`
`
`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
`___________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`D.
`
`I.
`Introduction. ..................................................................................................... 1
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ............................................... 2
`II.
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). ....................................... 3
`III.
`Citation of prior art. .................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Statutory grounds for the challenge ............................................................ 4
`B.
`IV. The ’844 patent. ............................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Technology Background. ........................................................................... 5
`B.
`The ’844 patent purports to capture bleed emissions by adding a
`low-capacity adsorbent after a conventional adsorbent. ............................ 7
`The ’844 patent’s multi-stage approach was not new. ............................... 9
`The ’844 patent’s self-created IAC metric does not impart
`patentability to the claims. ........................................................................ 11
`Claim construction. ................................................................................... 13
`E.
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. .............................................................. 14
`F.
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Meiller, Park, and AAPA renders the
`challenged claims (except claims 3–5, 7 and 19) obvious. ........................... 14
`A. Overview of Meiller. ................................................................................ 15
`B.
`Overview of Park. ..................................................................................... 17
`C.
`The combination of Meiller, Park, and AAPA discloses the subject
`matter of independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43. ....................................... 18
`The combination discloses the two-stage initial and subsequent
`adsorbent volumes. .............................................................................. 19
`
`1.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2.
`3.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`The combination discloses the IAC of the initial volume. .................. 22
`The combination discloses the IAC of the subsequent volume. ......... 27
`Independent claim 1. ................................................................................ 41
`Independent claim 18. .............................................................................. 42
`Preamble .............................................................................................. 42
`Alleged “Improvement” ...................................................................... 43
`Independent claim 31. .............................................................................. 44
`Preamble .............................................................................................. 44
`Alleged “Improvement” ...................................................................... 50
`Independent claim 43. .............................................................................. 52
`G.
`H. Dependent claim 2. ................................................................................... 53
`I.
`Dependent claims 6, 20, 32, and 44. ........................................................ 53
`J.
`Dependent claims 8, 21, 33, and 45. ........................................................ 54
`K. Dependent claims 11, 24, 36, and 48. ...................................................... 55
`L.
`Dependent claims 12, 25, 37, and 49. ...................................................... 56
`M. Dependent claims 14, 27, 39, and 51. ...................................................... 56
`N. Dependent claims 15, 28, 40, and 52. ...................................................... 57
`O. Dependent claims 16, 29, 41, and 53. ...................................................... 57
`VI. Ground 2: The combination of Abe, Park, and AAPA renders the challenged
`claims (except claims 3–5, 7 and 19) obvious. .............................................. 58
`A. Overview of Abe. ..................................................................................... 58
`B.
`The combination of Abe, Park, and APA disclose the subject
`matter of independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43. ....................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`The combination discloses the two-stage initial and subsequent
`adsorbent volumes. .............................................................................. 60
`The combination discloses the IAC of the initial volume. .................. 61
`The combination discloses the IAC of the subsequent volume. ......... 63
`Independent claim 1. ................................................................................ 65
`Independent claim 18. .............................................................................. 66
`Preamble .............................................................................................. 66
`Alleged “Improvement” ...................................................................... 67
`Independent claim 31. .............................................................................. 68
`Preamble .............................................................................................. 68
`Alleged “Improvement” ...................................................................... 69
`Independent claim 43. .............................................................................. 69
`F.
`Claim 2. .................................................................................................... 70
`G.
`Claims 6, 20, 32, and 44. .......................................................................... 70
`H.
`Claims 8, 21, 33, and 45. .......................................................................... 71
`I.
`Claims 11, 24, 36, and 48. ........................................................................ 71
`J.
`Claims 12, 25, 37, and 49. ........................................................................ 72
`K.
`Claims 14, 27, 39, and 51. ........................................................................ 72
`L.
`M. Claims 15, 28, 40, and 52. ........................................................................ 73
`N.
`Claims 16, 29, 41, and 53. ........................................................................ 73
`VII. Ground 3: The combination of Meiller, Park, and Tennison renders claims 3-
`5, 7 and 19 obvious. ....................................................................................... 74
`A. Overview of Tennison. ............................................................................. 74
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`Claims 4 and 19. ....................................................................................... 75
`B.
`Claim 3. .................................................................................................... 78
`C.
`Claim 5. .................................................................................................... 78
`D.
`Claim 7. .................................................................................................... 80
`E.
