Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. RE45,415
`
`Reissue Date: March 17, 2015
`
`
`
`Title: FLOW-THROUGH OXYGENATOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARIO TREMBLAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 5
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS .............................................................. 6
`V.
`STATE OF THE ART ..................................................................................... 9
`VI. THE ’415 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`A.
`“Critical Distance” .............................................................................. 10
`B.
`“Microbubble” ..................................................................................... 11
`C.
`“Nanobubble” ...................................................................................... 11
`D.
`“Supersaturated” .................................................................................. 11
`E.
`Other Teachings .................................................................................. 12
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART ........................................................................ 13
`A. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0042134 (Tremblay”) ................... 13
`i.
`Faithful and Accurate Reproduction of the Tremblay Cell ...... 19
`ii.
`Testing of Electrolyzed Water Generated by the
`Reproduced Tremblay Cell ....................................................... 23
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,251,259 (“Satoh”) .................................................. 31
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,378,339 (“Aoki”) .................................................... 39
`D. Wendt .................................................................................................. 41
`E.
`Han ...................................................................................................... 41
`F.
`Glembotsky ......................................................................................... 42
`G.
`Burns .................................................................................................... 44
`H. Hough .................................................................................................. 48
`I. Motivation to Combine the Prior Art .................................................. 49
`i.
`Tremblay and Satoh .................................................................. 49
`ii.
`Tremblay further in view of the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of a POSITA, as reflected
`Wendt, Han, Glembotsky and Burns ........................................ 51
`Tremblay and Hough ................................................................ 52
`Tremblay and Hough further in view of the general
`knowledge, experience and common sense of a POSITA,
`as reflected Wendt, Han, Glembotsky and Burns ..................... 52
`-i-
`
`
`iii.
`iv.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`v.
`
`Satoh further in view of the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of a POSITA, as reflected
`Wendt, Han, Glembotsky and Burns ........................................ 53
`Satoh and Aoki .......................................................................... 54
`vi.
`vii. Satoh and Aoki further in view of the general knowledge,
`experience and common sense of a POSITA, as reflected
`Wendt, Han, Glembotsky and Burns ........................................ 55
`The Grounds for Challenge ................................................................. 55
`
`
`
`J.
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`I, Dr. Mario Tremblay, make this declaration in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for TENNANT COMPANY
`
`(“Tennant”) as a technical expert in connection with the proceeding identified
`
`above. I submit this declaration in support of Tennant’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Petition”) of United States Patent No. RE45,415 (“the ’415 patent”),
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1004 to the Petition.
`
`Following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience:
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1983 from the University
`
`of Florida. I also received a Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from the University of
`
`Florida in 1987. My Ph.D. emphasis was in analytical chemistry.
`
`4.
`
`After obtaining my Ph.D., I worked at Procter & Gamble Company
`
`(“P&G”) for nearly 30 years from 1987-2017, developing products for the personal
`
`care industry, including skin care, cosmetics and household care products. From
`
`1987 to 1990, I worked as a Principal Scientist Group Leader responsible for
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`leading analytical lab work for food and beverage research and product
`
`development. From 1990 to 2010, I worked as a Principal Scientist & Section
`
`Head responsible for leading analytical lab work for research and product
`
`development for various of P&G’s global business units in the personal care
`
`industry. From 2010 to 2017, I worked as a Research Fellow responsible for
`
`providing technical leadership to various product development initiatives for
`
`several of P&G’s brands in the personal care and household care industries. After
`
`leaving Procter & Gamble in 2017, I became a self-employed consultant working
`
`in personal care and household care industries.
`
`5.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have developed a deep understanding
`
`of electrolysis cell design. For example, I designed various electrolysis cells for
`
`disinfection and water purification. I also developed more than a dozen different
`
`electrolysis cell designs to electrolyze water and/or water with different salts that
`
`resulted in the decontamination of liquids, hard surfaces, fabrics or air.
