UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION BY JAMES M. LYONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT RE38,844
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313–1450
`
`BASF-1003
`U.S. Patent No. RE38,844
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Qualifications ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`III. Level of ordinary skill in the art ........................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Applicable legal standards ............................................................................... 9
`
`V. Background of the technologies disclosed in the ’844 patent ............................ 11
`
`A. Evaporative Emissions .................................................................................. 11
`
`1. Diurnal breathing emissions ..................................................................... 12
`
`2. Refueling emissions .................................................................................. 14
`
`B. Capturing evaporative emissions with adsorbent material ............................ 14
`
`C. Performance of Evaporative Emissions Control Systems ............................. 18
`
`1. Adsorption Capacity and Adsorption Isotherms ...................................... 19
`
`2. Butane Working Capacity ........................................................................ 21
`
`VI. The ’844 patent. ............................................................................................. 22
`
`A. Overview of the disclosure of the ’844 patent............................................... 22
`
`B. Overview of the claims of the ’844 patent. ................................................... 27
`
`VII. Claim construction. ........................................................................................ 31
`
`VIII.
`
`The prior art. ............................................................................................. 31
`
`A. Overview of Meiller. ..................................................................................... 31
`
`B. Overview of Abe. ........................................................................................... 34
`
`C. Overview of Park. .......................................................................................... 37
`
`IX. Summary of the ’844 patent in view of the prior art. .................................... 39
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Honeycomb Scrubbers ................................................................................... 39
`
`B. Incremental Adsorption Capacity .................................................................. 44
`
`1. High IAC volumes .................................................................................... 44
`
`2. Low IAC volumes .................................................................................... 45
`
`X. Motivation to combine the prior art. ................................................................... 47
`
`XI. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27–29, 31–33, 36, 37,
`39–41, 43–45, 48, 49, and 51–53 in view of Meiller, Park, and admitted prior
`art. ....................................................................................................................... 49
`
`A. Claims 1, 18, 31, and 43. ............................................................................... 49
`
`1. Independent claim 1. ................................................................................ 59
`
`2. Independent claim 18. .............................................................................. 60
`
`3. Independent claim 31. .............................................................................. 61
`
`4. Independent claim 43. .............................................................................. 69
`
`B. Dependent claim 2. ........................................................................................ 69
`
`C. Dependent claims 6, 20, 32, and 44. .............................................................. 69
`
`D. Dependent claims 8, 21, 33, and 45. .............................................................. 70
`
`E. Dependent claims 11, 24, 36, and 48. ............................................................ 72
`
`F. Dependent claims 12, 25, 37, and 49. ............................................................ 72
`
`G. Dependent claims 14, 27, 39, and 51. ............................................................ 73
`
`H. Dependent claims 15, 28, 40, and 52. ............................................................ 73
`
`I. Dependent claims 16, 29, 41, and 53. ............................................................ 74
`
`XII. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27–29, 31–33, 36, 37,
`39–41, 43–45, 48, 49, and 51–53 in view of Abe, Park, and admitted prior art.74
`
`A. Claims 1, 18, 31, and 43. ............................................................................... 74
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Independent claim 1. ................................................................................ 78
`
`2. Independent claim 18. .............................................................................. 79
`
`3. Independent claim 31. .............................................................................. 81
`
`4. Independent claim 43. .............................................................................. 82
`
`B. Dependent claim 2. ........................................................................................ 83
`
`C. Dependent claims 6, 20, 32, and 44. .............................................................. 83
`
`D. Dependent claims 8, 21, 33, and 45. .............................................................. 84
`
`E. Dependent claims 11, 24, 36, and 48. ............................................................ 86
`
`F. Dependent claims 12, 25, 37, and 49. ............................................................ 87
`
`G. Dependent claims 14, 27, 39, and 51. ............................................................ 87
`
`H. Dependent claims 15, 28, 40, and 52. ............................................................ 88
`
`I. Dependent claims 16, 29, 41, and 53. ............................................................ 88
`
`XIII.
