`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
