`Mahle Filter Systems North America, Inc. v. Ingevity South Carolina, LLC
`IPR2019-00960
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`11.
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.................................................................. 5
`
`III.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Prior Art ........................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,896,852 to Meiller .................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-3 78 12 to Abe ........ 8
`
`US. Patent No. 5,914,294 to Park ...................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Park’s Honeycombs Do Not Necessarily Have An IAC Less
`Than 35 g/L ............................................................................... 10
`
`Petitioner’s Hypothetical Honeycomb Based on Park’s
`Formulation D Contradicts Park’s Disclosure .......................... 15
`
`It Is Impossible to Deduce the IAC of Petitioner’s Hypothetical
`Honeycomb ............................................................................... 25
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`1, James A. Ritter, make this declaration based on my personal knowledge and
`
`in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to BASF’s Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review.
`
`If sworn as a witness, I could and would testify to the matters
`
`referred to below.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I am the L. M. Weisiger Professor of Engineering and a Carolina
`
`Distinguished Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the
`
`University of South Carolina. A copy of my resume is attached as Appendix A to
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I received my associates degree in mathematics and science at
`
`Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, New York in 1980.
`
`I earned
`
`bachelor’s and master’s degrees in chemical engineering from the State University
`
`of New York at Buffalo in 1983 and 1985, respectively. The State University of _
`
`New York at Buffalo awarded me a Ph.D. degree in chemical engineering in 1989.
`
`3.
`
`After completing my education, I worked as a senior engineer at the
`
`Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Savannah River Technology Center, in
`
`Aiken, South Carolina from 1989 to 1993.
`
`4.
`
`In 1993, I joined the faculty of the University of South Carolina,
`
`Department of Chemical Engineering, as an assistant professor.
`
`I became a
`
`tenured associate professor in 1999 and a full professor in 2003. Today, I am the
`
`
`
`L.M. Weisiger Professor of Engineering and a Carolina Distinguished Professor.
`
`My research at the University focuses on the physio-chemical phenomena of
`
`adsorption, including adsorption processes for gas separation and purification,
`
`nanoporous adsorbents for adsorptive separation and purification, and the
`
`measurement of diffusion rates in nanoporous adsorbents. Under my direction, my
`
`laboratory at the University has collaborated with numerous industry partners in
`
`researching adsorbents and their commercial uses. Past and current research
`
`partners include, for example, MeadWestvaco (which is the predecessor of
`
`Ingevity), BASF Corporation, Exxon Research and Engineering Company, BP-
`
`Amoco Chemical Company, Shell, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the
`
`Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, to name a few.
`
`5.
`
`I am a member of the prestigious American Association for the
`
`Advancement of Science and a fellow of the leading professional organizations for
`
`chemists and chemical engineers, the American Chemical Society and American
`
`Institute of Chemical Engineers, respectively.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on four patents and author of nine copyrighted
`
`works.
`
`7.
`
`I have published and contributed to hundreds of technical papers,
`
`books and book chapters, conference proceedings, and other publications in my
`
`
`
`field. These include publications concerning adsorption of volatile organic
`
`compounds on activated carbon adsorbents, such as:
`
`C. E. Holland, S. A. Al-Muhtaseb, and J. A. Ritter, "Adsorption of C1 to C7
`
`Normal Alkanes on BAX Activated Carbon: 1. Potential Theory Correlation and
`
`Adsorbent Characterization,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 40, 338-346 (2001); and
`
`S. A. Al-Muhtaseb, C. E. Holland and J. A. Ritter, “Adsorption of C1 to C7
`
`Normal Alkanes on BAX Activated Carbon: 2. Statistically-Optimized Approach for
`
`Deriving Thermodynamic Properties from the Adsorption Isotherm”, Ind. Eng.
`
`Chem. Res, 40, 319-337 (2001).
`
`8.
`
`I have also authored publications concerning the adsorption of
`
`butane, including on activated carbon adsorbents, such as:
`
`S. A. Al-Muhtaseb and J. A. Ritter, “New Methodology for the Measurement
`
`and Analysis of Adsorption Dynamics: Butane on Activated Carbon,” Ind. Eng.