`VIII. Objective indicia of non-obviousness do not overcome the strong evidence
`of obviousness against the ’844 patent. ......................................................... 80
`IX. Mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)). ................................................. 81
`X.
`Conclusion. .................................................................................................... 83
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE38,844 to Hiltzik et al.
`File History for U.S. Patent No. RE38,844
`Declaration of James Lyons
`Curriculum Vitae of James Lyons
`U.S. Patent No. 6,540,815 to Hiltzik et al.
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,540,815
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/335,897
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-037812
`(in Japanese)
`English Translation of Japanese Patent Application
`Publication No. H10-037812
`U.S. Patent No. 5,914,294 to Park et al.
`WIPO Publication No. WO 92/01585 to Tennison et al.
`Williams, R., Impact and Control of Canister Bleed Emissions (2001)
`Philip Johnson et al., Carbon Materials for Advanced Technologies,
`Chapter 8: Activated Carbon for Automotive Applications, Burchell,
`ed. (1999)
`Declaration of Warren Smith, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,456,236 to Wakashiro et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,852 to Meiller et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,537,355 to Scardino et al.
`Gadkaree, K.P., Carbon honeycomb structures for adsorption appli-
`cations, 36 Carbon 7–8,1998
`Plot of IAC versus BWC submitted by Ingevity to the European Pa-
`tent Office
`MECA, Evaporative Emission Control Technologies for Gasoline
`Powered Vehicles, December 2010
`U.S. Patent No. 5,456,237 to Yamazaki et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0073847 to Sheline
`U.S. Patent No. 4,677,086 to McCue et al.
`ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of Butane Working
`Capacity of Activated Carbon, Designation D5228
`U.S. Patent 5,691,270 to Miller
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`902119, 1990
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`901110, 1990
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`2000-01-0895, 2000
`
`
`
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`BASF Corporation (“BASF”) requests inter partes review of claims 1–8, 11,
`
`12, 14–16, 18–21, 24, 25, 27–29, 31–33, 36, 37, 39–41, 43–45, 48, 49, and 51–53
`
`(collectively the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE38,844 (“the ’844 pa-
`
`tent”).
`
` For decades before the ’844 patent, automobiles employed a canister filled
`
`with granular carbon to capture vapor emissions from fuel tanks. These canisters
`
`were known to leak fumes when an automobile was not run for more than a day
`
`(referred to as “bleed emissions”). “Bleed emissions” were a well-known problem
`
`that the ’844 patent purports to solve by adding a second stage of vapor capture af-
`
`ter the conventional canister.
`
`The addition of a second stage in an evaporative emissions system to reduce
`
`bleed emissions was not new. The same two-stage solution was disclosed in a Jap-
`
`anese Patent to Abe more than three years before the earliest possible priority date
`
`of the ’844 patent. The two-stage solution was also disclosed in a prior art article
`
`authored by a co-inventor of the ’844 patent, and in multiple U.S. patents assigned
`
`to Delphi Technologies before the ’844 patent’s earliest priority date.
`
`The ’844 patent’s purported novelty therefore rests in a new non-standard
`
`metric created by the ’844 patent for evaluating the two stages—“incremental ad-
`
`sorption capacity” or IAC. Each of the challenged claims requires the initial stage
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`of the system to have an IAC above 35 and the second stage to have an IAC below
`
`35. Because IAC is a term created by the Patent Owner (“PO”), it does not appear
`
`in the prior art of record. Regardless, the ’844 patent concedes that the prior art
`
`achieves the claimed IAC ranges for both stages. PO admitted that its commercial-
`
`ly-available BAX carbons achieved an IAC above 35 well before the ’844 patent.
`
`To achieve an IAC below 35 for the second stage, the ’844 patent simply diluted
`
`conventional material by forming it into a honeycomb. But, the ’844 patent admits
`
`that it created the second stage honeycomb using the method disclosed in a prior
`
`art patent to Park. Therefore, characterizing the stages using the newly minted
`
`IAC metric does not impart any patentability to the claims.
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of James Lyons, who has over
`
`thirty years of experience in emissions control, demonstrates that the challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)).
`
`The undersigned and BASF certify that the ’844 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. BASF certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`A. Citation of prior art.