`
`Claims 3–5, 7, and 19 in view of Meiller, Park, AAPA, and Tennison. .. 89
`
`A. Overview of Tennison. .................................................................................. 89
`
`B. Claims 4 and 19. ............................................................................................ 90
`
`C. Claim 3. .......................................................................................................... 93
`
`D. Claim 5. .......................................................................................................... 94
`
`E. Claim 7. .......................................................................................................... 95
`
`XIV.
`
`Objective indicia of non-obviousness. ..................................................... 95
`
`XV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 96
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`1. My name is James M. Lyons. I have been employed since October
`
`2014 as a Principal Consultant by Trinity Consultants Inc. (Trinity) and work at
`
`Trinity’s Sacramento California office located in Suite 400, 3301 C Street. Trinity
`
`is an environmental consulting company that specializes in air pollution control as
`
`well as other areas. In October 2014, Trinity acquired my former employer Sierra
`
`Research, Inc. (Sierra), which was also an environmental consulting firm
`
`specializing in research and regulatory matters pertaining to air pollution control.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert on behalf of BASF, which I
`
`understand to be the Petitioner in this matter, to provide opinions regarding U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE38,844 (“the ’844 patent”). In particular I have been asked to
`
`provide expert opinions related to the level of skill of ordinary people working in
`
`the field of vehicular evaporative emissions control, the state of the art of the
`
`vehicular evaporative emissions control technology described in the ’844 patent at
`
`the time of the effective filing date of the ’844 patent, and the disclosure of the
`
`prior art relative to the claims of the ’844 patent.
`
`3.
`
`The bases for my opinions include the following: (i) my education as
`
`a degreed Chemist and Chemical Engineer; (ii) my 33 years of experience in the
`
`development, assessment, and testing of emissions control systems for automobiles
`
`and equipment, including direct experience related to the design and operation of
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`evaporative emissions control systems; (iii) my previous experience in reviewing
`
`prior art related to U.S. patents directed toward emissions control, vehicle refueling
`
`vapor recovery systems, the design of vehicle engines, and evaporative emissions
`
`control devices for lawn and garden equipment; (iv) my review of certain prior art
`
`literature pertaining to evaporative emissions control systems for gasoline vehicles;
`
`and (v) my review of certain documents pertaining to this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied at least:
`
`• The ’844 patent (BASF-1001);
`
`• English translation of Japanese Patent Application Publication
`
`Number: H10-37812, which I refer to here as “Abe” (BASF-1009);
`
`• U.S. Patent Number: 5,914,294, which I refer to here as “Park”
`
`(BASF-1010);
`
`• U.S. Patent 2002/0073847 A1, which I refer to here as “Sheline”
`
`(BASF-1022);
`
`• U.S. Patent 6,537,355 B2, which I refer to here as “Scardino” (BASF-
`
`1017);
`
`• U.S. Patent 6,896,852 B1 which I refer to here as “Meiller” (BASF-
`
`1016);
`
`• WO 92/01585 Publication which I refer to here as “Tennison” (BASF-
`
`1011).
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered the
`
`documents listed above, as well as:
`
`• Williams, R., Impact and Control of Canister Bleed Emissions (2001)
`
`(BASF-1012).
`
`• U.S. Patent 5,691,270 to Miller (BASF-1025);
`
`• Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`
`902119, 1990 (BASF-1026);
`
`• Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`
`901110, 1990 (BASF-1027);
`
`• Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`
`2000-01-0895, 2000 (BASF-1028);
`
`• ASTM D5228 (BASF-1024).
`
`6. My experience and qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae,
`
`which I understand is being submitted as Exhibit 1004. My curriculum vitae also
`
`includes a list of all publications I authored in the previous ten years and a list of
`
`cases in which I testified as an expert at trial or by deposition. The cases in which I
`
`have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years
`
`are Ingevity Corp. et al. v. BASF Corp., 1:18-cv-01391 (DED), Pirnik et al. v. Fiat
`
`Chrysler Automobiles N.V., et al, No. 1:15-cv-07199-JMF, Orange County Water
`
`District v. Unocal Corp., et al., 8:03-cv-01742-CJC (DJM), People of the state of
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`California, Ex Rel. California Air Resources Board v. BP West Coast Products
`
`LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, Case No. C12-00567
`
`and Stant USA Corporation v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Case No. No. 1:13-
`
`cv-01908-TWP-TAB, U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana,
`
`Indianapolis Division.
