IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Redline Detection, LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00106
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`ORAL HEARING - APRIL 1, 2014
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`1
`
`

`

`OVERVIEW OF IPR 2013-00106
`
`• Only Claims 9 and 10 of United States Patent No. 6,526,808 are at issue in
`the present IPR
`
`• No motion to amend the claims
`
`• No “means” limitations under §112 ¶6
`
`• No attempt by Patent Owner (PO) to exclude or swear behind the prior art
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`2
`
`

`

`Claims 9 and 10
`
`(additions made during reexamination shown in italics, deletions shown in brackets)
`
`9. A method for generating smoke for use at a volatile, potentially explosive environment, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`locating a heating element within a closed smoke producing chamber, said smoke producing chamber having a gas inlet and a
`smoke outlet;
`
`delivering a flammable fluid to said heating element within the closed smoke producing chamber;
`
`energizing said heating element for vaporizing into smoke [and] within the closed smoke producing chamber the flammable fluid
`that is delivered thereto;
`
`blowing a supply of non-combustible gas under pressure into the closed smoke producing chamber by way of said gas inlet thereof
`for (1) creating an inert environment within said chamber so as to prevent ignition and thereby avoid the possibility of an explosion
`when said flammable fluid is vaporized into smoke by said heating element and (2) for carrying the smoke to the volatile potentially
`[hazardous] explosive environment by way of the smoke outlet of the closed smoke producing chamber, said volatile potentially
`explosive environment being a closed system undergoing testing for leaks; and connecting the smoke outlet of said closed smoke
`producing chamber to the closed system undergoing testing, said supply of noncombustible gas for creating an inert environment
`within the closed system to which the smoke is carried, said inert environment with the closed system preventing ignition within the
`closed system during the testing thereof;
`
`wherein the closed system to be tested for leaks at the volatile, potentially explosive environment is the evaporative system of a
`motor vehicle including a fuel tank, further comprising delivering smoke from the smoke outlet of said smoke producing chamber to
`the fuel tank.
`
`10. The method for generating smoke recited by Claim 9, comprising the additional step of regulating the pressure at which the
`smoke is carried by said non-combustible gas from said closed smoke producing chamber to the closed system undergoing testing.
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`3
`
`

`

`Broadest reasonable interpretation of claim
`terms
`
`• “flammable fluid” is a fluid, including a liquid or gas (e.g., an oil), capable of catching fire and
`burning. [Paper 17: Institution of Inter Partes Review at Page 11]
`
`• “locating” is to establish an element in a position, situation or locality. [Paper 17: Institution of
`Inter Partes Review at Page 12]
`
`• “closed” is an adjective describing a chamber or other container the entrances, apertures, or
`gaps of which have been stopped or obstructed, e.g., sealed. [Paper 17: Institution of Inter
`Partes Review at Page 13]
`
`• “inert environment” is an environment formed within the closed smoke producing chamber and
`comprising a non-combustible gas, such as carbon dioxide or nitrogen, in which a vapor or mist
`of flammable fluid is suspended, in such a manner that the flammable fluid cannot ignite or
`explode. [Paper 17: Institution of Inter Partes Review at Page 14]
`
`• “smoke” is a vapor or mist produced by blowing a flammable liquid against a heating
`element. [Paper 17: Institution of Inter Partes Review at Page 13] ONLY DISPUTED TERM
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`4
`
`

`

`Grounds on which IPR instituted
`
`• Ground 1 – Gilliam [EX. 1005] in view of Stoyle
`[EX. 1008]
`
`• Ground 2 – Gilliam [EX. 1005] in view of Pauley
`[EX. 1010] and The 1999 Website [EX. 1013]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`5
`
`

`

`Gilliam
`
`Gilliam’s smoke machine is designed to check
`“any and all leaks” in vehicles including fuel
`injection and emission control systems.
`
`[EX. 1005, 1:24-26; 3:3-6 and 45-47]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`6
`
`

