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. Likewise the central processing system processes signals received from the mass flow meter to generate a mass flow rate. The central processing system 13 may subsequently generate a volume flow rate based on the generated density and mass flow rate. The volume flow rate may then be provided to a user or another processing system via leads 16.
The above diagram reveals the nature of the above-mentioned problem by the fact that each meter 11 and 12 communicates with the central processing system 13 independently. Thus the amount of wiring or the number of signal paths is duplicative. Consequently the specification states one of the needs in the art is a system that can reduce or eliminate the required signal paths or wiring, especially between the meters and a central processing system.
The specification contains ten claims. Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims. These claims, as presently proposed to be amended, are recited below. The full set of claims may be found at Annex A at the end of this decision.
1.A flow rate sensor system, comprising:
a density or specific gravity meter including a sensor assembly and a density or specific gravity meter electronics configured to generate a density or specific gravity measurement of a process fluid;
a mass flow meter including a sensor assembly and a mass flow meter electronics configured to generate a mass flow rate of the process fluid and in electrical communication with the density or specific gravity meter electronics; and
a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics and configured to receive measurements of the process fluid generated by the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics based on the generated density or specific gravity measurement and the mass flow rate.
6.A method for generating a flow rate measurement of a process fluid in a fluid conduit, comprising steps of:
determining a density or specific gravity of the process fluid with a density or specific gravity meter including a sensor assembly in fluid communication with the process fluid and a density or specific gravity meter electronics;
determining a mass flow rate of the process fluid with a mass flow meter including a sensor assembly in fluid communication with the process fluid and a mass flow meter electronics;
providing electrical communication between the density or specific gravity meter electronics and the mass flow meter electronics;
using at least one of the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics to determine a volume or energy flow of the process fluid based on the determined density or specific gravity and the determined mass flow rate; and
providing the volume or energy flow to a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass meter electronics.
In terms of attending to the above-mentioned problem of the prior art, both of the above claims seemingly define an advance in the art, on the face of the specification, by way of the following features. Firstly the electronics of both meters are in electrical communication with one another. Secondly the remote processing system is in direct electrical communication with the electronics of only one of the two meters. Figure 2 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
The above flow sensor system illustrates density meter 202 comprising a sensor assembly 204a and density meter electronics 204b. Similarly mass flow meter 203 comprises a sensor assembly 205a and mass flow meter electronics 205b. Notably, meter electronics 204b and 205b are in electrical communication with one another via electrical lead 206. That is, the generated measurement from one of the meter electronics may be communicated to the other meter electronics. For example, the density meter electronics 204b may receive the generated mass flow rate from the mass flow meter electronics 205b. With the mass flow rate together with the density meter’s own generated density measurement, the density meter 202 can process and generate a volume flow rate. Notably this volume flow rate processing is independent of processing system 207 and there is only one electrical lead 208 from one of the meter electronics to the processing system.
There is a telling point though in respect to the scope of claim 1 which appears to be unintended. The claims define one of the meters being a density or specific gravity meter. For simplicity, in the present circumstances I will ignore the reference to a specific gravity meter. That is, I will assume the meters are only a density meter and a mass flow meter. Claim 1 then defines the remote processing system to be configured to receive measurements of the process fluid generated by the density meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics (my emphasis). Thus the measurements received by the processing system may simply be one of the density or the mass flow rate, respectively. The claim then concludes by defining these measurements to be based on the generated density measurement and the mass flow rate (my emphasis), as would be expected. Thus, within the scope of claim 1 is the case where each of the meter electronics generates a density measurement and a mass flow rate respectively, and only one of those measures is received by the remote processing system. That is, even though there is an electrical connection between the density meter electronics and the mass flow electronics, the remote processing system is not necessarily privy to any measurement information from the other meter. I will return to this issue when discussing inventive step.
Claim 6 does not have this issue because that claim defines the determination of further parameters of the process fluid based on the density measurement and the mass flow rate, and not merely the passing on of one of those measures as in claim 1. For example, claim 6 defines the determination of a volume flow by at least one of the density meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics. That is, the electronics that determines volume flow has some processing capacity, for example with a microprocessor, to further process the density measurement and the mass flow rate to produce a different output. This also renders the electrical communication between the density meter electronics and the mass flow meter electronics to be of some effect. Moreover, the processing capability of at least one of the meter electronics in the defined way negates the need for both meter electronics to be in direct electrical communication with the separate processing system.