`
`The ’844 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent 6,540,815 (BASF-1005) claiming
`
`the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/335,897 (BASF-1007), filed on
`
`November 21, 2001.1 In support of the grounds of unpatentability below, BASF
`
`cites the following prior art references, each filed or published before November
`
`21, 2001.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,852 to Meiller et al. (“Meiller”), provided as BASF-
`
`1016, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(e) because it was filed October 26,
`
`2000. Meiller was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’844
`
`patent or the original ’815 patent from which it reissued.
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 10-37812 to Abe et al.
`
`(“Abe”), provided as BASF-1008, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) be-
`
`cause it published on February 13, 1998. A certified English translation of Abe is
`
`provided as BASF-1009. (See also BASF-1014.) Abe was not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ’844 patent or the original ’815 patent from
`
`which it reissued.
`
`
`1 BASF does not acquiesce that the challenged claims are entitled to the fil-
`
`ing date of the provisional application.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,914,294 to Park et al. (“Park”), provided as BASF-1010,
`
`is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it issued on June 22, 1999.
`
`Park is explicitly referenced in the ’844 patent but was not applied in any rejection
`
`during prosecution of the ’844 reissue or the original ’815 patent.
`
`Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) contained in the ’844 patent
`
`qualifies as prior art in inter partes review proceedings. See Constant v. Advanced
`
`Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“A statement in a pa-
`
`tent that something is in the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for
`
`determinations of anticipation and obviousness.”); WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geo-
`
`physical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (applying Constant for
`
`IPR proceedings).
`
`WIPO Publication No. WO 92/01585 to Tennison et al. (“Tennison”) pro-
`
`vided as BASF-1011, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it pub-
`
`lished on February 6, 1992. Tennison was discussed during prosecution but was
`
`not combined with Meiller, Abe, or Park.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge
`
`This Petition presents the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`• Ground 1: 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 are rendered un-
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`patentable by Meiller in view of Park and AAPA under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a).
`
`• Ground 2: 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 are rendered un-
`
`patentable by Abe in view of Park and AAPA under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a).
`
`• Ground 3: Claims 3–5, 7, and 19 are rendered unpatentable by
`
`Meiller in view of Park and Tennison under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`IV. The ’844 patent.
`
`The ’844 patent uses multiple adsorbent volumes to reduce bleed emissions.
`
`The bleed emissions problem, and the ’844 patent’s solution to that problem, were
`
`publicly disclosed before the patent’s earliest possible priority date.
`
`A. Technology Background.
`
`Gasoline contains a number of different hydrocarbons. Many of these hydro-
`
`carbons are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that evaporate at low tempera-
`
`tures, even inside a fuel tank. (BASF-1003, ¶26.) The volume of the tank not occu-
`
`pied by liquid gasoline is occupied by a mixture of air and fuel vapor. (BASF-
`
`1003, ¶28.) Conventional fuel tanks vent to the atmosphere to prevent pressure
`
`build-up as the fuel tank is filled or drained of gasoline. (BASF-1003, ¶29.) The
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`air/vapor mixture escapes through this vent, potentially causing harmful atmos-
`
`pheric pollution. (BASF-1003, ¶29.)
`
`Since about 1970, automobiles in the U.S. have been equipped with a canis-
`
`ter, typically containing activated carbon to capture the hydrocarbons before they
`
`are released into the atmosphere. (BASF-1003, ¶32.) These canisters work by the
`
`process of adsorption whereby gas hydrocarbon molecules stick to the surface of a
`
`material called an adsorbent. (BASF-1003, ¶¶35-36.) Because adsorption is a re-
`
`versible process, the hydrocarbons can be desorbed, or unstuck from the adsor-
`
`bent’s surface, in a controlled manner such that the fuel vapor can be re-routed to
`
`and burned up in a running engine. This process is known as purging or regenera-
`
`tion. (BASF-1003, ¶33.)
`
`Activated carbon is one adsorbent that was widely known and used to cap-
`
`ture fuel vapors. Activated carbon has a large number of microscopic pores that
`
`serve to increase the surface area of the carbon, thereby increasing the carbon’s ca-
`
`pacity to adsorb hydrocarbons (i.e., its adsorption capacity). (BASF-1003, ¶36.)
`
`Hydrocarbons can escape from a fuel tank when the engine is not running.