`

`Gilliam
`
`•
`
`In accordance with the present invention, leaks of any and all sizes, regardless of their
`location in the myriad hoses and joints therefor and throughout the multiple layers
`contained in modern internal combustion engines, are reliably and, indeed, routinely
`identified. [EX. 1005 at 3:7-12]
`
`• As will be described in detail, it is a particular advantage of the present invention that
`smoke which is seal-ably communicated to a vacuum system in an internal combustion
`engine visibly identifies the location of any leaks therein. Even minute crack and the like
`in hoses, flanges and gaskets will allow the tell-tale smoke to exit therefrom, thereby
`permitting leaks to be remedied at an early stage. [EX. 1005 at 3:15-21]
`
`•
`
`It is also an object and feature of the present invention that an apparatus is provided to
`enable those skilled in the art to ascertain the presence of leaks in virtually any closed
`vacuum system in the automobile and the like. [EX. 1005 at 3:48-52]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`7
`
`

`

`Gilliam’s Commercial Embodiment
`
`“Back in the mid-’90’s Vacutec’s
`Model 312 was the ground-breaking
`smoke machine. For many techs, the
`312 was an introduction to smoke
`technology.” [EX. 2016 at 36]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`8
`
`

`

`SWITCH
`
`FILLER PORT
`
`Gilliam
`
`SMOKE CONDUIT
`
`AIR INLET
`
`BIMETALLIC STRIP
`
`SMOKE PRODUCING
`CHAMBER
`
`HEATING ELEMENT
`
`[EX. 1005 at 5:65 to 6:7]
`
`[EX. 1005 at 7:14-20]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`9
`
`

`

`Gilliam’s smoke machine produces smoke by
`vaporization (not combustion)
`
`• Vaporization referenced 10 times
`
`• Smoke generating fluid is non-flammable and heated
`175ºF BELOW flashpoint of 425ºF
`
`• Safety mechanisms included in Gilliam to prevent heating
`the smoke generating fluid beyond 250ºF
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`10
`
`

`

`Gilliam is designed to prevent combustion from
`occurring, and highlights risk of potential
`explosion
`
`[EX. 1005 at 7:54-59]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`11
`
`

`

`Gilliam’s smoke machine further regulates
`pressure
`
`PRESSURE
`ADJUSTMENT KNOB
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`12
`
`[EX. 1005 at 5:36-49]
`
`

`

`Gilliam’s Teachings
`
`• We agree with Petitioner that Gilliam discloses
`substantially all of the limitations of independent Claim 9,
`except the use of an inert gas. Patent Owner does not
`appear to dispute this conclusion. [Paper 17: Institution of
`Inter Partes Review at Page 20]
`
`• If you took a Gilliam-type machine and used inert gas, you
`would have an '808-type machine. You would have an
`'808-type machine. [EX. 1052: Deposition of PO’s expert
`Dr. M. David Checkel at Page 160, lines 17-19]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`13
`
`

`

`Simply substituting an inert gas for use in
`Gilliam’s smoke machine derives the claimed
`invention
`
`EVAP
`
`(N2/CO2)
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`14
`
`

`

`Use of inert gas to make smoke for use in leak
`detection
`
`• Stoyle
`
`• Pauley / The 1999 Website
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`15
`
`

`

`Stoyle*
`
`Stoyle describes that a smoke or mist for testing
`ventilation systems, or for theatrical effects, may be
`generated by heating a mixture of oil and carbon dioxide.
`... at 1:11-17. Referring to Figure 3, the mixture of oil and
`carbon dioxide is forced from a fluid inlet means 14 (not
`shown) into a space 7 between a plug 11 and a bore 12,
`which eventually joins with an outlet means 10. Id. at
`2:86-93, 2:99-108; .... Stoyle describes that the mixture
`of oil and carbon dioxide “emerges [from outlet means
`10] in the form of a mist or smoke.” Id. at 2:107-8. [Paper
`17: Institution of Inter Partes Review at 21]
`
`*See also EX. 1007 referencing the Stoyle device to make non-flammable smoke
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`16
`
`