`
`7. My firm is being compensated at the standard hourly rate of $340 for
`
`my work in this case, other than for time related to deposition and trial testimony,
`
`for which my firm is being compensated at the standard hourly rate for such
`
`services of $390. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this
`
`litigation.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`8.
`
`In 1983, I graduated cum laude from the University of California,
`
`Irvine with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. In 1985, I graduated from
`
`the University of California, Los Angeles with a Master of Science degree in
`
`Chemical Engineering.
`
`9.
`
`Following my graduation from the University of California, Los
`
`Angeles, I held several different positions at the California Air Resources Board
`
`(“CARB”) before joining Sierra Research, a consulting firm specializing in air
`
`quality and air pollution control, in 1991.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. My first position at CARB was as an Associate Air Resources
`
`Engineer. I was later promoted to Air Resources Engineer and then to Air Pollution
`
`Research Specialist. My duties during this time included analysis of vehicle
`
`emissions data for the purposes of evaluating the efficacy of emission control
`
`systems of different types and designs in reducing exhaust, crankcase, and
`
`evaporative emissions of regulated and toxic compounds, and determining the
`
`impact of emissions from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles on ambient levels
`
`of toxic air contaminants; participation in the development of California
`
`regulations regarding “gray market” vehicles; and preparation of technical papers
`
`and reports related to vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions.
`
`11.
`
`In 1989, I advanced to the position of Senior Air Pollution Specialist.
`
`I supervised a staff of four professionals whose primary responsibilities were to
`
`characterize emissions of toxic compounds from mobile sources and to develop
`
`control strategies to reduce those emissions. In addition, the group was responsible
`
`for determining the effects of compositional changes to gasoline and diesel fuel on
`
`emissions of regulated and toxic pollutants. Other responsibilities included
`
`overseeing the development of the California state plan to control toxic emissions
`
`from motor vehicles and reduce emissions of chlorofluorocarbons from motor
`
`vehicles. During this time, one of my primary responsibilities was the development
`
`of the original version of CARB’s “real-time” evaporative emissions test
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`procedures and standards for diurnal breathing, hot-soak, and running loss
`
`emissions for vehicles tested using those procedures. These regulations were
`
`adopted by CARB in 1990 and applied to 1995 and later model-year vehicles.
`
`12.
`
`In April 1991, I joined Sierra Research as a Senior Engineer. I became
`
`a Senior Partner at Sierra Research (Sierra) in 1996 and worked in that capacity
`
`until Sierra Research was acquired by Trinity (Trinity) Consultants Inc. in October
`
`of 2014. During my 27 years with Sierra/Trinity, I have continued to work
`
`extensively on issues related to the design and performance of exhaust and
`
`evaporative emissions control systems applied to vehicles, engines, and equipment.
`
`I have been involved with the development, assessment, and testing of advanced
`
`exhaust and evaporative emissions control systems for on- and off-road gasoline-
`
`and diesel-powered vehicles, equipment and engines, as well as Stage I and Stage
`
`II vehicle refueling vapor recovery systems.
`
`13. During the course of my career at Sierra/Trinity, I have closely
`
`followed developments affecting evaporative emission test procedures,
`
`performance standards, and evaporative emission control system designs, including
`
`diagnostic requirements, as they pertain to vehicles and other types of mobile
`
`sources. My activities have included tracking and describing the development of
`
`California regulations in Sierra/Trinity’s monthly newsletter entitled CVS News,
`
`attending regulatory workshops and industry conferences, being involved in related
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`research, both authoring and reviewing technical publications, and providing
`
`technical assistance to clients affected by regulatory proceedings.
