Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2022
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
`Decided: August 12, 2022
`MARK JOHNSON, Renner Otto, Cleveland, OH, for ap-
`pellant. Also represented by SARAH LOUISE BOONE, KYLE
` DAVID W. ALDRICH, Forge IP, PLLC, Shelton, CT, for
`appellee. Also represented by TODD M. OBERDICK.
` ______________________
`Before REYNA, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2022
`Kamstrup A/S appeals a final written decision of the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found claims
`1–15 of Kamstrup’s U.S. Patent No. 8,806,957 unpatenta-
`ble as obvious or anticipated. On appeal, Kamstrup chal-
`lenges the Board’s claim constructions. In addition,
`Kamstrup challenges the Board’s anticipation and obvious-
`ness determinations largely on the basis that the Board
`erred in rejecting Kamstrup’s claim construction argu-
`ments. We affirm.
`The ’957 Patent
`Kamstrup owns U.S. Patent No. 8,806,957 (the “’957
`patent”). The ’957 patent describes ultrasonic flow meters
`and housings. ’957 patent abstract. The specification dis-
`closes that the meters are used for “calculating a consumed
`quantity of water, heat, cooling, gas or the like.” Id. at
`1:27–30. Ultrasonic flow meters include “housing” to pro-
`tect electronic components, such as a display or battery. Id.
`at 1:32–38.
`The ’957 patent is directed to “an ultrasonic flow meter
`housing in the form of a monolithic polymer structure being
`cast in one piece.” Id. at 1:58–60. It explains that “the pre-
`sent invention can be fabricated with a reduced number of
`steps compared to existing meters, since only a single step


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 08/12/2022
`is used to form the monolithic polymer structure.” Id. at
`2:6–9. Figure 1A shows an embodying flow meter housing:
`Independent claim 1 states:
`An ultrasonic flow meter housing compris-
`a monolithic polymer structure being cast
`in one piece, the monolithic structure in-
`cludes a flow tube and a cavity separated
`from the flow tube, wherein the flow tube
`defines a through-going straight flow sec-
`tion arranged for passage of a fluid between
`an inlet and an outlet, wherein a part of a
`wall of the flow section is part of an inside
`surface of the cavity, so that the flow section
`and the cavity has a shared wall area; and
`wherein the cavity is arranged for housing
`at least one ultrasonic transducer, at the
`shared wall area; and
`a measurement circuit operationally con-
`nected to the at least one ultrasonic trans-
`ducer so as to allow measurement of a flow
`rate of the fluid.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 08/12/2022
`Id. at 6:40–55 (emphasis added).
`Inter Partes Review
`On September 23, 2019, Axioma petitioned for inter
`partes review of all 15 claims of the ’957 patent. The Pa-
`tent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review. In its final
`written decision, the Board found the challenged claims
`unpatentable as obvious or anticipated. Axioma Metering
`UAB v. Kamstrup A/S, No. IPR2019-01640, 2021 WL
`1235790 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021).
`In reaching its final written determination, the Board
`construed elements of the claims. In particular, it con-
`strued “cast in one piece” as a product-by-process claim el-
`ement. Id. at *5–9. The Board explained that the claim
`language describes the process of “casting” the polymer
`housing and does not describe the housing’s structure. Id.
`at *6. After construing the claim element, the Board con-
`cluded that it does not impart patentable weight to the
`claims and thus should not be considered as part of any
`anticipation or obviousness analysis. Id. at *5–9. The
`Board explained that Kamstrup did not present any evi-
`dence showing that the claim element provided structural
`and functional differences distinguishing it from the prior
`art. Id. (citing Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d
`1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, it concluded that the
`claim element was not entitled to patentable weight. Id.
