`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00202
`Patent RE38,844
`___________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
`REHEARING OF INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Review .......................................................................................... 1
`Argument ......................................................................................................... 1
`The Board erred in finding no reason that the Meiller/Park
`honeycomb would have 73.8% voidages. .................................................. 1
`The Board overlooked evidence that voidage percentage is
`tunable. .................................................................................................. 2
`PO’s incompatibility argument is speculative and, even if
`correct, does not defeat BASF’s inherency argument. .......................... 5
`The Board overlooked compositional dilution. ..................................... 7
`The Board erred in finding that BASF failed to provide evidence
`why a POSITA would have selected Park’s Formulation D. ..................... 9
`The Petition provided substantial evidence to support the use of
`Formulation D in the Meiller/Abe/Park honeycombs. .......................... 9
`The Board erred in crediting the testimonial evidence of PO’s
`expert over BASF’s evidence at institution. ....................................... 11
`The Board erred in its findings related to activated carbon. .................... 12
`The Board overlooked BASF’s primary inherency argument. ........... 12
`BASF presented evidence that BAX-1500 had the highest
`known IAC. ......................................................................................... 14
`III. Conclusion. .................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner BASF requests rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institu-
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`tion of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE38,844. (See Paper 10 (“DI”).)
`
`For each of the three supposed “faults” identified in the Institution Decision, the
`
`Board overlooked or misunderstood portions of the record or made factual findings
`
`unsupported by substantial evidence. BASF respectfully requests the Board review
`
`the decision denying institution and institute a trial on the merits.
`
`I.
`
`Standard of Review
`
`The Board reviews its institution decisions for abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c). Abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is based on an erroneous in-
`
`terpretation of law, a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or an
`
`unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
`
`1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A request for rehearing must “identify all matters
`
`the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`II. Argument
`
`The Board identified three “faults” that, added together, persuaded the Board
`
`that the Petition did not have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. (DI, pp. 16–20.)
`
`Each of the alleged “faults” is based on matters that the Board misapprehended,
`
`overlooked, or on erroneous factual findings not supported by substantial evidence.
`
`A. The Board erred in finding no reason that the Meiller/Park hon-
`eycomb would have 73.8% voidages.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board found that “there is no reason in the record to conclude that the
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`resulting honeycomb” from Park’s Formulation D “would have voidages of exactly
`
`73.8%.” (DI, p. 18.) The Board’s conclusion overlooked BASF’s arguments and is
`
`based on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.
`
`1. The Board overlooked evidence that voidage percentage is tunable.
`The Board made a factual finding that Park “does not give us any reason to
`
`conclude that voidages percentage is a property of the honeycomb that may be
`
`tuned to whatever value is desired.” (DI, p. 19.) The Board overlooked BASF’s
`
`substantial evidence that the percentage of voids in a honeycomb is adjustable and
`
`thus tunable simply by varying the physical structure of the honeycomb cells pro-
`
`duced by the extrusion process. (Petition, p. 37; BASF-1003, ¶108.)
`
`a. Proposed combination of Park with Meiller or Abe.
`The ’844 patent discloses a two-stage approach to automotive evaporative
`
`emissions: a first high-capacity stage and a second low-capacity stage that captures
`
`“bleed emissions” from the first stage. (Petition, p. 7.) Bleed emissions occur when
`
`a car is not running. (Petition, pp. 1–2.) The claims use an invented term, “incre-
`
`mental adsorption capacity” or “IAC,” to define both stages. This capacity measure
`
`is directly correlated with the well-known measurement, butane working capacity
`
`(BWC). (Id. at 11–12.) The high-capacity stage requires an adsorbent volume with
`
`an IAC above 35 g/L and the low-capacity stage requires an adsorbent volume with
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an IAC below 35 g/L. (Id. at 18.) The first stage is conventional. (Id. at 22–25.)
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`The ’844 patent discloses an embodiment, Example 2, for the low-IAC second
`
`stage using a honeycomb structure “prepared according to the method described in
`
`[Park].” (Petition, p. 38 (quoting BASF-1001, 7:29–31).) The patent indicates that
`
`the Example 2 honeycomb achieves a low IAC through two different dilutions: (1)
`
`adding “extrusion formulation ingredients” such as clay (“compositional dilution”)
`
`and (2) forming the ingredients into a honeycomb having an “open cell structure”
`
`which introduces “bed voidages” or holes. The voidages further reduce the amount
`
`of carbon per unit area of the honeycomb (“structural dilution”). (Id. at 38–39.)