`
`14. With respect to specific requirements for on-road light-duty vehicles
`
`that have occurred since I developed the “real-time” evaporative emission
`
`regulations at CARB, by way of example, I have followed:
`
`a) the development of federal “real-time” evaporative emission test procedures
`
`and standards, as well as California and federal standards and test
`
`procedures for on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems;
`
`b) the establishment of on-board diagnostic requirements, which include
`
`monitoring of evaporative emission control systems for defects and
`
`malfunctions;
`
`c) the development of more stringent California and federal “real-time”
`
`evaporative emissions requirements, including the “near zero” evaporative
`
`emission standards associated with the California Low-Emission Vehicle
`
`(LEV) II and U.S. EPA Tier 2 rulemakings, as well as the establishment of
`
`regulatory requirements for fuel system materials; and
`
`d) changes in evaporative emission test fuel specifications intended to address
`
`issues related to evaporative emissions resulting from due permeation of
`
`materials used in automotive fuel systems.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`In addition, I have also closely followed the establishment of CARB’s
`
`“partial-zero emission vehicle” standards as part of the LEV II regulations which
`
`must comply with “zero-evaporative” emission standards and the expansion of
`
`those requirements under the CARB LEV III rulemaking and U.S. EPA’s
`
`subsequent adoption of similar requirements as part of its Tier 3 regulations.
`
`16.
`
`I am a member of the American Chemical Society and the Society of
`
`Automotive Engineers.
`
`III. Level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`17.
`
`I have been asked to define the level of a “person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art” or “POSITA” in the field of evaporative emissions control systems and
`
`component design. In forming my opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art, I
`
`have considered the following factors, which I have been informed are relevant to
`
`the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art: 1) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; 2) the prior art solutions to these problems; 3) the rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; 4) the sophistication of the technology; and 5)
`
`the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the field of
`
`evaporative emission control systems and component design would possess at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical or mechanical engineering. They
`
`would also have at least one year of experience working primarily on issues related
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the control of automotive evaporative emissions. They would, given both their
`
`education background and experience, understand the chemistry and physics
`
`associated with the phenomena of fuel vapor adsorption, desorption, and diffusion.
`
`IV. Applicable legal standards
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the disclosure of
`
`the prior art and knowledge of a POSITA relative to independent claims 1, 18, 31,
`
`and 43 and dependent claims 2–8, 11, 12, 14–16, 19–21, 24, 25, 27–29, 32, 33, 36,
`
`37, 39–41, 44, 45, 48, 49, and 51–53 (collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the
`
`’844 patent at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`20.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’844 patent, I am relying on certain legal
`
`principles that counsel has explained to me.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”). I understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account factual
`
`inquiries, including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or
`
`to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`23. Also, I have been informed and understand that obviousness does not
`
`require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of what
`
`the combined teachings would have suggested to a POSITA at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be evidence regarding
`
`whether a patent is obvious. Such indicia include: commercial success of products
`
`covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention as compared to the closest prior art;
`
`praise of the invention by an infringer or others in the field; the taking of licenses
`
`under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in
`
`the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeding contrary to the
`
`accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`V. Background of the technologies disclosed in the ’844 patent
`
`25. The ’844 patent discloses a system for reducing emissions of gasoline
`
`vapor from automobile fuel tanks. However, every single component of the ’844
`
`system was known in the prior art, arranged in the same way as the ’844 patent,
`
`and used for the same application as the ’844 patent.
`
`A. Evaporative Emissions
`
`26. Gasoline is a mixture of a number of compounds, many of which are
`
`known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. The terms VOC and hydrocarbon
`
`emissions are often used synonymously in the field of automotive emissions
`
`control. VOCs are of importance because they contribute to air pollution including
`
`the formation of “Smog” and its principle constituent ozone through
`
`photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. With respect to evaporative emissions,
`
`the VOC’s of concern evaporate at relatively low temperatures and can therefore
`
`pass into the atmosphere as vapors. Automobiles can emit gasoline fuel vapors in a
`
`number of different ways, but evaporation of fuel and displacement of fuel vapors
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`from automotive fuel tanks have and continue to represent a substantial source of
`
`VOC emissions in the United States.
`
`27. Research into the causes, regulation, and mitigation of evaporative
`
`emissions dates back to the 1960s (BASF-1013, pp. 235-238), motivated by
`
`concerns with SMOG and the subsequently adopted federal health-based standards,
`
`known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which set limits on
`
`ambient concentrations of certain air pollutants including ozone and fine
`
`particulate matter that can impacted by emissions of VOCs. There are at least five
`
`different processes that cause evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered on-
`
`road vehicles. Of most relevance to the ’844 patent are the processes known as
`
`“diurnal breathing emissions” and “refueling emissions.” I discusses these two
`
`processes in the following sections.
`
`Diurnal breathing emissions
`
`1.
` A typical fuel tank contains a mixture of fuel vapor and air that fills
`
`28.
`
`the volume of the tank not occupied by liquid fuel. The illustration below shows
`
`the vapor (orange)/air (blue) mixture above the liquid fuel (orange).
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`29. The diurnal breathing emissions (also referred to as diurnal breathing
`
`losses or DBL) result primarily from the expansion of the vapor above the fuel in
`
`the fuel tank in response to the increase in the ambient air temperature that occurs
`
`during the course of a day. When the vapor expands, it escapes out the vent, which
`
`allows the pressure in the fuel tank to remain constant as the tank is filled or as the
`
`engine consumes fuel during operation. The escape of the vapor from the vent is
`
`illustrated below.
`
`
`
`
`
`30. As the ambient temperature gradually rises, the temperature of the
`
`fuel tank and the vapor present in the fuel tank also begins to gradually rise. Given
`
`the constant volume of the fuel tank, this rise in temperature causes vapor
`
`expansion and the pressure in the vapor space over the fuel tank to increase. On a
`
`vehicle without an evaporative emission control system, a vented fuel cap would
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`generally be used to allow this increase in pressure to be relieved by venting (e.g.,
`
`emitting) hydrocarbon-containing fuel vapors to the atmosphere.
`
`Refueling emissions
`
`2.
` When a partially filled fuel tank is filled with gasoline, the incoming
`
`31.
`
`liquid displaces the hydrocarbon containing vapor present in the tank. The rate of
`
`tank filling is usually quite rapid. On vehicles not designed to control refueling
`
`emissions through the incorporation of an ORVR system, hydrocarbon vapors can
`
`be vented (e.g., emitted to the atmosphere) through the fill pipe or, to the extent
`
`that appropriate regulations have been promulgated in a given area, captured by a
`
`service station based refueling vapor recovery system.
`
`B. Capturing evaporative emissions with adsorbent material
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In California in 1970 and in the rest of the U.S. in 1971, new vehicle
`
`evaporative emission standards took effect which led to the development of
`
`evaporative emission control systems. (See, e.g., BASF-1001, 1:39–40.) Since their
`
`initial deployment, the design of these systems has generally relied on the use of
`
`canisters containing adsorbent materials (principally, if not exclusively, activated
`
`carbons) that remove fuel vapors while allowing the air to vent to the atmosphere.
`
`(BASF-1012, p. 2.)
`
`33. The adsorbed hydrocarbons are intended to be stored in the canister
`
`until purged by using vacuum produced by the operating engine to draw fresh air
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`through the adsorbent which is typically present in the form of granules or pellets
`
`and then to draw the hydrocarbon containing vapor to the intake manifold where it
`
`is burned by the engine. Before and by 2000, canisters often were designed with
`
`three ports: 1) a vapor inlet port which was coupled to the gas tank; 2) a vent port
`
`which vented air to the atmosphere and, during purge, drew air in from the
`
`atmosphere; and 3) a purge port to which desorbed vapors would travel on their
`
`way to be burned up in the engine. (BASF-1001, Figure 1; BASF-1016, Figure
`
`10.) A schematic of vapor/air pathways associated with the adsorption/desorption
`
`process is illustrated in the figure below for a three-port canister. (BASF-1020,
`
`Figure 6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`34. The ’844 patent admits that this three-port design is prior art. (See
`
`BASF-1001, Figure 1, 1:58–64, 3:67.) It was also disclosed in, for example,
`
`Figures 4, 9, and 10 of Meiller.
`
`35. Evaporative emission control systems capture fuel vapors using the
`
`process of adsorption. From a chemical perspective, this involves the deposition of
`
`hydrocarbon molecules present in gasoline vapors onto the surface of the activated
`
`carbon. The hydrocarbon molecules are bound to the activated carbon by physical
`
`rather than chemical attractions or bonds through what are known as “Van Der
`
`Waal” forces.
`
`36. To increase the amount of material that can be deposited onto the
`
`surface of the adsorbent, the adsorbent material is often designed to have a large
`
`surface area by creating microscopic pores throughout the material. The process of
`
`creating these pores in a carbon material is known as “activating” the carbon.
`
`Generally, a higher surface area adsorbent will have a higher capacity to adsorb an
`
`adsorbate. The adsorption of adsorbate onto an activated carbon is illustrated in the
`
`figure below. (BASF-1013, p. 247.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Adsorption is a type of diffusion process that is driven by a gradient in
`
`the concentration between the vapor and the surface of the activated carbon. Given
`
`enough time, an equilibrium will be established between the hydrocarbon
`
`concentrations in the gasoline vapor and on the surface of the activated carbon.
`
`38. Once adsorbed, the hydrocarbon molecules can move about the
`
`surface of the activated carbon or leave the surface – a process which is referred to
`
`as “desorption.” As with adsorption, desorption rates depend on a number of
`
`factors including the hydrocarbon concentration in the vapor. At equilibrium, the
`
`rates of adsorption and desorption are equal. Given the need to both adsorb and
`
`desorb hydrocarbons, in automotive applications, desorption is facilitated by
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`passing fresh air through the activated carbon beds used in evaporative emission
`
`control system devices—the “purge” that I referred to previously.
`
`39. Although not required by any regulation, activated carbon has
`
`historically been the primary adsorbent used in vehicle evaporative emission
`
`canisters in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world since their introduction in the
`
`1970s. However, other adsorbent materials have long been known to exist,
`
`including resins, silica gels, porous silica, molecular sieves, and zeolites.
`
`40. Although, before and by 2000, most automotive canisters relied on
`
`granular or pelleted forms of activated carbon, monoliths, honeycombs, and other
`
`structural forms impregnated with activated carbon or other adsorbents were also
`
`well known before 2001. (See, e.g., BASF-1025, U.S. Patent 5,691,270 to Miller;
`
`BASF-1010, U.S. Patent 5,914,294 to Park; BASF-1018, Gadkaree, K.P., Carbon
`
`honeycomb structures for adsorption applications, 36 Carbon 1998, 981–989.)
`
`C.
`
`Performance of Evaporative Emissions Control Systems
`
`41. As I discuss in detail in Section VI, the ’844 patent discloses and
`
`claims a performance metric called “incremental adsorption capacity” that was not
`
`a common term in 2001 or even today. In this section, I discuss well-known
`
`performance metrics as understood by a POSITA in 2001.
`
`42. Different activated carbons exhibit different properties and
`
`characteristics, in part because activated carbon can be prepared from a variety of
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`carbon sources using various preparation methods. In considering evaporative
`
`emission control systems, vehicle manufacturers are concerned with several issues
`
`including:
`
`• the need for the system to allow compliance with regulatory
`
`performance standards set by environmental agencies such as CARB
`
`and EPA;
`
`• the cost of the system and individual components;
`
`• the size of the system “package” given the space limitations on a
`
`given vehicle;
`
`• the need for the emission control performance of the system to be
`
`durable (e.g., not deteriorate excessively with use); and
`
`• the need for the system to be physically durable so that it survives in
`
`the automotive environment.
`
`43.
`
`In the following sections I discuss different well-known ways to
`
`measure the performance of an adsorbent to be used for evaporative emissions
`
`control.
`
`Adsorption Capacity and Adsorption Isotherms
`
`1.
`44. An adsorbent’s adsorption capacity for a specific gas (e.g., n-butane)
`
`can be defined as the amount (mass) of the gas that a unit (volume or mass) of the
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`adsorbent can adsorb. It is often expressed in grams per liter, grams per gram, or
`
`grams per deciliter.
`
`45. A material’s adsorption capacity is related to its surface area, which
`
`itself is related to the number and size of pores in the material. The adsorption
`
`capacity generally varies with temperature and vapor concentration. For a fixed
`
`temperature (isothermal