`
`Diurnal changes in temperatures create pressure imbalances that cause vapor ex-
`
`haust as temperatures rise, and air inhalation as temperatures fall. This phenome-
`
`non is known as diurnal breathing loss (DBL). (BASF-1003, ¶29.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`Conventional canisters capture DBL emissions. However, if the canister is
`
`not purged for a few days, the adsorbed vapor from the DBL emissions can migrate
`
`through and escape from the canister to the atmosphere, causing what are known as
`
`bleed emissions. (BASF-1016, 1:61–67.) This occurs no matter how high the can-
`
`ister’s adsorption capacity, so merely increasing the capacity of the canister does
`
`not solve the bleed emission problem. (BASF-1009, ¶3.)
`
`B.
`
`The ’844 patent purports to capture bleed emissions by adding a
`low-capacity adsorbent after a conventional adsorbent.
`
`The ’844 patent purports to “sharply reduc[e] diurnal breathing loss emis-
`
`sions from automotive evaporative emissions control systems by providing multi-
`
`ple layers, or stages, of adsorbents.” (BASF-1001, Abstract.) The multiple layers
`
`include “high working capacity carbons on the fuel source-side and preferred lower
`
`working capacity adsorbent on the vent-side.” (Id.) The layer on the fuel source-
`
`side is also referred to as an “initial” layer, and the layers on the vent-side are re-
`
`ferred to as “subsequent” layers. (BASF-1003, ¶51, 53.) The extra layers can be
`
`inside the same canister as the conventional initial layer, or can be in a separate
`
`canister. Figure 2 (annotated below) depicts the canister system of the ’844 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`
`
`The canister system includes a primary canister 1 containing adsorbent vol-
`
`umes 7–10. (BASF-1001, 6:31–40.) The primary canister 1 connects to the fuel
`
`tank via “vapor source connection 5.” (BASF-1001, 6:35; 1:61–62.) The primary
`
`canister 1 exhausts air through “vacuum purge connection 6” when the engine is
`
`running, and through “connecting hose 13” when the engine is off. (BASF-1001,
`
`6:35–37; 1:60–63.) The connecting hose 13 “permit[s] fluid stream flow from the
`
`primary canister body 1 to the supplemental canister body 12” which then vents “to
`
`the atmosphere” through vent port 4. (BASF-1001, 6:34–40.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`The ’844 patent refers to adsorbent volume 7 as the “fuel source side re-
`
`gion,” and the adsorbent volumes 8–11 as “vent-side canister regions.” (BASF-
`
`1001, 6:36–37.) Many claims, however, only require two adsorbent volumes: an
`
`initial adsorbent volume (e.g., the “fuel source side” volume 7 in Figure 2) and a
`
`subsequent adsorbent volume (e.g., vent-side volume 11 in supplemental canister
`
`13).
`
`C. The ’844 patent’s multi-stage approach was not new.
`
`The multi-stage approach to capturing evaporative emissions was not new.
`
`For example, more than eight months before the ’844 patent’s earliest possible pri-
`
`ority date, one of the co-inventors, Roger Williams, published an article disclosing
`
`the beneficial use of an auxiliary canister, including the following figure illustrat-
`
`ing a “50 CC Auxiliary Chamber” connected to the vent port of a three-port canis-
`
`ter:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`(BASF-1012, Figure 10.) Meiller discloses a similar configuration, with an auxilia-
`
`ry canister 310 (referred to as a “hydrocarbon scrubber”) connected to a conven-
`
`tional canister 376 as shown below in Figure 10.
`
`Similarly, Abe discloses a second canister connected to a conventional first canis-
`
`ter specifically for solving the DBL problem as shown in Figure 4 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`D. The ’844 patent’s self-created IAC metric does not impart patent-
`ability to the claims.
`
`The ’844 patent contends that its inventors realized “the dynamics within the
`
`adsorbent bed” that lead to bleed emissions and this realization drove them to the
`
`conclusion that the vent-side adsorbent volumes must have a low capacity. (BASF-
`
`1001, 6:6–14.) The ’844 patent uses two different capacity metrics for its stages.
`
`First, the patent uses the standard metric known as “butane working capacity” or
`
`BWC which characterizes how much butane a material can adsorb and desorb.
`
`(BASF-1003, ¶49; BASF-1001, 2:8–12.)
