`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,962,059
`
`
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(1 of 14)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Scope Of Opinions ............................................................................... 1
`Documents Relevant To This Supplemental Declaration ................... 1
`A. George R. Alther article, “Put the Breaks on: Removal of fats,
`1998 (“Alther”) (Ex. 1007) ....................................................... 1
`B.
`(“Winsness”) May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1012) .................................... 2
`C.
`(ICI Americas, Inc.) 1980 (“ICI”) (Ex. 1008) ........................... 3
`D.
`Owner’s Response”) .................................................................. 3
`E.
`(“Atlas”) (Ex. 1027) ................................................................. 3
`F.
`Revised and Expanded, 2000 (“Cereal Science”) (Ex. 1028). .. 4
`III.
`Statements And Basis Of Opinions ..................................................... 4
`IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 11
`
`oil, and greases is necessary to recycle water and meet
`discharge limits.” Chemical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, March
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0110577
`
`The HLB System: a time-saving guide to emulsifier selection
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (“Patent
`
`“Surface Active Agents,” Atlas Powder Company (1950)
`
`Handbook of Cereal Science and Technology, Second Edition,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(2 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`I, David A. Rockstraw, declare:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`Scope Of Opinions
`
`This Supplemental Declaration supplements my previous declaration entitled
`
`“Declaration Of David A. Rockstraw, Ph.D., P.E., United States Patent No.
`
`8,962,059,” Dated July 14, 2015 (Ex. 1005) (“Original Declaration”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider and supplement my opinions as to the
`
`invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,962,059 (“the ’059 Patent”) in view of the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (“Patent Owner’s
`
`Response”), the prior art relative to the ’059 Patent, and the degree to which
`
`the claimed invention would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, in
`
`light of the prior art at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`II. Documents Particularly Relevant To This Supplemental Declaration
`A. George R. Alther article, “Put the Breaks on: Removal of fats, oil,
`
`
`and greases is necessary to recycle water and meet discharge limits.”
`
`Chemical Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1998 (“Alther”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`3.
`
`Alther appeared in the trade journal “Chemical Engineering” in 1998 and
`
`describes the use of various technologies to break emulsions. Alther
`
`provides an explanation of how demulsifying agents work, stating,
`
`“separation occurs when the agents insert themselves between the surfactant
`
`
`
`1
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(3 of 14)
`
`
`
`molecules, increasing the intermolecular distance and weakening the binding
`
`forces constructed by the emulsifier.”
`
`Alther identifies Polysorbate 80 as an emulsion breaker.
`
`This article was described in more detail in my Original Declaration.
`
`B. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2008/0110577
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`(“Winsness”) May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1012)
`
`6. Winsness recognizes the need for more efficient and economical manners of
`
`recovering oil from byproducts created during the production of ethanol.
`
`Figure 2 and paragraphs [0043] and [0044] of Winsness describe an
`
`apparatus and method for recovering oil from byproducts created during the
`
`dry milling of corn to produce ethanol. The whole stillage leftover after
`
`deriving the ethanol can be mechanically separated into distillers wet grains
`
`and thin stillage using a centrifugal decanter. The resulting thin stillage is
`
`then introduced to an evaporator to create a syrup. The resulting syrup is
`
`delivered to a disk stack centrifuge which recovers some usable oil. The
`
`leftover syrup from the centrifuge is recombined with the distillers wet
`
`grains and dried.
`
`7.
`
`This publication was described in more detail in my Original Declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(4 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The HLB System: a time-saving guide to emulsifier selection (ICI
`
`Americas, Inc.) 1980 (“ICI”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`8.
`
`This document prepared by ICI Americas, Inc. (manufacturer of the
`
`“TWEEN” brand line of surfactants) provides step-by-step training on the
`
`selection of an appropriate surfactant to form an emulsion. In doing so, the
`
`document also provides direct insight into methods that can be used to break
`
`an emulsion.
`
`9.
`
`This article was described in more detail in my Original Declaration.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (“Patent
`
`
`
`Owner’s Response”)
`
`10. The Patent Owner’s Response was filed April 22, 2016. In addition to
`
`considering the Patent Owner’s Response (and its accompanying exhibits), I
`
`considered the deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s experts in Exhibits
`
`1023 and 1024.
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`“Surface Active Agents,” Atlas Powder Company (1950) (“Atlas”)
`
`(Ex. 1027)
`
`11. Atlas is a book prepared by Atlas Powder Company (manufacturer of the
`
`“TWEEN” brand line of surfactants at the time of publication) and provides
`
`
`
`3
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(5 of 14)
`
`
`
`training on the selection of an appropriate surfactant to form an emulsion
`
`and on the selection of an appropriate surfactant to demulsify an emulsion.
`
`F. Handbook of Cereal Science and Technology, Second Edition,
`
`
`
`
`
`Revised and Expanded, 2000 (“Cereal Science”) (Ex. 1028).
`
`12. Cereal Science is a book that provides information on the constituents of
`
`cereals, such as corn, and information on industrial processes using cereals,
`
`such as the milling of corn and ethanol production from corn.