`
`BASF asserted Meiller, Abe, and Park in obviousness grounds. (Petition, pp.
`
`4–5.) Both Meiller and Abe disclose the same two-stage approach of the ’844 pa-
`
`tent by using a honeycomb made of activated carbon in a second stage, but do not
`
`describe the IAC of their honeycombs. (Petition, pp. 19–21, 58–59.) BASF demon-
`
`strated that a POSITA would have combined Meiller with Park and Abe with Park,
`
`resulting in honeycombs with inherently low IAC. (Petition, pp. 18, 22, 38, 59.)
`
`BASF provided evidence that the honeycombs of Park utilize both types of dilution
`
`used by the ’844 patent to achieve its Example 2 low-IAC honeycomb. First, Park
`
`describes “structural dilution” using a preferred “open frontal area” of 70–85%,
`
`desirably 73.8%. (Petition, p. 36.) Second, Park discloses four formulations (la-
`
`beled A–D) that each mix carbon with extrusion formulation ingredients with vary-
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ing proportions to cause “compositional dilution.” (Petition, p. 35; POPR, p. 52.)
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`b. The parties agree that voidages are tunable.
`BASF presented substantial evidence that the percentage of voids in a hon-
`
`eycomb is tunable by design. BASF explained that voidages percentage, or open
`
`frontal area, relates to parameters for the physical structure of the honeycomb, in-
`
`cluding cell pitch, cell wall thickness, and cell density. (Petition, pp. 36–37 (citing
`
`BASF-1003, ¶108).) Patent Owner’s (“PO’s”) expert agreed: “[t]he honeycomb's
`
`open frontal area is related to cell density and cell wall thickness in that the three
`
`properties compete for available space in the cross-section of the honeycomb mon-
`
`olith. Thus, fixing any one of these three properties will affect the values that the
`
`other properties can take for a given honeycomb.” (Ex. 2001, ¶ 30.) In other words,
`
`the parties agree that the voidage percentage (open frontal area) can be set by “fix-
`
`ing” the desired open frontal area percentage and deriving the structural parameters
`
`such as cell density and cell wall thickness in the extrusion process. (Id.; Petition,
`
`p. 37.) Park itself suggests that its preferred open frontal area is applicable to its
`
`formulations. (BASF-1003, ¶108.) The Board overlooked these statements and ev-
`
`idence when it concluded that Park “does not give us any reason to conclude that
`
`voidages percentage is a property of the honeycomb that may be tuned to whatever
`
`value is desired,” that BASF did not “provide any argument to that effect,” and that
`
`there was no “evidence that a person of skill in the art would have been able to
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`modify Formulation D to achieve Park’s preferred voidages of 73.8%.” (DI, p. 19.)
`
`
`
`There is no dispute that a honeycomb could be formed with the voidage per-
`
`centage tuned to have 73.8% voidages. (BASF-1003, ¶108; Ex. 2001, ¶30.) PO
`
`never argued that Formulation D could not be formed into a honeycomb having
`
`73.8% voidages. (POPR, p. 47; Ex. 2001, ¶¶51–54.) Rather, as discussed in the
`
`next section, PO argued that the resulting honeycomb might not have an apparent
`
`density of 0.35 g/mL, but implicitly conceded that a honeycomb with 73.8% void-
`
`ages can be formed using Formulation D. (POPR, p. 47.)
`
`2. PO’s incompatibility argument is speculative and, even if correct,
`does not defeat BASF’s inherency argument.
`In support of this alleged “fault,” the Board further found no “evidence that
`
`a person of skill in the art would have been able to modify Formulation D to
`
`achieve Park’s preferred voidages of 73.8%.” (DI, p. 19.) The Board erred by mis-
`
`apprehending PO’s argument and crediting PO’s speculative evidence over
`
`BASF’s evidence at institution. At most, PO’s speculation created an issue of ma-
`
`terial fact that must “be viewed in the light most favorable to Petitioner” at institu-
`
`tion. 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c).
`
`The Board characterized the POPR as arguing that “BASF [has not] provid-
`
`ed any evidence that it is possible to use Formulation D to create a honeycomb
`
`with 73.8% voidages.” (DI, p. 18.) But PO never made such an argument. PO in-
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stead contended that is it “unclear” if the apparent density of Formulation D is
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`compatible with Park’s preferred voidage percentage. (See POPR, p. 47 (citing Ex.
`
`2001, ¶¶51, 54 (Formulation D “may not be compatible with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`73.8% open frontal area” and that the teachings are “potentially contradictory.”)).)
`
`PO’s conjectural language highlights that the argument is a strawman built
`
`on speculation without evidence. PO’s strawman argument is at most an issue of
`
`material fact, and the Board erred by not viewing it in the light most favorable to
`
`BASF. §42.108(c). The Board should have afforded PO’s argument no weight.
`
`PO also recast its argument as a failure of proof, again limiting its argument
`
`to apparent density: “Petitioner presented no evidence that the composition of
`
`Formulation D and a voidage fraction of 73.8% are compatible with an apparent
`
`density of 0.35 g/mL.” (POPR, p. 47.) But this argument assumes that apparent
`
`density has some effect on the inherent IAC of the honeycomb. It does not.
`
` BASF’s inherency argument is based on dilution, and therefore it does not
`
`rise or fall with apparent density. If a honeycomb having 73.8% voidages and
`
`made using the mixture of Formulation D has an apparent density higher or lower
`
`than 0.35 g/mL, it would still have a low IAC due to structural dilution and compo-
`
`sitional dilution. (See Petition, pp. 39–40.) BASF only referenced apparent density
`
`to suggest a similarity in the composition between the Meiller-Park honeycomb
`
`and Example 2 of the ’844 patent. (Petition, p. 40.) Even if viewed in the light
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`most favorable to PO (contrary to the Board’s rules) such that the combination has
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`an apparent density different than 0.35, PO’s argument does not affect BASF’s in-
`
`herency argument that the obvious honeycomb, formed from the Formulation D
`
`mixture into a structure having 73.8% voidages, has an IAC less than 35 g/L.
`
`3. The Board overlooked compositional dilution.
`In its analysis of this alleged fault, the Board made an incorrect factual find-
`
`ing that “a slight modification in the voidages percentage” to 70% “when applied
`
`to Mr. Lyon’s [sic] calculations, gives an IAC of 37 g/L.” (DI, p. 19.) In reaching
`
`this finding, the Board overlooked compositional dilution. (See Petition, p. 40.)
`
`BASF identified two ways that Park’s honeycombs dilute carbon and lower
`
`IAC: structural dilution (e.g., voidages) and compositional dilution (e.g., Formula-
`
`tion D). (Petition, p. 18.) BASF’s argument regarding inherency describes that
`
`structural dilution based on voidages alone brings the IAC below 35, but also de-
`
`scribes that the composition causes substantial dilution and further reduces IAC be-
`
`low the value Mr. Lyons calculated for IAC based on voidages alone. (Id. at 39–
`
`40.) By ignoring the compositional dilution in its IAC calculations, the Board erred
`
`in finding an IAC of 37 g/L.
`
`BASF argued that a POSITA would have been motivated to create a honey-
`
`comb with 73.8% voidages based on the teachings of Park and that a honeycomb
`
`with this structure, even if made entirely of carbon (i.e., with no compositional di-
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lution which is never the case), would have had an inherent IAC below 35. (Peti-
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`tion, pp. 36–40.) BASF presented calculations from its expert, Mr. Lyons, who
`
`stressed that his calculations were an upper limit to the IAC achieved by diluting
`
`based on voidages, not the exact value: “Using BAX-1500 to create a honeycomb
`
`with 73.8% voidages, as explicitly taught by Park, would therefore result in an ad-
`
`sorbent with an IAC of no more than 80*0.403=32 g/L.” (BASF-1003, ¶110.) The
`
`Board erred by interpreting Mr. Lyons’s calculation as an exact IAC value.
`
`Mr. Lyons explained that the calculation is an upper limit because it assumes
`
`that the honeycomb was “created exclusively with the activated carbon.” (Id.,
`
`¶111.) BASF further provided evidence that Park’s honeycombs always have
`
`compositional dilution (i.e., they are never formed of 100% carbon). (Petition, pp.