`The Board also construed the phrase “cavity separated
`from the flow tube” to require that the interior of the flow
`tube is separated from the surrounding cavity by the
`shared wall. Id. at *9–10. In doing so, the Board rejected
`Kamstrup’s argument that the cavity cannot surround the
`flow tube. Id. The Board explained that Kamstrup’s pro-
`posed construction was at odds with the claim language,
`which merely requires that “the flow tube cannot be so sep-
`arated from the cavity that no part of the flow section
`shares a wall with the cavity.” Id. at *10. The Board also
`pointed to similar disclosure in the specification. Id.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 08/12/2022
`Based on its construction of the above terms, the Board
`found that European Patent Application EP 1 482 284 A1
`(“Ueki”) anticipates independent claims 1 and 11 and de-
`pendent claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 13 of the ’957 patent. Id.
`at *20.
`Ueki is titled “Flow sensor” and “relates to a flow sen-
`sor for detecting the flow quantity of a fluid.” Ueki ¶ 1.
`Figure 11 “is an exploded perspective view of the detection
`section of the flow sensor.” Id. at ¶ 86.
`Id. at Fig. 11.
`The detection section (500) includes casing members
`(21, 22, and 23) and a through water pipe line (10). Id. at
`¶ 87. Ueki further discloses that the water pipe line is
`“formed integrally” with casing member 22. Id.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 6 Filed: 08/12/2022
`The Board explained that the parties’ dispute concern-
`ing Ueki centered on the “cast in one piece” and “cavity sep-
`arated from the flow tube” claim elements of claims 1 and
`11. Axioma, 2021 WL 1235790, at *13. The Board rejected
`Kamstrup’s argument that Ueki did not disclose the “cast
`in one piece” claim element. Id. The Board explained that
`because “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim el-
`ement that does not impart patentable weight to the
`claims, it cannot be considered as part of the anticipa-
`tion/obviousness analysis. Id.
`Next, the Board explained that Ueki disclosed the “cav-
`ity separated from flow tube” limitation. Id. at *14. Spe-
`cifically, the Board explained that Kamstrup’s arguments
`were conditioned on its rejected claim construction that the
`limitation precluded the cavity surrounding the flow tube.
`Id. The Board found the limitation disclosed because
`Ueki’s through water pipe line runs through a circuit/sen-
`sor housing area and is separated from the circuit/sensor
`housing area by the outer surface of the through water pipe
`line. Id. Finally, the Board found that Ueki disclosed the
`remaining limitations of claims 1 and 11. Id. at *14–15.
`The Board also relied on Ueki as the primary reference
`to find the remaining claims obvious. Relevant here is the
`Board’s finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,248,077 (“Elson”)
`and/or 4,476,877 (“Barker”) in combination with Ueki
`rendered claims 6 and 8 obvious.1
`1 Claim 6 recites: “The flow meter housing according
`to claim 1, wherein the flow section has one or more pro-
`trusions or indentions at the inside of the flow section serv-
`ing to engage with an associated measurement tube element
`or an ultrasonic reflector arrangement.” ’957 patent at
`7:3–7 (emphasis added). Claim 8 recites: “The flow meter
`housing according claim 1, further comprising a metal
`pocket cast into the flow tube.” Id. at 7:11–12.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 7 Filed: 08/12/2022
`Elson is titled “System for Sensing a Characteristic of
`Fluid Flowing to or from a Body.” The system includes a
`conduit with two ends and a flow passage between them.
`Elson 1:63–67. Elson’s system includes a probe for sensing
`a desired characteristic, such as temperature or pressure
`or characteristics that can be determined by an optical
`scan. Id. at 1:56–2:2.
`Barker is titled “Fluid Temperature Sensor.” Barker’s
`system has a flow-through housing. Barker 1:52–55. The
`system also has a through lumen for conducting fluid. Id.
`at 1:64–66. Further, an enclosure projects transversely
`into the lumen. Id. at 1:66–68. A sensor may be installed
`in the enclosure to measure temperature. Id. at 2:2–5.
`The Board made an initial finding that Elson and
`Barker were analogous art to the ’957 patent, rejecting
`Kamstrup’s argument to the contrary. Axioma, 2021 WL
`1235790, at *19. The Board explained that they were at
`least in the same field of endeavor as the ’957 patent be-
`cause they were directed to fluid flow and fluid flow char-
`acteristics. Id. Additionally, the Board found that Elson
`and/or Barker disclosed the claim scope introduced in
`claims 6 and 8. Id. at *16–19.