`
`Additionally, I designed electrolysis cells for the purpose of water purification of
`
`both drinking and bathing water in developing geographies. These systems were
`
`connected to water purification and/or wash machines and dishwashing machines.
`
`Further, I worked directly with the Pentagon, DARPA and other government
`
`agencies for three years in developing electrolysis cells for the purpose of forming
`
`chlorine dioxide for decontamination and biological countermeasures. Even
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`further, I developed various electrolysis cell designs where the gap size was critical
`
`for performance and for maximization of efficiency. Finally, I have developed
`
`electrolysis cell design with different geometry, cell sizes, cell gap, flow rates and
`
`efficiencies so that they can be operated with batteries or AC power converted to
`
`DC. I also have experience with different cell coatings that delivered high
`
`efficiencies with various electrolysis cell designs.
`
`6. My work has led to the filing of numerous U.S patent applications,
`
`resulting in over fourteen U.S. patents related to products in the personal care
`
`industry. Some of these U.S. patent applications and resulting U.S. patents relate
`
`specifically to electrolysis cell design. I am a named inventor on the following
`
`U.S. patents and U.S. patent applications:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent No. 6,921,743, titled “Automatic Dishwashing Compositions
`Containing a Halogen Dioxide Salt and Methods for use with
`Electrochemical Cells and/or Electrolytic Devices,”
`
`Patent No. 7,048,842, titled “Electrolysis Cell for Generating Chlorine
`Dioxide,”
`
`Patent No. 7,413,637, titled “Self-Contained, Self-powered
`Electrolytic Devices for Improved Performance in Automatic
`Dishwashing,”
`
`Patent No. 7,816,314, titled “Automatic Dishwashing Compositions
`and Methods for Use with Electrochemical Cells and/or Electrolytic
`Devices,”
`
`Patent No. 8,333,873, titled “Apparatus for Electrolyzing an
`Electrolytic Solution,”
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`7.
`
`Patent No. 9,358,085, titled “Device and Method for Cleaning Dental
`Appliances,”
`
`Patent Publication No. 20030213505, titled “Energy-Efficient
`Automatic Dishwashing Appliances,”
`
`Patent Publication No. 20030213503, titled “Signal-based
`Electrochemical Methods for Automatic Dishwashing,”
`
`Patent Publication No. 20050067300, titled “Electrolysis Device for
`Treating A Reservoir of Water,”
`
`Patent Publication No. 20040231977, titled “Compositions, Devices
`and Methods for Stabilizing and Increasing the Efficacy of Halogen
`Dioxide,”
`
`Patent Publication No. 20040149571, titled “Halogen Dioxide
`Generating System,” and
`
`Patent Publication No. 20030042134, titled “High Efficiency
`Electrolysis Cell for Generating Oxidants in Solutions.”
`Importantly for this Petition, I am the first named inventor of U.S.
`
`Patent Publication No. 20030042134, titled “High Efficiency Electrolysis Cell for
`
`Generating Oxidants in Solutions” (“Tremblay”), which is one of the prior art
`
`references cited and discussed in the Petition, and I provide a detailed discussion
`
`on the teachings of this reference in Section VIII below.
`
`8.
`
`In summary, I have extensive experience with electrolysis cell design,
`
`including electrolysis cell design to electrolyze water. I had first-hand experience
`
`with these technologies at and before the time the application which resulted in the
`
`ʼ415 patent was filed.
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`9.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things, the
`
`following materials:
`
`(a)
`
`the ʼ415 patent and its prosecution history (Ex. 1001, 1002);
`
`(b) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0042134 (“Tremblay”; Ex. 1012);
`
`(c) U.S. Patent No. 6,251,259 (“Satoh”; Ex. 1046);
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 6,171,469 to Hough (“Hough”; Ex. 1041);
`
`(e) 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)
`
`(“Wendt”; Ex. 1017);
`
`(f) 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);
`
`(g) 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);
`
`(h) Burns, S.E., Yiacoumi, S. and Tsouris, C. (1997), Application of
`
`Digital Image Analysis for Size Distribution Measurement of
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`Microbubbles, Imaging Technologies: Techniques and Civil
`
`Engineering Applications Engineering Foundation, Davos,
`
`Switzerland, May 25-30, 1997; Microbubble Generation for
`
`Environmental and Industrial Separations, Separation and Purification
`
`Technology 11, 221–232 (“Burns”; Ex. 1031);
`
`(i) U.S. Patent No. 5,378,339 to Aoki (“Aoki”; Ex. 1047); and
`
`(j)
`
`the Petition.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are to be given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention in light of the claims, the ‘415 patent’s
`
`specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that if the patent specification provides a
`
`particular definition for a term used in the claims, or uses a term in a special way,
`
`the claims will be construed in accordance with the special meaning given to the
`
`term by the patent specification, even if that special meaning contradicts the
`
`normal definition of the term.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim is invalid because of
`
`anticipation when every element of the claim is described in a single prior art
`
`reference, such that the elements are arranged as required by the claim. I have
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`been informed and understand the description of a claim element in a prior art
`
`reference can be express or inherent. For a prior art reference to describe a claim
`
`element inherently, the claim element must be necessarily present. Probabilities
`
`are not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`13.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of a
`
`patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent
`
`application was filed. I have also been informed that the framework for
`
`determining obviousness involves considering the following factors: (i) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (iv) any
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness. I understand that the claimed subject
`
`matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if, for example,
`
`it results from the combination of known elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to improve similar devices
`
`in the same way or applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results. I have also been informed that the
`
`analysis of obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`sense available to a POSITA that does not necessarily require explication in any
`
`reference.
`
`14. Based on my experience in the field, a POSITA pertaining to the ʼ415
`
`patent in the 2003 time frame would have been someone with a degree in
`
`chemistry, chemical engineering, or a similar discipline and at least two years of
`
`experience with electrolysis systems. Alternatively, a POSITA could have
`
`equivalent experience in industry or research, such as designing, developing,
`
`testing or implementing electrolysis systems. Also, as noted in the ʼ415 patent, a
`
`POSITA “can readily fabricate any of the emitters shown in FIG. 4 or 5 or can
`
`design other embodiments that will oxygenate flowing water.” Ex. 1001, 9:20-22.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that the earliest priority date for considering the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ʼ415 patent is December 10, 2003. I have not
`
`analyzed whether the ʼ415 patent is legally entitled to this filing date. I shall refer
`
`to this time frame as the “relevant date” or the “relevant time frame.” Based on my
`
`education and experience in the field of electrolytic cell designs, I believe I am
`
`more than qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in 2003 would have interpreted and understood the ʼ415 patent and the prior art
`
`discussed below.
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART
`
`16. Methods for producing an oxygenated aqueous or water composition
`
`using an electrolytic cell were well known in the art at the time of the ’415 patent’s
`
`alleged invention. The ʼ415 patent admits that “[t]he production of oxygen and
`
`hydrogen by the electrolysis of water is well known.” Ex 1001, 2:5-11. Further,
`
`prior art references such as Tremblay and Satoh show it was well known to provide
`
`an anode and cathode separated by a “critical distance.” These references also
`
`show it was well known to provide this anode and cathode separation distance in
`
`combination with the claimed voltage, current and flow rates. It was also well
`
`known to use electrolysis to increase oxygen content in water as shown in Hough.
`
`Further, it was well known that electrolysis systems produce very fine bubbles of
`
`oxygen in water with sizes less than 50 microns as shown in Wendt, Han,
`
`Glembotsky and Burns.