APPLICABLE LAW
As mentioned above, the application was made on 30 April 2013. As a consequence, substantive amendments to the Patents Act 1990 brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, effective 15 April 2013, apply in the present case.
Thus the standard of proof that applies to the examination of the present application is the balance of probabilities (Section 49 of the Patents Act). I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied then I can refuse the application.
Section 18 of the Patents Act 1990 relates to patentable inventions. An extract of subsection (1) appears below.
(1)Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:
(a) is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies; and
(b) when compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date of that claim:
(i)is novel; and
(ii)involves an inventive step; and ….
EXAMINATION REPORTS
The examination reports have maintained throughout that claims 1-10 lack an inventive step in view of the applicant’s admitted prior art from the specification. Figure 1, shown above, is an illustrative example of that prior art. Moreover, reliance for this objection was also placed on assertions that the use of data bus systems was well known, and indeed virtually ubiquitous, in the field of data signals and processing.
In the second report, the examiner referred to US Patent 5812803 (“D1”), and particularly the background section of that document. The opening paragraph of that section describes the coupling of multiple computing devices to a computer system bus. Further discussion in the background section relates to a multiple-chip memory controller and physical and logical loads on the bus. Specifically, measures to enable a multiple-chip memory controller to conform to a one physical load per logical load constraint are discussed. Each signal line of the bus can be coupled to at most one of the multiple chips. Signals which are received from the bus by one chip may then be transferred to a second chip. In view of the problem to be solved, the examiner considered that it would be obvious for the skilled addressee to utilise such a data bus system to eliminate one or other of the electrical leads 14 or 15 of Figure 1. That is, the skilled addressee utilises a data bus in one or other of the meters 11 or 12 of Figure 1 which then allows for one or the other of leads 14 or 15 to be connected to the central processing system 13 via the bus at one or other of the meters 11 or 12.
In subsequent reports the examiner emphasised that D1 was not cited as a mosaic with the admitted prior art. Rather, merely the background section of D1 was cited for the purpose of establishing common general knowledge.
In the third report, the examiner also reiterated that the use of data buses and associated techniques were considered to be well known in the art. On the other hand, their use in the present case was described somewhat differently from the previous report. Specifically it was considered obvious for the skilled addressee to utilise these techniques in the form of routing signals from one meter to the other to avoid excessive wiring.
In the fifth report, the examiner introduced further prior art in the form of patent document WO97/33150 (“D2”). This document was said to essentially disclose the claimed invention except with regard to no remote processing system being in direct electrical communication with the meter electronics. The examiner indicated it would be entirely obvious to do so for the purpose of obtaining the viscosity measurements of D2 for further use.
SUBMISSIONS
The principal submissions by the applicant were as follows. The admitted prior art failed to teach or suggest density or specific gravity meter electronics in electrical communication with mass flow meter electronics. Moreover that prior art failed to teach or suggest a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the meter electronics.
In respect to D1, the applicant firstly noted that the examiner appeared to rely on a single patent specification for an indication of common general knowledge. In any case, the applicant indicated that a skilled person in the field of flow sensor systems is quite removed from the common general knowledge asserted by the examiner. Such knowledge may well be common to those involved in telecommunications and/or network computers. In the present field though, the skilled person is dealing with specific, bespoke hardware/software interfaces. The applicant submitted that, on the balance of probabilities, the material relied upon by the examiner did not constitute common general knowledge in the present field.
