowmeter electronics, a liner, and a pair of electrodes coupled to the flowmeter electronics and being disposed to measure an electrical characteristic of the process fluid flowing through the liner; a conductive polymer reference connection spaced from the pair of electrodes and configured to contact the process fluid, the conductive polymer reference connection being coupled to the flowmeter electronics; wherein the conductive polymer reference connection comprises a conductive polymer section molded into the liner of the magnetic flowmeter; and wherein the conductive polymer reference connection comprises a ring. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 26 over Baecker2 and Soffel3; 2 US 7,412,901 B2, issued August 19, 2008. 3 US 2,757,538, issued August 7, 1956. Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 3 II. Claim 10 over Baecker, Soffel, and Loth4; III. Claims 11, 12, and 16 over Baecker, Soffel, and Kerrom5; IV. Claim 13 over Baecker, Soffel, and Kim6; V. Claim 15 over Baecker, Soffel, and Sillmon7. OPINION Rejections I and III-V For Rejection I, Appellant argues limitations germane to sole independent claim 1. We, therefore select claim 1 as representative and decide the appeal of this rejection based on claim 1 alone. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For Rejections III-V, Appellant relies on the arguments advanced with respect to claim 1. Thus, claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 26 stand or fall with claim 1. We review these rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Upon consideration of Appellant’s arguments in light of the evidence in the appeal record, we determine that Appellant has identified no such 4 US 6,367,803 B1, issued April 9, 2002. 5 US 2012/0118073 A1, published May 17, 2012. 6 KR 101518838 B1, published May 12, 2015. 7 US 6,325,390 B1, issued December 4, 2001. Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 4 error. We therefore affirm obviousness Rejections I and III-V for the reasons expressed by the Examiner. Final Act. 3-5, 7-12; Ans. 3-4. We add the following for emphasis. Appellant advances arguments against the references individually. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner “fails to allege that Baecker teaches ‘the conductive polymer reference connection being coupled to flowmeter electronics.’” Appeal Br. 7. That argument lacks merit because the Examiner relies on Soffel, not Baecker, for its disclosure of such electronics. Final Act. 3-4. Appellant then focuses on Soffel’s “reference connection,” urging that it “is decidedly different than a reference connection formed by a conductive polymer that is configured to contact process fluid.” Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant contends that “while Soffel may recite a ‘reference’ voltage, this voltage is not derived from a conductive polymer reference connection electrically coupled to process fluid, but is instead . . . a measure of the magnet-excitation voltage.” Id. at 9. Based on those purported differences, Appellant asserts that Soffel’s reference connection does not satisfy the limitation requiring “a conductive polymer reference connection spaced from the pair of electrodes and configured to contact the process fluid, the conductive polymer reference connection being coupled to the flowmeter electronics.” Id. That line of argument lacks persuasive merit because it amounts to an attack on Soffel’s disclosure individually, and fails to address the relevant inquiry--i.e., what the combined prior art would have taught or suggested to the skilled artisan. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner does not rely on Soffel to satisfy the “reference connection” limitation. Final Act. 3. Rather, the Examiner finds that Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 5 Baecker discloses conductive polymer reference connection 8’ spaced from a pair of electrodes 6 and configured to contact process fluid. Id. The Examiner merely relies on Soffel for its disclosure of flowmeter electronics, which the Examiner undisputedly finds would increase flow measurement accuracy. Id. at 4. Thus, Appellant’s focus on purported differences between the reference connections of Baecker and Soffel does not squarely address the rejection made by the Examiner. Significantly, Appellant does not argue that connecting Baecker’s reference connection 8’ to flowmeter electronics would have been beyond the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to add Soffel’s electronics to Baecker’s flowmeter assembly due to Baecker’s stated desire for “few individual components in a simple way in production engineering terms.” Appeal Br. 10. Baecker does not identify with precision what is deemed “few.” Baecker, 1:48-52. And even if Baecker identifies some risk to having external wiring (id. at 1:41-43), or such addition would eliminate one advantage of Baecker’s design (Appeal Br. 11), the skilled artisan is capable of balancing such concerns with the undisputed benefits of incorporating Soffel’s electronics. See Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 6 as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). For these reasons and those provided by the Examiner, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 26. Rejection II Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and requires “the conductive polymer reference connection comprises a central aperture configured to reduce a line size between the process pipe and the magnetic flowmeter.” In rejecting this claim, the Examiner finds that Loth discloses “connection (J) that can be used with different diameter pipes,” and determines that it would have been obvious to modify the reference connection of Baecker and Soffel to be usable with different diameter pipes. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Loth discloses the same structure as that disclosed in Appellant’s Drawings--i.e., “a ring shape with a central aperture.” Ans. 4. Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding, urging that “the aperture of [Loth’s] gasket does not reduce a line size between pipes,” but “rather, the gasket has foldable lugs such that it can be fit to a variety of flanges having varying diameters.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant points to the Specification, which indicates that [i]n one example, central aperture 308 has a reduced diameter relative to a diameter of the process pipe, reducing a line size between a process pipe and a magnetic flowmeter. By having central aperture 308 vary in diameter relative to a process pipe, a rate of process fluid entering a magnetic flowmeter can be controlled. Spec. ¶ 30 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 8. Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 7 Based on this disclosure, Appellant argues that Loth’s Figures 1-3B fail to evince the claimed “aperture configured to reduce a line size” because it “has a central aperture that has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of a process pipe.” Reply Br. 9. We agree with Appellant that Loth’s Figures do not show sealing ring 1 having a reduced diameter relative to the center aperture of flange 5. Rather, each of Loth’s Figures that depict connector J and connecting flange 5 (i.e., Figures 2A, 2B, and 3B) illustrate sealing ring 1 having a larger diameter than the center aperture of flange 5. Nor do the portions of Loth’s disclosure relied upon by the Examiner teach modifying the size of sealing ring 1 of gasket J. Loth, 1:11-14, 40-54. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has failed to provide a prior art disclosure evincing the claimed relationship of the conductive polymer reference connection vis-à-vis the process pipe and flowmeter. The Examiner has also failed to sufficiently explain why the skilled artisan would have modified the relied-upon prior art to arrive at the claimed configuration. Under these circumstances, the rejection of claim 10 cannot be sustained. CONCLUSION We sustain Rejections I and III-V. We reverse Rejection II. Appeal 2021-002643 Application 15/692,741 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 26 103 Baecker, Soffel 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 26 10 103 Baecker, Soffel, Loth 10 11, 12, 16 103 Baecker, Soffel, Kerrom 11, 12, 16 13 103 Baecker, Soffel, Kim 13 15 103 Baecker, Soffel, Sillmon 15 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 26 10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART