`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MAHLE FILTER SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`Patent No.: 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
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction. ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)). ............................................ 2
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)). .................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Citation of prior art. ................................................................................ 3
`
`Statutory grounds for the challenge ........................................................ 4
`
`IV. The ’844 patent. ............................................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Technology Background......................................................................... 5
`
`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
`
`Level of ordinary skill in the art. .......................................................... 14
`
`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
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`C.
`
`The combination of Meiller, Park, and AAPA discloses the subject
`
`matter of independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43. ................................... 18
`
`1.
`
`The combination discloses the two-stage initial and subsequent
`
`adsorbent volumes. .......................................................................... 19
`
`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
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`F.
`
`Independent claim 31. ........................................................................... 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Preamble .......................................................................................... 44
`
`Alleged “Improvement” .................................................................. 50
`
`G.
`
`Independent claim 43. ........................................................................... 52
`
`H. Dependent claim 2. ............................................................................... 53
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Dependent claims 6, 20, 32, and 44. ..................................................... 53
`
`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
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`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 AAPA disclose the subject matter of
`
`independent claims 1, 18, 31, and 43.................................................... 59
`
`1.
`
`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
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`Independent claim 31. ........................................................................... 68
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Preamble .......................................................................................... 68
`
`Alleged “Improvement” .................................................................. 69
`
`Independent claim 43. ........................................................................... 69
`
`Claim 2. ................................................................................................. 70
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`H.
`
`Claims 6, 20, 32, and 44. ...................................................................... 70
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Claims 8, 21, 33, and 45. ....................................................................... 71
`
`Claims 11, 24, 36, and 48. ..................................................................... 71
`
`Claims 12, 25, 37, and 49. .................................................................... 72
`
`Claims 14, 27, 39, and 51. .................................................................... 72
`
`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
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Claims 4 and 19. ................................................................................... 75
`
`Claim 3. ................................................................................................. 78
`
`Claim 5. ................................................................................................. 78
`
`Claim 7. ................................................................................................. 80
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1009
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. RE38,844 to Hiltzik et al.
`1002
`File History for U.S. Patent No. RE38,844
`1003 Declaration of James Lyons
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of James Lyons
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,540,815 to Hiltzik et al.
`1006
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,540,815
`1007 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/335,897
`1008
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-037812
`(in Japanese)
`English Translation of Japanese Patent Application
`Publication No. H10-037812
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,914,294 to Park et al.
`1011 WIPO Publication No. WO 92/01585 to Tennison et al.
`1012 Williams, R., Impact and Control of Canister Bleed Emissions (2001)
`1013
`Philip Johnson et al., Carbon Materials for Advanced Technologies,
`Chapter 8: Activated Carbon for Automotive Applications, Burchell,
`ed. (1999)
`1014 Declaration of Warren Smith, Ph.D.
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,456,236 to Wakashiro et al.
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,896,852 to Meiller et al.
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,537,355 to Scardino et al.
`1018 Gadkaree, K.P., Carbon honeycomb structures for adsorption
`applications, 36 Carbon 7-8,1998
`Plot of IAC versus BWC submitted by Ingevity to the European
`Patent Office
`1020 MECA, Evaporative Emission Control Technologies for Gasoline
`Powered Vehicles, December 2010
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,456,237 to Yamazaki et al.
`1022 U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0073847 to Sheline
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 4,677,086 to McCue et al.
`1024 ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of Butane Working
`Capacity of Activated Carbon, Designation D5228
`1025 U.S. Patent 5,691,270 to Miller
`1026
`Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series, Paper No.
`
`1019
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`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
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`MAHLE Filter Systems North America, Inc. (“MAHLE”) 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 patent”).
`
`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 after
`
`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
`
`Japanese 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
`
`adsorption 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 commercially-
`
`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 MAHLE certify that the ’844 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review. MAHLE certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`III.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).
`
`A. Citation of prior art.
`
`The ’844 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent 6,540,815 (MAHLE-1005)
`
`claiming the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/335,897 (MAHLE-
`
`1007), filed on November 21, 2001.1 In support of the grounds of unpatentability
`
`below, MAHLE 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 MAHLE-
`
`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 MAHLE-1008, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`
`because it published on February 13, 1998. A certified English translation of Abe is
`
`provided as MAHLE-1009. (See also MAHLE-1014.) Abe was not considered by
`
`the Examiner during prosecution of the ’844 patent or the original ’815 patent from
`
`which it reissued.
