UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE45,415
`
`______________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... vi
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................... 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................... 2
`A.
`Prior Art ...................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Grounds of Invalidity .................................................................. 3
`STATE OF THE ART ........................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. THE ʼ415 PATENT............................................................................... 7
`A. Overview ..................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Critical Distance .......................................................................... 8
`C.
`Other Parameters May Vary ....................................................... 9
`D.
`Prosecution History ................................................................... 11
`E.
`Effective Filing Date ................................................................. 15
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................ 21
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................ 21
`A.
`Lexicography ............................................................................ 21
`B.
`District Court Claim Construction Disputes ............................. 23
`VII. CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 17-27 OF THE ʼ415 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................. 23
`A. GROUND 1: Tremblay Anticipates Claims 13, 18-23
`and 25 ........................................................................................ 23
`i.
`Summary of Tremblay .................................................... 23
`ii.
`Independent Claim 13 ..................................................... 29
`iii. Claim 18 .......................................................................... 35
`iv.
`Claim 19 .......................................................................... 36
`v.
`Claim 20 .......................................................................... 36
`vi.
`Claim 21 .......................................................................... 37
`vii. Claim 22 .......................................................................... 38
`viii. Claim 23 .......................................................................... 39
`ix.
`Claim 25 .......................................................................... 39
`GROUND 2: Satoh Anticipates Claims 13-14 and 17-24 ....... 40
`i.
`Summary of Satoh .......................................................... 40
`ii.
`Independent Claim 13 ..................................................... 41
`iii. Claim 14 .......................................................................... 45
`iv.
`Claim 17 .......................................................................... 46
`v.
`Claim 18 .......................................................................... 47
`vi.
`Claim 19 .......................................................................... 48
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`vii. Claim 20 .......................................................................... 48
`viii. Claim 21 .......................................................................... 50
`ix.
`Claim 22 .......................................................................... 50
`x.
`Claim 23 .......................................................................... 51
`xi.
`Claim 24 .......................................................................... 52
`xii. Claim 25 .......................................................................... 52
`GROUND 3: Tremblay and Satoh Render Claim 24
`Obvious ..................................................................................... 52
`i.
`Motivation to Combine ................................................... 52
`ii.
`Claim 24 .......................................................................... 54
`D. GROUND 4: Tremblay Renders Obvious Claims 13, 18-
`23, and 25 in View of the General Knowledge,
`Experience and Common Sense of a POSITA, as
`reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky, and Burns .................... 54
`i. Wendt .............................................................................. 54
`ii.
`Han .................................................................................. 55
`iii. Glembotsky ..................................................................... 55
`iv.
`Burns ............................................................................... 56
`v.
`It was Within the General Knowledge and
`Experience of a POSITA that Water Electrolysis
`Produces Oxygen Bubbles with Sizes Smaller than
`50 Microns. ..................................................................... 57
`It was Within the General Knowledge and
`Experience of a POSITA that Bubbles with Sizes
`Smaller than 50 Microns Have the Claimed
`Properties. ....................................................................... 58
`vii. Claims 13, 18-23 and 25 ................................................. 59
`GROUND 5: Tremblay and Hough Render Claims 13,
`18-23 and 25 Obvious ............................................................... 60
`i.
`Summary of Hough ........................................................ 60
`ii. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 61
`iii. Claims 13, 18-23 and 25 ................................................. 61
`GROUND 6: Tremblay and Hough Render Claims 13,
`18-23 and 25 Obvious in View of the General
`Knowledge, Experience and Common Sense of a
`POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han, Glembotsky and
`Burns. ........................................................................................ 62
`G. GROUND 7: Tremblay and Satoh Render Claim 24
`Obvious in View of the General Knowledge, Experience
`
`vi.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`and Common Sense of a POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns ..................................................... 63
`H. GROUND 8: Satoh Renders Claims 13-14 and 18-25
`Obvious in View of the General Knowledge and
`Experience of a POSITA, as Reflected in Wendt, Han,
`Glembotsky and Burns .............................................................. 63
`GROUND 9: Satoh and Aoki Render Claims 26 and 27
`Obvious ..................................................................................... 64
`i.
`Summary of Aoki ........................................................... 64
`ii. Motivation to Combine ................................................... 65
`iii. Claim 26 .......................................................................... 65
`iv.
`Claim 27 .......................................................................... 66
`GROUND 10: Satoh and Aoki Render Claims 26-27
`Obvious in view of the general knowledge, experience
`and common sense of a POSITA, as reflected Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky, and Burns .................................................... 66
`VIII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED .................... 67
`IX. PARALLEL PETITIONS ................................................................... 69
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES ................................................................. 69
`A.
`Real Party in Interest ................................................................. 69
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................... 69
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ...................................................... 70
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .................. 70
`XI. STANDING ......................................................................................... 70
`XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 70
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 72
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 73
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases ................................................................................................................... Page
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 6
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 65
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ............................................. 66
`Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00199, Paper 11 (Jun. 19, 2020) ......................................................... 67
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC,
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 31
`Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00115, Paper 10 (PTAB May 12, 2020) ............................................. 67
`Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC,
`946 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................ 7, 9
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) .............................................................. 31, 33
`Oticon Med. AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019) .............................................. 66
`Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. v. Tennant Company,
`No. 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB (D. Minn.) ............................................................ 68
`Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.,
`945 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 6, 39
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 21
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 17
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP,
`140 S.Ct. 1367 (2020) ......................................................................................... 67
`In re Wertheim,
`541 F.2d 257 (C.C.P.A. 1976) .............................................................................. 5
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ........................................................................................... 2, 3, 62
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 16
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 68
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 69
`M.P.E.P. § 2143 ....................................................................................................... 63
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE 45,415 to Senkiw
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. RE 45,415
`
`Declaration of Dr. Mario Tremblay Regarding the ʼ415 patent
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Mario Tremblay
`
`Provisional Application Serial No. 60/358,534 to Senkiw
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,689,262 to Senkiw
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,396,441 to Senkiw
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,396,441
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,670,495 to Senkiw
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,049,252 to Murrell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,296,756 to Hough
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0042134 to Tremblay
`
`Declaration of Janelle Beitz
`
`Aquariums for Dummies
`Information showing that first IDG Books Worldwide, now Wiley,
`is a well-known commercial publisher of the popular “For
`Dummies” book series
`Reviews of AFD from 2002 and earlier downloaded from
`Amazon.com
`Wendt, H. and Kreysa, G. (1999), Electrochemical Engineering:
`Science and Technology in Chemical and Other Industries,
`Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 3-540-64386-9
`(hardcover)
`Response from the British Library regarding public availability
`request for Wendt
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`ISBN Search Results regarding a publication date for Wendt
`Zhimin Qiang, et al., Electrochemical Generation of Hydrogen
`Peroxide from Dissolved Oxygen in Acidic Solutions, 36 Water
`Rsch. 85 (2002)
`L.J.J. Janssen & L. Koene, The Role of Electrochemistry and
`Electrochemical Technology in Environmental Protection, 85 Chem.
`Eng’g J. 137 (2002)
`Massimiliano Bestetti, et al., Zinc Electrowinning with Gas
`Diffusion Anodes: State of the Art and Future Developments, 40
`Canadian Metallurgical Q. 459 (2001)
`Glembotsky, V.A., Mamakov, A.A., Sorokina, V.N. (1973), Size of
`gas bubbles forming during electroflotation. Elektronnaya
`Obrabotka Materialov 5, 66–68. 1973 (published in Russian)
`
`Certified English Translation of Glembotsky
`
`Front matter information for Glembotsky
`Response from the British Library regarding public availability of
`Glembotsky
`
`Front matter for Glembotsky from British Library
`Klaus Müller, Electroflotation from the Double Layer to Troubled
`Waters, in Electrochemistry in Transition 21 (J. Murphy et al., eds.,
`1992)
`S. Venkatachalam, Electrogenerated Gas Bubbles in Flotation, 8 M.
