UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AKERMIN, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CO2 SOLUTIONS INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00880
`Patent 8,329,458
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOUIS FRADETTE
`
`CO2 Solutions Inc.
`Exhibit 2004
`Akermin, Inc. v. CO2 Solutions Inc.
`IPR2015-00880
`Page 1 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  MY QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 1 
`II. 
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 7 
`B. 
`Anticipation Invalidity .......................................................................... 7 
`C.  Obviousness Invalidity .......................................................................... 7 
`III.  SUBJECT MATTER AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ..................... 10 
`A. 
`Subject Matter of the ’458 Patent ........................................................ 10 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 17 
`C. 
`Challenged Claims of the ’458 Patent ................................................. 19 
`IV.  STATE OF THE ART AS OF JULY 12, 2002 ............................................. 22 
`A. 
`Reactors ............................................................................................... 22 
`(1)  Multiphase Reactors .................................................................. 22 
`(2) 
`Fixed or Packed Bed Reactors .................................................. 23 
`(3) 
`Packed Column or Tower as a Reactor ..................................... 25 
`(4) 
`Fluidized Reactors..................................................................... 26 
`(5)  Bioreactors ................................................................................ 28 
`Enzyme Catalysts ................................................................................ 28 
`(1)  Adsorption and Covalent Binding ............................................ 33 
`(2) 
`Entrapment and Encapsulation ................................................. 34 
`(3)  Crosslinking .............................................................................. 37 
`CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS ...................................................... 38 
`(1) 
`“in suspension” and “suspending” ............................................ 38 
`(2) 
`“entrapped in” ........................................................................... 41 
`VI.  ASSERTED PRIOR ART ............................................................................. 54 
`A. 
`Bonaventura, U.S. Patent No. 4,602,987 (Ex. 1004) .......................... 54 
`B. 
`Bonaventura, U.S. Patent No. 4,427,416 (Ex. 1005) .......................... 63 
`C. 
`Badjic (Ex. 1009) ................................................................................ 67 
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`D.  Kohl (Ex. 1008) ................................................................................... 69 
`E. 
`Dean (Ex. 1006) .................................................................................. 70 
`F. 
`Rau (Ex. 1007) .................................................................................... 72 
`VII.  CLAIMS 1-3, 15, 17, 24-27, 40, 41, AND 43 ARE NOT
`ANTICIPATED BY BONAVENTURA ’987 (GROUND 1) ...................... 72 
`VIII.  CLAIMS 1-3, 15-17, 24-27, AND 40-43 WOULD NOT HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF
`BONAVENTURA ’987 AND BONAVENTURA ’416
`(GROUND 2) ................................................................................................. 74 
`IX.  CLAIMS 1, 4, 25, AND 28 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF
`BONAVENTURA ’987 AND THE BADJIC PUBLICATION
`(GROUND 3) ................................................................................................. 78 
`CLAIMS 1, 18, AND 19 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF
`BONAVENTURA ’987 AND THE KOHL PUBLICATION
`(GROUND 4) ................................................................................................. 80 
`XI.  CLAIMS 1, 2, 15, 16, 22-26, AND 40-43 WOULD NOT
`HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF
`THE DEAN AND RAU PUBLICATIONS (GROUND 5) .......................... 82 
`XII.  CROSS EXAMINATION AND OATH ....................................................... 94 
`
`X. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. LOUIS FRADETTE
`
`I, Louis Fradette, Ph.D. declare that:
`
`1.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at
`
`Polytechnique Montréal, where I teach courses in, for example, Fluid Mechanics,
`
`Multi-phase Systems, and Separations Processes to students majoring in Chemical
`
`Engineering, and Fluid Mixing courses at the graduate level (M.Sc. and Ph.D.). I
`
`am also a Senior Vice President, Process Engineering and Chief Technology
`
`Officer at CO2 Solutions Inc. These and other positions I have held are further
`
`described below, as are my other qualifications.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this declaration is being submitted to the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“Board”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office together
`
`with a Patent Owner’s response to Akermin Inc.’s “Corrected Petition” for inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-4, 15-19, 22-28, and 40-43 of U.S. Patent No. 8,329,458
`
`B2 (the ’458 patent, Ex. 1001). I am over the age of eighteen years, and otherwise
`
`competent to make this declaration.