`

`Stoyle
`
`• One particular field of use for the invention is in the heating of oil or
`mixtures of oil and carbon dioxide, oil and water, or oil, carbon dioxide
`and water to produce a smoke or mist useful, for example, for testing
`ventilation systems or for theatrical effects. [EX. 1008 at 1:11-17]
`
`• Figure 1 shows a side elevation of an embodiment of the invention
`suitable for heating carbon dioxide / oil mixtures to produce a smoke
`or mist. [EX. 1008 at 2:60-63]
`
`• As well as the general advantages already mentioned, embodiments
`of the invention having an outlet tube as shown in Figure 3 of the
`drawings are particularly suitable for injecting oil smokes or mists
`directly into ducts or pressurized vessels. [EX. 1008 at 3:1-6]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`17
`
`

`

`Pauley
`
`[EX. 1010 at 1:25-44]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`18
`
`

`

`Pauley
`
`[EX. 1010 at 2:38-47]
`
`[EX. 1010 at 2:108-116]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`19
`
`

`

`Pauley
`
`• Pauley teaches that a hydrocarbon oil from a
`closed vessel a may be atomized by a jet of
`carbon dioxide or nitrogen from a cylinder c1.
`[EX. 1010 at 2:63-83]
`
`• The oil from vessel a may be delivered to a
`nozzle b3 and the gas from cylinder c1 may
`be delivered to a nozzle c within a heated
`tubular member d. [EX. 1010 at 2:68-77]
`
`• Upon contacting the heated surface of tubular
`member d, droplets of oil, carried in the
`expanding gas, immediately are vaporized and
`form a cooled fog or mist. [EX. 1010 at 2:105-
`7; Paper 17: Institution of Inter Partes Review
`at Pages 24-25]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`20
`
`

`

`Pauley
`
`[EX. 1010 Fig. 1]
`
`[EX. 1001 Fig. 1; 1:18-23; 3:18-23]
`
`[EX. 1014 Fig. 5]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`21
`
`

`

`Pauley
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`22
`
`[EX. 1010 at 2:9-17]
`
`

`

`1999 Website
`
`APPLICATIONS FOR THE SMOKE GENERATOR
`The versatility and scope of the Corona range of smoke generators is truly surprising and limited only by one’s imagination.
`
`Leak Testing
`
`Our smoke machines have been used to detect leaks in a broad range of systems, including asbestos enclosures,
`flues and chimneys, luggage holds of aircraft and ships, freight containers, vehicles and drainage and fire
`sprinkler systems.
`
`Entertainment
`
`Corona Smoke Generators are used by professionals for a variety of special effects and lighting in all types of
`theaters, TV studios, exhibitions, nightclubs etc., whenever and wherever safe, controllable smokes are required.
`
`[EX. 1013, pages 1-2]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808 23
`
`

`

`Motivation to substitute an inert gas for air to
`make smoke for use in leak detection
`
`EVAP
`
`(N2/CO2)
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`24
`
`

`

`Risk of Explosion
`
`• Gilliam cautions regarding the use of smoke
`produced from flammable liquids when leak
`testing in a potentially explosive environment.
`[EX. 1005, Col. 7: 55-59]
`
`• It is a matter of common sense that gasoline is
`flammable and potentially explosive. [EX. 1052
`(Deposition testimony of PO’s expert M. David
`Checkel) page 18:20 to page 19:23]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`25
`
`

`

`Simple substitution of inert gas for air
`eliminates all risk of explosion
`
`“…Selecting a known compound to meet
`known requirements is no more ingenious
`than selecting the last piece to put into the
`last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair &
`Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S.
`327 (1945)
`
`“When there is a design need or market
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a
`finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`reason to pursue the known options within his
`or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
`anticipated success, it is likely the product not
`of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`sense.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 421 (2007)
`
`(N2/CO2)
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`26
`
`