`
`
`1 MAHLE does not acquiesce that the challenged claims are entitled to the
`
`filing 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 MAHLE-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 patent
`
`that something is in the prior art is binding on the applicant and patentee for
`
`determinations of anticipation and obviousness.”); WesternGeco LLC v. ION
`
`Geophysical 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”)
`
`provided as MAHLE-1011, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it
`
`published 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
`
`unpatentable by Meiller in view of Park and AAPA under 35 U.S.C.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§103(a).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
` 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
`
`unpatentable 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
`
`hydrocarbons are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that evaporate at low
`
`temperatures, even inside a fuel tank. (MAHLE-1003, ¶26.) The volume of the tank
`
`not occupied by liquid gasoline is occupied by a mixture of air and fuel vapor.
`
`(MAHLE-1003, ¶28.) Conventional fuel tanks vent to the atmosphere to prevent
`
`pressure build-up as the fuel tank is filled or drained of gasoline. (MAHLE-1003,
`
`¶29.) The air/vapor mixture escapes through this vent, potentially causing harmful
`
`atmospheric pollution. (MAHLE-1003, ¶29.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`Since about 1970, automobiles in the U.S. have been equipped with a canister,
`
`typically containing activated carbon to capture the hydrocarbons before they are
`
`released into the atmosphere. (MAHLE-1003, ¶32.) These canisters work by the
`
`process of adsorption whereby gas hydrocarbon molecules stick to the surface of a
`
`material called an adsorbent. (MAHLE-1003, ¶¶35-36.) Because adsorption is a
`
`reversible process, the hydrocarbons can be desorbed, or unstuck from the
`
`adsorbent’s surface, in a controlled manner such that the fuel vapor can be rerouted
`
`to and burned up in a running engine. This process is known as purging or
`
`regeneration. (MAHLE-1003, ¶33.)
`
`Activated carbon is one adsorbent that was widely known and used to capture
`
`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 capacity to
`
`adsorb hydrocarbons (i.e., its adsorption capacity). (MAHLE-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 exhaust
`
`as temperatures rise, and air inhalation as temperatures fall. This phenomenon is
`
`known as diurnal breathing loss (DBL). (MAHLE-1003, ¶29.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`bleed emissions. (MAHLE-1016, 1:61-67.) This occurs no matter how high the
`
`canister’s adsorption capacity, so merely increasing the capacity of the canister does
`
`not solve the bleed emission problem. (MAHLE-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 emissions
`
`
`
`from automotive evaporative emissions control systems by providing multiple
`
`layers, or stages, of adsorbents.” (MAHLE-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 referred to
`
`as “subsequent” layers. (MAHLE-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
`
`volumes 7-10. (MAHLE-1001, 6:31-40.) The primary canister 1 connects to the fuel
`
`tank via “vapor source connection 5.” (MAHLE-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. (MAHLE-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. (MAHLE-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 region,”
`
`and the adsorbent volumes 8-11 as “vent-side canister regions.” (MAHLE-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
`
`priority date, one of the co-inventors, Roger Williams, published an article
`
`disclosing the beneficial use of an auxiliary canister, including the following figure
`
`illustrating a “50 CC Auxiliary Chamber” connected to the vent port of a three-port
`
`canister:
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`(MAHLE-1012, Figure 10.) Meiller discloses a similar configuration, with an
`
`auxiliary canister 310 (referred to as a “hydrocarbon scrubber”) connected to a
`
`conventional canister 376 as shown below in Figure 10.
`
`
`Similarly, Abe discloses a second canister connected to a conventional first canister
`
`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
`patentability 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.
`
`(MAHLE-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.
`
`(MAHLE-1003, ¶49; MAHLE-1001, 2:8-12.)
`
`Second, the ’844 patent developed a non-standard capacity metric, variably
`
`called “incremental adsorption capacity” (MAHLE-1001, 9:34-35), “incremental n-
`
`butane capacity” (MAHLE-1001, 5:52-53), or simply “incremental capacity”
`
`(MAHLE-1001, 2:19, 3:51-52). These appear to refer to the same concept, which
`
`this Petition 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. (MAHLE-1019.) Although the accuracy of this assertion is unclear, it
`
`demonstrates PO’s low opinion of the novelty of its own IAC metric.
`
`Typical carbons for evaporative emission canisters “characteristically have
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`high incremental capacity.” (MAHLE-1001, 2:1-21.) BAX 1100 and BAX 1500 are
`
`prior art carbons that have IACs above 35. (MAHLE-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. (MAHLE-1001, 5:56-57.) The patent offers three examples of low-IAC
`
`materials suitable for use as a subsequent adsorbent volume. (See MAHLE-1001,
`
`7:6-67.) These examples use two different approaches to achieving a low IAC.