In respect to D2, the applicant noted the absence of a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the meter electronics and configured to receive measurements of the process fluid. Moreover, while D2 described one meter electronics as calculating viscosity from measurements determined by both meter electronics, there was nothing in D2 to suggest that only one meter electronics can calculate viscosity. The applicant stated that D2 specifically taught that both meter electronics have the same design and were exemplified in D2 by a specific model. Both meter electronics would therefore be able to calculate viscosity. The applicant further suggested that D2 limited communication between both meter electronics to be only for the transfer of velocity data. That is, the calculated viscosity is not communicated between the meter electronics. As a result, if a purported remote processing system were in direct electrical communication with only one of the meter electronics, then the system would only be configured to receive viscosity from that meter electronics. The applicant accordingly asserted that a person skilled in the art would not have taken steps to reach a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the meter electronics, but with both of the meter electronics.
INVENTIVE STEP
Subsection 7(2) of the Patents Act states that an invention is taken to involve an inventive step unless it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed before the priority date of the relevant claim, whether that knowledge is considered separately or together with information mentioned in subsection (3).
Subsection 7(3) states the information for the purposes of subsection (2) is any single piece of prior art information, or a combination of any 2 or more pieces of prior art information that the skilled person mentioned in subsection (2) could, before the priority date, be reasonably expected to have combined.
The test for whether an invention is obvious is whether it would have been a matter of routine to proceed to the claimed invention. In Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust.) Pty Ltd, [1981] HCA 12, 148 CLR 262 at 286 [45], Aickin J stated:
"The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not."
The High Court in Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd, [2002] HCA 59, (2002) 56 IPR 129 at [50] – [53], appeared to approve of the Wellcome test. In discussing what was meant by a matter of routine the High Court noted and accepted an affinity with the approach in Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd, (1970) 87 RPC 157, of whether the person skilled in the art would directly be led as a matter of course to try what was claimed in the expectation that it might well produce a useful alternative.
In AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd, [2014] FCAFC 99, the court held at [203] that in formulating the problem it is not permissible to incorporate information that is not available to the person skilled in the art either as common general knowledge or information available under subsection 7(3).
Where the invention lies in a combination of integers, the question is not whether each individual integer was obvious but rather whether the combination as a whole was obvious when compared to the prior art base. In Alphapharm at [41], the High Court stated:
“The claim is for a combination, the interaction between the integers of which is the essential requirement for the presence of an inventive step. It is the selection of the integers out of ‘perhaps many possibilities’ which must be shown by Alphapharm to be obvious, bearing in mind that the selection of the integers in which the invention lies can be expected to be a process necessarily involving rejection of other possible integers.”
Person Skilled in the Art
In Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd, [2000] FCA 980, Finkelstein J stated at [70] and [71] that the skilled addressee is the person to whom the patent is addressed and who must construe it. Such person works in the art or science with which the invention is connected or is likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of the invention. A variety of people may have that interest. Finkelstein J further noted various descriptions given to the skilled addressee. These included the “uninventive skilled worker in the particular field” (Leonardis v Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd, (1996) 67 FCR 126) and the “person skilled in the art” (Genentech Inc v Wellcome Foundation Ltd, (1989) 15 IPR 423).
In its response to the examiner’s third report, the applicant indicated that the person skilled in the present field is one skilled with flow sensor systems and more specifically with density/specific gravity meters in electrical communication with mass flow meters. The examiner did not appear to differ substantially from that approach. In the fourth examination report, the examiner went a little further and stated that it is apparent from the originally filed specification that the flow sensor systems known in the art are electronic in nature and connected to computerised processing systems. Reference was made to page 1 line 25 to page 2 line 15 of the specification. The examiner concluded that generalised data communication systems would be familiar to the skilled addressee.

The present specification opens with the statement that the embodiments 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. In this context and in respect to the person skilled in the art, I would not digress significantly from the positions of either the applicant or the examiner. I adopt the position that the relevant person skilled in the present art is one skilled with material flow sensor systems. Moreover that person would be skilled with how various measurements relating to material flows may be taken from a flow sensor system electronically, and communicated internally or externally of the system and processed further to provide further outputs. A simple example of the types of measurements and further outputs may be taken from the specification. That is, measurements from a density meter and a mass flow meter may be processed to provide a volume flow rate.