`Kamstrup argued that Elson and Barker did not dis-
`close the “measurement tube element” of claim 6 because
`the limitation was restricted to elements measuring flow,
`whereas Elson and Barker disclosed other types of sensors.
`Id. at *17–18. The Board rejected this argument, explain-
`ing that the ’957 patent did not limit the measurement
`tube element to a particular type of sensor. Id.
`Kamstrup also argued that Elson and Barker did not
`disclose the protrusions or indentions that claim 6 re-
`quires. Id. at *18. Kamstrup argued that the protrusions
`or indentions must be on or part of the flow section wall
`and integral with the wall’s inside surface. Id.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 8 Filed: 08/12/2022
`The Board disagreed, explaining that—according to the
`plain language of claim 6—the limitations are satisfied if
`the protrusions or indentions are within the bounds of the
`flow section and can engage with the measurement tube
`element. Id. The Board found that Elson discloses a re-
`ceiver (a protrusion) attached to a tube section (a flow
`tube). Id. The Board also explained that the receiver is
`located inside the tube section and accommodates a probe
`(a measurement tube element). Id.
`Finally, the Board found that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have been motivated to modify Ueki with
`Elson and/or Barker. Id. at *19. Specifically, the Board
`credited Axioma’s expert testimony that it was common to
`measure temperature when measuring flow. Id.
`Kamstrup appealed the Board’s claim constructions
`and patentability determinations. We have jurisdiction
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its
`factual findings for substantial evidence. See ACCO
`Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1365
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). Substantial evidence is “such relevant ev-
`idence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
`support a conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
`Claim construction is ultimately a question of law that
`may be based on underlying factual findings. Teva
`Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 332–33
`(2015). Thus, we review the Board’s claim constructions de
`novo and review any underlying factual determinations for
`substantial evidence. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto.
`Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for sub-
`stantial evidence. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815
`F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Board’s ultimate


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 9 Filed: 08/12/2022
`obviousness determination is a legal conclusion reviewed
`de novo. See In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d
`1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board’s factual findings
`underlying its obviousness determination are reviewed for
`substantial evidence. Id. (citing Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
`Kamstrup argues that the Board erred in construing
`“cast in one piece” as a product-by-process claim element.
`A product-by-process claim is one in which a product is
`claimed, at least in part, by the “process by which it is
`made.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`Product-by-process claims “enable an applicant to
`claim an otherwise patentable product that resists defini-
`tion by other than the process by which it is made.” Id. “In
`determining validity of a product-by-process claim, the fo-
`cus is on the product and not the process of making it. That
`is because of the . . . long-standing rule that an old product
`is not patentable even if it is made by a new process.”
`Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1268 (citations omitted).
`“As we recognized in Amgen, if the process by which a
`product is made imparts ‘structural and functional differ-
`ences’ distinguishing the claimed product from the prior
`art, then those differences ‘are relevant as evidence of no
`anticipation’ although they ‘are not explicitly part of the
`claim.’” Id. (quoting Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche
`Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340, 1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The specifi-
`cation, the prosecution history, and any extrinsic evidence
`may enlighten whether structural and functional differ-
`ences exist. Amgen, 580 F.3d at 1365–67; Purdue Pharma
`L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345, 1353–54 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`For example, in Amgen, we determined that a district
`court correctly granted JMOL that a prior art reference did


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 10 Filed: 08/12/2022
`not anticipate a product-by-process claim. 580 F.3d at
`1365–67. The claim was directed to a chemical compound
`“purified from mammalian cells grown in culture.” Id. The
`prior art, however, was a similar chemical compound but
`purified from urine. Id.