`
`34–35.) Every embodiment of Park dilutes the carbon used in the honeycomb by at
`
`least 50% by weight. (Id. at 34–35, 40.) Therefore, the resulting honeycomb using
`
`the voidage percentage suggested by Park would have an even lower IAC than the
`
`upper limit. (Petition, p. 40; Ex. 2001, ¶26 (PO’s expert acknowledging that in-
`
`creasing carbon increases IAC).)
`
`The Petition specifically noted that the low carbon content in the mixture
`
`“provides even more dilution and further reduces the IAC of the Meiller-Park hon-
`
`eycomb.” (Petition, p. 40.) Mr. Lyons provided further testimonial evidence that
`
`“Formulation D includes only 30% activated carbon by weight, indicating sub-
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stantially more dilution than that based on voidages alone and therefore a sub-
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`stantially lower IAC value.” (BASF-1003, ¶111.) The Board improperly over-
`
`looked this entire argument in concluding that a slight variation in voidage per-
`
`centage would result in an IAC above 35.
`
`B.
`
`The Board erred in finding that BASF failed to provide evidence
`why a POSITA would have selected Park’s Formulation D.
`
`In another alleged “fault,” the Board found that “BASF has failed to provide
`
`any evidence why a [POSITA] would have been led by Park’s strength require-
`
`ment for an air intake system [(AIS)] to select Formulation D for evaporative emis-
`
`sions systems.” (DI, pp. 17–18.) However, the Board has misapprehended and
`
`overlooked BASF’s evidence to support the use of Formulation D. Further, the
`
`Board’s finding ignores the mandate of 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c) that when a PO sub-
`
`mits testimonial evidence in support of its POPR, “a genuine issue of material fact
`
`created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable
`
`to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter
`
`partes review.”
`
`1. The Petition provided substantial evidence to support the use of
`Formulation D in the Meiller/Abe/Park honeycombs.
`The Board overlooked substantial evidence supporting the use of Formula D
`
`in the Meiller/Park and Abe/Park honeycombs. To support the use of Formulation
`
`D, BASF demonstrated that a POSITA would have looked to Park’s embodiments
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relating to AIS to form the low-capacity honeycomb because of the similarities
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`with Meiller’s application. (Petition, pp. 29, 33.) Specifically, both Park’s embod-
`
`iments and Meiller’s application are automotive applications adsorbing volatile or-
`
`ganic compounds from fuel vapor when the automobile engine is off. (Id. at 29.)
`
`The Board agreed “the goals of Park’s air intake systems and Meiller’s evaporative
`
`emissions systems are similar.” (DI, p. 17.) Yet, the Board stated that “BASF also
`
`argues that the strength requirements recited in Park for [AIS] also apply to evapo-
`
`rative emissions systems.” (DI, p. 17.) This was not BASF’s argument.
`
`BASF provided evidence that the POSITA’s motivation to consider Park’s
`
`embodiments related to AIS would lead the POSITA to Park’s Formulation D be-
`
`cause it is the only formulation that meets Park’s explicit requirements for the air
`
`intake application: a carbon content of 25–35% by weight and an axial crushing
`
`strength from 1200–1600 psi. (Petition, p. 33–34 (citing BASF-1003, ¶105 (“for-
`
`mulation D being the only example… that meets these criteria”)).)
`
`BASF referenced crushing strength in its Petition based on the explicit direc-
`
`tion of Park to identify the only embodiment covering the admittedly relevant AIS
`
`embodiment. Thus, the Board erred in stating that BASF argues that the strength
`
`requirements recited in Park for AIS also apply to evaporative emissions systems.
`
`Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, BASF provided substantial evidence to sup-
`
`port the use of Formulation D in the Meiller/Park and Abe/Park honeycombs.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. The Board erred in crediting the testimonial evidence of PO’s expert
`over BASF’s evidence at institution.
`In addition, the Board improperly credited the testimony of PO’s expert re-
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`garding differences between flow rates and vapor concentrations in AIS and evapo-
`
`rative emissions systems over the evidence presented by BASF supporting the
`
`combination. (DI, p. 17 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 43–44).) PO’s expert suggested, with
`
`no corroborating evidence, that a POSITA would not use a honeycomb designed
`
`for an AIS in an evaporative emission system. Despite the lack of evidentiary sup-
`
`port, the Board stated that this testimony was “important[],” implying that this tes-
`
`timony contradicted BASF’s evidence showing motivation to use Park’s Formula-
`
`tion D for the honeycomb used in Meiller’s evaporative emissions system. (Id.)
`
`In contrast to PO’s lack of supporting documentary evidence, BASF pre-
`
`sented evidence demonstrating that Meiller uses honeycombs to capture diurnal
`
`bleed emissions in an evaporative admission system—leaks from a main canister
`
`when the engine is not operating—in the same way as PO’s expert admits the AIS
`
`system works. (See Petition, p. 29 (“This is similar to Meiller’s disclosure of ad-
`
`sorbing fuel vapors from bleed emissions during a ‘diurnal cycle’ where the en-
`
`gine is turned off.”); Ex. 2001, ¶44 (“In the case of AIS emissions control sys-
`
`tems, vapors flow from the engine and need to be captured only when the engine is
`
`not operating.”) BASF also provided evidence that the use of the honeycomb it-
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`self solves the air flow problem discussed by PO’s expert. (Petition, pp. 32, 41.)
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`Additionally, the Board erred in finding the testimony relevant to crushing
`
`strength. PO never explained, or even mentioned, how the cited testimony is rele-
`
`vant to the crushing strength of Formulation D. (DI, p. 17.) Viewed in that light,
`
`PO’s uncorroborated expert testimony about air flow says nothing about crushing
`
`strength or any of BASF’s motivations for using Park’s Formulation D in Meiller’s
`
`honeycomb. (Petition, p. 32.) Even assuming PO’s expert’s testimony to be rele-
`
`vant to crushing strength, at most, the testimony at most created a genuine issue of
`
`material fact regarding whether a POSITA would have used Park’s Formulation D
`
`in Meiller’s honeycomb. Issues of material fact must “be viewed in the light most
`
`favorable to Petitioner” for purposes of deciding whether to institute Inter Partes
`
`Review. 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c). The Board’s failure to do so constitutes clear error.
`
`C. The Board erred in its findings related to activated carbon.
`
`In another alleged “fault,” the Board stated that “[w]e cannot conclude…
`
`than [sic] any activated carbon that a [POSITA] would have selected to use in
`
`Park’s Formulation D necessarily would have had an IAC below that of BAX
`
`1500.” (DI, p. 20.) The Board misapprehends BASF’s obviousness argument, over-
`
`looks the substantial evidence provided by BASF, and improperly credits PO’s ev-
`
`idence over BASF’s evidence in direct contradiction to Rule 42.108(c).
`
`1. The Board overlooked BASF’s primary inherency argument.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`By focusing only on the Petition’s statement that BAX-1500 was the highest
`
`
`
`capacity carbon, the Board overlooks BASF’s primary inherency argument, which
`
`is a comparison between the honeycomb in the ’844 patent with the honeycomb
`
`that a POSITA would have been motivated to create using Park. (Petition, pp. 37–
`
`41.) BASF noted that the ’844 patent does not “employ a novel carbon” and that
`
`“Park, in fact, discloses that its process uses a publicly available carbon from
`
`Westvaco Corporation.” (Id., p. 38, (citing BASF-1010, 9:41–44; BASF-1003,
`
`¶105).) Thus, the Board erred in requiring BASF to prove that a low IAC would be
`
`inherent over any possible non-diluted carbon at the time of the ’844 patent. In-
`
`stead, the low IAC only needed to be inherent in the obvious honeycomb resulting
`
`from the Abe-Meiller-Park combination which stressed that use of publicly availa-
`
`ble Westvaco carbons. BASF’s expert explained that BAX 1100 and BAX 1500
`
`were two high capacity carbons commercially available from Westvaco as of
`
`Park’s filing date and the filing date of the ’844 patent. (BASF-1003, ¶51.) The Pe-
`
`tition further states that BAX 1100 was “conventional” and BASF’s expert de-
`
`scribes it as an “obvious choice” to use in the honeycomb. (Petition, p. 39; BASF-
`
`1003, ¶110.) BASF proved that using the obvious BAX-1100, a commercially
`
`available Westvaco carbon, would result in an inherent IAC of well under 35 g/L.