Common General Knowledge
Throughout the examination history of this application, the objection of lack of an inventive step proceeded on the premise that data bus systems were common general knowledge in the art. Buses in computer systems may be of various types. There may be data buses, address buses, control buses, input/output device buses, etc. A bus in computing is simply a connection system that transfers data between the hardware components of a computer or between two or more separate computers. While all buses may be said to be for the carriage of data or instructions between computer components, the various types of buses may also be said to be characterised, amongst other things, by the nature of the data conveyed. For instance, a control bus may carry data to regulate the proficiency and functionality of the system, for example to regulate which way data should be sent between system components. An address bus is dedicated to physical addresses in a computer system and may be said to carry the location where data is to be stored. As the name suggests, a data bus may principally be for the carriage of core data.
In the second and third reports, the examiner suggested two ways of using the data bus in the present case. A further simple alternative may be as in the diagram below. Clearly one of the above leads 14, 15 to the central processing system of Figure 1, as above, is eliminated below.
I am prepared to accept that data bus systems were common general knowledge in the computing field well before the priority date. On the other hand the question in the present case is whether such data bus systems and their applicability in the field of flow sensor systems was common general knowledge in that field before the priority date. In terms of the degree of support required of examiners to support their position on such matters, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Patents v Emperor Sports Pty Ltd, [2006] FCAFC 26, may assist. In that case, senior counsel for the commissioner submitted that the commissioner can draw legitimate inferences from the material available to her. Relevantly, at [23]:-
“In support of this argument senior counsel said that the stages of re-examination and report (ss 97 and 98), like the stages of initial examination and report (s 45) and acceptance (s49), involved essentially an inquisitorial procedure. This was in contrast to the stages of opposition before grant (ss 59 and 60) and revocation by the Court after grant (s 138), both of which involved an adversarial procedure.”
The Full Court accepted that basic proposition. At [24]:-
“The Commissioner is an administrative decision-maker equipped with technical expertise. Subject to the rules of natural justice both common law and statutory (see e.g. s 101(2)), he or she is entitled to make use of that expertise, and draw inferences that may be rationally drawn from technical knowledge, including how skilled persons of various descriptions may act in their respective occupations.”
The above position provides support that evidence, of the nature often presented in opposition, is not required of examiners during examination, for example to support assertions of what was common general knowledge. Nonetheless, where an applicant provides reasonable counter-responses, it would appear to be prudent that the examiner provide some example or further reasoning to support the assertions. In the present case for example, that may be an indication of a number of documents showing that data buses were in common use in flowmeter installations.
The examiner cited D1 for the purpose of establishing that the use of data buses and associated techniques was considered to be well known in the art. It was noted by the examiner that the information he relied on to establish the common general knowledge was in the “background” section of D1 and that it was apparent that this “background” section was directed towards knowledge that was already well known in the art. Nevertheless I am not satisfied that a single document is enough in the present case to establish that data bus systems and their applicability in the field of flow sensor systems was common general knowledge in that field before the priority date. As such, on balance, the applicability of data bus systems in flow sensor systems having been common general knowledge at the relevant time has not yet been demonstrated.
It would appear that prior examples of flow meter systems with electronic controllers and/or microprocessors performing various flow control or computational functions based on outputs from sensing devices are not difficult to find. In the interests of natural justice, the applicant would be entitled to respond to any further documents that may be raised if the examiner were to further pursue the assertion of data buses as common general knowledge in flow meter systems. This is not the case at present.
Whether There is an Inventive Step
According to the AstraZeneca decision, in formulating the problem it is not permissible to incorporate information that is not available to the person skilled in the art either as common general knowledge or information available under subsection 7(3). As mentioned above, the principal problem, stated in the specification, with the combination of a density or specific gravity meter and a mass flow meter was that, to generate a highly accurate volume flow rate or energy flow output of a fluid, an excessive amount of wiring was involved. I have no indication before me that this problem was common general knowledge or information in any subsection 7(3) documents. On the other hand, this problem is clearly stressed in the specification, the alleged invention seeks to provide a solution to that problem, and both the examiner and the applicant proceeded in their reports and submissions, respectively, that this was the principal problem sought to be addressed. In the present case I am prepared to proceed on the basis that, to generate a highly accurate volume flow rate or energy flow output, the excessive amount of wiring involved was an appropriate problem.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
As mentioned earlier, within the scope of claim 1 is the case where each of the meter electronics generates a density measurement and a mass flow rate respectively, and only one of those measures is received by the remote processing system. That is, even though there is an electrical connection between the density meter electronics and the mass flow electronics, that connection’s function is not properly defined in the present claim 1 and it serves no function for the processing system. The remote processing system is not necessarily privy to any measurement information from the meter with which it is not directly connected. This arrangement is tantamount to one of the measurements not being used by the processing system and simply having one of the electrical leads 14 or 15 of Figure 1 removed. I conclude that arrangement renders claim 1 as lacking an inventive step over the admitted prior art in the present case.