`We held that the district court correctly found no antic-
`ipation because the evidence showed that the chemical
`compound “purified from mammalian cells grown in cul-
`ture” had different structural and functional differences
`from the prior art. Id. at 1367. The district court correctly
`considered that “the specification and prosecution history
`of the [] patent . . . refer to studies indicating that [the
`claimed chemical compound] had a higher molecular
`weight and different charge than [the prior art] due to dif-
`ferences in carbohydrate composition.” Id. The district
`court also properly considered an expert declaration in the
`prosecution history and trial expert testimony that simi-
`larly evidenced the structural and functional differences
`between the claimed product and prior art. Id.; see also
`Purdue Pharma, 811 F.3d at 1353–54 (finding that the dis-
`trict court did not err in disregarding a product-by-process
`limitation for an obviousness determination where the
`specification and the patentee’s expert testimony evi-
`denced that the process “imparts no structural or func-
`tional differences in the [claimed product] as compared to
`the prior art products”); Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1271
`(“[The patentee’s] arguments clearly and unmistakably
`represented to the examiner and the Board that [the pro-
`cess] . . . imparted the distinct structural characteristics
`upon [the patentee’s] claimed [product].”).
`Turning to this case, the first question is whether the
`Board correctly determined that “cast in one piece” is a
`product-by-process claim element. Here, the claim lan-
`guage confirms that it is. See Amgen, 580 F.3d at 1367
`(“[B]y its plain terms, claim 1 of the [] patent claims a prod-
`uct with a [process] limitation.”). The claim describes “a
`monolithic polymer structure being cast in one piece.” ’957


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 11 Filed: 08/12/2022
`patent at 6:40–42. On its face, the claim element claims a
`process because it describes the structure “being” cast in a
`particular way. See Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1264–65
`(product-by-process claim elements recited a product “be-
`ing formed” a certain way).
`Kamstrup argues that “[t]he mere mention of a process
`in a claim limitation does not automatically convert that
`limitation into a process limitation.” Appellant’s Br. 31.
`While that may be true, Kamstrup does not explain why
`we should disregard the fact that the claims recite a pro-
`cess here. Nor does Kamstrup point to disclosure in the
`specification that describes structure for the term. Instead,
`Kamstrup relies on disclosure discussing the fabrication
`process for the device—further support that this is a prod-
`uct-by-process claim element. Id. at 21–23 (quoting ’957
`patent at 2:6–15) (emphasis added) (The “flow me-
`ter . . . can be fabricated with a reduced number of steps
`compared to existing meters, since only a single step is
`used to form the monolithic polymer structure . . . . [A] flow
`meter housing which has a straight flow section separated
`from a cavity in a manner where a part of the wall of the
`flow section is part of the inside of the cavity [] can . . . be
`cast in a single step . . . .”). We therefore conclude that the
`Board did not err in finding that “cast in one piece” is a
`product-by-process claim element.
`The second question is whether the product-by-process
`claim element imparts patentable weight to the claims.
`Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d at 1268. We conclude that it does
`Kamstrup argues that the Board erred in finding that
`there are no functional or structural differences between
`polymer structures cast in a single mold versus multiple
`molds. Appellant’s Br. 32–34. Kamstrup states that “var-
`ious structures . . . cannot be cast in a single mold using
`conventional die cast injection molding technologies.” Id.
`at 34 (emphasis added); Reply 24–26.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 12 Filed: 08/12/2022
`First, even if true, Kamstrup has not identified func-
`tional and structural differences between a structure “cast
`in one piece” and a structure manufactured using another
`method. Rather, the argument is merely that the claim el-
`ement describes a manufacturing method with some inher-
`ent restrictions. Further, Kamstrup has not identified
`disclosure in the specification or prosecution history or ex-
`trinsic evidence evidencing structural and functional dif-
`Second, the alleged structural and functional differ-
`ence that Kamstrup identifies is detached from the claims.
`The claims state that the structure should be “cast in one
`piece,” not cast in one mold. ’957 patent at 6:40–42 (em-
`phasis added). The Board correctly found that the written
`description “focuses on reducing the number of steps re-
`quired to fabricate the flow meter housing, not on casting
`in a single mold.” Axioma, 2021 WL 1235790, at *7 (citing
`’957 patent at 1:55–57, 2:6–9). While certain figures of the
`written description, namely Figures 5A and 5B, depict a
`single mold, the Board correctly found that those embodi-
`ments are narrower than the claims—which do not require
`use of a single mold—and correctly declined to import nar-
`rower limitations from the specification to the claims. Id.
`Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that
`the extrinsic evidence does not exclusively show that “cast
`in one piece” means “cast in one mold.” Id. at *8.
`Consequently, we hold that because Kamstrup fails to
`show that the process claimed imparts “structural and
`functional differences” distinguished from the prior art, it
`is not entitled patentable weight. Greenliant Sys., 692 F.3d
`at 1268.


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 13 Filed: 08/12/2022
`Other Claim Elements
`Kamstrup argues that the Board erred in construing
`“cavity separated from the flow tube.” In particular, Kam-
`strup argues that this term means that the cavity cannot
`surround the flow tube.
`Kamstrup has three main arguments for this term.
`First, Kamstrup argues that the plain meaning of “sepa-
`rated from” does not encompass “surrounding.” Appel-
`lant’s Br. 17–18; Reply 1–2. Second, Kamstrup argues that
`no embodiment discloses the cavity completely surround-
`ing the flow tube. Appellant’s Br. 19; Reply 11–16. Finally,
`Kamstrup argues that the claim limitation would not be
`enabled if it included a cavity that surrounds the flow tube.
`Appellant’s Br. 19–20; Reply 8.
`Kamstrup’s proposed construction reads in a negative
`limitation that is at odds with the claim language. The
`claims state that the flow section, defined by the flow tube,
`and the cavity “ha[ve] a shared wall area.” ’957 patent at
`6:48–49. We see nothing in the claim language that pro-
`hibits the cavity from surrounding the flow tube.
`The specification also does not otherwise limit the
`claim language, even if no embodiment discloses the cavity
`completely surrounding the flow tube. We reject Kam-
`strup’s argument because it reads in a limitation from non-
`limiting embodiments. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the
`specification often describes very specific embodiments of
`the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confin-
`ing the claims to those embodiments.”).
`Finally, we disagree with Kamstrup that the claim con-
`struction is incorrect because a design where the cavity
`surrounds the flow tube would require the flow tube to be
`manufactured separately from the housing. This is irrele-
`vant because it assumes that the claims require the hous-
`ing “being cast in one piece.” As discussed above, this claim


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 14 Filed: 08/12/2022
`element does not impart patentable weight and is therefore
`not a basis for limiting “cavity separated from the flow
`tube.” Thus, we find that the Board did not err in constru-
`ing “cavity separated from the flow tube.”
`Kamstrup argues that the Board erred in rejecting two
`proposed constructions concerning claim 6. Both argu-
`ments fail for reasons similar to those discussed above.
`First, Kamstrup asserts that the protrusions and
`indentions of claim 6 must be integral with the flow section
`and made of polymer. Appellant’s Br. 45; Reply 32–35.
`This construction is incorrect because dependent claim 6
`states that the “flow section has one or more protrusions
`or indentions at the inside of the flow section.” ’957 patent
`at 7:3–7 (emphasis added). It does not require Kamstrup’s
`additional limitation that they be made of the polymer.
`Kamstrup has not identified disclosure that supports
`its proposed limitation. Kamstrup does point to the
`specification that states that the “housing may be provided
`with one or more protrusions or indentions.” Reply 34
`(quoting ’957 patent at 5:24–30). But, this does not state
`that the housing “must be” formed with the claimed
`monolithic polymer structure. Id.; see also Appellant’s Br.
`Second, Kamstrup argues that the “measurement tube
`element” of claim 6 must be an ultrasonic measurement el-
`ement and cannot be a temperature sensor. Appellant’s Br.
`46–49; Reply 32 n.80. Again, we reject Kamstrup’s argu-
`ment because it limits the claim to a non-limiting embodi-
`ment that describes ultrasonic reflectors. In fact, the
`specification does disclose implementing temperature sen-
`sors into the flow meter. See ’957 patent at 5:38–46. In
`addition, the claim language itself distinguishes the “meas-
`urement tube element” and the “ultrasonic reflector ar-
`rangement.” ’957 patent at 7:3–7 (“[The] protrusions or
`indentions . . . serv[e] to engage with an associated meas-
`tube element or an ultrasonic reflector


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 15 Filed: 08/12/2022
`arrangement.”). This indicates that the claim covers dif-
`ferent measurement devices and is not limited to one or
`more ultrasonic reflectors as Kamstrup argues. We there-
`fore find that the Board did not err in its claim construction
`concerning claim 6.
