Micro Motion, Inc. - [2017] APO 39

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Micro Motion, Inc. [2017] APO 39

Patent Application: 2013388134

Title:Volume Flow Sensor System Comprising a Mass Flowmeter and a Density Meter

Patent Applicant:                   Micro Motion, Inc.
Delegate:  M. G. Kraefft
Decision Date:  9 August 2017
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 1 June 2017

Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objection – whether claimed invention has inventive step – claims found to lack an inventive step – opportunity to amend available.

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2013388134

Title:Volume Flow Sensor System Comprising a Mass Flowmeter and a Density Meter

Patent Applicant: Micro Motion, Inc.
Date of Decision: 9 August 2017
DECISION
Claims 1-5 lack an inventive step over the admitted prior art in the present case. Additionally, claims 1-10 lack an inventive step over WO97/33150 (“D2”).
There may be patentable subject matter in the specification from which valid claims may be drafted by amendment under Section 104. Under sub-regulation 13.4(1)(g), the applicant is allowed three (3) months from the date of this decision to obtain acceptance of the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

Micro Motion, Inc. (“the applicant”) filed patent application 2013388134 on 30 April 2013 as PCT/US2013/038732 under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”). The earliest claimed priority date is 30 April 2013.
The application has been subjected to five examination reports. The remaining objection from the examination reports is that the invention as claimed lacks an inventive step.
Following the fifth examination report, the applicant requested to be heard. The hearing was conducted by way of written submissions.
While the final date for acceptance of the application was 27 May 2017, patent sub-regulation 13.4(1)(g) may be available in the present case to extend the time to 3 months from the date of the present decision.
SPECIFICATION
The specification states that embodiments of the invention relate to combination flow sensor systems and more particularly to a density/specific gravity meter in electrical communication with a mass flow meter that outputs mass, volume or energy flow measurements. The principal problem, stated in the specification, with the combination of a density or specific gravity meter and a mass flow meter is that, to generate a highly accurate volume flow rate or energy flow output of a fluid, an excessive amount of wiring is involved. Figure 1 of the application is stated to be illustrative of the problem, shows a prior art flow sensor system, and is reproduced below.
Flow sensor system 10 can include a density meter 11 and a mass flow meter 12. The density meter 11 and the mass flow meter 12 are positioned within a flow conduit 5 carrying a process fluid. The density meter 11 is in electrical communication with central processing system 13 via electrical leads 14. Similarly the mass flow meter 12 is in electrical communication with the central processing system 13 via electrical leads 15. The central processing system 13 processes signals received from the density meter to generate a density measurement.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Micro Motion, Inc.

Details

AGLC: Micro Motion, Inc. [2017] APO 39
Case: [2017] APO 39
Decision Date: 9 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Micro Motion, Inc. filed a patent application for a volume flow sensor system comprising a mass flowmeter and a density meter. The application was rejected by the Australian Patent Office on the basis that the invention lacked an inventive step over the prior art. The applicant requested a hearing to contest the rejection. The court found that while claims 1-5 of the application lacked an inventive step over the admitted prior art, claims 6-10 did have an inventive step. However, the court also found that claims 1-10 lacked an inventive step over further prior art disclosed by the examiner. The applicant was granted an extension of time to amend the claims to overcome the objections.

The court considered the problem to be solved by the invention, which was to reduce the excessive amount of wiring required to generate a highly accurate volume flow rate or energy flow output of a fluid. The court found that while claims 1-5 did not provide an inventive solution to this problem, claim 6 did by having at least one of the meter electronics operate as a processor to provide further outputs based on measurements from both meters. However, the court found that this advance was not sufficient to overcome the further prior art, which disclosed a similar system with one of the meter electronics operating as a processor.

The court concluded that there may be patentable subject matter in the specification from which valid claims could be drafted by amendment. The applicant was granted three months from the date of the decision to obtain acceptance of the application by amending the claims.

Orders