In respect to dependent claims 2-5, the feature of claim 2 is clearly disclosed by Figure 1. Claims 3-5 appear to add nothing that the person skilled in the present art would not directly have been led as a matter of course to try. I conclude claims 2-5 do not have an inventive step over the admitted prior art.
In respect to claim 6, the electronics of both meters are in electrical communication with one another to enable at least one of the electronics to determine further parameters, namely volume or energy flow, based on the density or specific gravity and the mass flow rate determined by those respective meters. On the face of the specification and in the light of the applicant’s admitted prior art, the advance in the art thus resides in the meters having associated meter electronics and at least one of the meter electronics further becoming a processor of data from both meters to provide further outputs related to that data. The advance is evident by comparing how the volume flow rate is determined. In the prior art described on page 2 of the specification and shown in Figure 1 above, the central processing system 13 may generate a volume flow rate based on the generated density and mass flow rate. On the other hand, page 8 of the specification describes an embodiment where the density meter electronics 204b receives the mass flow rate from mass flow meter 203. Along with the density meter electronics’ own generated density, the density meter electronics can then generate a volume flow rate. This would appear to render the remote processing system of claim 6 redundant or merely a receiver of processed data from the meter electronics, potentially for further processing. Either way, the need for the remote processing system to be in direct electrical communication with both meter electronics is clearly negated and would seem to overcome the problem of excessive wiring. An arrangement where at least one of the meter electronics operates as a processor to provide further outputs beyond the measurements of the two meters would appear to be beyond mere matters of routine steps from the admitted prior art.
On balance I conclude that claim 6, and its dependent claims 7-10, have an inventive step over the admitted prior art.
WO97/33150 (“D2”)
In respect to D2, the advance in the art described above would appear to be insufficient. D2 discloses a pair of Coriolis mass effect flowmeters connected effectively in parallel between a supply conduit 201 and a material receiving conduit 203. Figure 2 of D2 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
Pages 7 and 8 of D2 describe the operation as follows. The two flowmeters have different resistances to material flow or are of different dimensions including the cross sectional areas of inlets 204, 205 and outlets 208, 209 as well as the internal flow tubes of each flowmeter. Paths 216 and 217 comprise the electrical connections between meter electronics 206 and 210 and the drivers and sensors of the two flowmeters. Meter electronics 206 and 210 apply a drive signal over paths 217 and 216 to oscillate the flow tubes of each respective meter at their resonant frequency with material flowing therethrough. The oscillatory motion of the flow tubes containing flowing material is detected by velocity sensors in each flowmeter. The sensors of each flowmeter supply output information over paths 216 and 217 to meter electronics 206 and 210 representing a time difference or phase shift between the signals detected by each sensor. In well-known manner, meter electronics 206 and 210 use the received sensor signals to derive mass flow rate and density for the material flow within each of their respective flowmeters. Meter electronics 210 applies its derived information over path 218 to meter electronics 206 which then has the derived information for both flowmeters 202 and 207. Meter electronics 206 can then use the mass flow rate and density information for both flowmeters to calculate the velocities of the material in the two meters and thus calculate the viscosity of the flowing material. The meter electronics 206 thus clearly has processing capability to generate further output data based on data sourced from both meter electronics over communications path 218.
In the fifth report, the examiner relied on the capacity of meter electronics 206 and 210 and the meter sensors to derive both mass flow rate and density information for both flowmeters in D2 to designate one of those meters as a density or specific gravity meter and the other as a mass flow meter as in the present claims. Thus the only difference with claim 1 of the application is the absence of a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with the meter electronics and configured to receive measurements of the process fluid.
