KAMSTRUP A/S v. AXIOMA METERING UAB

The Board, in response to Axioma’s petition for inter partes review of Kamstrup’s U.S. Patent No. 8,806,957 (relating to ultrasonic flow meters and housings), found claims 1–15 unpatentable as obvious or anticipated. On appeal, Kamstrup challenges the Board’s claim constructions and the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations largely on the basis that the Board erred in rejecting Kamstrup’s claim construction arguments.  The CAFC concludes that the Board did not err in finding that “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim element that does not impart patentable weight to the claims because Kamstrup failed to show that the process claimed imparts “structural and functional differences” distinguished from the prior art. The CAFC rejects Kamstrup’s argument that the phrase “cavity separated from the flow tube” means that the cavity cannot surround the flow tube, and finds that the Board did not err in construing this phrase.  The CAFC also rejects Kamstrup’s argument that certain recited protrusions and indentions of claim 6 must be integral with the flow section and made of polymer and that the “measurement tube element” of claim 6 must be an ultrasonic measurement element and cannot be a temperature sensor. Accordingly, the CAFC finds that the Board did not err in its claim construction concerning claim 6. Finally, the CAFC concludes that Kamstrup’s patentability challenges necessarily fail as they rely on the CAFC accepting its proposed claim constructions, and affirms the Board’s final written decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious or anticipated.

View Decision