`
`Chem. Res., 43, 7075—7082 (2004);
`
`Y. Liu, C. E. Holland and J. A. Ritter, “Pressure Swing Adsorption-Solvent
`
`Vapor Recovery-III: Comparison of Simulation with Experiment for the Butane-
`
`Activated Carbon System,” Sep. Sci. Tech., 34, 1545—1576 (1999);
`
`Butane Vapor Recovery by Pressure Swing Adsorption, AIChE Annual
`
`Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, November 1997, contributed;
`
`
`
`Y. Liu, C. E. Holland and J. A. Ritter, “Butane Vapor Recovery by Pressure
`
`Swing Adsorption,” in Proceedings of the Topical Conference on Separation
`
`Science and Technologies, ” American Institute of Chemical Engineers, NY (1997);
`
`Liu, C. E. Holland and J. A. Ritter, “Pressure Swing Adsorption-Solvent
`
`Vapor Recovery-I: Experimental Transient and Periodic Dynamic Behavior of the
`
`Butane-Activated Carbon System,” Sep. Sci. Tech., 33, 2311 (1998);
`
`Y. Liu, C. E. Holland and J. A. Ritter, “Pressure Swing Adsorption-Solvent
`
`Vapor Recovery-II: Experimental Periodic Performance of the Butane-Activated
`
`Carbon System,” Sep. Sci. Tech., 33, 2431 (1998);
`
`Y. Liu, J. A. Ritter and B. K. Kaul, “Simulation of Gasoline Vapor Recovery
`
`by Pressure Swing Adsorption,” Separation and Purification Technology, 20, 111—
`
`127 (2000).
`
`9.
`
`I have also authored publications concerning the measurement and
`
`derivation of adsorption isotherms, such as:
`
`S. A. Al-Muhtaseb, M. D. LeVan and J. A. Ritter, “On the Correlation of
`
`Modified Antoine’s Adsorption Isotherm Models with Experimental Data,”
`
`Langmuir, 16, 8536-8538 (2000);
`
`J. A. Ritter, et al., “On Deriving Thermodynamic Properties from the
`
`Adsorption Isotherm, 24th Biennial Conference on Carbon,” Charleston, SC, July
`
`1999, contributed;
`
`
`
`J. A. Ritter, S. J. Bhadra and A. D. Ebner “On the Use of the Dual Process
`
`Langmuir Model for Correlating Unary and Predicting Mixed Gas Adsorption
`
`Equilibria,” Langmuir, .27, 4700-4712 (2011).
`
`10. Over the course of my career, I have personally measured, and
`
`overseen others who have measured, adsorption of various adsorbates (the
`
`compound to be adsorbed) on various adsorbents (the substrate on which the
`
`adsorbate is being adsorbed). From these measurements, I have personally
`
`derived, and overseen others who have derived, adsorption isotherms. My
`
`laboratory at the University of South Carolina includes equipment that we use to
`
`measure adsorptive properties and derive adsorption isotherms, including industry-
`
`standard volumetric and gravimetric physisorption analyzers. Specifically, my
`
`laboratory equipment includes an ASAP 2010 volumetric adsorption analyzer from
`
`Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, a Microbalance gravimetric adsorption
`
`analyzer from VTI Corporation (now part of TA Instruments), and a volumetric
`
`adsorption analyzer for high pressures purpose-built in my laboratory.
`
`1 consider
`
`myself an expert in such analytical techniques.
`
`II.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`11.
`
`Petitioner’s declarant has stated: “[A] person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the field of evaporative emission control systems and component design
`
`would possess at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical or mechanical
`
`
`
`engineering. They would also have at least one year of experience working
`
`primarily on issues related to the control of automotive evaporative emissions.
`
`They would, given both their education background and experience, understand the
`
`chemistry and physics associated with the phenomena of fuel vapor adsorption,
`
`desorption, and diffusion.” (Ex. 1003 at 1118.)
`
`12.
`
`For purposes of my present declaration only, I have adopted
`
`Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) at the time of the ’844 Patent.
`
`111.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Prior Art
`
`13.
`
`Petitioner relies on alleged applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) and
`
`four primary prior art references: US. Patent No. 5,914,294 to Park, US. Patent
`
`No. 6,896,852 to Meiller, Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-37812
`
`to Abe, and International Patent Publication No. WO 92/01585. On the basis of
`
`these four primary prior art references, Petitioner asserts three grounds for
`
`invalidity:
`
`“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 [obvious] 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 5 1—5 3 are rendered unpatentable [obvious] 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 [obvious] by
`
`Meiller in View of Park and Tennison under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).” (Petition at 3-5.)
`
`14.
`
`I discuss the disclosures of Meiller, Abe, and Park below.
`
`A.
`
`US. Patent N0. 6,896,852 to Meiller
`
`15. Meiller discloses a hydrocarbon emissions scrubber element with an
`
`elongated body, as illustrated in Meiller’s Figures 1, 2, 3A, and 3B, for example.
`
`(Ex. 1016 at 3:51—57.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16. Meiller’s disclosure concerns the physical configuration of the
`
`scrubber and how it can be adapted to work in conjunction with a fuel vapor
`
`canister. (Ex. 1016 at, e.g., Figures 1—1 1, 3:53—58.) Meiller does not disclose,
`
`however, anything with regard to the adsorptive properties of its scrubber. In
`
`particular, Meiller does not disclose the adsorption capacity or IAC of its scrubber.
`
`Nor does Meiller disclose how its scrubber is manufactured. For example, Meiller
`
`does not disclose that the methods of Park can be used to manufacture Meiller’s
`
`scrubber. Meiller also does not disclose that scrubbers for air intake systems can
`
`be deployed in evaporative emissions control systems or with filel vapor
`
`canisters—Meiller’s intended use for its scrubber. (Ex. 1016 at 3:58—65.)
`
`17.
`
`Thus, Meiller does not point the POSITA to any particular scrubber—
`
`Whether disclosed in Park or elsewhere—for use in an automotive evaporative
`
`emissions control system.
`
`B.
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-37812 to Abe
`
`18. Abe discloses an auxiliary canister for use With a main fuel vapor
`
`canister, as illustrated in Abe’s Figure 4, for example.
`
`(EX. 1009 at [003 0].).
`
`
`
`[we 4]
`
`
`
`19. Abe discloses that an activated carbon honeycomb is preferred for use
`
`in the second, auxiliary canister. (Ex. 1009 at [0016].) The only thing Abe
`
`discloses regarding the adsorptive properties of its hydrocarbon scrubber is that it
`
`has a “high adsorption speed.” (Ex. 1009 at [016].) (I note that the butane
`
`working capacities Abe discloses in Table 2, for instance, are for the first, main
`
`canister—not the second, auxiliary canister—which can be seen in the reporting of
`
`working capacities for Comparative Example 1 and Comparative Example 2 even
`
`though those examples do not have a second canister. (Ex. 1009 at [0033].» Abe
`
`does not disclose the adsorption capacity or IAC of its activated carbon
`
`honeycomb. Nor does Abe disclose how its activated carbon honeycomb is
`
`manufactured. For example, Abe does not disclose that the methods of Park can be
`
`used to manufacture Abe’s activated carbon honeycomb. Abe also does not
`
`disclose that activated carbon honeycomb for air intake systems can be deployed in
`
`evaporative emissions control systems or with fuel vapor canisters—Abe’s
`
`intended use for its activated carbon honeycomb. (Ex. 1009 at Abs.)
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Thus, Abe does not point the POSITA to any particular activated
`
`carbon honeycomb—whether disclosed in Park or elsewhere—for use in an
`
`automotive evaporative emissions control system.
`
`C.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,914,294 to Park
`
`21.
`
`Petitioner relies solely on Park to attempt to show that adsorbent
`
`volumes with an IAC less than 35 g/L were known in the art, as the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’844 Patent require. (Ex. 1001 at claims 1, 18, 31, and 45.)
`
`22.
`
`Park discloses a method for creating an adsorptive monolith
`
`comprising activated carbon. (Ex. 1010 at 4:1—6.) Park discloses that its
`
`adsorptive monolith can have a honeycomb shape or structure.
`
`(EX. 1010 at Abs.,
`
`4:9—13.) Park does not disclose using any of its honeycombs to capture
`
`evaporative emissions from automotive fuel tanks. Park does not disclose using its
`
`honeycombs in conjunction with fuel vapor canisters. Indeed, Park does not
`
`disclose any evaporative emissions control systems for fuel tanks at all, such as
`
`those disclosed by Meiller and Abe.
`
`1.
`
`Park’s Honeycombs Do Not Necessarily Have An IAC Less
`Than 35 g/L
`
`23.
`
`Park does not disclose the adsorptive properties, such as the IAC, of
`
`honeycombs made according to its invention. Based on Park’s broad disclosure,
`
`honeycombs made according to its invention would have a wide range of IACS,
`
`including IACs greater than 35 g/L.
`
`10
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Park discloses making monoliths using an extrudable mixture of
`
`activated carbon, a ceramic forming material, a flux material, and water. (Ex. 1010
`
`at 2:22—28.) Park then dries and fires the monoliths. (Ex. 1010 at 2:28—32.)
`
`Limited only by this broad disclosure, monoliths created according to Park could
`
`have a very wide range of adsorption capacities, and therefore IACs. But even
`
`limited to Park’s disclosed preferred embodiments, the range of potential IACs is
`
`great—and certainly capable of exceeding 35 g/L.
`
`25.
`
`Park’s extrudable mixture includes activated carbon. (Ex. 1010 at
`
`2:27.) This is the material that actually does the adsorbing in Park’s honeycombs.
`
`Thus, the type of activated carbon used will have a great effect on IAC. The
`
`adsorption capacity of different carbons can differ greatly depending on their
`
`source and how they have been processed for activation. Park discloses that the
`
`activated carbon in its honeycombs “may be made from a variety of precursors
`
`including bituminous coal, lignite, peat, synthetic polymers, petroleum pitch,
`
`petroleum coke, coal tar pitch, and lignocellulosic materials. Suitable
`
`lignocellulosic materials include wood, wood dust, wood flour, sawdust, coconut
`
`shell, fruit pits, nut shell, and fruit stones.” (EX. 1010 at 5:19—25.) Activated
`
`carbons from different sources differ in their pore structures, including the number
`
`of pores, size of pores, and distribution of pore sizes. Such variation results in a
`
`wide range of adsorptive properties. Thus, as taught by the ’844 Patent, some
`
`11
`
`
`
`activated carbons can have naturally low IAC values (and flat adsorption
`
`isotherms), whereas others have high IAC values (and steep adsorption isotherms).
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:26—30, 7:5 6—58.) This wide range of potential sources for the
`
`activated carbon will provide a wide range of IACs for honeycombs made using
`
`the activated carbons.
`
`26. Additionally, the amount of activated carbon that goes into the
`
`extrudable mixture will have a great effect on the IAC of resulting honeycombs.
`
`The more carbon used, the greater the adsorption capacity—and the greater the
`
`IAC, all other factors being equal. Park discloses that “activated carbon is
`
`desirably present in the extrudable mixture in an amount from about 20 to about 70
`
`parts, by weight, and more desirably, in an amount from about 30 to about 50 parts,
`
`by weight.” (Ex. 1010 at 4:64—67.) This range from 20 to 70 parts by weight
`
`represents a 250% increase in carbon content from the low end of the range to the
`
`high end. This variation will have a large effect on the range of resulting
`
`adsorption capacities and IACs in Park’s honeycombs.
`
`27.
`
`Park discloses that various methods can be used to dry honeycomb
`
`monoliths in accordance with its invention, including vacuum drying, freeze
`
`drying, humidity control drying, dielectric drying, and warm air drying with the
`
`monolith wrapped in plastic.
`
`(EX. 1010 at 7:3 1—8135.) Park filrther discloses that
`
`the selected drying method can affect the shape—and hence, volume—of the
`
`12
`
`
`
`resulting monolith. For example, freeze drying “immobilizes the water and
`
`stabilizes the size and shape of the monolith.” (Ex. 1010 at 7:51—53.) Thus, the
`
`drying method selected for manufacture of the honeycomb can affect its final
`
`shape and volume, and hence IAC, since IAC is a volumetric measurement.
`
`28.
`
`Park discloses that, after drying, its honeycombs are fired at a high
`
`temperature “from about 1600 to 1900° F.” (EX. 1010 at 8:37—39.) The firing
`
`temperature affects the apparent density of the honeycomb due to its effect on the
`
`formation of ceramic structures during firing.
`
`(EX. 1010 at 10:45—48, Fig. 4.) This
`
`will in turn affect IAC since IAC is a volumetric quantity dependent on apparent
`
`density, as the ’844 Patent discloses. (Ex. 1001 at 9:33—42.) The firing
`
`temperature and time can also affect the adsorptive properties of the carbon in the
`
`monolith. In activated carbons, pores can be formed and/or enlarged at high
`
`temperatures, and these are the pores that act to adsorb compounds. Thus, as firing
`
`temperatures and time increase, the adsorptive properties (including IAC) of the
`
`honeycomb can change.