`
`III. Statements And Basis Of Opinions
`13.
`I understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be obvious
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
`
`time the invention was made. In analyzing obviousness, I understand that
`
`the test is whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would
`
`have made obvious the claimed invention.
`
`14. At paragraph 78 of my Original Declaration, I stated that Winsness teaches a
`
`method of recovering oil from a byproduct resulting from the production of
`
`ethanol from corn. Ex. 1012, ¶ [0039]. And, that at the time of the invention
`
`recited in the claims of the ’059 Patent, Winsness had recognized a problem
`
`caused by the creation of an emulsion phase in a centrifuge used to recover
`
`oil from the byproducts of corn to ethanol production. Winsness recognizes
`4
`
`
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(6 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`a “need exists for more efficient and economical manners of recovering oil
`
`from byproducts created during the dry milling of corn to produce ethanol.”
`
`Ex. 1012, ¶ [0009]. One skilled in the art would search for a solution to the
`
`emulsion problem articulated by Winsness.
`
`15. At paragraphs 79 to 88 of my Original Declaration, I stated that the prior art
`
`had known of a solution well before the method of the claims of the ’059
`
`Patent. In this regard, I stated that Alther teaches that centrifugal separators
`
`use centrifugal force to separate oil from water and that emulsion breakers
`
`can be added to a centrifugal separator. Ex. 1007, p. 86, left column, last two
`
`paragraphs. I further stated that Alther teaches that Polysorbate 80 can break
`
`an emulsion. Ex. 1007, p. 82, middle column, last paragraph. I opined that,
`
`at the time of the invention of the ’059 Patent, Alther had disclosed an
`
`identified, predictable potential solution (i.e., adding Polysorbate 80 [Tween
`
`80] to a centrifuge being used to separate oil from water) to the problem (i.e.,
`
`the creation of an emulsion phase in a centrifuge), as recognized by
`
`Winsness. One of skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the
`
`teachings of Winsness and Alther, as both references teach centrifugal
`
`separators and the problems caused by the formation of emulsions while
`
`attempting to separate oil. One of skill in the art thus would have logically
`
`looked to Alther for the solution (i.e., adding Polysorbate 80 to a centrifuge
`
`
`
`5
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(7 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`being used to separate oil from water) to the problem (i.e., the creation of an
`
`emulsion phase in a centrifuge) that could be used in the methods of
`
`Winsness.
`
`16. At paragraphs 84 to 86 of my Original Declaration, I pointed out that ICI
`
`describes how “in applying the [Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance] HLB
`
`system, the HLB of an emulsifier . . . is an excellent indication of what the
`
`emulsifier will do.” Ex. 1008, p. 3, col. 2, last paragraph. Table 2A of ICI
`
`notes that the required HLB for selecting a surfactant to create the most
`
`stable oil-in-water emulsion based on corn oil is 10. Ex. 1008, p. 3, col. 1, 3;
`
`p. 6, Table 2A. Additionally, Figure 4 of ICI demonstrates that when you
`
`vary the HLB number away (up or down) from the recommended HLB
`
`number, the emulsion stability decreases significantly. Ex. 1008, p. 13,
`
`Figure 4. I opined that the ICI HLB system teaches that TWEEN 80 will
`
`demulsify an emulsion of corn oil and water thereby promoting the
`
`water/corn oil separation of corn stillage.
`
`17. Atlas (Ex. 1027) describes the use of Tween surfactants and at Table No. VI
`
`notes that surfactants with an “HLB opposing that for emulsion being treated”
`
`can be used as “DEMULSIFIERS.” See Table No. VI from page 24 of Atlas
`
`(Ex. 1027) reproduced below and annotated with an arrow:
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(8 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18. Atlas further confirms the analysis of ICI in my Original Declaration. In that
`
`regard, Atlas’ teaching that one seeking to demulsify can use a surfactant
`
`with an “HLB opposing that for emulsion being treated” aligns with the
`
`statement in my Original Declaration that Figure 4 of ICI demonstrates that
`
`
`
`7
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(9 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`when you vary the HLB number away (up or down) from the recommended
`
`HLB number, the emulsion stability decreases significantly.
`
`19. One problem in Winsness is a corn oil - water emulsion. ICI teaches that the
`
`HLB to create the most stable oil-in-water emulsion based on corn oil is 10.
`
`Ex. 1008, p. 3, col. 1, ¶ 3; p. 6, Table 2A. When seeking to demulsify an
`
`emulsion of corn oil and water, one seeks a surfactant with an “HLB
`
`opposing that for emulsion being treated.” Atlas, Ex. 1027, Table No. VI,
`
`page 24. Because an HLB value of 10 is centrally between the lipophilic and
`
`hydrophilic values on the chart in ICI, Ex. 1008, p. 3, a surfactant with an
`
`“HLB opposing that for emulsion being treated” could be below 10
`
`(lipophilic) or above 10 (hydrophilic).