`
`I. MY QUALIFICATIONS
`3. My education experience is summarized as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree (B.Sc.) in Chemical Engineering
`
`from the Université of Laval in 1989.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`(b)
`
`I received a Master’s degree (M.Sc.A) in Chemical Engineering
`
`from the Université Laval in 1994.
`
`(c)
`
`I received a Doctorate degree (Ph.D.) in Chemical Engineering
`
`from the Institute National Polytechnique de Lorraine and École
`
`Polytechnique de Montréal in 2000.
`
`(d) From August 1999 to August 2001, I was engage in post-
`
`doctoral research at Algoysis Inc.
`
`4. My professional experience is summarized as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`From May of 1989-May of 1992, I worked as a Process
`
`Engineer at Raffinerie de Montréal, Pétrol-Canada Inc.
`
`(b) From August 1999 to December 2002, I was the Director of
`
`Exploitation and Research and Development at Algoysis Inc.
`
`(c)
`
`From December 2002 to August 2003, I was the Director of
`
`Research and Development at Mafor Composites Inc.
`
`(d) From January 2004 to July 2006, I was employed full time as a
`
`Research Associate at École Polytechnique de Montréal in the general field
`
`of process development.
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`(e)
`
`From July 2006 to August 2007 I was employed full time as a
`
`Researcher at École Polytechnique de Montréal in the general field of
`
`process development.
`
`(f)
`
`From August 2007 to January 2010, I was employed full time
`
`as an Assistant Professor at École Polytechnique de Montréal.
`
`(g)
`
`From September 2003 to September 2010, I was also employed
`
`part time as a Lecturer at Université Laval, where I lectured on courses in
`
`chemical engineering.
`
`(h) Since February 2007, I have been employed as an Associate
`
`Professor of Chemical Engineering at École Polytechnique de Montréal,
`
`wherein I teach courses in, for example, Fluid Mechanics, Multi-phase
`
`Systems, and Separations Processes to students majoring in Chemical
`
`Engineering. In this position I also supervise graduate students in their
`
`research and pursuit of graduate degrees in Chemical Engineering.
`
`Currently, I supervise six students whose research topics include carbon
`
`dioxide capture processes, hydrodynamics and crystallization relating to
`
`carbon dioxide hydrates generation, mixers for preparations of dispersions in
`
`complex fluids, and processes for the production of Pickering emulsions.
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`(i)
`
`Since February 2011, I have been the co-holder of the “Total
`
`Industrial Research Chair in Hydrodynamic Modeling of Multiphase
`
`Processes at Extreme Conditions” awarded by the Natural Sciences and
`
`Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). This research program
`
`is funded by Total E&P Canada Ltd., Total American Services Inc., and
`
`Total SA, France. The objective of this research program is to model
`
`multiphase process hydrodynamics under extreme conditions applicable to a
`
`broad range of technologies and processes, and more specifically, develop
`
`phenomenological hydrodynamic models for multiphase processes involved
`
`in energy production and petrochemicals. Specific objectives are to
`
`contribute to the fundamental understanding of multiphase reactors to
`
`develop new and improved processes and to train highly qualified specialists
`
`in the development and implementation of these new technologies for the
`
`benefit of Canada.
`
`(j)
`
`Since January 2013, I have been employed as a Senior Vice
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer at CO2 Solutions Inc., where I am
`
`and have been responsible for managing the company’s research and
`
`development activities, including its development of a pilot facility for
`
`carbon dioxide capture.
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`5.