`

`Inert gas would work in Gilliam’s smoke machine
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`THE DEPONENT: Yes, that's reasonable. If you
`
`use nitrogen gas in Gilliam, you will have an inert
`
`chamber because Gilliam has a sealed chamber.
`
`10 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: And if I use carbon dioxide,
`
`11 you would get the same result; correct?
`
`12 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`13 THE DEPONENT: If you use carbon dioxide in
`
`14 Gilliam, you would get an inert chamber.
`
`15 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: And the smoke that I produce
`
`16
`
`in that inert chamber, if I used that in a system to be
`
`17
`
`tested, would that also create an inert environment?
`
`18 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`19 THE DEPONENT: Yes, provided that you filled
`
`20 that environment with smoke, inert smoke.
`
`21 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: And it were a closed system;
`
`22 correct?
`
`23 A Even if it's an open system, so long as you are
`
`24
`
`filling it and keeping air from entering it.
`
`[EX. 1052 at 214]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`27
`
`

`

`Inert gases were used to make smoke and also
`utilized for EVAP testing prior to July 1999
`
`From PO’s expert’s deposition[EX.
`1052 at 215:12 to 216:5]
`
`12 Q Okay. And the smoke machines of both Stoyle
`
`13 and Pauley heat oil and carbon dioxide to make smoke;
`
`14 correct?
`
`15 A Well, they heat oil to make the smoke.
`
`16 Q Okay. And both Stoyle and Pauley use carbon
`
`17 dioxide to prevent ignition of the oil as it's heated;
`
`18 correct?
`
`19 A That's their intent, correct.
`
`20 Q And the use of carbon dioxide to prevent
`
`21
`
`ignition of oil as it's heated to make smoke was known
`
`22 before July 1999; correct?
`
`23 A That's correct.
`
`24 Q And the use of nitrogen to prevent ignition of
`
`25 oil as it is heated to make smoke was known before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`July 1999; correct?
`
`A I would agree.
`
`3 Q And the use of nitrogen was used to
`
`4
`
`5
`
`pressure-test EVAP systems prior to July 1999; correct?
`
`A Yes, it was.
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`28
`
`

`

`Inert gas was mandated for use in EVAP testing
`prior to July 1999
`
`From PO’s expert’s declaration [EX. 2018]:
`
`172. At the same time, the mid-1990’s saw several changes to
`gasoline composition which made the EVAP system more
`susceptible to fire and explosion hazards when the headspace of
`the fuel tank was altered by the introduction of ambient air or
`oxygen. Thus, as of July 1999 there was an even stronger need
`for a safe and effective EVAP system leak identification tool. This
`need was understood by those in the industry, as confirmed by
`the OEM mandates to use only nitrogen for EVAP system leak
`testing, as well as the EPA recommendations to do the same. [EX.
`2018 at ¶ 172]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`29
`
`

`

`Inert gases were used in EVAP testing prior to
`July 1999 to create an inert environment
`
`From PO’s expert’s deposition
`testimony [EX. 1052 at 164:20 to
`165:13]
`
`20 Q And prior to July 1999, we discussed earlier,
`
`21 EVAP systems and fuel tanks were initially checked with
`
`22 a nitrogen pressure test to determine if a leak was
`
`23 present; correct?
`
`24 A That was the recommended method.
`
`25 Q Okay. So nitrogen was used in EVAP testing
`
`1 well before July 1999; correct?
`
`2
`
`A It was certainly recommended.
`
`3 Q And it was practiced?
`
`4
`
`A Yes.
`
`5 Q Okay. And as a result of that pressure test
`
`6 with nitrogen, following the pressure test, the EVAP
`
`7
`
`system and fuel tank were an inert environment; correct?
`
`8 MR. BUNKER: Objection; form.
`
`9
`
`THE DEPONENT: That would be the intent of
`
`10 using nitrogen, that's right.
`
`11 Q BY MR. NEWBOLES: It's the whole purpose;
`
`12
`
`right?
`
`13 A Yeah.
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`30
`
`