`
`29. Other factors that will affect the adsorptive properties, including IAC,
`
`of a honeycomb include the honeycomb’s cell density, or cells per square inch, and
`
`the cell wall thickness. These factors impact the carbon surface area available for
`
`adsorption, and hence affect the honeycomb’s adsorptive properties, including
`
`IAC. Park discloses a cell density ranging “from 1 to 800 cells per square inch or
`
`13
`
`
`
`higher;” and cell wall thickness ranging from “about 150 mils to about 5 mils” for
`
`honeycomb made according to its invention.
`
`(EX. 1010 at 7:27—30.) With such
`
`broad ranges, it is clear that the range of adsorption capacities of resulting
`
`honeycombs will also be very broad.
`
`30.
`
`The honeycomb’s open frontal area is related to cell density and cell
`
`wall thickness in that the three properties compete for available space in the cross-
`
`section of the honeycomb monolith. Thus, fixing any one of these three properties
`
`will affect the values that the other properties can take for a given honeycomb.
`
`Park describes “[t]he open frontal area of the monolith” as “the percentage of open
`
`area of the monolith taken across a plane substantially perpendicular to the length
`
`of the monolith.” (EX. 1010 at 7:18—20.) Park discloses that it prefers open frontal
`
`areas for honeycombs made according to its invention of “greater than 70 percent
`
`and up to about 85 percent, and desirably about 73.8 percent.” (Ex. 1010 at 7: 15—
`
`17.) Increasing the open frontal area of the monolith introduces open space to the
`
`honeycomb, thus volumetrically diluting the activated carbon in the honeycomb
`
`and reducing its IAC, as taught by the ’844 Patent.
`
`(EX. 1001 at 6:24—27; 7:26—
`
`28.)
`
`31.
`
`In sum, Park discloses large variations in the types of honeycomb
`
`monoliths that can be created in accordance with its disclosures. Such large
`
`variations will result in large variations in the adsorptive properties (including
`
`14
`
`
`
`IACs) of the resultant honeycombs. It is clear that at least some of Park’s
`
`honeycombs that could result from invoking its disclosure would have IACs
`
`greater than 35 g/L.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Hypothetical Honeycomb Based on Park’s
`Formulation D Contradicts Park’s Disclosure
`
`32.
`
`Petitioner focuses on a particular honeycomb disclosed by Park—
`
`compositional Formulation D fired at 2000" F —and combines it with other
`
`information to construct a hypothetical honeycomb that allegedly would
`
`necessarily have an IAC less than 35 g/L. (Petition at 39—41, 63—65; Ex. 1003 at
`
`1l11109—111, 150.)
`
`33.
`
`As I stated above, Park discloses that a broad array of honeycombs
`
`can be made according to its invention. Additionally, Park discloses four specific
`
`recipes of ingredients (Formulations A—D) and four firing temperatures (1400,
`
`1600, and 1800, and 2000" F) for making honeycombs, as seen in Tables 1 and 2
`
`ofPark. (Ex. 1010 at 9:18—10:10.)
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Formulation in warts bv weight
`
`A
`
`SO
`42
`8
`u—
`—-
`
`3
`83
`
`B
`
`50
`36
`7
`7
`4.5
`
`C
`
`30
`53
`312
`—
`-
`
`3
`2102
`
`2.5
`66
`
`D
`
`30
`50
`10
`10
`2.8
`
`2.5
`75
`
`Ingredient
`
`activated carbonl
`ball clt‘ty‘2
`calcined knolirr‘
`nepheline syenite"
`sodium silicate“
`(solids from aqueous
`solution)
`methyl cellulose‘
`water
`
`15
`
`
`
`TABLE 2
`
`Firing Temperature 1" E1
`
`
`Formulation
`Sample ‘1
`Sample ‘2
`Sample 3
`Sample 4
`A
`1400
`l (:00
`1800
`2000
`B
`1400
`1600
`1800
`21300
`C
`1400
`1600
`1800
`2000
`
`14(30 1600 18001) 2-000
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Park does not state that all these honeycomb formulations and firing
`
`temperatures fall within the scope of Park’s particular methodology for
`
`manufacturing honeycombs. Indeed, many of them do not. Rather, Park simply
`
`offers these formulations and firing temperatures as experiments to illustrate the
`
`effects of formulation and firing temperature on axial strength and apparent density
`
`of the resulting honeycomb, as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 of Park. (Ex. 1010 at
`
`10:12—54.)
`
`—
`
`3!"