`
`I have published more than 70 papers in peer-reviewed national and
`
`international journals, including in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research,
`
`Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Chemical Engineering Journal, and
`
`Chemical Engineering Science. These are widely read journals by chemical
`
`engineers.
`
`6.
`
`I am a member of the following organizations:
`
`(a) Research Center In Process Engineering - Biorefinery;
`
`(b) Center for Applied Research on Polymers and Composites;
`
`(c) Research Unit on Industrial Flows; and,
`
`(d) Research Unit on Energy Efficiency and Sustainable
`
`Development of the Forest Biorefinery.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my current curriculum vitae (CV) is supplied as Exhibit
`
`2005, and it provides a comprehensive description of my academic and
`
`employment history.
`
`8.
`
`I have been asked by CO2 Solutions Inc. to provide my opinions
`
`regarding the subject matter claimed in the ’458 patent. I am not being
`
`compensated for my participation in this matter apart from my compensation for
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 100
`
`

`
`
`my employment by CO2 Solutions Inc. Further, that compensation is not dependent
`
`on, and in no way affects, the substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`9.
`
`I own less than 0.5% of the outstanding shares of stock in CO2
`
`Solutions Inc. (symbol: CST, exchange: TSX Venture). Based on the company’s
`
`market capitalization estimated to be about $9 million (Canadian), the value of my
`
`shares is less than about $45,000 (Canadian).
`
`10. Neither my employment by CO2 Solutions Inc. nor my stock
`
`ownership interest in CO2 Solutions Inc. affects the substance of my statements in
`
`this declaration.
`
`11. CO2 Solutions Inc. does not sponsor, and has not sponsored, my
`
`research at École Polytechnique de Montréal.
`
`12. The Exhibits referred to throughout this document are listed in the
`
`Appendix to this declaration. I have reviewed all of these exhibits. Further, I have
`
`reviewed Akermin, Inc.’s “Corrected Petition” (Paper 5), CO2 Solutions Inc.’s
`
`“Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response” (Paper 9), and the Board’s “Decision”
`
`(Paper 10) instituting the inter partes review.
`
`II. RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions.
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`14.
`I have been informed that, in an inter partes review, the claims of a
`
`patent should be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying
`
`patent. I understand this means that the words of the claims are analyzed from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the patent, and
`
`the meaning that person would give them in the context of the underlying patent
`
`when the words are used as they ordinarily are used. I also understand, however,
`
`that the Patent Office could determine that the inventors specifically defined a
`
`particular claim term in the patent (which I understand is referred to as
`
`“lexicography”), in which case that definition could control.
`
`B. Anticipation Invalidity
`15.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is anticipated
`
`(not novel) and, therefore, invalid if a prior art document (reference) discloses all
`
`the features of the claim, expressly or inherently.
`
`C. Obviousness Invalidity
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that if a patent claim is novel, it
`
`can be invalid if it is considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the
`
`requirements of a claim are not found in a single prior art document, the claim is
`
`not patentable if the differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 100
`
`

`
`
`subject matter in the claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the application was filed would be a hypothetical person, who is presumed to
`
`know the contents of all relevant art at the time, with working experience in the
`
`relevant field.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious at the time the application (for patent) was filed
`
`is based upon several factors, including: (a) the level of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the application was filed; (b) the scope and content of the prior art; and (c)
`
`what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as recited in the claims, if such
`
`a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In
`
`determining whether a combination or modification based on either a single
`
`reference or multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to
`
`consider, among other factors:
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`(a) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known
`
`concepts combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(b) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(c) whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number
`
`of known design choices;
`
`(d) whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a
`
`reason to combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`(e) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to
`
`make the modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`(f) whether the claims are the result of applying a known technique
`
`that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that reasons to combine prior art references can come
`
`from a variety of sources, not just the prior art itself or the specific problem the
`
`patentee was trying to solve. I also understand that the prior art references
`
`themselves need not provide a specific hint or suggestion of the alteration needed
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention; the analysis may include recourse to logic,
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 100
`
`

`
`
`judgment, and common sense available to a person having ordinary skill in the art,
`
`who has ordinary creativity and is not an automaton.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that objective indicators may support a conclusion that an
`
`invention is nonobvious, such as, failure of others, unexpectedly superior results,
`
`perception in the industry, commercial success, and long-felt but unmet need. I
`
`also understand that objective indicators of nonobviousness are only applicable if
`
`they have some nexus to the subject matter in the claim that was not known in the
`
`prior art. I understand that this nexus includes a factual connection between the
`
`subject matter of the claim and the objective indicators alleged.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`III. SUBJECT MATTER AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A.