`
`VI. THE ’415 PATENT
`
`17. The claims of the ’415 patent are directed to “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
`
`-9-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`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. It was well
`
`known to provide an anode and cathode separated by the “critical distance”
`
`identified in the ’415 patent. It was also well known to provide this anode and
`
`cathode separation distance in combination with the claimed voltage, ampere and
`
`flow rates.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`
`“Critical Distance”
`
`18. Claim 13 recites an “anode separated at a critical distance from the
`
`cathode such that the critical distance is from 0.005 inches to 0.140 inches.” The
`
`’415 patent explicitly defines the term “critical distance” as “the distance
`
`separating the anode and cathode at which evolved oxygen forms microbubbles
`
`and nanobubbles.” Ex. 1101, 4:1-6. Accordingly, based on the explicit definition
`
`provided by the ’415 patent, I understand the term “critical distance” means “the
`
`distance separating the anode and cathode at which evolved oxygen forms
`
`microbubbles and nanobubbles.”
`
`-10-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`B.
`
`“Microbubble”
`
`19. Claims 1, 13, 19-22 and 25 recite “microbubbles.” The ’415 patent
`
`explicitly defines the term “microbubble as “a bubble with a diameter less than 50
`
`microns.” Id. at 4:10-11. Accordingly, based on the explicit definition provided
`
`by the ’415 patent, I understand the term “microbubble” means “a bubble with a
`
`diameter less than 50 microns.”
`
`C.
`
`“Nanobubble”
`
`20. Claim 13, 19-22 and 25 recite “nanobubbles.” The ’415 patent
`
`explicitly defines the term “nanobubble as “a bubble with a diameter less than that
`
`necessary to break the surface tension of water.” Id. at 4:12-13. Accordingly,
`
`based on the explicit definition provided by the ’415 patent, I understand the term
`
`“nanobubble” means “a bubble with a diameter less than that necessary to break
`
`the surface tension of water.”
`
`D.
`
`“Supersaturated”
`
`21. Claim 21 recites the term “supersaturate.” The ’415 patent explicitly
`
`defines the term “supersaturated” as “oxygen at a higher concentration than normal
`
`calculated oxygen solubility at a particular temperature and pressure.” Id. at 4:16-
`
`21.
`
`-11-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`E. Other Teachings
`
`22. 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.” Id. The preferred critical distance is
`
`from 0.045 to 0.060 inches.” Id.
`
`23. 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.
`
`24. 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
`
`-12-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`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.
`
`25. Therefore, based on the teachings of the ’415 patent, a POSITA would
`
`have understood 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.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`A. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0042134 (Tremblay”)
`
`26.
`
`I am the first named inventor of Tremblay, which is directed to a
`
`“high efficiency electrolysis cell for generating oxidants in solutions.” Ex. 1012.
`
`Tremblay discloses a method for killing microorganisms in water. Id., Abstract.
`
`As water passes between electrodes, the microorganisms are killed and the water is
`
`sterilized. Id., ¶ [0001]. Further, Tremblay teaches generating mixed oxidants and
`
`that a higher concentration of oxidants provides even higher disinfection and
`
`oxidation of numerous compounds. Id., ¶ [0001] and [0002].
`
`27. Tremblay teaches a cell for electrolyzing an aqueous feed solution
`
`comprising water. The aqueous feed solution passes in and out of the cell. Id., ¶
`
`[0006].
`
`-13-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`28. As shown in Figure 4, Tremblay discloses a housing having an anode
`
`21 and a cathode 22 contained in the housing. The housing has an inlet 25 and an
`
`outlet 26 and a flow axis from the inlet 25 to the outlet 26.
`
`anode
`
`cathode
`
`inlet
`
`tubular flow axis
`
`outlet
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012, Fig. 4 (emphasis added). A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`housing in Figure 4 is a tubular housing.
`
`29. Tremblay states: “The chamber 23 has a cell inlet 25 through which
`
`the aqueous feed solution can pass into the cell, and an opposed cell outlet 26 from
`
`which the effluent can pass out of the electrolysis cell.” Id., ¶ [0052]. The
`
`aqueous feed solution is in fluid connection with the electrodes as it flows into the
`
`inlet 25 and out the outlet 26. A POSITA would therefore have understood that
`
`Tremblay discloses a tubular housing where water flows along a tubular flow axis
`
`from an inlet to an outlet while being in fluid connection with electrodes.