`Processing and Extractive Metallurgy R. 47 (1992)
`J.P.F. Koren & U. Syversen, State-of-the-art Electroflocculation, 32
`Filtration & Separation 153
`Burns, S.E., Yiacoumi, S. and Tsouris, C. (1997), Application of
`Digital Image Analysis for Size Distribution Measurement of
`Microbubbles, Imaging Technologies: Techniques and Civil
`Engineering Applications Engineering Foundation, Davos,
`Switzerland, May 25-30, 1997
`Search results of United States Department of Energy Office of
`Scientific and Technical Information records regarding publication
`date for Burns
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`Cover page, table of contents and Burns article from Davos,
`Switzerland conference on May 25-30, 1997
`S.E. Burns, et al., Digital Image Analysis to Assess Microbubble
`Behavior in Porous Media, 13 J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 43 (1999). The
`article indicates that it appeared in a periodic journal published in
`January 1999
`M. Zhang & S.E. Burns, Surfactant Effects on the Transport of Air
`Bubbles in Porous Media, in Environmental Geotechnics,
`Proceedings of Sessions of GEO-Denver 2000 121 (T.F. Zimmie,
`ed., 2000)
`Front matter information from Environmental Geotechnics,
`Proceedings of Sessions of GEO-Denver 2000 regarding M. Zhang
`& S.E. Burns
`Han, M.Y., Park, Y.H., and Yu, T.J. (2002), Development of a New
`Method of Measuring Bubble Size, Water Science and Technology:
`Water Supply Vol 2 No 2 pp 77–83
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters
`OWT’s Complaint in in Case No. 0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB in the
`U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
`Tennant’s Waiver of Service of OWT’s Complaint in Case No.
`0:20-cv-00358-ECT-HB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`Minnesota
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,171,469 to Hough
`OWT’s Proposed Claim Constructions in Case No. 0:20-cv-00358-
`ECT-HB in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
`Tennant’s Proposed Claim Constructions in Case No. 0:20-cv-
`00358-ECT-HB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`Minnesota
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,062,754 to Eibl
`
`Declaration of Sheila Hatchell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,251,259 to Satoh
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,378,339 to Aoki
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit # Reference Name
`
`1048
`
`Scheduling Order from District Court with Subsequent Amendments
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Tennant Company respectfully petitions for inter partes review of claims 13,
`
`14, and 17-27 of U.S. Patent No. RE 45,415 (“the ʼ415 patent”), entitled “Flow-
`
`Through Oxygenator,” which issued on March 17, 2015, to Senkiw, and is
`
`assigned to Oxygenator Water Technologies, Inc. (“OWT”), Ex. 1001.
`
`The ʼ415 patent relates to “the electrolytic generation of microbubbles of
`
`oxygen for increasing the oxygen content of flowing water.” Ex. 100, 1:24-26.
`
`The ʼ415 patent claims a method for producing an oxygenated aqueous
`
`composition by “flowing water . . . through an electrolysis emitter comprising an
`
`electrical power source electrically connected to an anode electrode and a cathode
`
`electrode contained in a tubular housing”. . .“wherein: the anode electrode is
`
`separated at a critical distance from the cathode. . .” with flow rate, current and
`
`voltage parameters. Id., Claim 13.
`
`Prior art teaches using electrolysis to create oxygenated aqueous
`
`compositions using the ʼ415 patent’s claimed critical distance and other
`
`parameters. The grounds in this Petition – all grounds not previously considered
`
`by the USPTO – render the challenged claims unpatentable. The Board should
`
`institute IPR and cancel claims 13, 14, and 17-27.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests review and cancellation of Claims 13, 14 and 17-27
`
`based on:
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0042134 to Tremblay (“Tremblay”; Ex.
`
`1012), filed on December 21, 2001 and published on March 6, 2003; prior
`
`art under § 102(e).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,251,259 to Satoh (“Satoh”; Ex. 1046); issued on June 26,
`
`2001; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,171,469 to Hough (“Hough”; Ex. 1041); issued on January
`
`9, 2001; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`• Wendt, H. and Kreysa, G. (1999), Electrochemical Engineering: Science
`
`and Technology in Chemical and Other Industries, Springer-Verlag Berlin
`
`Heidelberg, (hardcover) (“Wendt”; Ex. 1017); published in 1999; prior art
`
`under § 102(b).
`
`•
`
`Han, M.Y., Park, Y.H., and Yu, T.J. (2002), Development of a New Method
`
`of Measuring Bubble Size, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply
`
`Vol 2 No 2 pp 77–83 (“Han”; Ex. 1037); published in 2002; prior art under §
`
`102(b).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`GLEMBOTSKY, V.A., MAMAKOV, A.A., SOROKINA, V.N. (1973), Size
`
`of gas bubbles forming during electroflotation. Elektronnaya Obrabotka
`
`Materialov 5, 66–68. 1973 (“Glembotsky”; Ex. 1023); published in 1973;
`
`prior art under § 102(b).