`Subject Matter of the ’458 Patent
`23.
`
`I understand that the ’458 patent issued December 11, 2012, from a
`
`patent application filed June 4, 2010, that July 12, 2002, is the earliest possible
`
`U.S. priority date for the subject matter claimed, and that the ’458 patent originated
`
`with a Canadian patent application filed July 13, 2001. I have been informed that
`
`the time period just before July 12, 2002, is relevant for considering the state of the
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 100
`
`

`
`
`art, the knowledge in the art, and whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`24. The abstract of the ’458 patent states that the patent discloses a
`
`triphasic bioreactor for treating a gas. The triphasic bioreactor includes a “reaction
`
`chamber with a liquid and a biocatalyst in suspension in the liquid, for catalyzing a
`
`reaction between the gas and the liquid to obtain a treated gas and a solution
`
`containing a reaction product.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. Concluding, the abstract
`
`explains that the “triphasic bioreactor may advantageously be used for removing
`
`carbonic dioxide from a CO2-containing gas.” Id.
`
`25. The title of the ’458 patent is “Carbonic Anhydrase Bioreactor and
`
`Process for CO2 Containing Gas Effluent Treatment.” The subject matter of the
`
`’458 patent relates to the “field of gas effluent treatment and air purification,” and
`
`the patent “concerns a triphasic bioreactor for the biological treatment of gaseous
`
`effluent” and “a triphasic process for the biological treatment of gas effluent.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:19-23.
`
`26. The specification of the ’458 patent explains as background to its
`
`invention that, “[a]lthough triphasic <<Gas-Liquid-Solid>> (GLS) reactors are
`
`commonly used in a large variety of industrial applications, their utilization
`
`remains quite limited in the area of biochemical gas treatment.” Ex. 1001 at 2:10-
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 100
`
`

`
`
`14 (citations omitted). Many GLS bioprocesses concern wastewater treatment and
`
`are “not aimed at reducing gaseous emissions.” Id. at 2:15-21. These systems, thus,
`
`“are neither intended nor adequate for the treatment of gaseous waste or effluents.
`
`An additional problem associated with the use of these systems is the non retention
`
`of the solid phase within the reactor. Biocatalysts are in fact washed right out of
`
`the reactors along with the liquid phase.” Id. at 2:22-27.
`
`27. Even in prior art systems that are designed to remove carbon dioxide
`
`(CO2) from a gaseous effluent leave largely unaddressed the biocatalyst retention
`
`problem, which “constitutes another serious limitation, along with gaseous effluent
`
`dissolution, to further technological advancements.” Ex. 1001 at 2:29-36. Systems
`
`that seek to retain the biocatalyst employ a membrane and/or immobilize the
`
`catalyst at a particular site or within a specific part of the bioreactor. Id. at 2:55-65.
`
`For example, the biocatalyst (enzyme) is immobilized on a filtration membrane or
`
`at a gas-liquid phase boundary. But, these systems are not efficient because the
`
`immobilization in these systems limits surface contact area of the biocatalyst’s
`
`active site. Id. at 2:65-3:12. Among these systems are those described in U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 4,602,987 (to Bonaventura) (Ex. 1004) and 4,427,416 (to
`
`Bonaventura) (Ex. 1005).