`

`Simply substituting nitrogen for air for use in
`Gilliam renders Claims 9 and 10 obvious
`
`• Gilliam discloses same smoke machine
`structure for detecting leaks in automotive
`systems, including EVAP as claimed, and
`expressly recognizes risk of explosion
`
`• Stoyle makes smoke from inert gas and oil for
`use in detecting leaks
`
`• Pauley makes smoke from inert gas and oil
`that “greatly reduces any tendency to ignition”
`for use in theater use and “other applications”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The 1999 Website discloses dual uses of
`smoke machines for theatrical use and leak
`detection in vehicles
`
`Inert gas mandated for EVAP testing prior to
`July 1999 to create an inert environment in
`the EVAP system
`
`(N2/CO2)
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`31
`
`

`

`Claims 9 and 10 are obvious despite PO’s
`arguments
`
`• PO’s expert cannot change Gilliam’s vaporizing oil into
`smoke to burning/combusting oil.
`
`• PO’s expert cannot change the teachings of Stoyle and
`Pauley to make smoke with inert gas and oil or speculate
`as to how Stoyle and Pauley may work.
`
`• PO’s expert is not qualified to opine on the person of
`ordinary skill in the art (POSA) or present hypothetical
`calculations.
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`32
`
`

`

`PO’s expert testimony on POSA is not needed
`
`• The absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give
`rise to reversible error “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
`level and a need for testimony is not shown.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`• Here, we find that, for purposes of this decision, the prior art adequately
`reflects an appropriate level of skill and that Patent Owner does not
`demonstrate a need for testimony or other evidence to establish the level of
`skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. [Paper 17: Institution of
`Inter Partes Review at page 18]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`33
`
`

`

`PO’s “evidence” of secondary considerations
`does not support non-obviousness of Claims 9
`and 10
`
`• No evidence of sales or market share
`
`• PO’s evidence is years before Claims 9 and 10 issued in
`2011
`
`• PO’s evidence on multi-functional smoke machine usage
`is not evidence that methods of Claims 9 and 10 were
`practiced
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`34
`
`

`

`PO’s user manuals do not support any
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`[EX. 2009]
`
`[EX. 2010]
`
`[EX. 2014]
`
`[EX. 2012]
`
`[EX. 2014]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808 35
`
`

`

`PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`promote prior art uses
`
`[EX. 2014 at 12]
`
`[EX. 2011 at 8]
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`36
`
`

`

`PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`promote prior art uses
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`37
`
`[EX. 2012 at 1]
`
`

`

`PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`promote prior art uses
`
`[EX. 1047 at 1]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`38
`
`[EX. 1047 at 2]
`
`

`

`PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`promote and prominently feature the use of an
`unrelated patented dye
`
`[EX. 2011 at 3]
`
`[EX. 1047 at 2]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`39
`
`

`

`All of PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`perform the prior art nitrogen leak test
`
`[EX. 2009 at 6-8]
`
`If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed Cir.2011)
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`40
`
`

`

`All of PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`perform the prior art nitrogen leak test
`
`[EX. 2010 at 9]
`
`[EX. 2010]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`41
`
`

`

`All of PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`perform the prior art nitrogen leak test
`
`[EX. 2011]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`42
`
`[EX. 2011 at 10]
`
`[EX. 2011 at 11]
`
`

`

`All of PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`perform the prior art nitrogen leak test
`
`[EX. 2012]
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`[EX. 2012 at 11]
`
`43
`
`

`

`All of PO’s smoke machines and user manuals
`perform the prior art nitrogen leak test
`
`[EX. 2014 at 9-10]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`44
`
`

`

`Users cannot perform all steps of the claimed
`methods
`
`9. A method for generating smoke for
`use at a volatile, potentially explosive
`environment, said method comprising
`the steps of:
`
`• “locating” is to establish an
`element in a position, situation or
`locality.
`[Paper 17: Institution of
`Inter Partes Review at Page 12]
`
`locating a heating element within a
`closed smoke producing chamber…..
`
`• Step of “locating” never performed
`by the user – the manufacturer
`does it. [EX. 1053, Deposition of
`Jim Saffie 21:24-22:15; 39:17-24;
`52:21-58:10; 76:2-5; 87:15-18]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`45
`
`