`
`-14-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`30. Tremblay states: “An electrical current supply provides a flow of
`
`electrical current between the electrodes and across the passage of aqueous feed
`
`solution passing across the anode.” Id., ¶ [0068]. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that Tremblay therefore discloses an electrical power source
`
`electrically connected to an anode and cathode contained in a tubular housing
`
`where electricity flows from the power source to the electrodes.
`
`31. Tremblay discloses examples where the water flow rate is less than 12
`
`gallons per minute. In Example 1, Tremblay discloses a flow rate of
`
`300ml/minute. Id., ¶ [0088]. Note that 300ml/minute equals to 0.0793 gallons per
`
`minute. Table A in Tremblay lists several flow rates, the highest of which is 1000
`
`ml/minute. Ex.1012 at Table A. Note that 1000 ml/minute is equal to 0.2642
`
`gallons per minute.
`
`32. Tremblay teaches that a preferred electrical current supply is a battery
`
`or set of batteries, and that the batteries can have a nominal voltage potential of 1.5
`
`volts, 3 volts, 4.5 volts, 6 volts, or any other voltage that meets the power
`
`requirements of the electrolysis device. Id., ¶ [0069]. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that Tremblay therefore discloses a power source that provides a
`
`voltage below 28.3 volts.
`
`33. Additionally, Tremblay discloses multiple examples where the power
`
`source provides a voltage below 28.3 volts and an amperage below 13 amps. For
`
`-15-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`example, in Example 1, Tremblay discloses a voltage of 4.5 volts in combination
`
`with a current of 0.43 amps. Id., ¶ [0088]. Tremblay likewise provides Table A,
`
`which lists several voltage and amp combinations, the highest of which is 6 volts in
`
`combination with 1.14 amps. Id., Table A. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that Tremblay discloses using a voltage below 28.3 volts and a current amperage
`
`below 13 amps.
`
`34. Tremblay teaches that the anode and cathode are in close proximity,
`
`“preferably 0.5 mm or less, more preferably 0.2 mm or less.” Id., ¶ [0001].
`
`Tremblay states:
`
`In one embodiment of the present invention, the cell comprises an
`
`anode and a confronting … cathode that are separated by a cell
`
`chamber that has a shape defined by the confronting surfaces of the
`
`pair of electrodes. The cell chamber has a cell gap, which is the
`
`perpendicular distance between the two confronting electrodes.
`
`Typically, the cell gap will be substantially constant across the
`
`confronting surfaces of the electrodes. The cell gap is preferably 0.5
`
`mm or less, more preferably 0.2 mm or less.
`
`Id., ¶ [0044]. Note that 0.5 mm is equal to 0.019685 inch, and 0.2 mm is equal to
`
`0.00787402 inch, both of which are within the claimed range.
`
`-16-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`35. Additionally, a POSITA would have understood that since Tremblay’s
`
`electrodes are separated by the same distance the ’415 patent says is critical,
`
`Tremblay’s electrodes would produce microbubbles and nanobubbles having the
`
`same size and properties as those disclosed in the ’415 patent. For example,
`
`Tremblay’s electrodes would produce bubbles having a bubble diameter of less
`
`than 50 microns or less than 0.0006 inches. Likewise, Tremblay’s electrodes
`
`would produce bubbles that are too small to break the surface tension of water, and
`
`therefore remain suspended in water indefinitely, or at least for some period of
`
`time up to several hours, during which time the water would be supersaturated with
`
`oxygen.
`
`36. Tremblay discloses using “aqueous solutions containing naturally
`
`present salts (e.g., naturally present NaCl) or added salts (e.g., added NaCl).” Id., ¶
`
`[0001]. Tremblay also states:
`
`The present invention relates to a method for making antimicrobial
`oxidants from an aqueous solution comprising of naturally present
`salts (e.g., water naturally containing NaCl), or added salts (e.g., water
`to which NaCl was added)…”
`
`Id., ¶ [0005]. Further, Tremblay states:
`
`[F]or many applications of the invention, untreated water, such as
`river water or well water is most preferred to form an effluent solution
`with essentially only naturally present chloride ions present. Since
`these types of natural water contain sufficient amounts of salts,
`-17-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`including sodium chloride, appreciable amounts of mixed oxidants
`will be formed.
`
`Id., ¶ [0034]. Tremblay therefore discloses using natural water, which contains
`
`sufficient amounts of salt to have a conductivity. It was well known to perform
`
`electrolysis on any form of water, and that water that contains more dissolved
`
`solids is more conductive and would be suitable for low voltage systems.
`
`Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to perform electrolysis
`
`using water containing varying amounts of dissolved solids and therefore varying
`
`conductivity. Tremblay further discloses a process for killing microorganisms in
`
`the water. Id. A POSITA would have understood that natural water free from
`
`microorganisms supports plant or animal life.
`
`37. Tremblay teaches that any water source can be used to form the
`
`aqueous feed solution, including well water, tap water, softened water, and
`
`industrial process water, and waste waters. Id., ¶ [0034]. Tremblay does not teach
`
`heating the water prior to delivering it to the electrolytic cell. The water in
`
`Tremblay therefore has a temperature no greater than about ambient temperature at
`
`the inlet. A POSITA would have understood that water temperature is always a
`
`factor in electrolysis systems.
`
`38. Tremblay discloses that the electrodes can be held a fixed distance
`
`away from one another by a pair of opposed non-conductive electrode holders
`
`-18-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`having electrode spacers that space apart the confronting longitudinal edges of the
`
`anode and cathode to form a cell chamber 23 having a chamber gap. Ex. 1012, ¶
`
`[0052].
`
`i. Faithful and Accurate Reproduction of the Tremblay Cell
`
`39.
`
`I was asked to faithfully and accurately reproduce the Tremblay cell
`
`having the general design shown in Figure 9 below.
`
`40. The reproduced Tremblay cell is shown in the photographs provided
`
`
`
`below:
`
`-19-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`bolt
`
`outlet
`
`inlet
`
`top
`cover
`
`electrical
`connections
`
`top
`cover
`
`outlet
`
`bottom
`cover
`
`
`
`inlet
`
`bolt
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`
`outlet
`area
`
`electrode
`
`cover
`
`non-
`conductive
`tape
`
`non-
`conductive
`tape
`
`inlet
`area
`
`
`
`41. The reproduced Tremblay cell includes the basic cell configuration
`
`shown in Figure 9, wherein a planar anode is separated by a planar cathode. There
`
`is an inlet area and an outlet area. Tremblay also teaches providing a
`
`nonconductive anode cover and a cathode cover by a retaining means such as bolts.
`
`Id., ¶ [0052]. The reproduced Tremblay cell therefore includes a top cover and a
`
`bottom cover made of a nonconductive acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
`
`polymer. The top and bottom covers are held together by bolts.
`
`42. Tremblay also teaches that “[t]he aspect ratio of planar electrodes,
`
`defined by the ratio of the length to the width, is generally between 0.2 and 10,
`
`-21-
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`more preferably between 0.1 and 6, and most preferably between 2 and 4.” Id., ¶
`
`[0056]. Each electrode in the reproduced Tremblay cell has a length of 4.6 inches
`
`and a width of 2.6 inches, which has an aspect ratio of 2.
`
`43. Tremblay teaches that the anode and a confronting cathode are
`
`separated by a cell chamber having a cell gap, which is “preferably 0.5 mm or
`
`less.” Id., ¶ [0044]. The reproduced Tremblay cell therefore includes two
`
`electrode plates spaced apart by a spacing of 0.381 mm. Note that 0.381 mm is
`
`approximately 0.015 inches.
`
`44. Tremblay also teaches that preferred anode electrodes are “made of a
`
`metal such as titanium, tantalum, aluminum, zirconium, tungsten or alloys thereof,
`
`which are coated or layered with a Group VIII metal that is preferably selected
`
`from platinum, iridium, and ruthenium, and oxides and alloys thereof.” Id., ¶
`
`[005