`
`Burns, S.E., Yiacoumi, S. and Tsouris, C. (1997), Application of Digital
`
`Image Analysis for Size Distribution Measurement of Microbubbles,
`
`Imaging Technologies: Techniques and Civil Engineering Applications
`
`Engineering Foundation, Davos, Switzerland, May 25-30, 1997 (“Burns”;
`
`Ex. 1031); published in 1997; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,378,339 to Aoki (“Aoki”; Ex. 1047); issued on January 3,
`
`1995; prior art under § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds of Invalidity
`Ground Challenged Claims Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`13-14 and 18-25
`
`24
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`102
`
`102
`
`103
`
`103
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`- 3 -
`
`Tremblay
`
`Satoh
`
`Tremblay and Satoh
`
`Tremblay in view of the general
`knowledge, experience and
`common sense of a POSITA, as
`reflected in Wendt, Han,
`Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Tremblay and Hough
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground Challenged Claims Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`13, 18-23 and 25
`
`103
`
`24
`
`103
`
`13-14 and 18-25
`
`103
`
`9
`
`10
`
`26-27
`
`26-27
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Tremblay and Hough and further
`in view of the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Tremblay and Satoh in view of
`the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of
`a POSITA, as reflected in Wendt,
`Han, Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Satoh in view of the general
`knowledge, experience and
`common sense of a POSITA, as
`reflected Wendt, Han,
`Glembotsky and Burns
`
`Satoh and Aoki
`
`Satoh and Aoki in view of the
`general knowledge, experience
`and common sense of a POSITA,
`as reflected Wendt, Han,
`Glembotsky and Burns
`
`
`
`III. STATE OF THE ART
`Methods for producing an oxygenated composition using electrolysis were
`
`well known at the time of the ʼ415 patent’s alleged invention. In fact, the ʼ415
`
`patent admits that “[t]he production of oxygen and hydrogen by the electrolysis of
`
`water is well known.” Id., 2:5-11.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`The Examiner gave this reason for allowance:
`
`The prior art does not disclose nor fairly suggest the method for
`producing oxygenated aqueous composition comprising
`the
`combination of the critical distance between the cathode and anode of
`.0005-0.140, the voltage maximum of about 28.3 volts, and 13 or less
`amperage with a maximum of 12 gallons per minute such that it results
`in the formation of a suspension comprising oxygen microbubbles and
`nanobubbles in the water, the nanobubbles having a bubble diameter of
`less than 50 microns.
`
`Ex. 1002, 25.
`
`
`
`The Examiner did not have the benefit of prior art references that teach the
`
`alleged invention of the ʼ415 patent. As explained in the Declaration of Mario
`
`Tremblay, it was well known to provide an anode and cathode separated by the
`
`“critical distance.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 16. It was also well known to provide this anode
`
`and cathode separation distance in combination with the claimed voltage, ampere
`
`and flow rates. Id.
`
`The claimed “critical distance” and other parameters taught in the ʼ415
`
`patent lie entirely within, or are encompassed by, ranges and parameters disclosed
`
`in the prior art, rendering the alleged invention obvious. See, e.g., In re Wertheim,
`
`541 F.2d 257, 267 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“ranges which overlap or lie inside ranges
`
`disclosed by the prior art” present a prima facie case of obviousness).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Furthermore, an electrolysis cell where the anode and cathode are separated
`
`by the “critical distance” taught in the ’415 patent necessarily produces small
`
`bubbles of oxygen less than 50 microns in size. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 39-58, 77-
`
`88. The ʼ415 patent merely recites a result that is “necessarily present” in the prior
`
`art and is “the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by
`
`the prior art.” Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., 945 F.3d
`
`1184, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773
`
`F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[T]he mere recitation of a newly discovered
`
`function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not
`
`distinguish a claim drawn to those things from the prior art.” Id. (citation omitted);
`
`see also Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 960 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding
`
`claim inherent where it was “a natural result of the prior art process.”)