`
`f
`
`{I
`
`.r
`
`1'
`
`.-’
`
`fi
`if
`
`.I'fl
`
`I
`.I'
`,f'
`
`/'/-
`
`. /
`
`’
`
`,- 1..
`
`i
`K'
`
`2000
`
`1600
`
`CALCINA‘I'ION
`Tamra“:
`
`«soc
`
`FIG. 3
`
`
`
`-
`|
`-:'
`r
`'i
`'j
`.
`,
`I!“
`§
`‘4°° “" '/~’
`
`l
`f’ --
`;
`,3“ l
`'
`
`
`
`- /
`- //
`
`/,//
`
`___'/
`
`/.
`
`,- '
`
`i/
`
`—
`
`.2"
`
`
`
`_.
`
`_
`.
`.
`A FDRMULM’ION A
`i {:[FonMULAnoua
`A>FORMULATIONC
`Q) FORMULATIOND
`
`'
`
`,
`
`.-
`
`I
`'1:
`a").
`
`
`.t
`~
`"R' ——i““
`
`100
`
`200
`
`300
`
`400
`
`mo
`soo
`soo
`COMPRESSNE STRENGTH, psi
`
`300
`
`am
`
`woo
`
`non
`
`1200
`
`1295
`
`16
`
`
`
`0.4
`
`0.35
`
`03
`025
`
`02
`
`APPAHENT
`DENSWY
`(gmn
`
`I=1(3- ‘1
`
`APPARENT DENSITY VERSUS TEMPERATURE
`
`
`
`i
`
`1am
`1600
`TEMPERATURE
`wegF)
`
`I 30% CARBON WITH FLUX
`650% CARBON WITH FLUX
`A $56 WIO FLUX
`'B 50% WIO FLUX
`
`35.
`
`The basis for Petitioner’s particular selection of Formulation D fired
`
`at 2000° F is Park’s disclosure about air intake adsorbents. In particular,
`
`Petitioner cites to Park’s statement that “a monolith for use as an automotive air
`
`intake VOC adsorption product demands a higher strength and a carbon content
`
`from about 25 to about 35%, by weight” and “[t]he axial crushing strengthfor an
`
`automotive air intake VOC adsorption product containing 25% carbon, by weight,
`
`ranges from 1200 to 1600 psi.” (Petition at 33; EX. 1003 at 11105; EX. 1010 at 9:4—
`
`14.) According to Petitioner, of the four compositional formulations (A—D) and
`
`four firing temperatures (1400, 1600, and 1800, and 20000 F) that Park discloses
`
`here, only Formulation D fired at 2000° F meets both the carbon content and the
`
`axial strength criteria. (Petition at 33-35; Ex. 1003 at 11105.) Thus, according to
`
`Petitioner, a person of skill in the art would have selected Park’s Formulation D
`
`fired at 2000° F as the best candidate for combination with Meiller or Abe.
`
`36. According to Park’s Figure 4, Formulation D fired at 2000° F resulted
`
`in a honeycomb with an apparent density of about 0.35 g/mL.
`
`(EX. 1010 at 10:39—
`
`17
`
`
`
`54.) Thus, Petitioner proposes that its hypothetical honeycomb made using Park’s
`
`Formulation D fired at 20000 F would have the same apparent density. (Petition at
`
`35, Ex. 1003 at 11105.)
`
`37.
`
`Park further discloses that its Formulation D was made into
`
`honeycombs with 200 cells per square inch.
`
`(EX. 1010 at 10: 1 1—15.) Thus,
`
`Petitioner proposes that its hypothetical honeycomb would have had the same 200
`
`cpsi. (Petition at 36; Ex. 1003 at 11105.)
`
`38.
`
`Park also discloses that honeycombs made according to its invention
`
`preferably have an open frontal area between 70% and 85%, and more desirably an
`
`open frontal area of 73.8% in particular. (Ex. 1010 at 7: 15—18.) Park does not
`
`disclose the open frontal area of the Formulation D honeycombs, however.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioner proposes that its honeycomb based on Formulation D
`
`could be made with an open frontal area of 73.8%. (Petition at 36; Ex. 1003 at
`
`1] 105.)
`
`39.