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`28. The specification of the ’458 patent teaches a triphasic bioreactor that
`
`provides, among other things, biocatalysts in liquid suspension, and optimizes gas
`
`phase dissolution into the liquid phase, thus optimizing surface area contact
`
`between the gas, liquid, and solid phases:
`
`The triphasic bioreactor of the present invention
`provides the advantages of biologically treating gaseous
`waste and effluents while simultaneously providing
`biocatalysts in liquid suspension, optimizing gas phase
`dissolution into the liquid phase and thereby optimizing
`surface contact area between the gas, liquid and solid
`phases, as well as retaining the biocatalysts within the
`reactor while allowing the pressure release of liquid
`containing a reaction product exempt of biocatalysts.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:48-56.
`
`29. Figure 1 of the ’458 patent is reproduced below, and illustrates a
`
`triphasic bioreactor (1) defined by a reaction chamber (2) filled with a biocatalyst
`
`(4) in suspension in a liquid (3), liquid inlet (5) for receiving the liquid (3), liquid
`
`outlet (6), and gas outlets (7) in fluid communication with the reaction chamber
`
`(2):
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:25-35 (describing features shown in Figure 1). As described in
`
`
`
`paragraph 50 below, the illustrated triphasic bioreactor (1) is a slurry bubble
`
`column in which the biocatalyst (4) is suspended in the liquid (3) at least in part by
`
`gas bubbles (10).
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`30. With continued reference to Figure 1, the ’458 patent explains that:
`
`“Retention of the biocatalysts (4) inside the reaction chamber (2) is an important
`
`feature of the invention as biological materials are often quite expensive.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 6:37-39.
`
`31.
`
`In a preferred aspect of the invention, the “triphasic bioreactor is used
`
`for reducing carbon dioxide contained in a gas effluent. In such a case, the gas
`
`effluent to be treated contains carbon dioxide, the liquid filling the bioreactor is an
`
`aqueous liquid and the biocatalysts are enzymes capable of catalyzing the chemical
`
`conversion of the dissolved carbon dioxide into an aqueous solution containing
`
`hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions. More preferably, the enzymes are carbonic
`
`anhydrase.” Ex. 1001 at 4:27-35.
`
`32. Continuing, the ’458 patent states that “[m]ost preferably, the
`
`biocatalysts are entrapped in porous substrates pervading the reaction chamber.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:6-7. As explained below, reference in the patent to “entrapped” is a
`
`term of art in the field of chemical engineering, and more specifically in the
`
`context of bioreactors and processes for the biological treatment of materials.
`
`(a) The ’458 patent specifies that the enzyme may be made to form
`
`a complex to increase its size, which, in turn, permits at the inlets and outlets
`
`to the chamber the use of membranes having larger pores. The larger pores,
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`in turn, permit enhanced liquid flow rates and, thus, higher throughput of
`
`fluids requiring remediation. Ex. 1001 at 8:51-55.
`
`(b) The ’458 patent also explains that “[d]ifferent types of enzyme
`
`complexes may be formed,” such as “those using whole cell.” To the extent
`
`that there may be a potential for the enzyme to leak out of the reaction
`
`chamber, and thereby be lost from the reactor, the ’458 patent states that
`
`encapsulation techniques may overcome that potential. Ex. 1001 at 8:55-59.
`
`(c) The ’458 patent also specifies that the enzyme “may be
`
`immobilized on solid packing.” Ex. 1001 at 8:59-60. Although, the ’458
`
`patent does not offer details of how the enzyme may be immobilized on a
`
`solid packing, as explained below, the skilled person knew how to
`
`immobilize the enzyme and the various ways to immobilize the enzyme on a
`
`solid packing.
`
`(d) The ’458 patent further specifies that the “enzyme may also be
`
`entrapped in insoluble gel particles.” Ex. 1001 at 8:62-63.