`
`(Petition, p. 39 (citing BASF-1003, ¶110).) The Board overlooked Park’s teaching
`
`of the carbons used in its process and erred in its finding that BASF did not argue
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or provide evidence that a POSITA would have selected BAX-1100 carbon.
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`2. BASF presented evidence that BAX-1500 had the highest known IAC.
`BASF presented evidence that BAX-1500 was the highest known publicly
`
`available carbon at the time and that honeycombs made from BAX-1500 inherently
`
`had an IAC less than 35 g/L. (BASF-1003, ¶¶110–11; Petition, p. 11; BASF-1019.)
`
`With no evidence to the contrary, PO argued that BASF lacked evidence. (POPR,
`
`p. 50.) PO’s argument was disingenuous at best given its representations to the Eu-
`
`ropean Patent Office (“EPO”) in an Opposition that resulted in revocation of the
`
`corresponding EP patent. (See Petition, p. 11 (citing Exhibit 1019 (a plot provided
`
`by PO to the EPO showing that BAX-1500 has the highest IAC and highest BWC
`
`of 14 tested carbons and that IAC is directly correlated with BWC)).) Regardless,
`
`PO’s arguments at most created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
`
`BAX-1500 was the highest capacity carbon. The Board was therefore required to
`
`“view the issue in the light most favorable to Petitioner.”
`
`Despite no challenges to the credibility of BASF’s witness by PO, the Board
`
`dismissed the testimony of BASF’s expert about the IACs of known carbons as not
`
`“credible” and “unsupported by any reasoning or evidence of record.” (DI, p. 20.)
`
`However, the Board itself acknowledged that “BAX 1500 certainly has the highest
`
`IAC of any carbon disclosed in the ’844 patent.” (DI, p. 20.) In reaching its conclu-
`
`sion, the Board overlooked that this fact alone is evidence in the record that
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAX-1500 was the highest-capacity carbon available at the time and overlooked
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`BASF’s additional evidence, including representations to this fact by PO to the
`
`EPO. In fact, the ’844 patent gives specific numbers supporting this fact, noting
`
`that high capacity carbons have a butane working capacity (BWC) between “9 to
`
`15+g/dL,” that the BWC of BAX-1500 was 16g/dL, and that high BWC carbons
`
`have high IAC. (BASF-1001, 2:12–21, 8:49; see Petition, pp. 22–25.) The Board
`
`further discredited Mr. Lyons’s opinion, stating that “it is difficult to understand
`
`how Mr. Lyons would have” concluded that BAX-1500 had the highest IAC at the
`
`time of the invention “given that he also testifies that IAC ‘is not a term of art and
`
`was not used at the time Meiller was filed’ in 2000.” (DI, p. 20 n.11.) But Mr. Ly-
`
`ons’s opinion is not unreasonable on its face given the ’844 patent’s own state-
`
`ments tying the known BWC metric with IAC. Further, PO’s statements to the
`
`EPO, discussed above, stressed that IAC is highly correlated with BWC. (See Peti-
`
`tion, p. 11; BASF-1019.) BASF’s expert merely applied the public admissions by
`
`PO regarding IAC, a measurement term that they made up as a stand-in for BWC.
`
`PO did not contest the conclusions of PO’s expert regarding the correlation of
`
`BWC and IAC, nor did it provide any evidence of a carbon with higher capacity.
`
`III. Conclusion.
`
`For the reasons specified above, BASF respectfully requests the Board re-
`
`consider its decision and institute Inter Partes Review against the ’844 patent.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 29, 2018
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1700 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-4707
`(202) 737-0500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
` /Lori A. Gordon/
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Registration No. 50,633
`Attorney for BASF Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2019-00202
`U.S. Patent RE38,844
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing REQUEST FOR RE-
`
`HEARING OF INSTITUTION DECISION was served via electronic mail on
`
`May 29, 2019, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Brian M. Buroker, Reg. No. 39,125
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`Spencer W. Ririe, Reg. No. 66,740
`GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
`Irvine, CA 92612
`sririe@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
` /Lori A. Gordon/
`
`
`
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Registration No. 50,633
`Attorney for BASF Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 29, 2019
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`1700 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-4707
`(202) 737-0500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