`
`Second, the ’844 patent developed a non-standard capacity metric, variably
`
`called “incremental adsorption capacity” (BASF-1001, 9:34–35), “incremental n-
`
`butane capacity” (BASF-1001, 5:52–53), or simply “incremental capacity” (BASF-
`
`1001, 2:19, 3:51–52). These appear to refer to the same concept, which this Peti-
`
`tion refers to as “IAC.” The patent provides little-to-no description of how to
`
`measure IAC, but does supply examples of existing materials with high or low
`
`IAC. Recently, during an opposition which resulted in revocation of the European
`
`counterpart to the ’844 patent, PO publicly stated that IAC is highly correlated
`
`with BWC. (BASF-1019.) Although the accuracy of this assertion is unclear, it
`
`demonstrates PO’s low opinion of the novelty of its own IAC metric.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
` Typical carbons for evaporative emission canisters “characteristically have
`
`high incremental capacity.” (BASF-1001, 2:1–21.) BAX 1100 and BAX 1500 are
`
`prior art carbons that have IACs above 35.(BASF-1001, 8:10–43.) Additionally,
`
`“known adsorbents may have the preferred properties for the [subsequent layers on
`
`the] vent-side,” meaning that prior art adsorbent volumes had an IAC of less than
`
`35 g/L. (BASF-1001, 5:56–57.) The patent offers three examples of low-IAC ma-
`
`terials suitable for use as a subsequent adsorbent volume. (See BASF-1001, 7:6–
`
`67.) These examples use two different approaches to achieving a low IAC. Exam-
`
`ples 1 and 2 simply “volumetrically dilute a high working capacity adsorbent so
`
`that its resulting isotherm is flattened on a volumetric basis.” (BASF-1001, 6:23–
`
`26; 7:6–8 and 7:26–28.) Example 3 simply uses “an adsorbent that has the desired
`
`adsorption capacity.” (BASF-1001, 6:26–29; 7:56–58.)
`
`Example 2 applies the first approach, using a “Ceramic-Bound Honeycomb”
`
`created by mixing “activated carbon, a ceramic forming material, a flux material,
`
`and water” and “extruding [the] extrudable mixture through an extrusion die such
`
`that the monolith . . . has at least one passage therethrough.” (BASF-1001, 7:32–
`
`36.) The ’844 patent admits that this honeycomb was known and described in Park.
`
`(BASF-1001, 7:26–30.) Figure 1 of Park, below, illustrates the prior art honey-
`
`comb monolith.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`
`
`The honeycomb created by Park achieves a low IAC by diluting a conven-
`
`tional carbon. (BASF-1003, ¶76.) Dilution occurs twice: first when “the extrusion
`
`formulation ingredients partially dilute the carbon adsorbent,” and again “by the
`
`open cell structure of the extruded part.” (BASF-1001, 7:44–47.) Regarding the
`
`second dilution, the ’844 patent states that 65% of the volume of the monolith con-
`
`stitutes “voidages,” compared with only 35% if pellets or granules were used.
`
`(BASF-1001, 7:47–50.) These voidages “impos[e] minimal additional flow re-
`
`striction compared with a bed of pellets” which “allow[] the honeycomb to be in-
`
`stalled to the main canister as an add-on auxiliary device.” (BASF-1001, 7:50–55.)
`
`E. Claim construction.
`
`In inter partes review proceedings filed before November 13, 2018, claim
`
`terms in an unexpired patent are given their plain meanings according to the broad-
`
`est reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b) (as amended April 1, 2016); Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). Petitioner therefore applies the plain meaning under the
`
`BRI and does not believe any terms of the ’844 patent need explicit construction to
`
`resolve the validity of the challenged claims in view of the prior art. See Vivid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding
`
`that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`F.
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would possess at least a
`
`B.S. in chemistry or chemical or mechanical engineering and would have at least
`
`one year of experience working on control of automotive evaporative emissions
`
`and would understand the chemistry and physics associated with the phenomena of
`
`fuel vapor adsorption, desorption, and diffusion. (BASF-1003, ¶18.)
`
`V. Ground 1: The combination of Meiller, Park, and AAPA renders the
`challenged claims (except claims 3–5, 7 and 19) obvious.
`
`The ’844 patent claims recite nothing more than the use of known adsorbent
`
`volumes arranged in a known configuration to solve a known problem. Meiller ex-
`
`plicitly discloses the same solution to the same problem as the ’844 patent: reduc-
`
`ing diurnal bleed emissions by connecting a honeycomb activated carbon monolith
`
`to the vent-side of a conventional high-capacity canister. Meiller does not explicit-
`
`ly disclose how to make the honeycomb, or how much its honeycomb would dilute
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`the carbon, but Park’s preferred embodiment has even more dilution than Example
`
`2 of the ’844 patent. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Meiller
`
`and Park for the reasons detailed below.
`
`A. Overview of Meiller.
`
`Like the ’844 patent, Meiller addresses the DBL problem encountered by
`
`typical prior art canisters. Meiller explains that “[d]iurnal changes in pressure
`
`and/or temperature causes air within the fuel tank to flow through the vapor con-
`
`duit into the evaporative canister via the vapor inlet.” (BASF-1016, 1:39–43.) The
`
`“canister contains a sorbent material, such as activated carbon, that strips fuel va-
`
`por from the air as it flows through the canister.” (BASF-1016, 1:44–47.) When
`
`the engine is running, the canister can be purged. (BASF-1016, 1:50–60.) Howev-
`
`er, “minute levels of hydrocarbons remain stored in the sorbent material of a
`
`purged evaporative canister.” (BASF-1016, 1:61–62.) Bleed emissions result from
`
`the release of these stored hydrocarbons and “typically occur, for example, during
`
`the heating of the fuel tank during a diurnal cycle.” (BASF-1016, 1:62–67.)
`
`Like the ’844 patent, Meiller also uses a two-stage solution to address the
`
`DBL problem: a scrubber connected in series to a conventional three-port canister.
`
`(BASF-1016, 5:44–6:20.) Figure 10, below, illustrates Meiller’s evaporative emis-
`
`sions control system including scrubber 310 connected to the vent port 394 of can-
`
`ister 376 via conduit 380. (BASF-1016, 8:33–35.)
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`Meiller’s scrubber depicted below in Figure 2 “has, in cross-section, a ma-
`
`trix or honeycomb-like structure.” (BASF-1016, 4:37–44.)
`
`
`
` As illustrated in Figure 4 below, Meiller’s canister system is designed to be
`
`
`
`incorporated into a vehicle.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`
`
`B. Overview of Park.
`
`Park discloses a method for creating an activated carbon monolith that “de-
`
`sirably has a plurality of passages therethrough to form a honeycomb.” (BASF-
`
`1010, Abstract.) Park’s honeycomb, depicted in Figure 1 below, is “made by ex-
`
`truding a mixture of activated carbon, a ceramic forming material, a flux material,
`
`and water, drying the extruded monolith, and firing the dried monolith.” (BASF-
`
`1010, Abstract.)
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Park’s honeycomb dilutes the carbon in two ways. First, the carbon is dilut-
`
`ed in the mixture by combining it with other materials. (BASF-1010, 9:5–7; 10:17–
`
`19.) Second, the carbon is further volumetrically diluted when it is formed into a
`
`honeycomb shape such as shown in Figure 1 above. The ’844 patent uses Park to
`
`create a honeycomb with an IAC below 35 g/L. (BASF-1001, 7:26–43.)
`
`Park discloses that its monolith can be used in applications involving evapo-
`
`rative emissions. (BASF-1010, 4:22–26.)
`
`C. The combination of Meiller, Park, and AAPA discloses the subject
`matter of independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43.
`
`Independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 432 all recite the same basic structure: an
`
`initial adsorbent volume having an IAC above 35 g/L, and a subsequent adsorbent
`
`volume having an IAC below 35 g/L. Each of these claims also require a fuel va-
`
`
`2 For ease of discussion, independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43 are provided in
`
`the Appendix with labels.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`por to flow through, or be routed or contacted with, the initial and subsequent vol-
`
`umes. For the Board’s convenience, Petitioner first shows that the Ground 1 com-
`
`bination discloses this common two-stage canister system structure, the IAC value
`
`for the initial volume, and the IAC value for the subsequent value. Petitioner then
`
`addresses the minor differences between each independent claim.
`
`1.
`
`The combination discloses the two-stage initial and subse-
`quent adsorbent volumes.
`Meiller discloses a canister system that includes an initial absorbent volume
`
`connected in series to a subsequent absorbent volume. (BASF-1003, ¶96.)
`
`Meiller’s initial, evaporative canister contains a “sorbent media [that] strips the
`
`hydrocarbons from the air flow.” (BASF-1016, 5:52–54.) The sorbent media m