`
`(e) Thus, while the ’458 patent explains various techniques to use
`
`the enzyme, carbonic anhydrase, to catalyze the biochemical reaction within
`
`the reaction chamber while also ensuring the enzyme is retained inside the
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`chamber (and not lost), it expresses a preference to entrap the enzyme in
`
`porous substrates pervading the chamber. Ex. 1001 at 4:6-7.
`
`33.
`
`In view of the foregoing, the pertinent art of the ’458 patent relates to
`
`bioreactors for treating gaseous effluents. As explained in Section III.C, below, the
`
`challenged claims of the patent should be understood in the context of the above-
`
`described teachings in the ’458 patent, and from the vantage of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in this art.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`34. My opinions expressed in this declaration are based on what would be
`
`understood and known by a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`’458 patent. I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along
`
`conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. This person
`
`may also work as part of a multi-disciplinary team and draw upon not only his or
`
`her own skills, but also take advantage of certain specialized skills of others in the
`
`team, to solve a given problem. Many factors may determine the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, including: (1) the type of problems encountered in the art, (2) prior
`
`art solutions to those problems, (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made,
`
`(4) the sophistication of the technology, and (5) the educational level of active
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 100
`
`

`
`
`workers in the field. I understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, meaning that a person of ordinary skill may employ inferences
`
`and creative steps in their work.
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`‘458 patent would have had a Bachelor’s of Science degree in chemical
`
`engineering, chemistry, or biochemistry, and about three years of experience in
`
`designing and operating triphasic bioreactors for the biological treatment of
`
`gaseous effluents.
`
`36. Unless another date is specified, my opinions in this declaration
`
`address what would have been known and understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of July 12, 2002.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’458 patent
`
`would have found the subject matter claimed therein to be novel and nonobvious
`
`relative to the prior art of record during prosecution of the patent, and prior art
`
`identified in the Petition and addressed by the Petitioner’s declarant. In formulating
`
`this opinion and my other opinions expressed herein, I reviewed the documents
`
`cited in the Appendix to this declaration, which are discussed below.
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims of the ’458 Patent
`38.
`I understand that the Petitioner has challenged the patentability of
`
`claims 1-4, 15-19, 22-28, and 40-43 of the ’458 patent.
`
`39. Consistent with the teachings in the ’458 patent explained in Section
`
`III.A, above, independent claim 1 recites:
`
`Claim 1. A carbonic anhydrase bioreactor for treating a
`CO2-containing gas, comprising:
`
`a reaction chamber for receiving a liquid;
`
`carbonic anhydrase provided on or in substrates that are
`in suspension within the liquid for catalyzing a reaction
`of CO2 into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions to obtain a
`treated gas and an ion-rich solution, wherein the
`substrates comprise porous substrates and the carbonic
`anhydrase are entrapped in the porous substrates;
`
`a liquid inlet in fluid communication with the reaction
`chamber for providing the reaction chamber with the
`liquid;
`
`a gas inlet connected to the reaction chamber for
`providing the CO2-containing gas to be treated into the
`reaction chamber in order to contact the liquid;
`
`a liquid outlet in fluid communication with the reaction
`chamber for releasing the ion-rich solution; and
`19
`
`Page 22 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`a gas outlet in fluid communication with the reaction
`chamber to release the treated gas.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 10:14-32.
`
`40. Challenged claims 2-4, 15-19, and 22-24 depend from claim 1.
`
`(a) Dependent claims 2-4 and 24 specify the material of the porous
`
`substrate in which the carbonic anhydrase are entrapped.
`
`(b) Dependent claims 15 and 16 specify the bioreactor also
`
`includes a filter for separating the porous substrate from the ion-rich
`
`solution.
`
`(c) Dependent claim 17 specifies the bioreactor also includes a
`
`retention device for retaining the porous substrates within the reaction
`
`chamber.
`
`(d) Dependent claims 18 and 19 specify an additional reaction
`
`chamber and features thereof.