`
`Finally, Park’s Formulation D does not identify the specific activated
`
`carbon used therein. Park only discloses the following:
`
`18
`
`
`
`TABLE 1
`
`Formlalion in 1111115 bv weight
`
`A
`50
`42
`8
`—
`--
`
`3
`33
`
`B
`50
`36
`7
`7
`4,5
`
`C
`30
`SS
`12
`—
`-—
`
`3
`102
`
`2.5
`(:6
`
`D
`30
`51')
`m
`10
`2.8
`
`2.5
`75
`
`Ingredient
`activated carbon'
`ball clayz
`calcined kaolin-1
`nephelinc syenilc"
`sodium silicalc5
`(solids from aqueous
`solution)
`methyl cellulose'5
`water
`
`
`
`To supplement Park’s disclosure here, Petitioner suggests that the activated carbon
`
`could have been BAX 1100 or BAX 1500. (Petition at 39—40; EX. 1003 at 111 10.)
`
`I note that none of Park, Meiller, and Abe disclose BAX 1100 or BAX 1500.
`
`(EXS.
`
`1010,1016,1009.)
`
`40.
`
`In sum, according to the Petitioner, the resulting hypothetical
`
`honeycomb achieved by combining Formulation D, a firing temperature of 2000°
`
`F, an open frontal area of 73.8%, and BAX 1100 or BAX 1500 would have the
`
`following properties:
`
`
`
`.__liProer
`I Petitioner’s hypothetical honeycomb
`
`Cell density
`. 200 cpsi
`
`% vol voidages
`' 73. 8%
`I _Carbon content
`I 30 parts of BAX 1100 or BAX 1500
`
`
`Ceramic material
`60 parts
`
`Flux material
`12.8 parts
`Water
`75 parts
`Apparent density
`approx. 0.35 g/mL
`
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Park, however, does not support—and indeed teaches away from—
`
`such a honeycomb.
`
`19
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Park Does Not Disclose Any Honeycomb Specific To
`Evaporative Emissions Control Systems
`
`42.
`
`The entire basis of the Petitioner’s hypothetical honeycomb is faulty
`
`because Park’s criteria that Petitioner uses to select Formulation D fired at 2000° F
`
`are intended for honeycombs used as scrubbers in emissions control systems for
`
`automotive air intake systems (AIS), not in evaporative emissions control systems
`
`for automotive fuel tanks (i.e. fuel vapor canisters). AIS emissions control systems
`
`are very different from fuel vapor canisters. This is illustrated by the fact that the
`
`automotive industry does not use fiiel vapor canisters to capture AIS emissions.
`
`And because these applications are very different, a POSITA at the time of the
`
`’844 Patent would not have been guided by criteria specific to AIS to instead select
`
`a honeycomb for a fuel vapor canister application.
`
`43.
`
`One way in which AIS emissions control systems and fiiel vapor
`
`canisters are different is in the make-up of vapors to be adsorbed. With regards to
`
`the fuel vapor canister application, the head space of the automobile fuel tank is
`
`filled with a mixture of air and fuel vapors. For gasoline tanks, this mixture is
`
`about a 50:50 ratio of air to fuel. (Fuel vapor canisters are used with gasoline
`
`powered automobiles, not diesel automobiles.) In comparison, the air—fuel ratio in
`
`gasoline engines is around 12:1 to 15:1.1 That is, the air-fuel mixture is much
`
`I E. g,
`car.
`
`htt s://ha 'nes.com/en-us/tiis-tutorials/what-afr—or—airfuel-ratio-your—
`
`
`
`20
`
`U
`
`
`
`richer in the head space above gasoline tanks than in the engine itself.
`
`Accordingly, fuel vapor canisters must adsorb a much more concentrated source of
`
`hydrocarbons vapors than do AIS emissions control systems.
`
`44. Another way in which AIS emissions control systems and fiiel vapor
`
`canisters differ is in the flow rate of vapors to be adsorbed. In the case of AIS
`
`emissions control systems, vapors flow from the engine and need to be captured
`
`only when the engine is not operating. In this scenario, there is no physical driving
`
`force pushing vapors from the engine through the air intake system, and the flow
`
`rate of vapors to be captured is slow. In comparison, fuel vapor canisters must be
`
`equipped to handle the high flow rate of vapors during refueling, in which an entire
`
`fuel tank’s volume of vapors may be expelled in about a minute. Thus, fuel vapor
`
`canisters must adsorb vapors at a much higher flow rate than AIS emissions control
`
`systems.
`
`45.
`
`A further way in which AIS emissions control systems and fuel vapor
`
`canisters differ is in the flow rate of purge air. Purge air is used to desorb captured
`
`hydrocarbons from the adsorbent and transport the desorbed hydrocarbons to the
`
`engine for combustion when the engine is operating. In this way, the adsorbent is
`
`regenerated during engine operation so that more fumes can be adsorbed during the
`
`next cycle of non—operation. In the case of AIS emissions control systems, the
`
`flow of purge air is very high because the AIS is the source of combustion air for
`
`21
`
`
`
`the engine. But in the case of filel vapor canisters, the flow of purge air is much
`
`lower. Purge air flow to fuel vapor canisters is restricted because the resulting
`
`air/fuel mixture flowing from the canister to the engine can upset the air/fuel
`
`balance in the engine, leading to incomplete combustion and increased tailpipe
`
`emissions.
`
`46.
`
`In View of the foregoing differences, a POSITA at the time of the ’844
`
`Patent would not have considered a honeycomb for use in AIS emissions control
`
`systems to be applicable to evaporative emissions control systems (fuel vapor
`
`canisters). Thus, the disclosures of Meiller and Abe concerning evaporative
`
`emissions control systems would not have led a POSITA to the AIS embodiments
`
`in Park, or any other particular embodiments in Park for that matter, because Park
`
`does not disclose any embodiments specific to the unique context of evaporative
`
`emissions control systems.
`
`b.
`
`Park Teaches Away from a Firing Temperature of
`2000° F
`
`47.
`
`I also disagree with the basis of the Petitioner’s hypothetical
`
`honeycomb because Park teaches away from firing at 2000° F, as Petitioner
`
`proposes for its honeycomb.
`
`48. As I explained above, Petitioner selects Formulation D fired at 2000°
`
`F because it is the only one of the sixteen formulation/firing temperature examples
`
`in Park that is reported as having a carbon content of 30% and an axial crushing
`
`22
`
`
`
`strength from 1200 to 1600 psi. (Petition at 33—35; Ex. 1003 at 11105; EX. 1010 at
`
`9: 10—14.)
`
`49.
`
`Elsewhere, however, Park teaches away from using this firing
`
`temperature. In its Background of the Invention, Park refers to a patent to
`
`Okabayashi, which Park characterizes as disclosing activated carbon/ceramic
`
`monoliths fired at temperatures of 1100° C (i.e., 20120 F). (Ex. 1010 at 1:36—43.)
`
`Park explicitly criticizes “[fjiring at such higher temperatures” as “economically
`
`undesirable.” (Ex. 1010 at 1:36—43.) Park then identifies “a need for a formed
`
`body comprising activated carbon that can be ... fired at more economical
`
`conditions such as a lower temperature.” (Ex. 1010 at 1165—214.) Park accordingly
`
`discloses that the honeycomb of its invention “is fired at a temperature from about
`
`1600 to about 1900° F and desirably from about 1850 to about 1900° F.” (Ex.
`
`1010 at 8:36—39.)
`
`50.
`
`Park clearly taught away from the 2000° F firing temperature that
`
`Petitioner uses for its hypothetical honeycomb, which provides the apparent
`
`density of 0.35 g/mL that Petitioner relies upon in seeking to deduce the IAC of its
`
`honeycomb, as I discuss further below.
`
`c.
`
`The Apparent Density, Voidage Percentage, and
`Composition of Petitioner’s Hypothetical Honeycomb
`May Not Be Compatible
`
`23
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Furthermore, I disagree with the feasibility of Petitioner’s
`
`hypothetical honeycomb because the composition of Formulation D fired at 20000
`
`F yielding an apparent density of about 0.35 g/mL may not be compatible with
`
`Petitioner’s proposed 73.8% open frontal area for its hypothetical honeycomb.
`
`52.
`
`The apparent density of a honeycomb such as those disclosed by Park
`
`is a function of its total mass and volume of the space occupied by the honeycomb,
`
`including any voidages. (Contrast this to the honeycomb’s displacement volume,
`
`which would exclude its voidage space and be used to measure the honeycomb’s
`
`actual density.) The honeycomb’s mass, in turn, is a function of its composition.
`
`The honeycomb’s volume (for purposes of apparent density), is a function of its
`
`voidage fraction, which Petitioner equates to the honeycomb’s open frontal area.
`
`(Petition at 36; EX. 1003 at 11105.) Thus, selecting the honeycomb’s composition
`
`and open fiontal area will fix its apparent den