`
`Prior art references that were not before the Examiner, including Wendt (Ex.
`
`1017), Han (Ex. 1037), Glembotsky (Ex. 1024), and Burns (Ex. 1031), show that it
`
`was known that electrolysis produces bubbles less than 50 microns in size. See,
`
`e.g., Wendt at 103 (“radii of electrochemically evolved gas bubbles are usually
`
`relatively small (5-50 μm)”); Han at 77 (“[H]ydrogen and oxygen bubbles are
`
`generated when current is applied to the solution through metal electrodes. The
`
`average size range is reported to be around 20-40 μm.”); Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 77-88.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Furthermore, as explained in greater detail below, the ’415 patent itself
`
`admits that microbubbles and nanobubbles are formed when the anode and cathode
`
`are separated by the critical distance. A patent is invalid based on inherency
`
`“when the patent itself makes clear that a limitation is ‘not an additional
`
`requirement imposed by the claims… but rather a property necessarily present.’”
`
`Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(citing In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`IV. THE ʼ415 PATENT
`A. Overview
`The independent claim at issue, Claim 13, recites “a method for producing
`
`an oxygenated aqueous composition” comprising “producing a suspension
`
`comprising oxygen microbubbles and nanobubbles, the microbubbles and
`
`nanobubbles having a diameter of less than 50 microns.” Ex. 1001, Claim 13. The
`
`method includes “flowing water… through an electrolysis emitter comprising an
`
`electrical power source electrically connected to an anode electrode and a cathode
`
`electrode contained in a tubular housing… wherein: the anode electrode is
`
`separated at a critical distance of 0.005 inches to 0.140 inches from the cathode,”
`
`with “a flow rate no greater than 12 gallons per minute,” “a voltage no greater than
`
`about 28.3 volts and an amperage no greater than about 13 amps.” Id.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Critical Distance
`The ʼ415 patent teaches a “critical distance” of separation between the
`
`electrodes that produces microbubbles and nanobubbles. The abstract notes that,
`
`“when the anode and cathode are separated by a critical distance, very small
`
`microbubbles and nanobubbles of oxygen are generated.” Id., Abstract. The
`
`patent further indicates, “[i]n order to form microbubbles and nanobubbles, the
`
`anode and cathode are separated by a critical distance.” Id., 3:13-16. “The critical
`
`distance ranges from 0.005 to 0.140 inches. The preferred critical distance is from
`
`0.045 to 0.060 inches.” Id.
`
`The patent defines “microbubble” as “a bubble with a diameter less than 50
`
`microns.” Id., 4:10-11. A “nanobubble” is “a bubble with a diameter less than that
`
`necessary to break the surface tension of water” which also “remains suspended in
`
`water.” Id., 4:12-14. Therefore, the critical distance produces bubbles with a
`
`diameter less than 50 microns and bubbles with a diameter less than necessary to
`
`break the surface tension of water, causing the bubbles to remain suspended.
`
`The ʼ415 patent also explains, “the anode and cathode were set at varying
`
`distances” and that at a “distance of 0.140 inches between the anode and cathode, it
`
`was observed that the oxygen formed bubbles at the anode. Therefore, the critical
`
`distance for microbubble and nanobubble formation was determined to be between
`
`0.005 inches and 0.140 inches.” Id., 4:45-46, 4:50-54.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The ʼ415 patent teaches the critical distance is the “special dimensions” of
`
`the invention that produces microbubbles and nanobubbles:
`
`In the special dimensions of the invention, as explained in more detail
`in the following examples, O2 forms bubbles which are too small to
`break the surface tension of the fluid. These bubbles remain suspended
`indefinitely in the fluid and, when allowed to build up, make the fluid
`opalescent or milky. Only after several hours do the bubbles begin to
`coalesce on the sides of the container and the water clears. During that
`time, the water is supersaturated with oxygen.
`
`Id., 4:27-38.
`
`As noted above, the disclosure in the patent itself may demonstrate that a
`
`limitation is necessarily present. Hospira, 946 F.3d at 1332. The ’415 patent
`
`acknowledges that an anode and cathode separated by the critical distance
`
`produces microbubbles and nanobubbles, and that those bubbles “remain
`
`suspended indefinitely in the fluid,” “make the fluid opalescent or milky,” and
`
`“supersaturate” the water.