`We next review whether the Board erred in its deter-
`mination that the claims are anticipated or obvious. First,
`we address Kamstrup’s threshold argument that the Board
`erred in determining that Elson and Barker are analogous
`art because they relate to “medical devices for thermodilu-
`tion.” Appellant’s Br. IV(C)(2). In support, Kamstrup cites
`disclosure in the ’957 patent explaining that it relates to
`ultrasonic flow meter housing. Id. at 40–41.
`The Board determined that Elson and Barker are anal-
`ogous art because they are directed to sensing or measur-
`ing fluid flow and fluid flow characteristics such as
`temperature. Axioma, 2021 WL 1235790, at *19. As dis-
`cussed, the ’957 patent is directed to flow meters that in-
`clude different types of sensors. See generally ’957 patent
`at 1:25–57, 2:51–58, 5:38–46. Elson discloses a “system for
`sensing a characteristic of fluid flowing” and includes a
`probe for sensing a desired characteristic, such as temper-
`ature. Elson abstract, 1:56–2:2. Barker is directed to a
`fluid temperature sensor, having a through lumen for con-
`ducting fluid. Barker abstract, 1:64–66. Thus, substantial
`evidence supports the Board’s determination that Elson
`and Barker are analogous art because they are at least in
`the same field of endeavor as the ’957 patent. See In re
`Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omit-
`ted) (“The identification of analogous prior art is a factual
`Kamstrup’s remaining challenges to the Board’s pa-
`tentability determinations rise and fall with Kamstrup’s
`proposed claim constructions. Specifically, Kamstrup as-
`serts that the Board’s erroneous claim constructions


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 16 Filed: 08/12/2022
`caused the Board to find incorrectly that the references dis-
`closed the disputed claim elements.2 We conclude that
`Kamstrup’s patentability challenges necessarily fail as
`they rely on the court accepting its proposed claim con-
`As discussed above, after properly construing the
`claims, the Board found claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11–13 an-
`ticipated by Ueki because it disclosed every limitation. The
`Board properly rejected Kamstrup’s arguments that Ueki
`did not disclose certain limitations as Kamstrup’s argu-
`ments were premised on its incorrect claim constructions.
`Thus, we hold that the Board’s decision that Ueki antici-
`pates those claims is supported by substantial evidence.
`The Board also found claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15
`obvious over Ueki and various secondary references. The
`Board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to modify the references, crediting Ax-
`ioma’s expert testimony. Again, the Board correctly re-
`jected Kamstrup’s arguments that are conditioned on
`incorrect claim constructions. Kamstrup does not further
`challenge, and we therefore do not consider, whether the
`2 See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (asserting that Ueki
`does not disclose the limitation of a “cavity separated from
`the flow tube” because Ueki’s cavity “completely sur-
`rounds” its flow tube section); id. at 37–38 (arguing that
`Ueki does not disclose the “being cast in one piece” claim
`element); id. at 44–46 (asserting that Elson and Barker do
`not disclose the “protrusions or indentions” of claim 6 be-
`cause Elson’s and Barker’s protrusions or indentions are
`not integral with the flow section and made of polymer); id.
`at 46–49 (stating that Elson and Barker do not render
`claim 6 obvious because it requires a “measurement tube
`element” and the references only disclose temperature sen-
`sors); id. 49–50 (“[The Board’s] conclusion[s] [are] premised
`on the erroneous claim constructions . . . .”).


`Case: 21-1923 Document: 28 Page: 17 Filed: 08/12/2022
`Board correctly identified the references or found a motiva-
`tion to combine.
`For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final
`written decision. We have considered Kamstrup’s remain-
`ing arguments and find them unpersuasive.
`No costs.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.


A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket