`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`