`
`C. Other Parameters May Vary
`As long as the electrodes are separated by the critical distance, the ʼ415
`
`
`
`patent teaches that other parameters may vary, depending on the use of the emitter.
`
`For example, the ʼ415 patent states:
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Depending on the volume of fluid to be oxygenated, the oxygen emitter
`of this invention may be shaped as a circle, rectangle, cone or other
`model.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:8-10. Further, Example 6 teaches:
`
`This invention is not limited to the design selected for this embodiment.
`Those skilled in the art can readily fabricate any of the emitters shown
`in FIG. 4 or 5, or can design other embodiments that will oxygenate
`flowing water.
`
`Id., 9:23-26. Table III shows several models of flow through emitters and
`
`explains: “Without undue experimentation, anyone may easily select the
`
`embodiment that best suits desired characteristics from Table III or designed with
`
`the teachings of Table III.” Id., 9:34-37.
`
`The ʼ415 patent also acknowledges “[m]any cathodes and anodes are
`
`commercially available.” Id., 2:26. “[C]athodes and anodes may be formed on
`
`any convenient support in any desired shape or size…. [T]he choice is determined
`
`according to the uses.” Id., 2:34-35, 2:37.
`
`Similarly, different power requirements can be employed depending on the
`
`use of the emitter:
`
`It is within the scope of this invention to construct larger emitters or to
`use several in a series to oxygenate larger volumes. It is also within the
`scope of this invention to vary the model to provide for low voltage and
`amperage in cases where the need for oxygen is moderate and long
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`lasting or conversely, to supersaturate water very quickly at higher
`voltage and amperage.
`
`Id., 6:31-41.
`
`D.
`Prosecution History
`Senkiw filed the reissue application along with a preliminary amendment.
`
`Ex. 1002, 272-277. The preliminary amendment included apparatus claims for
`
`producing microbubbles and nanobubbles where the main structure recited
`
`consisted of electrodes separated by a distance less than about 0.140 inches. In a
`
`first Office Action, the Examiner stated:
`
`Generation of micro-bubbles which are incapable of breaking surface
`tension of an aqueous medium is not positively recited structure in the
`apparatus claim and would be a function of flow rates, temperatures,
`liquid viscosity, voltage or current output of the electrodes etc., and not
`just of electrode spacing.
`
`Id., 217. In addition, the Examiner noted that U.S. Patent No. 5,049,252 to Murrell
`
`(Ex. 1010) discloses “that the shape of the container for the electrodes is
`
`unimportant but the shape may generally be square or rectangular or may be an
`
`upright cylinder.” Ex. 1002, 217.
`
`Senkiw initiated an interview. In the interview, the Examiner suggested
`
`adding more structure to overcome the cited art. Id., 210. Senkiw did as instructed
`
`and stated:
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`The new claims are directed to an emitter system that affirmatively
`incorporates water and nanobubbles suspended in the water, to a
`method of producing the suspension of nanobubbles in water and to
`such a suspension. Hence, the water and microbubbles/nanobubbles of
`oxygen suspended in the water are positively recited features of a
`system, a method and a suspension. In addition, the voltage, amperage,
`the separation of the electrode spacing, and the total solids in the water
`signifying viscosity and conductivity of the water, which can be
`summed by the phrase tap water, are positively recited features of this
`system. These features achieve the suspension of nanobubbles in water.
`
`Id., 196-197. Senkiw also confirmed microbubbles and nanobubbles do not rise to
`
`the surface and do not break water surface tension. Senkiw did not challenge the
`
`Examiner’s reference to Murrell and observation that the shape of the container for
`
`the electrodes is unimportant. See id.
`
`The Examiner issued a final action. The Examiner observed that it would
`
`have been obvious to “modify the Murrell reference by using the tubular [s]ousing
`
`[sic] shape, since the choice of a known shaped housing is an obvious matter of
`
`design choice.” Id., 170. Similarly, the Examiner wrote that “the shape of the
`
`container for the electrodes is unimportant,” and “it would have been obvious … to
`
`modify the [Muller] [sic] reference by making the shape funnel or pyramidal
`
`shaped since it is known that shape is unimportant and would be an obvious matter
`
`of design choice.” Id., 172.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Senkiw submitted a request fo