`
`Examples 1 and 2 simply “volumetrically dilute a high working capacity adsorbent
`
`so that its resulting isotherm is flattened on a volumetric basis.” (MAHLE-1001,
`
`6:23-26; 7:6-8 and 7:26-28.) Example 3 simply uses “an adsorbent that has the
`
`desired adsorption capacity.” (MAHLE-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.” (MAHLE-1001, 7:32-
`
`36.) The ’844 patent admits that this honeycomb was known and described in Park.
`
`(MAHLE-1001, 7:26-30.) Figure 1 of Park, below, illustrates the prior art
`
`honeycomb monolith.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`The honeycomb created by Park achieves a low IAC by diluting a
`
`conventional carbon. (MAHLE-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.” (MAHLE-1001, 7:44-47.)
`
`Regarding the second dilution, the ’844 patent states that 65% of the volume of the
`
`monolith constitutes “voidages,” compared with only 35% if pellets or granules were
`
`used. (MAHLE-1001, 7:47-50.) These voidages “impos[e] minimal additional flow
`
`restriction compared with a bed of pellets” which “allow[] the honeycomb to be
`
`installed to the main canister as an add-on auxiliary device.” (MAHLE-1001, 7:50-
`
`55.)
`
`
`
`E. Claim construction.
`
`A claim that is subject to inter partes review should be “construed using the
`
`same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner does not believe
`
`any terms of the ’844 patent need explicit construction to resolve the validity of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`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”). Petitioner therefore applies the ordinary and customary meaning in
`
`accordance with Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`
`
`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. (MAHLE-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
`
`explicitly discloses the same solution to the same problem as the ’844 patent:
`
`reducing diurnal bleed emissions by connecting a honeycomb activated carbon
`
`monolith to the vent-side of a conventional high-capacity canister. Meiller does not
`
`explicitly disclose how to make the honeycomb, or how much its honeycomb would
`
`dilute the carbon, but Park’s preferred embodiment has even more dilution than
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`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 conduit into
`
`the evaporative canister via the vapor inlet.” (MAHLE-1016, 1:39-43.) The “canister
`
`contains a sorbent material, such as activated carbon, that strips fuel vapor from the
`
`air as it flows through the canister.” (MAHLE-1016, 1:44-47.) When the engine is
`
`running, the canister can be purged. (MAHLE-1016, 1:50-60.) However, “minute
`
`levels of hydrocarbons remain stored in the sorbent material of a purged evaporative
`
`canister.” (MAHLE-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.” (MAHLE-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.
`
`(MAHLE-1016, 5:44-6:20.) Figure 10, below, illustrates Meiller’s evaporative
`
`emissions control system including scrubber 310 connected to the vent port 394 of
`
`canister 376 via conduit 380. (MAHLE-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 matrix
`
`or honeycomb-like structure.” (MAHLE-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
`
`
`
`“desirably has a plurality of passages therethrough to form a honeycomb.”
`
`(MAHLE-1010, Abstract.) Park’s honeycomb, depicted in Figure 1 below, is “made
`
`by extruding a mixture of activated carbon, a ceramic forming material, a flux
`
`material, and water, drying the extruded monolith, and firing the dried monolith.”
`
`(MAHLE-1010, Abstract.)
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent RE38,844
`
`
`Park’s honeycomb dilutes the carbon in two ways. First, the carbon is diluted
`
`in the mixture by combining it with other materials. (MAHLE-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. (MAHLE-1001, 7:26-43.)
`
`Park discloses that its monolith can be used in applications involving
`
`evaporative emissions. (MAHLE-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 vapor
`
`
`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
`
`to flow through, or be routed or contacted with, the initial and subsequent volumes.
`
`For the Board’s convenience, Petitioner first shows that the Ground 1 combination
`
`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
`subsequent adsorbent volumes.
`
`two-stage
`
`initial and
`
`
`Meiller discloses a canister system that includes an initial absorbent volume
`
`connected in series to a subsequent absorbent volume. (MAHLE-1003, ¶96.)
`
`Meiller’s initial, evaporative canister contains a “sorbent media [that] strips the
`
`hydrocarbons from the air flow.” (MAHLE-1016, 5:52-54.) The sorbent media may
`
`be activated carbon. (MAHLE-1016, 1:44-47.) Connected to the evaporative canister
`
`is a hydrocarbon scrubber, which “adsorbs hydrocarbons from the bleed emissions
`
`flowing out vent port 94 of evaporative canister 76.” (MAHLE-1016, 5:44-47.) The