`
`(e) Dependent claims 22 and 23 specify a mixer within the reaction
`
`chamber.
`
`41. Also consistent with the above-noted teachings in the ’458 patent,
`
`independent claim 25 recites:
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 25. A process using carbonic anhydrase for
`treating a CO2-containing gas, comprising:
`
`suspending substrates within a liquid provided to a
`reaction chamber, carbonic anhydrase being provided on
`or in the substrates, wherein the substrates comprise
`porous substrates and the carbonic anhydrase are
`entrapped in the porous substrates;
`
`contacting the CO2-containing gas to be treated with the
`liquid within the reaction chamber in the presence of the
`carbonic anhydrase, to promote the chemical conversion
`of the dissolved CO2 into an ion-rich solution containing
`hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions and obtaining a
`treated gas;
`
`releasing the ion-rich solution from the reaction chamber;
`and
`
`releasing the treated gas from the reaction chamber.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11:37-12-6.
`
`42. Challenged claims 26-28 and 40-43 depend from claim 25.
`
`(a) Dependent claims 26-28, and 43 specify the material of the
`
`porous substrate in which the carbonic anhydrase are entrapped.
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 100
`
`

`
`
`
`(b) Dependent claims 40-42 specify that the porous substrates are
`
`separated from the ion-rich solution, and features of how that separation is
`
`accomplished.
`
`IV. STATE OF THE ART AS OF JULY 12, 2002
`43. As noted above, the subject matter of the ’458 patent relates to the
`
`“field of gas effluent treatment and air purification,” and the patent “concerns a
`
`triphasic bioreactor for the biological treatment of gaseous effluent” and “a
`
`triphasic process for the biological treatment of gas effluent.” Ex. 1001 at 1:19-23.
`
`The skilled person understood the engineering principles described below, all of
`
`which are generally described in Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook (7th Ed.,
`
`McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1997) (Ex. 2006).
`
`A. Reactors
`(1) Multiphase Reactors
`44. A multiphase reactor is any reactor that involves two or more of a gas
`
`phase, a liquid phase, and a solid phase which chemically react to form products. A
`
`triphasic reactor is a type of multiphase reactor in which at least one gas phase, at
`
`least one liquid phase, and at least one solid phase are involved in the reaction.
`
`P.A. Ramachandran et al., Three-Phase Catalytic Reactors, 1 and 5 (Gordon and
`
`Breach Science Publishers, 1983) (Ex. 2007). In a triphasic catalytic reactor, the
`
`solid phase includes a solid-phase catalyst, which can be in a fixed bed or in a
`
`22
`
`Page 25 of 100
`
`

`
`
`suspension. Ex. 2006 at 1; see also Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, pgs.
`
`23-52 and 23-53 (7th Ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1997); (Ex. 2006) (describing
`
`two basic categories of gas/liquid/solid reactions and citing Ramachandran (Ex.
`
`2007) as a more detailed source for information regarding reactor types, catalysts,
`
`operating conditions, rate laws, etc.).
`
`(2) Fixed or Packed Bed Reactors
`45. A fixed bed reactor, which can be equivalently termed a packed bed
`
`reactor, is one in which the reactor volume is packed with solid catalyst, and it
`
`includes liquid and/or gas phases flowing through the reactor. Kirk-Othmer
`
`Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, vol. 20, p. 1010 (4th Ed., John Wiley and
`
`Sons, Inc., 1996) (Ex. 2008). A triphasic fixed bed reactor includes liquid and gas
`
`phases flowing through the reactor over a stationary bed of the solid catalyst
`
`particles. Ex. 2007 at 5. The solid catalyst is immobilized in or on a solid support
`
`which forms the packing for the fixed bed, and the solid catalyst is stationary
`
`during operation of the reactor. Ex. 2007 at 1 and 5. A catalyst support, such as a
`
`perforated retaining plate near the base of the reactor, maintains the solid catalyst
`
`stationary during operation of the reactor. Ex. 2007 at 6