`

`PO’s user manuals do not teach practicing the
`claimed invention
`
`9. A method for generating smoke for use at a volatile, potentially explosive environment, said method
`comprising the steps of…
`
`blowing a supply of non-combustible gas under pressure into the closed smoke producing chamber by
`way of said gas inlet thereof for…carrying the smoke to the volatile potentially explosive
`environment by way of the smoke outlet of the closed smoke producing chamber, said volatile
`potentially explosive environment being a closed system undergoing testing for leaks; and
`connecting the smoke outlet of said closed smoke producing chamber to the closed system
`undergoing testing, said supply of noncombustible gas for creating an inert environment within
`the closed system to which the smoke is carried, said inert environment with the closed system
`preventing ignition within the closed system during the testing thereof;
`
`“closed” is an adjective describing a chamber or other container, the entrances, apertures, or gaps of
`which have been stopped or obstructed, e.g., sealed. [Paper 17: Institution of Inter Partes Review at
`Page 13]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`46
`
`

`

`PO’s manuals teach: 1) opening the EVAP system until it is no
`longer potentially explosive; and 2) closing the EVAP system after
`the risk of explosion is eliminated
`
`[EX. 2009 at 9]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`47
`
`

`

`PO’s manuals teach: 1) opening the EVAP system until it is no
`longer potentially explosive; and 2) closing the EVAP system after
`the risk of explosion is eliminated
`
`[EX. 2011 at 12]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`48
`
`

`

`PO’s manuals teach: 1) opening the EVAP system until it is no
`longer potentially explosive; and 2) closing the EVAP system after
`the risk of explosion is eliminated
`
`[EX. 2010 at 13]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`49
`
`

`

`PO’s manuals teach: 1) opening the EVAP system until it is no
`longer potentially explosive; and 2) closing the EVAP system after
`the risk of explosion is eliminated
`
`[EX. 2012 at 10]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`50
`
`

`

`PO’s manuals teach: 1) opening the EVAP system until it is no
`longer potentially explosive; and 2) closing the EVAP system after
`the risk of explosion is eliminated
`
`[EX. 2014 at 11]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`51
`
`

`

`The PTAB’s definition of smoke is correct
`
`• PTAB – “smoke” defined as a vapor or
`mist produced by blowing a flammable
`liquid against a heating element. [Paper
`17: Institution of Inter Partes Review at
`Page 13]
`
`• PO – “smoke” should mean “the visible
`vapor and gasses given off by a burning
`substance and visible vapor or mist
`resembling such vapor and gases.” [PO
`Response at Page 32]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`52
`
`

`

`The PTAB’s definition of smoke is correct
`
`• The specification only teaches one way to make smoke: by blowing a
`flammable liquid against a heating element.
`
`• Claims 1-8 require the same “smoke” as in the Board’s definition.
`
`• “Smoke” made by the claimed method requires an inert environment and
`cannot include any type of burning or combustion.
`
`• Vapors or gasses “resembling” those given off from a burning substance is
`ambiguous.
`
`• The specification admittedly makes no reference to burning a substance. [EX.
`1052, deposition transcript of PO’s expert M. David Checkel at 106:5-107:17]
`
`Redline Detection, LLC Petitioner v. Star Envirotech, Inc. Patent Owner · Case IPR2013-00106 · U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808
`
`53
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review - Patent No. 6,526,808
`Case IPR2013-00106
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned certifies that on March 25, 2014, a complete
`
`
`
`and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits was provided via Express Mail, costs prepaid, to the
`
`Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Edward Schlatter
`Brenton Babcock
`Jared Bunker
`Knobbe Martens Olsen & Bear
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, California 92614
`
`
`By:/Matthew A. Newboles/
`Matthew A. Newboles
`Reg. No. 36,224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T:\Client Documents\REDLN\025X\Certificate of Service.Demonstrative.docx
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`