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed the Patent Owner’s Response. Pages 24-25 of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response state:
`
`Alther, for example, does not teach the use of Polysorbate 80 to break
`
`all types of emulsions. Rather, as confirmed by Dr. Kohl, Alther’s
`
`reference to Polysorbate 80 is made only in relation to counteracting
`
`the effects of other emulsifiers by using an emulsifier (such as
`
`Polysorbate 80) of the “opposite type” (Ex. 1007 at 83, second column,
`
`emphasis added; Ex. 2003 at ¶ 48). Thus, Alther does not broadly
`
`teach the use of Polysorbate 80 to break emulsions but, rather, the use
`
`
`
`8
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(10 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`of a hydrophilic surfactant (such as Polysorbate 80) to counteract the
`
`emulsion-forming properties of a hydrophobic surfactant.
`
`21. Pages 25-26 of the Patent Owner’s Response further states:
`
`Alther’s teaching relating to the use of emulsifiers of the “opposite
`
`type” is significant because it would have led a person of ordinary
`
`skill away from using Polysorbate 80 on a corn-to-ethanol emulsion.
`
`Dr. Rockstraw, for example, testified that “[o]il-soluble structures like
`
`corn gluten, phosphatides, and starches serve as hydrophilic
`
`surfactants that attract the water to the oil phase” (Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 54-
`
`55; referring to Alther at page 84, middle column). As noted by Dr.
`
`Kohl, because Alther teaches that an emulsifier of the opposite type
`
`should be used to break an emulsion, a person of ordinary skill who
`
`sought to apply Alther’s teaching would have been led to add a
`
`lipophilic surfactant (rather than a hydrophilic surfactant such as
`
`Polysorbate 80) to a corn-to-ethanol emulsion (Ex. 2003 at ¶ 48).
`
`Thus, contrary to Hydrite’s assertions, Alther would have led a person
`
`of ordinary skill away from (rather than toward) the claimed
`
`inventions of the 059 Patent (id.).
`
`22.
`
`I disagree with this mischaracterization of my opinion and the analysis of the
`
`teachings of Alther presented in the Patent Owner’s Response. Alther states
`
`
`
`9
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(11 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`that “[d]epending on the emulsion, a strongly hydrophilic surfactant, such as
`
`polysorbate 80, or a strongly lipophilic surfactant, such as monoglyceryl or
`
`diglyceryl oleate, can break the emulsion.” Ex. 1007 at 83, second column.
`
`One skilled in the art understands this to be mean consider the “emulsion
`
`being treated,” as confirmed by Atlas, Ex. 1027, Table No. VI, page 24.
`
`23.
`
`In an attempt to show that Alther would have led a person of ordinary skill
`
`away from (rather than toward) the claimed inventions of the ’059 Patent,
`
`the Patent Owner’s Response points to a phrase in my Original Declaration
`
`which stated “[o]il-soluble structures like corn gluten, phosphatides, and
`
`starches serve as hydrophilic surfactants that attract the water to the oil
`
`phase,” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 55, and then argued that because Alther teaches that an
`
`emulsifier of the opposite type should be used to break an emulsion, a
`
`person of ordinary skill who sought to apply Alther’s teaching would have
`
`been led to add a lipophilic surfactant (rather than a hydrophilic surfactant
`
`such as Polysorbate 80) to a corn-to-ethanol emulsion, at Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, pages 25-26. This faulty analysis fails to consider the “emulsion
`
`being treated” as stated in Atlas, Ex. 1027, Table No. VI, page 24.
`
`Furthermore, to the extent that hydrophilic surfactants are present in corn
`
`stillage, I note that phosphatides having low HLB values (i.e., the
`
`phosphatides are lipophilic) are also naturally present in corn oil (which is
`
`
`
`10
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(12 of 14)
`
`
`
`
`
`present in corn stillage), Cereal Science, Ex. 1028, page 341. Due to the
`
`potential for natural surfactants of more than one HLB value in corn stillage,
`
`one skilled in art would focus on the HLB of “emulsion being treated” as a
`
`whole when selecting a demulsifier. Atlas, Ex. 1027, Table No. VI, page 24.
`
`Furthermore, Alther does not discredit the use of polysorbate 80 for breaking
`
`an emulsion or describe circumstances under which polysorbate 80 would
`
`not break an emulsion. It is my opinion that the teachings of the prior art,
`
`taken as a whole, would not have led a person of ordinary skill away from
`
`the claimed inventions of the ’059 Patent.
`
`24. Nothing in the Patent Owner’s Response, including Exhibits 2003 and 2004,
`
`and the evidence and remarks presented under the heading of “Objective
`
`Evidence Demonstrates the Patentability of the Challenged Claims,” or the
`
`deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s experts in Exhibits 1023 and 1024
`
`alter my original opinion that Claims 1–16 of the ’059 Patent would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the ’059 Patent.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`25. For at least the reasons outlined in my Original Declaration and the reasons
`
`outlined above, Claims 1–16 of the ’059 Patent would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill at the time of the ’059 Patent.
`
`26. All statements made herein are of my own knowledge and are true to the
`11
`
`
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(13 of 14)
`
`
`
`HYDRITE EXHIBIT 1025
`Hydrite v. Solenis
`Trial IPR2015-1592
`(14 of 14)