As noted earlier, with one of the meter electronics 206 functioning as the processor in D2 to provide further outputs based on measurements from the two meters, a remote processing system as claimed in claim 1 would effectively be redundant. Without a defined function beyond receipt of measurements for the remote processing system in claim 1, its addition to the flow rate sensor system and also via a direct electrical communication to only one of the meter electronics is arbitrary and cannot be inventive. The situation is not aided by claim 6 defining the determination of a volume or energy flow compared with D2 disclosing the meter electronics calculating the velocities of the material in the two meters and thereby calculating the viscosity of the flowing material.
I find that claims 1 and 6 lack an inventive step over D2.
In respect to dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10, the feature of claims 2 and 7 is clearly disclosed by Figure 2 of D2. Claims 3 and 8 of the application define the sensor assembly of one meter in line with the fluid conduit while the other is in a slipstream or bypass coupled to the fluid conduit. Figure 5 of D2 illustrates both meters in a bypass coupled to the fluid conduit. I find this difference is not inventive. Claims 4 and 9 define substantially simultaneous measurement of density or specific gravity and mass flow rate. Claims 5 and 10 define an average density or specific gravity measurement. I find that claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 add nothing that the person skilled in the present art would not directly have been led as a matter of course to try.
I find that dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 lack an inventive step over D2.
CONCLUSION
I have concluded that claims 1-5 lack an inventive step over the admitted prior art in the present case. I have also concluded that claims 1-10 lack an inventive step over 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.
M. G. Kraefft
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
Annex A
1. A flow rate sensor system, comprising:
a density or specific gravity meter including a sensor assembly and a density or specific gravity meter electronics configured to generate a density or specific gravity measurement of a process fluid;
a mass flow meter including a sensor assembly and a mass flow meter electronics configured to generate a mass flow rate of the process fluid and in electrical communication with the density or specific gravity meter electronics; and
a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics and configured to receive measurements of the process fluid generated by the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics based on the generated density or specific gravity measurement and the mass flow rate.
1. The flow rate sensor system of claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly of the density or specific gravity meter and the sensor assembly of the mass flow meter are located in line with a fluid conduit carrying the process fluid.
1. The flow rate sensor system of claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly of the mass flow meter is located in line with a fluid conduit carrying the process fluid and the sensor assembly of the density or specific gravity meter is located in a slip stream coupled to the fluid to receive a portion of the process fluid.
1. The flow rate sensor system of claim 1, wherein the density or specific gravity measurement and the mass flow rate are generated substantially simultaneously.
1. The flow rate sensor system of claim 1, wherein the density or specific gravity measurement comprises an average density or specific gravity.
1. A method for generating a flow rate measurement of a process fluid in a fluid conduit, comprising steps of:
determining a density or specific gravity of the process fluid with a density or specific gravity meter including a sensor assembly in fluid communication with the process fluid and a density or specific gravity meter electronics;
determining a mass flow rate of the process fluid with a mass flow meter including a sensor assembly in fluid communication with the process fluid and a mass flow meter electronics;
providing electrical communication between the density or specific gravity meter electronics and the mass flow meter electronics;
using at least one of the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass flow meter electronics to determine a volume or energy flow of the process fluid based on the determined density or specific gravity and the determined mass flow rate; and
providing the volume or energy flow to a remote processing system in direct electrical communication with only one of the density or specific gravity meter electronics or the mass meter electronics.
7.The method of claim 6, wherein the sensor assembly of the density or specific gravity meter and the sensor assembly of the mass flow meter are located in line with the fluid conduit carrying the process fluid.
8.The method of claim 6, wherein the sensor assembly of the mass flow meter is located in line with the fluid conduit carrying the process fluid and the sensor assembly of the density or specific gravity meter is located in a slip stream coupled to the fluid conduit to receive a portion of the process fluid.
9.The method of claim 6, wherein the density or specific gravity measurement and the mass flow rate are determined substantially simultaneously.
10.The method of claim 6, wherein the density or specific gravity measurement comprises an average density or specific gravity.